Thomas Aquinas was the originator of the Finalistic philosophy and the 3 best forms of government from the 4 forms of the legal class
Biography of Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas lived in 1225-1274. His thoughts on the state and law can be found in his book "De Regimine Principum" or about the reign of kings, and in another book called "Summa Theologica", or lessons on Deity.
Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle's relationship
In his teachings Thomas Aquinas was much influenced by Aristotle's teachings, in terms of the distance between the two scholars being approximately 17 centuries. Aristotle lived in the fourth century BC, while Thomas Aquinas lived in the XIII century.
This influence occurred at the time of the crusade. At that time many people from Western Europe went to the Middle East, to save Christian tombs. At that time Thomas Aquinas became acquainted with Aristotle's teachings.
Finalistic Thomas Aquinas' philosophy
Thomas Aquinas' philosophy is finalistic, finalistic philosophy means:
That what is the goal is stated first, only then must be endeavored so that the goal can be achieved.
Humans, according to the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, in this case Aristotle's influence is felt, by nature are social creatures, social creatures, therefore humans must live together with other people in a society, to achieve real goals.
For that it is necessary to use his mind, his mind, which nature has given him.
For his reason makes it possible for him to know what is useful and what is harmful.
From this general principle Thomas Aquinas can gain knowledge of specific things.
Not everyone can have this knowledge, this knowledge can only be obtained in social life, therefore living in society is a must.
Since social life usually has a tendency towards multicolored, scattered directions of thinking, it is very important to have a ruler.
For this ruler, as Solomon said, has the same duties as the soul in the human body.
A good ruler is a ruler who thinks about the achievement of the public interest, otherwise he is a tyrannical ruler.
Human Goals according to Thomas Aquinas
The goal of man is identical with the goal of the state. And according to Thomas Aquinas, if one wants to know the purpose of one's state, one must first know what the human goal is.
Human goal is to achieve eternal glory. Namely Great eternal in the time after the human died. So it is not eternal possessions that have worldly nature.
This eternal peace can only be achieved by the demands of the church.
State duties according to Thomas Aquinas
The task of the state in this case is to open or provide opportunities for people so that the demands of the Church can be carried out, which means that the state must carry out security and peace so that each person can carry out his duties according to his talents in an atmosphere of peace.
So the goal of this country is to give humanity the possibility to achieve eternal glory. Herein lies the cooperation between the state and the church.
This is in accordance with the opinion of Thomas Aquinas regarding the balance of position or power between the state and the church, which he said that the state organization led by the king has the same position as the church organization led by the Pope.
It's just that each of these organizations has a different task.
The duty or power of the state is in the worldly field, while the task or power of the church is in the field of spirituality and religion.
But even so, it seems that Thomas Aquinas has not been able to let go of his theocratic influence, because then Thomas Aquinas says that the church is a real living community that includes everything, and which is the representative of the Kingdom of God in the world.
And because worldly law is supported and protected by the church, according to its nature, worldly power should be subject to spiritual power, for the sake of human beings, namely to achieve eternal glory.
The opinion of Augustine which has been stated above is very different from that of Thomas Aquinas, which is somewhat progressive in nature.
Difference of opinion of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas
The difference is : According to Augustine, the state and the church are completely separate, whereas according to Thomas Aquinas there is close cooperation between the state and the church. The state is supported and protected by the church to achieve its goals.
Furthermore, Thomas Aquinas gave a special place to humans in his position, without a will, but that man was a social being with a desire to live in society.
This is because humans have a ratio, and cannot meet their needs without the help of others.
This view of Thomas Aquinas, as stated above, was heavily influenced by Greek teachings from before Christ, especially Aristotle's teachings.
Aristotle's teachings about the nature of society, about the position of man in society, and even his teachings about statehood and about philosophy were greatly admired by Thomas Aquinas.
This can clearly be seen in the books of Thomas Aquinas.
Differences Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas
It's just the difference; If Aristotle lived in an atmosphere of absolute power under the reign of Alexander the Great, was a student of Aristotle. So that Aristotle, did not dare to include ethical elements which are the basis of universalistic thoughts about the state and law, as well as being the basis or measure for all actions, as well as state government, thus constituting a criticism, into his teachings about the state and law.
Meanwhile Thomas Aquinas lived in an atmosphere of religious power, so that he did not dare to completely detach himself from religious elements.
Although Thomas Aquinas has given a definite position to humans, namely as social beings, who desire to live in society, humans are not yet an absolute element in the formation of that society.
So it is already an element, but it is less important than society itself.
In society there must be a ruler, someone must rule.
3 (three) forms of government of a country according to Thomas Aquinas
Regarding the form of government, the teachings of Thomas Aquinas were much influenced by Aristotle's teachings.
In his opinion there are three possible forms of government of a country, each of which is then further distinguished according to the nature of the government.
- Government by one person. This good is called Monarchy, the bad is called Tyranni.
- Government by several people. This good is called aristocracy, the bad is called oligarchy.
- Government by all the people. What is good is called Politeia, if according to Aristotle it is called the Constitutional Republic, the bad is called Democracy.
From the types of government forms mentioned above, according to Thomas Aquinas, the best is Monarchy.
Therefore, the aim of the country is not only to provide the possibility so that humans can achieve eternal glory, but also so that humans can live morally.
This can be done if there is peace in society and for this the most important thing is unity and oneness.
Because the Monarchy is led by a single person, the Monarchy is foremost, most ideal, to be able to carry out all of this.
And something that is singular will find it easier to maintain unity and peace as best as possible because of the unity of thought than for government, than it is for it to be plural.
The best government monarchy according to Thomas Aquinas
So this is the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, that the best government is Monarchy.
But this can turn into the worst government, if the nature of the government is no longer just, and is no longer intended for the public interest, this is Tyranni.
And its ugliness is more than that of the oligarchic government or democracy.
Because in an oligarchic government, even though the government is unfair and not intended for the public interest, it is only aimed at the interests of those who hold the government itself, but here it is also for the interests of some people.
Democracy according to Thomas Aquinas
While in democracy, self-interest also means the interests of the people who hold the government, while those who hold the government in principle are all the people, but even so it is still far from the public interest, because all people, all the people, cannot hold the government. all.
Tyranni according to Thomas Aquinas
But in Tyranni, self-interest, which means the interests of those who hold the government, are only in the interests of one person. It is very far from justice and from the public interest when compared to Oligarchy and Democracy. So Tyranni is the worst government, the worst, because it is very far from the ideal of justice.
Apart from that, from a government held by several people, so more than one person, an arbitrary government will also be born more quickly, than a government held by one person.
Therefore, according to Thomas Aquinas, the best government is Monarchy.
Preventing the emergence of Tyranni according to Thomas Aquinas
In order to prevent the emergence of Tyranni, the emergence of arbitrary government, Thomas Aquinas argued that a constitution or constitution should be established in that country, which regulates and limits the actions of the government in such a way that a system or structure is well maintained. state administration, and thus the government did not get the opportunity to make its government a Tyranni.
But even though every effort has been made to prevent Tyranni from arising, what if the Tyranni arises and acts arbitrarily?
To answer this question, Thomas Aquinas then gave his opinion about the right to evolve, and the right to kill the king or the tyrant. In his opinion it would be better if Tyranni was left alone for a while, as long as it could be supported. So we have to be patient for a while, rather than plunging into even greater danger; because by holding a revolt or revolution to overthrow Tyranni the consequences will be bigger, worse.
Because the leader of the rebels will later replace the Tyran and of course will be more Tyrannis in nature, and will further strengthen himself.
The murder of a Tyran according to Thomas Aquinas
Even though how cruel the Tyran is, people should not kill him, because this is very contrary to religious teachings, because according to religious teachings people are not allowed to kill other people, the more so that is a king. Killing according to religious teachings is a very condemned act.
However, if revolution or killing the king who has become Tyran and acts arbitrarily has become the general will of the people, it can be carried out, and it will not be against the loyalty of the people to the king.
Because the king himself had acted as Tyran and no longer kept his covenant with the people.
What's more, the king has violated the provisions in the Constitution.
In the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, law or law is a conclusion of the human ratio and is in the form of a will.
So, in accordance with Cicero's opinion, the law was the basis of his thoughts, and which was an order of the ratio for the public interest.
And from the way Thomas Aquinas gave his teachings on justice and law, shows that he had united the teachings: Aristotle, Stoics, Rome, with Augustine's teachings on the theocratic basis of power.
It is just now that he says that the supreme source of the law lies in the personality of God.
The difference in 4 (four) laws according to Thomas Aquinas
If Aristotle distinguishes between natural law and positive law, then Thomas Aquinas makes legal differences in four groups, namely :
- Eternal law or lex aeterna, this is the law of the whole which is rooted in the soul of God.
- Natural Law. Man is a thinking creature, so he is part of Him. This is a natural law.
- Positive law. This is the implementation of natural laws by humans, adapted to the special conditions needed to regulate worldly affairs in the country.
- God's law. It is a law which fills the deficiencies of the human mind and leads man with his revelations towards holiness to live in the afterlife, and this in an infallible way. These revelations were finally collected in the holy books.
About justice according to Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas said that justice is a will, that is, the willingness to give everyone what they are entitled to.
In addition, one must also strive for propriety, as Aristotle taught.
Written laws can be considered as law and justice, and which derive their power from natural law.
Thomas Aquinas' teachings were the culmination of medieval thought and were at a turning point in subsequent cultural growth.
Meanwhile people began to seem to give up theocratic thinking, this happened as a result of social change and the development of a nominalistic school of philosophy.
Meanwhile, we also encounter a great poet who thinks about the formation of something, in fact that something until now has only been a dream, that poet was Dante with his dream of world-monarchy.
Dante, Anti Pope
Dante, who lived from 1265-1321 earned a place in the history of thought about the state and law because of his book "De Monarkia
Dante's teachings written in his book are anti-papal in nature.
Dante wrote about worldly power, and in it rejected every power of the Pope in worldly affairs.
As a result of his writing, at the beginning of the XIV century there was an important dispute between the Pope and the King, which ended in the victory of the king.
From various parties emerged teachings that were anti-Pope in nature.
The legists began to win.
Legists Pierre Dubois from France
One of the most prominent legists was Pierre Dubois of France. Pierre Dubois of France wrote his book "De Recuperatione Terre Sancte", on the reconquest of the Holy Land, in 1305-1307.
The idea that good governance means the concentration of power in the hands of one person, a thought strongly defended by both Thomas Aquinas and by Dante, will be determined by people later, provided that thought does not mean a world empire, but a national state.
And indeed in the XIV century there will be no thought of the kingdom of the world.
After discussing thoughts about the state and law in the medieval times before the crusades which were very theocratic in nature, it is better now to consider the teachings of a scholar in the middle ages after the crusade whose teachings were already critical theocratically.
The scholar is Marsilius.
