I need a little help with a question about Aquinas' definition of truth in the Summa.
In my thesis I used what I thought was the definition of truth given by Thomas in the Summa: "Veritas logica est adaequatio intellectus et rei" (ST.I.21.2). Because I had seen this definition quoted in Maritain, Lonergan, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the recent Davies/Leftow translation of the Prima pars, and a couple of other places, I didn't check the Latin text of the Summa to verify it (mea culpa!).
In my thesis I used what I thought was the definition of truth given by Thomas in the Summa: "Veritas logica est adaequatio intellectus et rei" (ST.I.21.2). Because I had seen this definition quoted in Maritain, Lonergan, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the recent Davies/Leftow translation of the Prima pars, and a couple of other places, I didn't check the Latin text of the Summa to verify it (mea culpa!).
One of my inquisitors. . .ermmmm. . .I mean, examiners pointed out that this definition never appears in the Summa. The problem is the addition of the word logica in the definition quoted above.
Any ideas/suggestions/explanations out there about how the word logica got inserted into these sources?
Follow HancAquam & Check out my Wish List --------->
Probably some fool doctoral candidate, in too much of a rush to check his source, which wouldn't have been the Leonine text anyway.
ReplyDeleteLogica is not in the Latin here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth1015.html
Recognizing that any one website may have a transcription error, the prudent scholar goes to a more authoritative source.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why those other sources cite that article. It seems strange to me considering the fact that there is an entire question on truth in the Summa. Maybe it is because of the emphatic manner of Aquinas' language in this article that draws their attention. Unlike the Blackfriars translation (If you consider all of Aquinas work on the topic of truth' this passage probably translates best as "I answer that it must be said that truth consists in an adaquation between a mind and a thing" this is unlike the usual definition as found elsewhere in the Summa and other works that translate to a more modest "truth is an adaquation of the mind to a thing." However, in all instances that I can thing of there is no form that matches with your citation (unless it is a non-Leonine citation).
ReplyDelete