Faith and Reason in the work of Marsílio
Ficino: is reconciliation possible?
Ênio José da Costa Brito1
CARVALHO, Talyta Cristina de. Fé e razão na Renascença: o conceito de Deus na
obra filosófica de Marsílio Ficino. [Faith and Reason in the Renaissance: the concept of God in
Marsílio Ficcino’s philosophical work] Master dissertation in the Sciences of Religion presented
at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, 2010.
History has witnessed a tense relationship between faith and reason. Periods
marked by a dialogue between them are replaced by controversial periods of intense
debates. Talyta Cristina de Carvalho returns to this theme and in order to study it, goes
back in history to the Middle Ages. She chooses the philosophical work of Marsílio
Ficino (1433-1499) commonly known as a Florentine citizen but in fact born in Figline
at the Arno Valley, on 19th October 1433. Ficino, one of the most significant figures in
Italian culture, lived through a change of eras with all its challenges, tensions and hopes.
Puzzled by a current accusation made against Marsílio Ficini for having
supposedly paganized Christianity when he established a dialogue between the
Christian and the Greek world views, Carvalho selects a nervure of Ficino’s work, the
concept of God, in order to verify the hypothesis of paganization. The concept of God
studied by her is presented by the author in Book II of Platonic Theology. 2
She formulates her challenge very clearly: “[…] if the concept of God in Ficino
is not the Christian concept of God, we will then have the confirmation of the
hypothesis [paganization of Christianity] on the other hand, if the God found in Ficino
is the Christian God, the hypothesis will have been invalidated”.3
1
Professor at the Programme of Postgraduate Studies in the Sciences of Religion at the Pontifical
Catholic University of São Paulo and Leader of the Research Group O Imaginário Religioso Brasileiro
(Brazilian Religious Imagery)
2
FICINO, Marsílio. Platonic Theology. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2001. Vol. 1.
3
CARVALHO, Talyta Cristina de. Fé e razão na Renascença: o conceito de Deus na obra filosófica de
Marsílio Ficino. Master dissertation in the Sciences of Religion presented at the Pontifical Catholic
University of São Paulo, 2010. Hereon quoted as Fé e razão na Renascença. Dissertation defended in
public on 1st December 2010. The following scholars made part of the examination board: Professors
Luiz Felipe de Cerqueira and Silva Pondé (tutor), Fernando José Amed and Ênio José da Costa Brito.
Ciberteologia - Revista de Teologia & Cultura - Ano VII, n. 34
163
The reader has in his/her hands a very well planned dissertation written with
surgical precision and never missing its focus. A selected and pertinent bibliography
supports the research. In turn, the subject is challenging but current. There are very few
studies on the concept of God in the work of Marsílio Ficino. Moreover, it can be said
that the modern conception of man was slowly generated during the medieval period. A
quick look at the restoration movement that happened in the 12th century, reveals some
seminal traits of modern man’s profile, traits that were reaffirmed in the 13th and 14th
centuries and confirmed in the 15th. The 18th century finally fixes these traits that will be
the matrix of the contemporary conceptions of man in the 19th and 20th centuries.4
The problematic discussed by Carvalho is situated at the heart of this dynamics.
It is well known that the intellectual scene of the 15 th century was one of philosophical disputes,
that is, it was still very much under the influence of scholasticism. And this work was the way
Ficino found to systematically fight the Averroists and Alexandrians in the dispute about the
soul: the latter stated that philosophy was unable to prove the central principles of the faith, such
as, for instance, the immortality of the soul.5 (*)
As I read the book, I created an image to visualize the text: that of a river made
straight which, in order to facilitate the navigation until its mouth, demanded the
building of three small dams to pass through the differences in the water level: a
historical dam, a philosophical dam and, finally, a theological dam. In the commentary I
will visit these three dams, making comments and raising topics for a possible dialogue
with the authoress.
Historical dam
The first chapter, called “Filosofia do Renascimento: questões controversas”,
[Philosophy of the Renaissance: controversial issues] has the primary intention of
offering to the reader a theoretical net cleared of noises and of prejudices, in order to
4
Cf. VAZ, Henrique de Lima. Teologia medieval e teologia moderna. In: Escritos de filosofia. Problemas
de fronteira. São Paulo: Loyola, 1986. p. 78-79
5
CARVALHO, Fé e razão na Renascença, p. 11.
TN – Original text: Sabe-se que o cenário intelectual do século XV era o das disputas filosóficas, ou
seja, ainda bastante influenciado pela escolástica. E esse trabalho foi a forma que Ficino encontrou para
combater, de maneira sistemática, os averroístas e os alexandristas na disputa acerca da alma: estes
últimos declaravam que a filosofia era incapaz de provar os princípios centrais da fé, como a imortalidade
da alma, por exemplo,
(*)
Ciberteologia - Revista de Teologia & Cultura - Ano VII, n. 34
164
provide a more adequate understanding of the view of the philosophy of God in
Marsílio Ficino.
The chapter brings to the fore issues related to the Renaissance, such as the
humanism, the philosophy and the religion of that period and summons a few
specialists, such as Jacob Burckhardt and Jean Delumeau,6 to deal with the main
Renaissance themes. To discuss the humanist tone of the philosophy of that period it
makes use of authors such as Paul Oskar Kristeller, Eugenio Garin and Hans Baron.7
Burckhardt sees the Renaissance as the historical period in which the
development of the individual and the discovery of the world and of man actually
happened, against the usual view of it as a mere “reawakening of Antiquity”; for
Delumeau, the Renaissance was a “moment of contradictions” without the celebrated
rupture with the Middle Ages. Having analysed these and other thinkers who seek a
deep understanding of the Renaissance, the authoress points to a consensual datum:
“What is evident in this field of studies is the conception that the Renaissance was a
period of transition with a specific culture that, somehow, sowed the seeds of a new
moment in the history of civilization that later became known as Modernity”8 (*)
Two major issues are at the forefront in the case of Renaissance philosophy:
anthropocentrism and humanism. For Kristeller, there is nothing new in the historicalphilosophical view point with regard to the anthropocentric perspective. He does not
deny the anthropocentric emphasis that happened in that period, but its novelty.9
As for the thorny question related with the concept of humanism in the
Renaissance philosophy, he reminds us that the problem starts with the term itself. The
word “humanism” was created in the 19th century, in 1808, by the German educator F.J.
Niethammer, referring to the emphasis that was then given to the study of the Latin and
Greek classics in the Primary and Secondary Education in opposition to a more
technical type of education.10 Carvalho agrees with Kristeller’s position:
6
BURCKHARDT, Jacob. A cultura do Renascimento na Itália [The Culture of the Renaissance in Italy]
São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2003. DELUMEAU, Jean. A civilização do Renascimento (The
civilization of the Renaissance] Lisboa: Editorial Estampa, 1994, v. I.
7
KRISTELLER, Paul Oskar. Renaissance Concepts of Man and Other Essays. [Conceitos do homem no
Renascimento e outros ensaios] New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1972. BARON, Hans. The Crisis
of the Early Italian Renaissance. [A crise do começo do Renascimento italiano ] New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1966.
8
CARVALHO, Fé e razão na Renascença, p. 19.
TN – Original text - “O que é patente nesse campo de estudos é a concepção de que o Renascimento foi
um período de transição com uma cultura que lhe foi peculiar e que, de alguma forma, lançou as sementes
de um novo momento na história da civilização, que ficou conhecido como Modernidade”
9
Ibid., p. 21.
10
Ibid., p. 23.
(*)
Ciberteologia - Revista de Teologia & Cultura - Ano VII, n. 34
165
[…] the humanist [of the Renaissance] is a scholar of the classics, not institutionalized (insofar
as he can be either a tutor that teaches the studia humanitatis or a student of those subjects) and
has concerns of a literary order. The philosopher, in turn, is also a scholar of the classics (hence
the misunderstanding) who, at least at one point, was within an institution of learning (preferably
an university) and does his reading of the classics primarily (but not only) motivated by
metaphysical issues.11 (*)
Carvalho justifies the construction of this historical dam, reminding us that,
since studies on this field are scarce in our country […], we could not go straight into a
discussion of Marsílio Ficino without a clarification of the main categories and terminologies
used in the field of Renaissance studies, or without an introduction of the controversies and
issues that usually permeate the works connected with this historical period. 12 (**)
A sound historical research reinforces the discussions presented in this chapter
which conciliate scholarship and clarity when they bring forth the various controversies
around the main concepts. However, a reader unaccustomed to the topics dealt with in
the chapter might want to have some additional information in order to have a clearer
idea of the themes discussed. A few foot notes may provide the solution.
As an example, I make a few suggestions. On page 18, second paragraph, when
the relation of the Middle Ages with the Antiquity is discussed, the authoress refers to
the “Carolingian Renaissance or the first Renaissance”. Now, the Carolingian
Renaissance only happened thanks to the preservation of a cultural treasury, in spite of
the wars and destruction that occurred throughout the period. If there had been a total
hiatus between the Ancient and the Medieval Worlds, the Irish monks summoned in the
9th century by Charlemagne could not have done anything. This first Renaissance was
11
Ibid., p. 29.
TN – Original text: [...] o humanista [do período do Renascimento] é um estudioso dos clássicos, não
institucionalizado (na medida em que pode ser tanto um tutor que ensina as studia humanitatis quanto um
estudante dessas disciplinas) e que possui preocupações de ordem literária. O filósofo, por sua vez,
também é um estudioso dos clássicos (daí a confusão), mas que, pelo menos em algum momento, esteve
dentro de uma instituição de ensino (preferencialmente uma universidade) e faz sua leitura dos clássicos
motivado por questões principalmente metafísicas (embora não somente)
12
Ibid., p. 15-16.
(**)
TN – Original text: em razão dos estudos nessa área serem escassos em nosso país [...], não
poderíamos partir diretamente para a discussão de Marsílio Ficino sem antes esclarecermos as principais
categorias e terminologias utilizadas no campo de estudos da Renascença, assim como apresentar as
controvérsias e questões que costumam permear os trabalhos ligados a esse período histórico.
(*)
Ciberteologia - Revista de Teologia & Cultura - Ano VII, n. 34
166
followed by those of the 12th and 13th centuries. However, only the 15th century
Renaissance actually appropriated the name.13
For Vaz,
From the 12th century onwards, when the Middle Ages finally began to organize themselves
politically, socially and economically into the incipient urban society and into the first national
states, they could already show in their schools that were then preparing themselves to become
the first universities, a vigorous intellectual life. 14 (*)
When he approaches the issue about continuity or rupture, now between the
Middle Ages and the Renaissance, he can offer the reader an important datum. The
original sin of many of the thinkers who advocate a radical rupture between the Middle
Ages and the Renaissance and assign absolute value to the anthropological emphasis of
the Renaissance, resides in the fact that they do not distinguish between the sacred and
the theological dimensions present in the medieval civilization.
This distinction is essential for an adequate understanding of the relations
between the medieval and the modern worlds. We label the Middle Ages a sacred
civilization in its full sense, and this is not true. More recent studies and researches have
shown that a large part of the population in the Middle Ages lived immersed in a sacred
world, but the learned elites, responsible for the development of a theology elaborated
under the patronage of the Greek reason, were very far from this world view.
Medieval theology showed in its agenda issues that involved the universe, the
content of the faith – a faith that was always questioned – and God himself. Today’s
scholar is impressed by the issues that deeply marked the medieval theological
reflection: “Cur Deus homo?” [Why did God become a man?]; “cur homo?” [“Why
man?”] and “Cur homo Deus?” [“Why did man become God?].15
When he opens the discussion about the philosophy of the Renaissance, page 34,
he refers to the Averroists without having introduced the figure of Averrois (11261198). This great commentator of Aristotle made two big intellectual options in his life:
choosing Aristotle as model of a rational philosophy and rejecting as opinion or myth
13
Cf. VAZ, Teologia medieval e teologia moderna, p. 78.
Ibid.
(*)
TN – Original text: a partir do século XII, finalmente, quando a Idade Média começa a organizar-se
política, social e economicamente na incipiente sociedade urbana e nos primeiros Estados nacionais, já
podia mostrar nas suas escolas, que se preparam para tornarem-se as primeiras universidades, uma
vigorosa vida intelectual
15
Cf. Ibid., p. 82.
14
Ciberteologia - Revista de Teologia & Cultura - Ano VII, n. 34
167
all the statements that were incompatible with the most literal and strict
Aristotelianism.16
Why the insistence on this brief presentation? There is a simple reason: the
Falsafa, the Arab philosophy, only recently begins to be studied in our midst thanks to
the work of forerunners such as Miguel Attie Filho, Rosalie Helena de Souza, Cecília
Cintra Cavaleiro de Macedo and some other researchers. 17
At the end of the first chapter, on page 44, there is a quotation from Kristeller
that includes a reference to the 12th century. I want to remind the reader that the 12th
century occupies a very specific place in the history of medieval philosophy. To
understand it well is to perceive the specificities and the rhythms of medieval
philosophy.
We are before a century marked by numerous changes: demographic and urban
growth; new forms of seigniorial power; modifications introduced in the forms of
religious life; return to monastic life; creation of teaching institutions (claustral,
cathedral, communal, personal); changes in the content of the Arts; changes of taste and
reflections on the contents of the faith. The 12th century is a period of renewal with a
strong awareness of continuity and in which intellectual life becomes more complex.
One word before ending my visit to the first dam: Carvalho carried out a
suggestive rescue of important categories for the continuity of the research, a rescue
made possible because the interlocutors with whom she dialogued replaced these
concepts into the world view in which they were produced.
16
“Comentador por excelência de Aristóteles, como o conhecerá a Idade Média, e um dos pensadores
cuja influência em todo o curso da filosofia ocidental posterior é das mais vastas e profundas, ainda que
frequentemente implícita. Ele inaugura, com efeito, no mundo cultural islâmico essencialmente religioso,
um tipo de racionalismo que, transplantado em solo cristão e multiplicado aí sob mil formas, irá ser uma
das constantes da cultura ocidental moderna.” VAZ, Henrique de Lima. Fisionomia do século XIII. In:
Escritos de filosofia. Problemas de fronteira. São Paulo: Loyola, 1986. p. 15. [A commentator par
excellence of Aristotle, as the Middle Ages will know him, and one of the thinkers whose influence on
the entire course of the later Western philosophy is one of the widest and deepest, even if often implicit.
In fact, he inaugurates in the essentially religious Islamic cultural world, a type of rationalism that
transplanted to a Christian soil and there multiplied under a thousand forms, will be one of the constants
of modern Western culture.”]
17
See: ATTIE FILHO, Miguel. Falsafa. A filosofia entre os árabes; uma herança esquecida. (The
philosophy among the Arabs: a forgotten inheritance] São Paulo: Palas Athena, 2002. Os sentidos
internos em Ibn Sina (Avicena). [The internal senses in Ibn Sina] Porto Alegre: Editora PUCRS, 2000.
PEREIRA, Rosalie Helena de Souza. Avicena; a viagem da alma. Uma leitura gnóstico-hermética de
Havy Yaqzan. [Ibn Sina: a journey of the soul. A gnostic-hermetic reading of Havy Yaqzan.] São Paulo:
Perspectiva/Fapesp, 2002. MACEDO, Cecília Cintra Cavaleiro de. Metafísica, mística e linguagem na
obra de Schlomo Ibn Gabiron (Avicebron): uma abordagem bergsoniana. [Metaphysics, mysticism and
language in the work of Schlomo Ibn Gabiron: a Bergsonian approach.] PhD thesis on the Sciences of
Religion presented at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo. São Paulo, 2006.
Ciberteologia - Revista de Teologia & Cultura - Ano VII, n. 34
168
As a whole, I missed a longer explanation about the theological substratum
present in between the lines of the rescue operation carried out by the authoress. We
cannot forget that, in that historical period, Philosophy is a serf of Theology and
Theology must be understood as the cultural form of the Middle Ages.
This is an important chapter not only for a deeper understanding of the medieval
period but also for helping to overcome the reductive views of the medieval period, still
so present in our midst.
Philosophical dam
In the second chapter, called “A filosofia de Marsílio Ficino – Uma metafísica
de tributos à tradição” [The philosophy of Marsílio Ficino – A metaphysics of tributes
to tradition] before presenting the concepts as such, the authoress examines the
following topics: “Biografia: vida familiar e influências paternas” [Biography: family
life and paternal influences]; “A Academia Platônica de Florença – Um debate
inacabado” [The Platonic Academy of Florence – an unfinished debate] and “O
platonismo de Marsílio Ficino” [Marsílio Ficino’s Platonism]. Then she begins the
exposition of Marsílio Ficino’s ontology, explaining the concepts of being, thought,
hierarchy and causality.
In the authoress’ words: “Finally, we did an ontological discussion that started
from Parmenides and went through Ficino’s conceptual heritage, namely, Plato,
Aristotle and St. Thomas of Aquinas, and whenever possible we relied on the own
words of the philosopher whose theory was being presented”.18 (*)
The epigraph chosen to illustrate the chapter is a genuine guiding star for reading
it:
Neo-Platonism is essentially a method to rise to an intelligible reality and a construction or
description of that reality. The biggest mistake we can make is to believe that this reality has as
its essential function to explain the sensitive: Neo-Platonism means, before anything else, to go
from one region where knowledge and happiness are impossible to a region where they are
possible […] (Émile Bréhier).19 (*)
18
CARVALHO, Fé e razão na Renascença, p. 75
TN – Original text: “Por último, fizemos uma discussão ontológica que partiu de Parmênides e passou
pelas heranças conceituais de Ficino, a saber, Platão, Aristóteles e Santo Tomás de Aquino, fiando-nos
sempre que possível na própria letra do filósofo cuja teoria era apresentada”.
19
Ibid., p. 47.
(*)
TN – Original text: O neoplatonismo é essencialmente um método para ascender a uma realidade
inteligível e uma construção ou descrição dessa realidade. O erro maior que se pode cometer é o de
(*)
Ciberteologia - Revista de Teologia & Cultura - Ano VII, n. 34
169
Every epigraph has a double function: that of clarifying and anticipating the text
that it precedes and at the same time, to create an enigma for the reader. The epigraph
chosen by the authoress fulfils well the role that is given to it.
As I read chapter two, a question kept insisting in coming back to me: what are
the Christian elements in Marsílio Ficino’s philosophy? I think that the first cue is to
think of a new spiritualist intuition of the real of this Platonic philosopher. We can point
also to the conception of creation and the characteristics of the Ficinian One. For Ficino,
things “ex Deo manant”, but this emanation is not stricto sensu Platonic. The Christian
God creates the world and loves it as his creature.
We might also ad that the finite being is saved from the absolute discredit into
which it had been thrown by classical Metaphysics and begins to be seen as a creature
of God, worthy of love. The finite beings must love themselves in God and the tie of
their love, Charity, becomes the law that is the fundament of God’s Kingdom.
In the chapter, the issue of the relationship reason and faith is already explicitly
presented.
Therefore, to examine the context in which Ficino will try to establish the
connections between them both may be interesting for the reader. The process of
dissolution of the medieval scholastic begun with Duns Scotus (1265-1308) found in
Guilherme de Ockham’s (c.1288-c.1348) its final development with the thesis of the
separation not only between faith and reason, but also between philosophy and
theology. A fact that is very well remembered by the authoress at various points of the
dissertation. It would be relevant to emphasize that this separation also reaches the
Pope’s and the Emperor’s powers, and those of the Church and of the State.
To point to this second dimension of the separation is to call attention to the
political positioning so present at the time and in Guilherme de Ockham’s thought. For
him, this political positioning naturally crowns the theoretical disaggregation of the
fundaments that sustained the medieval world.
The reflex of this separation on the relation faith/reason is immediate. The truths
of the revelation, object of the theology, have faith as their only fundament, and
resorting to reason to reinforce or clarify them is useless. Carvalho well remembers that:
acreditar que essa realidade tem por função essencial explicar o sensível: o neoplatonismo trata, antes de
mais nada, de passar de uma região onde o conhecimento e a felicidade são impossíveis a uma região
onde são possíveis [...]
Ciberteologia - Revista de Teologia & Cultura - Ano VII, n. 34
170
Marsílio Ficino’s conflict is of a moral and religious order. Ficino had a very low opinion of the
autonomous trajectory that philosophy had begun to trace with regard to religion [theology] in
the early days of the Renaissance. According to the philosopher, the solution that would avoid
the disastrous consequences of this dissociation course could be found in a revival of Plato. 20 (*)
Deeply Christian, but tired of the Aristotelian schemes in which scholastics had
hardened itself, he sees in a return to the Platonic philosophy and to Neo-Platonism a
possibility to save theology. A feeling, in fact, that is shared by many people at that
time. Ficino bravely takes this path. The daily meditation of the Platonic texts leads him
to a spiritual maturity. One of his activities in Academia was the translation of the
Platonic work.
Theological Dam
In the third chapter, “O Deus de Marsílio Ficino” [Marsílio Ficino’s God] the
authoress carries out a craftsman’s work, detailed, markedly analytical, and establishing
bridges with chapter two. The chapter provides a direct contact with Ficino’s text,
permitting the reader to taste a bit of the flavour and of the knowledge of the medieval
text. She illustrates the issues with beautiful passages.
As an example, we bring a passage in which Ficino discusses how and why God
acts and in order to explain that God acts through his understanding only if his will
permits, he presents five proofs. The quotation comes from the fifth proof:
[…] the end and something good and moves the cause in movement. But nothing can belong to
the same order of God except God. God is not a slave of the good outside himself. For the
universal good is never a slave of a particular good. Moreover, God is not moved by another. If
God’s finality is his own kindness, God, in his own way, wishes and loves his own kindness. But
as God is intellectual and his kindness is intelligible, he loves it with an intellectual love. This
love involves the will. God, however, loves himself. He loves himself as his own end and as the
end of everything else. But the activity in relation to the things that are directed towards the end
20
(*)
Ibid., p. 12.
TN - Original text: o conflito de Marsílio Ficino era de ordem moral e religiosa. Ficino tinha em
péssima conta a trajetória autônoma que a filosofia começara a traçar em relação à religião [teologia] nos
primórdios do Renascimento. Segundo o filósofo, a solução que evitaria as consequências desastrosas
desse percurso de dissociação encontrava-se no restabelecimento de Platão.
Ciberteologia - Revista de Teologia & Cultura - Ano VII, n. 34
171
jumps from the will to the end. Then the divine will, as Plato says in Timaeus, is the beginning of
all created things. 21(*)
The text crowns a reflection developed by the authoress where she comments
that “God acts creatively not to fulfil any need of Nature or understanding. God creates
things by imposition of his will”.22
As we have shown, the issues are illustrated with beautiful passages from Ficino
and here and there those deserve a longer comment to explain their rich content.
Carvalho introduces the path to be followed: “[…] our approach to the concept
of God should follow the course pursued by the philosopher himself in Book II of
Platonic Theology and therefore we will rely almost exclusively upon the author’s own
text”.23
Two of the topics in this chapter call the reader’s attention. First, the
anthropological theme, related to Ficino’s view of the human being. Would the human
being be a microcosm? When we think of the function of the soul for Ficino, the above
question is pertinent. He sees the soul as “copula mundi”, “vera universorum connexio”,
omnipresent precisely because everything exists in the animated cosmos. The human
soul, participant in the divine nature, in the universal soul, is placed between the eternal
and the time.
Discussing the theory of sin, Carvalho affirms that we cannot assign to the
author the idea that there is an infinite potentiality for perfectibility in the human being.
An affirmation that brings us back to the anthropological thematic.
The second theme is more provoking as it relates with the very conception of
God. The sub-items of the chapter provide a sort of script: “A defense of monotheism”;
“Divine Omnipotence”; “A generous God”; “God’s will”; “A free and necessary God”
and “God is perfect”.
21
Ibid.,p. 102
TN – Original text: [...] o fim é algo bom e move a causa em movimento. Mas nada pode pertencer à
mesma ordem de Deus exceto Deus. Deus não é escravo do bem fora de si mesmo. Pois o bem universal
nunca é escravo de um bem particular. Além disso, Deus não é movido por outrem. Se a finalidade de
Deus é sua própria bondade, Deus, à sua própria maneira, deseja e ama sua própria bondade. Mas uma
vez que Deus é intelectual e sua bondade é inteligível, ele a ama com um amor intelectual. Esse amor
envolve a vontade. Deus, portanto, quer a si mesmo. Ele quer a si mesmo como seu próprio fim e como o
fim de tudo mais. Mas a atividade em relação às coisas que são direcionadas para o fim salta da vontade
para o fim. Então, a vontade divina, como diz Platão no Timeu , é o inicio de todas as coisas criadas.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid., p.86.
(*)
Ciberteologia - Revista de Teologia & Cultura - Ano VII, n. 34
172
Following Kristeller, the authoress agrees with the idea that in the discussion
about the concepts of perfection, kindness and God Ficino takes his ontological vision
to its ultimate consequences.
Nevertheless, it is also possible to perceive a circular movement in the reflection [Ficino’s]: what
appears as an assumption in the beginning comes back as conclusion at the end: reality finds the
fundament and the justification of its existence in goodness, and this goodness appears as
sufficient cause both of reality and of what is merely possible, in so far as God is the author of
every goodness in the world as reality his perfect goodness is also the cause of his own perfect
existence.24 (*)
A theme that arouses the reader’s curiosity and he/she would like to ask: in what
Ficino’s God [his conception of God] distinguishes itself from the One, the Platonic and
the Neo-Platonic “Gods”?
Among other points, we can remember that Ficino’s God is a person that in his
infinitude knows the whole in itself, being a primary cause. The Platonic “God” is the
very simple and absolutely impersonal One. The Neo-Platonic “God” remains happy in
his solitude, does not look after the world he created. Ficino’s God loves his creatures,
illuminates them, grants them the grace and he himself incarnates, becoming Man-God.
We can also remember that, for Plotinus, love is ascendant, takes man to God. For
Ficino, he is also descendent, from God to men.
Final Considerations
The long course followed by Talyta Cristina de Carvalho reaches its mouth after
having inserted the Renaissance into its historical, philosophical and religious context,
with its various philosophical schools, and then going through the most remarkable facts
in Ficino’s intellectual career and his intellectual work at the Platonic Academy in
Florence, giving priority to his ontological reflections. His reader, having gone through
the historical and philosophical dams, is now ready to be raised to the third dam and
navigate in theological waters. From the theological vastness Carvalho chooses the most
remarkable themes of the Ficinian thought, such as the theory of sin, redemption,
Christology, the view of man, ending with the concept of God.
24
Ibid., p. 102.
TN – Original text: Não obstante, também é possível perceber um movimento circular na reflexão [de
Ficino]: o que surge como premissa no começo retorna como conclusão ao final: a realidade encontra o
fundamento e a justificativa de sua existência no bem, esse bem surge como causa suficiente tanto da
realidade quanto do que é apenas possível, na medida em que Deus é o autor de todo bem no mundo
enquanto realidade, sua bondade perfeita também é a causa de sua própria existência perfeita
(*)
Ciberteologia - Revista de Teologia & Cultura - Ano VII, n. 34
173
Having arrived at the mouth, it is now time to gather the fruit of the journey:
Ficinian philosophy is fundamentally Christian, is grounded on the revelation, appeals
to reason only to expose the content of the faith. “In a Christian philosophy,
monotheism establishes itself as the principle of principles, and such a conception
demands logically that, if there is only one God, everything must refer to him”,25
(*)
Carvalho reminds us.
In Ficino the concept of God is that of the Christian God, of the Biblical God, of
Moses’ God. Even in deep dialogue with Greek philosophy, Ficino does not paganize
Christianity.
In her dissertation, Talyta Carvalho conciliates academic rigour and didactic
perspective with rare skill, besides opening numerous doors for future research, giving
also a significant contribution to the studies of the philosophy of religion. Fé e razão na
Renascença: o conceito de Deus na obra filosófica de Marsílio Ficino deserves to be
read by all those interested in getting to know a bit more about philosophy of religion
and likely to think about the issues that inhabit the human hearts and the human minds.
25
Ibid., p. 113.
TN – Original text: “Em uma filosofia cristã, o monoteísmo se estabelece como o princípio dos
princípios, e tal concepção exige logicamente que, se há apenas um Deus, tudo deve se referir a ele”
(*)
Ciberteologia - Revista de Teologia & Cultura - Ano VII, n. 34
174