Fate and Contingency: Ammonius and Aquinas on divine Foreknowledge in Aristotle’s De interpretatione 9

This article compares Ammonius’ and Aquinas’ answers to the conflict between divine determinate knowledge of the world and the contingency of future events. The first section analyzes the Proclean distinction of the three degrees of knowledge that Ammonius attributes to Iamblichus and accompanies this with a commentary on Aristotle’s De interpretatione 9. First, Ammonius stresses divine transcendence, according to which not even our ‘now’ is similar to the divine. Second, Ammonius applies the “Iamblichus’ principle” to the knowledge of future contingents. This is in order to reconcile both divine foreknowledge and natural contingency. From this, it is possible to conclude that the gods have a certain knowledge that is ontologically superior to the object known. In a second section, Aquinas’ solution will be presented. In Aquinas’ commentary, although not referring to the same distinction, he identifies a similar phenomenon in which the same principle applies: certain knowledge of a contingent present event does not alter its contingent nature. Aquinas applies this principle to God, who knows not only the present but also the past and future contingents, with one unique, transcendent vision. His emphasis on the transcendence of divine knowledge and will also connects him to Ammonius.

Lugar de Publicación

Chile

Citación

Religions, Vol. 17, N° 228 (2026) p. 1-14

Palabras clave

Contingency, Divine foreknowledge, Necessity, Aristotle, Lamblichus' principle, Ammonius, Aquinas

Licencia

Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 Chile (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 CL)

Licencia URL

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/cl/

Colecciones

Artículos de Revistas

Página completa del ítem