|
Aristotle refutes Plato's Theory of Ideas on three basic grounds:
that the existence of Ideas contradicts itself by denying the
possibility of negations; that his illustrations of Ideas are merely
empty metaphors; and that they theory uses impermanent abstractions to
create examples of perception. Though the theory is meant to establish
concrete standards for the knowledge of reality, Aristotle considers it
fraught with inconsistencies and believes that the concept of reality
depends upon all forms' correlations to other elements.
Ideas, Plato
believes, are permanent, self-contained absolutes, which answered to
each item of exact knowledge attained through human thought. Also,
Ideas are in Plato's view concrete standards by which all human
endeavor can be judged, for the hierarchy of all ideas leads to the
highest absolute - that of Good. In addition, the theory claims that
states of being are contingent upon the mingling of various Forms of
existence, that knowledge is objective and thus clearly more real, and
that only the processes of nature were valid entities. However,
Aristotle attacks this theory on the grounds that Plato's arguments are
inconclusive either his assertions are not al all cogent. Aristotle
says, or his arguments lead to contradictory conclusions. For example,
Aristotle claims that Plato's arguments lead one to conclude that
entities (such as anything man-made) and negations of concrete ideas
could exist - such as "non-good" in opposition to good.
This
contradicts Plato's own belief that only natural objects could serve as
standards of knowledge. Also, Aristotle refutes Plato's belief that
Ideas are perfect entities unto themselves, independent of subjective
human experience. Ideas, Aristotle claims, are not abstractions on a
proverbial pedestal but mere duplicates of things witnessed in ordinary
daily life. The Ideas of things, he says, are not inherent to the
objects in particular but created separately and placed apart from the
objects themselves. Thus, Aristotle says, Plato's idea that Ideas are
perfect entities, intangible to subjective human experience, is
meaningless, for all standards are based somewhere in ordinary human
activity and perception.
Thirdly, Aristotle assails Plato's efforts to
find something common to several similar objects at once, a perfect
exemplar of the quality those things share. Beauty is a perfect
example; Plato considered Beauty both a notion and an ideal, isolated
by abstractions and fixed permanently while its representatives fade
away. Aristotle claims that abstractions like Beauty cannot be cast as
absolutes, independent of temporal human experience; the Idea of Beauty
changes with time and individual perceptions and cannot (as Plato felt)
exist forever as a concrete standard.
Plato and Aristotle reach some
agreement, though, on the topic of reality. Plato believes that all
reality was derived from his Ideas (which themselves dealt with
concrete hierarchy of rational ideas. St. Anselm, though, makes the
most dogmatic and logically tortuous case for God's existence, relying
not upon explanations of goodness, truth, or rational order of ideas
but upon an absurd argument. He claims that everyone has some sense of
God, and he claims that for one to deny God's existence is an invalid
and contradictory assertion; therefore, God exists.
Also, Anselm
believes that those capable of understanding God cannot believe that he
does not exist - as if the enormity of the idea was so clear than only
a fool could not perceive it. His arguments seem the weakest of the
four viewpoints here, for they are riddled with dogma and assume that
God is a constant - using faith alone. Anselm considers faith paramount
to logic or other forms of thought and asks no questions as to what
powers the universe or what goodness is - he basically follows the
Christian "party line" too closely to be valid.
In general, St.
Augustine combines Plato's idea of a moral hierarchy with his own
rational observations of truth and goodness being embodied in their
highest form by God. While Plato wavers on God's superiority, Aristotle
views man as god's pawn, and Anselm uses tortuous dogmatic logic,
Augustine's arguments seem to make the most sense from not only a
Christian point of view but from a moral and rational one as well. The
philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St. Anselm on the
existence of God all vary on the issue of God's nature; though each
thinker takes a different approach to why there is a God, that of St.
Augustine seems the most valid because he takes a rational stance and
does not dogmatically assume God's existence.
Plato's philosophy
assumes that God exists as a supremely good being whose goodness is
analogous to Plato's concrete concept or the ultimate good. However,
God and goodness are not one and the same; Plato does not directly
state that goodness is good, but that God is good, since he exemplifies
the idea at the top of Plato's hierarchy. In short, God does not equal
goodness, but God encompasses it better than any other being. This
implies not that God is perfect, but that God's intentions and actions
have good aims - goodness may emerge from other sources besides God.
The main problem with Plato's philosophy is his inconsistency; he owes
the existence of his Ideas to both God and goodness, but he claims the
two are not identical. God becomes subordinate to the "universals" in
Plato's ordered cosmos, and his defense of God appears rather weak.
While Plato assumes God exists as the ultimately good (but not
omnipotent) being, Aristotle questions God's active role in the
universe and claims that nature depends upon an immaterial Supreme
Being. For example, he cites natural genesis and the perpetuity of
movement as evidence of God's immaterial existence, and he implies that
God is a self-sufficient, compelling force for both nature and man.
Aristotle's concept of God seems valid as a pre-scientific explanation
of the universe; however, he seems to ignore God's embodiment of moral
goodness and man's ability to think and act freely and still be good.
He believes that all goodness comes from within God and that the
goodness in man is drawn toward God and nothing else.
Aristotle's ideas
on God seem, from a modern point of view, effective only as
explanations of the supernatural and even of the miracle of life. St.
Augustine links God with rational thought and states that human
knowledge of truth depends upon man's relationship to God. His argument
moves him from existence of the self to the objectivity of truth and
finally to God's reality. Augustine assumes that God is a rational
being and that the rational and the good are identical. Only God could
be superior to truth, he says, and therefore must be the ultimate good;
therefore, truth, goodness, and God are one and the same.
His argument
seems fairly clear-eyed and rational, for he does not approach God's
goodness dogmatically or automatically assume God's existence. Instead,
he works toward that end by evaluation the rationality of truth and
goodness, and he casts God in that role as the ultimate embodiment of
both. In general, Augustine implies, God represents goodness and
occupies the pinnacle of the concept like unity and twoness). He
considers unity and goodness the combined center of his system of Ideas
and stated that the Ideas had to be more real and concrete than any
objects of ordinary experience.
Aristotle, meanwhile, agreed with
Plato's notion that the immaterial (form) and the material (matter)
were distinctly separate entities; however, he did not share Plato's
belief that all forms were permanent, freestanding truths; he felt that
form correlated to matter. Ideas, he stated, correlated to something
material and were thus changeable and often dependent upon the
observer. In general, Aristotle refutes Plato on the grounds that his
Theory of Ideas tries too hard to establish concrete, universal
definitions for things that depend too much on the material. Though
both thinkers agree on the separation of the material and immaterial
(which gave both a somewhat similar view of God), they still differ
sharply over the permanence of standards by which human nature and
endeavor can be judged.
|
|
|
(0 vote)