ome years ago, I was rushing past the treasures of the Louvre in Paris, on the way to the “Mona Lisa,” when a painting stopped me in my tracks.
Massive and unusually elongated, “The Triumph of St. Thomas Aquinas” depicts the 13th-century saint throned in a golden sun, with Aristotle and Plato standing reverently on either side. The Renaissance artist Benozzo Gozzoli paints Christ and the writers of the Gospels looking down at Aquinas approvingly.
But who is the turbaned figure under Aquinas’ feet, crushed by his frankly famous weight and crawling away in defeat? That would be the 12th century Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd, or Averroes, as he became known in Latin Europe.
“Oh no,” I said out loud.
Us vs. them
As a Catholic philosopher and avid student of Aquinas, I am always fielding questions about whether this medieval saint is “still worth” reading today, nearly 800 years after his birth.
Aquinas is a giant of Western philosophy and theology, and for good reason. His writing is clear, well organized, free from bombast – ideas shine through his words. Famously, he insisted that faith and reason are in harmonious partnership, integrating the known science, philosophy and theology of his day into a comprehensive, interconnected system. All this helps explain why his work has maintained an enduring appeal, even as equally brilliant medieval thinkers have sunk into oblivion.
To continue reading this article, click here.
With thanks to National Catholic Reporter (NCR) and Therese Cory, where this article originally appeared.
