Book Reviews, Philosophy, Uncategorized

Review: An Introduction to Philosophy, Daniel Sullivan

by Dave Seng

Daniel Sullivan. An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition. TAN Books, 2009. (Paperback ISBN:0895554690); $18.89

Our most commonplace expressions of optimism or pessimism, selfishness or high-mindedness, idealism or cynicism, carry along with them unacknowledged assumptions about the nature of the universe as a whole and man’s place in it—Daniel Sullivan

Over the years, one of the best introductions to the field of philosophy, and a text that I have found to be among the most useful is Daniel Sullivan’s An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition. Daniel Sullivan was one of the great translators of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica.

Since one of the themes of this blog is the importance of realism and why its recovery is necessary for the flourishing of Western civilization, I thought a review of this introductory textbook is in order. First, a quick note about realism since Sullivan seeks to explain the big questions of philosophy from the standpoint of classical realism. Realism is the metaphysical doctrine that Forms, or essences, possess objective reality. In modern philosophy, realism is the concept (contrasted with idealism) that physical objects exist independently of perception, the mind, or theory of reality. For realists, theories of reality are logically separate from objective reality itself (that is, epistemological theories do not determine reality). The name itself was given to a certain philosophic way of thought first inaugurated by Plato and Aristotle, developed and refined in the Middle Ages, and still living at the present time. This view includes three basic theses: 1. The world is made up of substantial beings really related to one another, which exist independently of any human opinions or desires. 2. These substances and relations can be known by the human mind as they are in themselves. 3. Such knowledge can offer sound and immutable guidance (the law of nature) for individual and social action. Regarding the overall approach of a realist philosophy, Sullivan explains, “If you wish to emphasize the rock-solid foundation of our philosophy in the nature of things as they are, you can call it the Realist philosophy. Stressing the collective labor which has gone into its elaboration over the centuries, it may be termed the Common philosophy. Or, since metaphysics is the archstone of our philosophy, we can call it the philosophy of being” (279). Sullivan seeks to apply the classical realist tradition of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and their best modern interpreters to the perennial questions of our day.

Originally published in 1957, TAN Books republished this textbook in 1992 and 2009. It is still in publication at the time of this writing. The endurance of this book speaks to the timeless questions of philosophy and the human condition. For the intellectually honest, the big questions of life never really go away, and Sullivan’s text brings wisdom, clarity, and insight. Sullivan does a great job with teaching one how to think carefully and rationally about such timeless questions as the nature of mankind, the way we know things, the life of virtue, the road to happiness, and the wonder of being or reality itself. The writing is clear, easy to understand, and is free of needless jargon and system building. Sullivan clearly explicates the great questions of life through an understanding of intellectual history (the development of ideas that impact society and culture) and a solid demonstration of the problems themselves. Mortimer Adler once said that “unless the philosopher solves problems by laying adequate analytical foundations for demonstration and, in the light thereof, by proving conclusions from self-evident premises, he does nothing” (189). In this text, Sullivan does just that. He does an excellent job of presenting and defending some of the great issues which impact everyone in some way, both through a historical analysis of the development of these ideas and a logical examination of them. His book is very accessible to non-philosophers and educated laypeople alike.

The book itself is divided into five sections. After explaining the inevitability of philosophy, because everyone, when pressed, has some ideas regarding the ultimate concerns of life, Sullivan lays out his text to address the historical rise of philosophy, the meaning of man, the making of man, the universe of man, and the universe of being. While these might sound like dated or abstract descriptors, Sullivan is really seeking to explain what it means to be human and have a particular nature (the meaning of man), what it takes for humans to flourish (the making of man), and the world in which we live in, the world of bodies and nature (the universe of man), and the realm of being which cannot be denied and has been a perennial source of wonder since man first began to philosophize. This is the world of metaphysics, the quest to understand the ultimate first causes of all reality both material and immaterial. The first philosophers in the historical record were, in fact, metaphysicians because they tried to understand all of reality, including such great questions as the intellectual nature of mankind, the nature of good, what it means to live a good life, and the source and cause of justice, mathematics, change and permanence, and the first principles which make these possible—and, finally, the ultimate question, why is there something rather than nothing? In short, Sullivan carefully helps one to understand that metaphysics—the philosophy of being—seeks to understand these ultimate “why” questions.

Sullivan, however, doe not do this in an overly technical way. When discussing the nature of man and the nature of knowledge, or how we know things, the author helps us to understand the unique gift of reason that everyone has. Besides being an animal, mankind has a power—the power of reason which in itself makes him different in kind from the rest of the animals. Reason, therefore, is the defining characteristic of human beings. We can choose whether or not we want to use our reason, and how we use it, but reason cannot be denied. Human flourishing requires us to use our reason well. After all, human beings are the only species that can reflect on their own thoughts and discover principles of truth and reality. Sullivan reminds us that human beings are not primarily material things. “In short, man is a being altogether unique as compared with the rest of the physical universe, because in knowing and judging he rises above the inexorable law and rigidity of the realm of matter” (64). Sullivan helpfully provides the metaphysical foundations for what it means to be human.

These great ideas of classical realism, the nature of man, and the ultimate metaphysical questions which have always been part of the enduring human quest are helpfully illuminated by Sullivan’s text. Although an introduction, it provides a solid foundation for further exploration. If one is interested in gaining wisdom and insight into the timeless conversations of what it means to exist as human beings and the ultimate nature of reality, this is a great book to start with.

Works Cited

Adler, Mortimer J. “The Demonstration of God’s Existence.” The Thomist, 1943, pp. 188 – 218.

Sullivan, Daniel J. An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition. TAN Books, 2009.

Intellectual History, Metaphysics, Philosophical Theology, Philosophy

Aristotle’s “Being” as The Ground for Theology

by Dave Seng

The most exact of the sciences are those which deal with first principles – Aristotle, Metaphysics, I.2.

Interestingly enough, one of the earliest writers in the Western intellectual tradition to talk of theology as a specific field or area of investigation is Aristotle. In fact, Aristotle believes that theology (a systematic pursuit of the knowledge of God) should be considered among the first principles of reality. Aristotle’s explication of theology as a part of metaphysics has interesting implications for a Christian approach to philosophical theology and the underlying question of the connection between faith and reason. If Aristotle is correct in his position, Christians should adopt it, just as Augustine believes there is much to be gained from the insights of philosophers outside the Christian faith. For example, in his book, On Christian Doctrine, Augustine tells us, “If those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said aught that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it” (737). What Augustine believes is true of Platonic philosophy can also be said of the teachings of Aristotle. Christians should not fear philosophy or shy away from learning about it because reason, correctly used, always supports the Christian faith and sound theological reflection.

In his Metaphysics, Aristotle asks some interesting questions which center around the ultimate nature of reality. He explores the nature and attributes that particular things have and seeks to understand their individual being in light of the unity of all reality (the ancient question of the one and many, again). Investigating particular things, however, can only get one so far which is why Aristotle does not stop with ontology”1 Aristotle understands that science has its own intrinsic limitations. Science is inherently limited because it can answer questions only about one particular aspect of reality. If science tries to go beyond its particular field of individual things and explore all reality in order to make sense of existence as a unified whole, it is no longer doing physical science, but metaphysics. According to Aristotle, if there is a science above and beyond the individual physical sciences, it must be the investigation of metaphysics, first philosophy, the study of being as being.

Aristotle explains why in this passage from his Metaphysics:

For one might raise the question whether first philosophy is universal, or deals with one genus, i.e., some one kind of being; for not even the mathematical sciences are all alike with a certain particular kind of thing, while universal mathematics applies alike to all. We answer that if there is no substance other than those which are formed by nature, natural science will be the first science; but if there is an immovable substance, the science of this must be prior and must be first philosophy, and universal in this way, because it is first. And it will belong to this to consider being qua being—both what it is and the attributes which belong to it qua being. (548)

Aristotle believes there must be an “immovable substance” which provides the foundation for all reality. For Aristotle, being and substance are synonymous and the Metaphysics is an attempt to discover the ultimate foundations of being (of course, ‘being’ and ‘substance’ are understood in different senses and we will get that below). If there really is such an ultimate being, then the study and knowledge of that being would be called first philosophy because knowledge of that kind of being would be truly universal and foundational. It would be the ground of all being.

Now, substance, or being, is an important category for Aristotle, and it takes some work to understand his meaning. For Aristotle, that which underlies a thing primarily is thought to be in its truest sense its substance. That is why he can say that the soul is the substance of an animal or human, and that matter is the substance of tree or rock (see his Metaphysics, book VII, chap. 3)2. Aristotle believes there must be an immovable perfect substance and first cause of all reality.

For Aristotle, it is important that theology belongs to the science of “first things” or the science which investigates the first principles and causes of reality. For Aristotle, there must be basic first principles of reality and theology must be field which devotes itself to this particular kind of study. Part of theology is to study being as being. Aristotle explains,

We are seeking the first principles and the causes of the things that are, and obviously of them qua being. For, while there is a cause of health and of good condition, and the objects of mathematics have first principles and elements and causes, and in general every science which is ratiocinative or at all involves reasoning deals with causes and principles, more or less precise, all these sciences mark off some particular being—some genus, and inquire into this, but not into being simply nor qua being, nor do they offer any discussion of the essence of the thing of which they treat. (547)

Aristotle believes that there must be a science which investigates the first principles of all reality. Other fields investigate a small portion of reality. Metaphysics and theology investigate the possibility of transcendent and divine things. If there is a God, then, that would be a significant part of the investigation, because such a being would account for reality and being as whole. Aristotle, of course, does believe in a divine being, immovable substance, a first cause of reality. In other words, Aristotle believes that the idea of God is of first importance, the first principle of reality. He considered God among the first principles of metaphysics. That is why he calls metaphysics, “theology.”

Aristotle puts a finer point on this:

For the most divine science is also most honourable; and this science alone must be in two ways, most divine. For the science which it would be most meet for God to have is a divine science, and so is any science that deals with divine objects; and this science alone has both these qualities for (1) God is thought to be among the causes of all things and to be a first principle, and (2) such a science either God alone can have, or God above all others. All the sciences, indeed, are more necessary than this, but none better (501).

Analogously, we are now in a position to see how Aristotle’s foundational ideas of metaphysics and theology are entirely reconcilable with the Western Judeo-Christian understanding of God. “Being” or “the ground of being” is the most proper name for God. We already discovered in our last post, the most important verses in all of Christian metaphysics–God’s self-revelation as the “I Am” or one-who-who-causes-to-be in Exodus 3:14 and is confirmed throughout both testaments. For example, Christ, the second member of the trinity, says “I am the light of the world” (John 9:5), and in Mark 14:62, “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” And of course, God’s self-disclosure in Revalation 1:17 “I am the first and the last.” These “I am” sayings found in the Christian Bible indicate that God is the ground of being. Dr. Mortimer Adler claims that ‘being’ used in this theological context, “becomes the richest of terms—the one which has the greatest amplitude of meaning” (101).

At this point, it is important to note that Aristotle was not always correct in his understanding of theology and God. Christians understand that God is not a distant being that can only think about himself (Aristotle believes that the divine nature was reason or thought thinking about itself). Classical Christians understand that God not only created this world but sustains it, and while transcendent, nevertheless is intimately involved with reality and his creatures. Furthermore, Aristotle’s theology has largely been outpaced by Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Aquinas, and others. But it is also important to keep in mind that Christians should have some respect and gratitude for the work of Aristotle. He did lay the overall metaphysical foundation which is still used today. Once understood, we can see how Aristotle set up the entire metaphysical foundation for theology. Aristotle understands that being can not come from non-being and that there must be something like the principle of causality—that everything that comes into being is caused, or comes into being by virtue of something outside itself—at work (much of his work is dedicated to understanding the nature of cause). Aristotle is correct about these first principles and lot more. We should remember the words of Augustine when he said that we should claim and use that which is in harmony with our faith.

Works cited

Adler, Mortimer. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 1. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1996. S.V. Being

Augustine. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 16. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1996.

Aristotle. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 7. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1996.

For Further Reading

A. E. Tayler, Aristotle (Dover, 1955).

Henry Veatch, Aristotle: A Contemporary Appreciation (Indiana University Press, 1974)

Mortimer Adler, Aristotle For Everybody: Difficult Thought Made Easy (Touchstone, 1978)

1 Ontology is the branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being (or reality). In particular, ontology is concerned with the nature of being, the kinds of things that have existence, and the properties, characteristics, and qualities of particular things. When one asks “What is the ontology of time or energy?” the question is about the properties and characteristics of time or energy. When one asks about the ontology of God, one is asking about what kind of being God is and what kind of qualities or attributes he has.

2For Aristotle, form and substance combine to make matter. He does explain, however, that ‘substance’, like ‘being’ can be discussed in different ways or senses of meaning and refer to one thing – what Aristotle calls “pros hens,” or in relation to one. As Aristotle explains, “It follows, then, that ‘substance’ has two senses, (A) the ultimate substratum, which is no longer predicated of anything else, and (B) that which, being a ‘this’, is also separable—and of this nature is the shape or form of each thing” (538). He further elaborates “For that which underlies a thing primarily is thought to be in the truest sense its substance. And in one sense matter is said to be of the nature of substratum, in another, shape, and in a third, the compound of these” (551).

Metaphysics, Ontology, Philosophical Theology

The Being of God and Christian Metaphysics

by Dave Seng

What cannot be measured by physicists does not exist in reality. – Stephen Hawking

No scientific discipline can hope to equal the seriousness of metaphysics. Philosophy can never be measured by the yardstick of the idea of science. – Martin Heidegger

One cannot escape the fact of being. Being, or existence, is the first thing we experience when we wake up. Being is encountered whenever we change the tire on a bicycle. Being is what we experience when driving our children to school, when we ask about the diameter of the sun, or inquire about the difference between perception and reality, or wonder about the kind of being that numbers have but numerals do not. We experience the significance of being whenever we encounter its first principles such as the law of noncontradiction, the principle of predictive uniformity, or the principle of causality. Try as we might, we can not escape the reality of being. Nor does it do much good to deny reality. Descartes’s doctrine of the Cogito demonstrates that one would have to exist in order to deny existence. Even if one were a complete solipsist or if even only one sentence existed in the universe, the fact of that one particular thing, mercilessly points us to the reality of being. Before we get to science, law, or economics, there is an ontological priority to being.

Metaphysics is the philosophical field that studies the ultimate ground of being. The task of the metaphysician is to explain the principles which ground all of reality and make it possible in the first place. Aristotle called metaphysics, “first philosophy” because it examines the first or most basic principles of reality. Metaphysics makes the study of being its central concern. It is not concerned with the particulars of science, law, or economics, but rather seeks to understand the first principles which make those fields possible and seeks to understand them in the light of all existence. The question of being is not one of genera or species, because being incorporates all other particulars. It is a singular question and cannot be divided into many. Science, law, or economics can give us understanding in a particular realm or field, but the metaphysician seeks to understand these things as a whole. As Martin Heidegger explains, “Every relationship to what-is thus bears witness to a knowledge of Being” (What is Metaphysics, 307). Being is the precondition for the particular sciences and yet points us back to Being. In this sense, metaphysics and the study of being point us to the wholeness of reality. The particular sciences can only provide portions of reality.

Science itself is grounded on philosophical and theological principles. One of the greatest metaphysicians and philosophers of science in the twentieth century, Alfred North Whitehead explains,

Induction presupposes metaphysics. In other words, it rests upon an antecedent rationalism. You cannot have a rational justification for your appeal to history until your metaphysics has assured you that there is a history to appeal to; and likewise your conjectures as to the future presuppose some basis of knowledge that there is a future already subjected to some determinations. – (Science and the Modern World, 156)

Since it is impossible to deny being, and given the fact that we live and move and have our being in existence, how do we understand it? Aristotle and Aquinas (among others) believe that the law of noncontradiction (nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect) is the first law of reality or being. Why is the law of noncontradiction the first principle of reality? It is impossible to deny existence and at the same time affirm it. Something either exists or it does not, being either is or is not. Given that we have the same meaning for our terms, if something does exist, then the laws of identity (a thing is what it is; a true proposition is true) and excluded middle (something either is or is not, with nothing in between; a proposition is either true or false) logically follow. The laws of logic are simply properties of being. Because the structure of reality does not change, these laws are just as true when Aristotle discovered them as they are today. In the same way, this is why the principle of uniformity and the principle of causality are true – they correspond to the structure of being. One may not have to be a Christian theist, however, to understand and accept the ultimate laws and principles of reality, although it would make it difficult to defend materialism because these principles are not of a physical or material kind.

Since the majority of metaphysicians were either theists of some sort (Xenophon, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero) or specifically Christian theists (St. Paul, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Aquinas, Dante, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Berkeley, Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, T. S. Eliot, not to mention Jesus of Nazareth), in what sense is it possible to speak of a Christian metaphysics?

Metaphysics, which explores the ultimate principles, axioms, and foundation of all reality and seeks to understand all existence in a unified whole, is not a specifically Christian endeavor. The earliest philosophers, the Pre-Socratics (Thales, Parmenides, Heraclitus among others), explored these questions usually in the context of the problem of the one and many. In addition, the use of reason, which philosophy and metaphysics depend on is not unique to Christianity. The fields of mathematics and grammar are shared by everyone. Our shared humanity and common sense give us the intelligibility of the universe, language, science, and culture. The laws of logic and structure of reality are the same for everyone at all times and places. To speak of a “Christian mathematics,” or “Christian grammar,” or “Christian engineering,” does not make much sense, using a strict definition of philosophy and metaphysics.

In a broad sense, I think it is possible, reasonable, and good to speak of a Christian metaphysics. Philosophy is not done as an abstraction, in the strict sense (simply understanding the right use of reason). It is explored by people who utilize the basic laws and principles of reality and seek to understand existence as a complete system. People choose the questions they want to explore and apply a good amount of thinking to them. That is why we can speak of Marxist philosophy, Feminist philosophy, or Post Modern philosophy in general. Different social groups engage in the great questions of humanity as well, and that is why we can talk about Muslim philosophy, Jewish philosophy, or Hindu philosophy. Perennial questions and those who are curious about them and think deeply about them often reflect their historical context. That is why it makes sense to identify Christian philosophy in the middle ages contrasted with Muslim or Jewish thought. It is why we can speak of the Christian philosophy of St. Augustine contrasted with various Roman philosophies such as Stoicism or Manicheanism. In a very general and broad sense, Christian philosophy is that philosophy which understands that reason, correctly used, is a support and handmaid to theology. Clement of Alexandria is correct in this regard–reason everywhere supports the Christian faith.

To the degree that Christian philosophy reflects truth, it will reflect truth that is common to all, based on the common sense of mankind. That is, it will take Being, or existence, as its starting point as did the first metaphysicians, the pre-Socratics. Being is absolutely undeniable. Christians take as their starting point that God is being. The definition of God as Being comes from the Scriptures. One of the most significant verses in the Bible for Christian metaphysics is Exodus 3:14 – God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.'” Another correct translation reads: “I am who causes to be” That is, God is Being in itself. It is God who causes to be. This is also the language St. Paul uses in Acts 17. He is the source and ground of all reality. God is existence itself. Jesus himself confirms this concept in Mark 14:62, when Jesus was asked whether or not he was the son of God, he said, “I am” and John 9:5 “I am the light of the world.” The “I am” of Jesus and the implication it has for Christian metaphysics is important. Being, in the absolute sense, is God. We cannot utter a sentence or think a thought without reference to reality or being. We cannot correctly write a sentence without the verb “to be.” The laws of logic (logos) come from God as the ground of Being. One implication for Christian philosophy, apologetics, and metaphysics is that we must understand that God is ontologically prior to any miracle or discussion of the deity of Christ. Why? Because it is pointless to argue from miracle unless we understand that there is a God who can do miracles. Likewise, it makes little sense to argue that Jesus is the Son of God unless we have a prior understanding of who God is. This is why the great creeds of our faith, our confessional statements, and the Lutheran Scholastics all begin with the concept of God. God’s self-disclosure to Moses means we begin with metaphysics and understand that God is the ultimate source of all reality and history. Why is Christian metaphysics important? We cannot understand what evil is unless we have a prior understanding of what good is. In the same way, we cannot understand who we are and the nature of grace and salvation without the ontological priority of God’s existence.

Next time, I’ll discuss Aristotle’s conception of metaphysics as theology (or, at least, the relationship between the two).

For further reading:

Daniel J. Sullivan, An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition, (TAN Books, 2009).

Intellectual History, Metaphysics, Philosophy

A Very Short History of Being

by Dave Seng

Descartes reduced the notion of Being through his skepticism of essences and final cause. Kant reduced the notion of Being by conflating existence with Being. Sartre got the idea of Being completely backward. Why? Because things and people have an essential nature simply because of what they are.  Deny this truth as much as you want but reality has its own intractable way of being.