Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
39
CLASSICAL TRADITION
Aristotelian Realism
Aristotle (384-322 b .c.)
Plato believed that matter had no lasting reality and that we should con
cern ourselves with ideas. It was Platos pupil Aristotle, however, who de
veloped the view that while ideas may be important in themselves, a prop
er study of matter could lead us to better and more distinct ideas. Aristotle
studied and taught at Platos Academy for about twenty years and later
opened his own school, the Lyceum. His differences with Plato were de
veloped gradually, and in many respects he never got out from under Platos
influence.
According to Aristotle, ideas (or forms), such as the idea of God or the idea
of a tree, can exist without matter, but there can be no matter without form.
Each piece of matter has both a universal and particular property. The partic
ular properties of an acorn, for example, are those things that are peculiar to it
and that differentiate it from all other acorns. These properties include its size,
shape, weight, and color. There are no two acorns exactly alike, so we can talk
about some particular properties of any acorn as essentially different from
those of all other acorns. However, each acorn shares in a universal property
with all other acorns. This can be called its acornness, and it is what is
universal with all other acorns. Perhaps this can be understood better by re
ferring to humans at this point. People, too, differ in their particular properties.
They have different shapes and sizes, and there are no two exactly alike. Yet all
people do share in something universal, and this could be called their hu
manness. Both humanness and acornness are realities, and they exist inde
pendently and regardless of any one particular human or acorn. Thus, we may
say that forms (universals, ideas, or essences) are the nonmaterial aspects of
each particular material object that relate to all other particular objects of that
class. Nonmaterial though form may be, we arrive at it by examining material
objects that exist in themselves, independent of us. Aristotle believed we
should be very much involved in studying and understanding the reality of all
things. Indeed, he agreed with Plato on this position. They differed, however,
in that Aristotle felt one could get to form by studying particular material
things, and Plato believed form could be reached only through some kind of
reasoning such as the dialectic.
Aristotle argued that the forms of things, the universal properties of ob
jects, remain constant and never change whereas particular components do
change. The shell of an acorn may disintegrate and an acorn may be destroyed,
but the form of all acorns, or acornness, remains. In terms of people again,
though individual persons die, humanness remains. Even if all human beings
should die, humanness would remain, just as the concept of circularity would
40
CHAPTER 2
remain even if all existing material circles were destroyed. If we look at this in
terms of the development of people, we can see that as children, individuals
have the particular characteristics of children. As they grow, however, thenbodies change and they enter the phase of growth called adolescence; later they
become adults. Humanness remains even though the developmental process of
the individual changes several times. Thus, form remains constant while particular matter changes. Aristotle and Plato agreed on the point that form is
constant and matter is always changing, but Aristotle believed form was within
particular matter and was even the motivating force of that matter. By the same
token, the modern philosopher Henri Bergson spoke about an elan vital, or
vital principle that each object has and that directs it in terms of fulfilling its
purpose. This can be seen in the actual growth process of an acorn fulfilling its
purpose in becoming an oak tree. It must take in the proper amount of sun and
water, it must set its roots just so deep, and it must receive nourishment in the
proper way. Each object, Aristotle thought, has a tiny soul that directs it in
the right way.
Aristotle was both a scientist and a philosopher, and he believed that
although we may separate science and philosophy artificially, there is a relationship between them in which the study of one aids us in the study of the
other. For example, by studying the material aspects of an acorn its shell, its
color, and so forth we should be led deeper into a contemplation of what the
acorn really is, that is, its essence or form. Of course, a great deal depends upon
asking the right questions. There are scientific questions and there are philo
sophical questions, and they can overlap. If we went to the seashore and picked
up a shell, we could ask ourselves many scientific questions about that shell.
What is it composed of? How long has it been here? What lived in it? How
much does it weigh? There are many such questions and answering them
would tell us quite a bit about the shell, but we would be asking only about its
particular physical aspects. We could also ask other kinds of questions. What
is its meaning? Who or what created it? What is its purpose? These kinds of
questions are basically philosophical, though they can be brought out by sci
entific investigation. It has been pointed out, for example, that The Bulletin o f
Atomic Physicists is becoming a more philosophically oriented journal each
year. This would support Aristotle's claim that the deeper we go into matter the
more we are led to philosophy.
The most important questions we can ask about things relate to their
purposes. Aristotle felt that each thing has a purpose or function. What is the
purpose of a fish? If we examine it carefully, we might say that its purpose is to
swim. The purpose of a bird is to fly. What, though, is humanitys purpose?
Aristotle believed that since humans are the only creatures endowed with the
ability to think, their purpose is to use this ability. Thus, we achieve our true
purpose when we think, and we go against this end when we do not think or
when we do not think intelligently.
41
According to Aristotle, there is design and order in the universe, for things
happen in an orderly way. An acorn becomes an oak tree and not a sycamore.
A kitten becomes a cat and not a dog. We can understand the universe by
studying it in terms of its purposes. Thus, whatever happens can be explained
according to purpose: the acorn follows its destiny and the kitten its destiny.
With regard to humans, we have already seen that our purpose is to think, but
we admitted that we can refuse to think or think poorly. We can avoid thinking
by not paying attention, by misdirecting our thinking, or by otherwise subvert
ing thinking. Aristotle believed that we can refuse to think and therefore go
against the design of the universe and the reason for our creation; hence, we
have free will. When we go against this purpose, however, we suffer the con
sequences of erroneous ideas, poor health, and an unhappy life, among other
things.
For Aristotle, the person who follows a true purpose leads a rational life
of moderation, avoiding extremes. There are two Aristotelian extremes: the
extreme of too little and the extreme of too much. In terms of eating, if one eats
too much, one will gorge oneself and suffer from obesity, lack of energy, poor
health in general, or death. The moderate man or woman, the thinking person,
avoids such excesses. For Aristotle, the proper perspective is the Golden Mean,
a path between extremes.
Aristotles concept of the Golden Mean is illustrated by his notion of the
soul as an entity to be kept in balance. He spoke of the three aspects of the soul
being vegetative, animal, and rational. We might say that when humans vege
tate, they are following the extreme of too little, when they are angry and
hostile the extreme of too much; but when they use reason to keep vegetative
and animal aspects in harmony, they are following the path for which they
were designed and are fulfilling their purpose. We might also relate this idea to
Platos concept of the ideal state where the good state is one where all of its
classes, that is, brass (vegetative), silver (animal), and gold (rational) are in
balance and harmony. Aristotle believed that a good education helps to achieve
the Golden Mean and thereby promotes the harmony and balance of both soul
and body.
Balance is central to Aristotles view. He saw all the universe in some
balanced and orderly fashion. As far as humans were concerned, he did not
view body and mind in opposition as Plato did; rather, body is the means by
which data come to us through sense perception. The raw data of sense per
ception are organized by the reasoning of mind. Universal principles are de
rived by mind from an examination of the particulars by sense perception.
Thus, body and mind operate together in a balanced whole with their own
internal consistencies.
Aristotle did not separate a particular thing from its universal being. Mat
ter and form are not two different kinds of being, but fundamental aspects of the
same thing. Form is in matter, for formless matter is a false notion, not a reality.
42
CHAPTER 2
The important thing to see is that all matter is in some stage of actualization.
Whereas Plato was primarily interested in the realm of forms or ideas, Aristotle
tried to unite the world of matter with the world of forms. An example of this
is his view of actuality and potentiality. Actuality is that which is complete and
perfect the form. Potentiality refers to the capability of being actualized or
gaining perfection and form. It is the union of form and matter that gives
concrete reality to things. In other words, an individual acorn contains both
form and matter that make up the real acorn we experience in the common
sense world of every day.
This is further illustrated by Aristotles conception of the four Causes: (1)
the Material Cause, the matter from which something is made; (2) the Formal
Cause, the design that shapes the material object; (3) the Efficient Cause, the
agent that produces the object; and (4) the Final Cause, the direction toward
which the object is tending. In common sense language, when we talk about a
house, the material it is made of (the wood, bricks, and nails) is its Material
Cause; the sketch or blueprint followed in constructing it is its Formal Cause;
the carpenter who builds it is its Efficient Cause; and its Final Cause is that it
is a place in which to live, a house. Matter is in process, moving to some end.
In this respect, Aristotles thought is very similar to the modern view of evo
lution and the notion of an open-ended universe. The difference between Ar
istotle and this modern view is that Aristotle saw this movement headed to
ward a final end, so for him the universe is open-ended only so much. The
power that holds all creation and process together is God, by which Aristotle
meant the power or source to which matter points beyond itself, an Ultimate
Reality; hence, God is the First Cause, the Final End, the Unmoved Mover,
beyond all matter and form. In this respect, we may observe that Aristotles
philosophy is as esoteric as Platos. Yet, for Aristotle, God is a logical expla
nation for the order of the universe, its organizational and operational prin
ciple.
Indeed, organization is essential to Aristotles philosophy. Everything can
be organized into a hierarchy. For example, human beings are biologically
based and rooted in nature. However, they strive for something beyond them
selves. If they are characterized by body, they are also characterized by soul, or
a rational aspect, the capacity to move from within. If body and soul are bal
anced they are also organized, and soul is of a higher order than body, more
characteristically human than anything else. For Aristotle, human beings are
the rational animals, most completely fulfilling their purpose when they think,
for thinking is their highest characteristic. So it is, with Aristotle, that every
thing is capable of being ordered, for reality, knowledge, and value exist inde
pendent of mind, with their own internal consistency and balance capable of
being comprehended by mind.
In order to search out the structure of independent reality, Aristotle
worked on logical processes. Plato used the dialectic to synthesize opposing
43
notions about truth. Aristotle was concerned with truth, too, and he sought
access to it through attempting to refine the dialectic. The logical method he
developed was the syllogism. Basically, the syllogism is a method for testing
the logic of statements. A famous but simplistic version of it goes as follows:
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man;
therefore, Socrates is mortal.
44
CHAPTER 2
Religious Realism
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Thomas Aquinas was born near Naples, Italy, in 1225. His formal education
began at age five when he was sent to the Benedictine monastery at Monte
Casino. Later he studied at the University of Naples, and in 1244, he became a
Dominican friar, dedicating his life to obedience, poverty, and intellectual toil.
In 1245, he was sent to the University of Paris, where he studied under Albertus
Magnus, a renowned scholar of Aristotelian philosophy. He studied and taught
at the University of Paris until 1259, when the Dominicans sent him
back to Italy to help organize the curriculum for Dominican schools. He re
turned to Paris in 1268 and served the remainder of his life as a professor of
theology and as an educational leader for the Dominicans. He died on March 7,
1274.
Aristotles ideas had a great impact upon the Christian religion, and in
many respects they have tended to encourage the secularization of the church,
as opposed to the monasticism engendered by the writings of Augustine. Grad
ually, the ideas of Aristotle were incorporated into Christianity and provided it
with a philosophical base. Thomas Aquinas became the leading authority on
Aristotle in the Middle Ages and found no great conflict between the ideas of
the pagan philosopher and the ideas of Christian revelation. He argued that
since God is puxe reason, then the universe is reason, and hy using our reason,
as Aristotle suggested, we could know the truth of things. Aquinas also put
emphasis on using our senses in order to obtain knowledge about the world,
and his proofs of Gods existence, for example, depend heavily upon sensory
observation.
Aquinas believed God created matter out of nothing, and God was, as
Aristotle stated, the Unmoved Mover who gave meaning and purpose to the
universe. In his monumental work, Summa T heologica, he summed up the
arguments dealing with Christianity. He used the rational approach suggested
by Aristotle in analyzing and dealing with various religious questions. As a
matter of fact, many of the supporting arguments in Christian religion are
heavily derived from Thomas Aquinas, regardless of what branch of Christi
anity is considered. Roman Catholicism considers Thomism its leading phi
losophy.
Thomas Aquinas was first of all a churchman. For him all truths were
eternally in God. Truth was passed from God to humans by divine revelation,
but God had also endowed human beings with the reasoning ability to seek out
truth. Being the churchman that he was, Aquinas would not subordinate rev
elation to reason, but he did want to give reason a proper place. Essentially, he
viewed theology as the primary concern and philosophy as the handmaiden of
theology. Thus, by recognizing the supremacy of theology, he was able to
explore the philosophical development of religious thought more fully.
45
46
CHAPTER 2
47
48
CHAPTER 2
created the earth, it was reasonable to assume He would place it in the center.
Also, since God chose to place man on earth, the earth must have had an
important place in the plan of creation, and this gives added weight to the
importance of the earth being centrally located. The story in the Bible about
Joshua fighting a difficult battle and asking God to make the sun stand still
seemed to give even more support to this position. But Galileo argued for the
Copernican theory that the sun and not the earth is the center of the universe,
for the earth moves and rotates about the sun. The position of Nicolaus Coper
nicus (as set forth in The Revolutions o f the H eavenly B odies) was disputed by
the church because it belittled the earth and Gods plan, and it challenged the
veracity of revelation. Galileo used a telescope to give empirical proof to the
Copernican position, and this increased the wrath of the church. It is reported
that a Jesuit, who had been invited into Galileos study to look through the
telescope for proof, claimed that the devil was putting those things there for .
him to see. Church officials demanded that Galileo refute his position, yet his j
work was later substantiated in whole or in part by scientists such as Johannes j
Kepler, Tycho Brahe, and Sir Isaac Newton.
Since the scientific or inductive approach uncovered many errors in prop
ositions that had originally been taken for granted, Bacon urged that we reex
amine all our previously accepted knowledge. At the very least, we should
attempt to rid our minds of various idols before which we bow down and
cloud our thinking. These idols, said Bacon, are primarily four in number.
There is the Idol of the Den, whereby we believe things because of our own
limited experiences. If, for example, an individual had several bad experiences
with men with moustaches, he might conclude that all men with moustaches
are bad, a clear case of faulty generalization. Another idol is the Idol of the
Tribe, whereby we tend to believe things because most people believe them.
There are numerous studies to show that many people will change their opin
ions to match those of the majority. Another idol that Bacon believed interfered
with our thinking is what he called the Idol of the Marketplace. This idol deals
with language, for Bacon believed that words are often used in ways that pre
vent understanding. For instance, words such as liberal and conservative
might have little meaning when applied to people because one could be liberal
on one issue; conservative on another. Bacon referred to the final idol as the
Idol of the Theatre. This is the idol of our religions and philosophies that may
prevent us from seeing the world objectively. He called for a housekeeping of
the mind where we break away from the dead ideas of the past and begin again
by using the method of induction.
Essentially, induction is the logic of arriving at generalizations on the
basis of systematic observations of particulars. The general thrust of this view j
can be found in Aristotle, but Aristotle never developed it into a complete ^
system. According to Bacon, induction involves the collection of data about]
particulars, but it is not merely a cataloging and enumeration of data. The data I
must be examined, and where contradictions are found, some must be dis- j
j
49
50
CHAPTER 2