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.

Metaphysics, Philosophical Theology, Uncategorized

A Few Thoughts Regarding the Principle of Causality

by Dave Seng

The principle of causality states that everything that comes into being is caused by virtue of something outside itself. However, the effect can not be greater than the cause. Let us apply this to human existence. If there is intelligence in the effect (humanity), there must be intelligence in the cause (because like produces like). But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore, there must be a cause of human intelligence that transcends the universe, a divine mind behind the physical universe.

Metaphysics, Philosophy

Plato, Final Thoughts, and Aristotle

by Dave Seng

In my recent series on Plato, we discussed his primary metaphysical ideas, how he addressed the philosophical problem of the one and the many, and what he thought the best way to view reality is. We also explored some significant problems that occur in Plato’s metaphysics. If you missed those posts, you can start here and end here. For more context about Aristotelian metaphysics, this post should be helpful.

I want to set out the general context and broad similarities between Plato and Aristotle before developing the significant differences that exist between the two thinkers. It will take another post to really highlight the differences between these philosophers and how they have shaped the conversation regarding metaphysics for the Western intellectual tradition. I plan to make that post soon.

Before we move on to Aristotle, I think it is important to understand that Plato really is a significant thinker in Western thought and it would be impossible to be genuinely educated without reading him or knowing about his ideas. Plato’s political thought, for example, is an important corrective to those who desire an unbridled democratic regime. In education, we learn from Plato that dialectic (the careful analysis of ideas) always involves critical reflection, the free exchange of ideas, and the Socratic conviction that the unexamined idea is not worth having. These are valuable and important gifts that Plato gave to Western civilization. The questions Plato raises in the Republic and all of his other dialogues are still with us today in many ways.

To get started, then, Aristotle was a student of Plato’s and studied with him for about twenty years. In many ways, Aristotle had a very high regard for his teacher and was broadly sympathetic to his views. He believed that his critiques were important correctives to Plato’s metaphysics. In many ways, Aristotle thought he was helping to improve and advance Plato’s overall philosophical project. There is a kind of Platonism, although very different at some points, in Aristotle’s work.

There are other points of contact as well. Aristotle shared Plato’s concern for the improvement of the soul. In his ethics, and in the area of knowledge, Aristotle like Plato, is very anxious to distinguish between what appears good to some people and what is really and genuinely good as both believed in a good which has eternal intrinsic value and should be pursued by all people everywhere. Further, Aristotle agreed with Plato that there are unchanging Forms or essences which represent what is the ideal good for various classes of things (qualities, relationships, properties of objects and so forth). When something is developing, growing, thinking, or acting as it should, it is good.

There are some general differences we should address before getting to more specific dissimilarities between the two philosophers. Aristotle’s conception of metaphysics demonstrates a different approach than Plato’s. It is important to keep in mind, however, that Plato never systematized his thought in the way Aristotle did. The difference in approach between Plato and Aristotle has interesting and significant ramifications for intellectual history. Aristotle’s method is much more systematic in nature and scope. He is analytic, descriptive, and demonstrates a love for cataloging and ordering ideas and things. Aristotle’s work has the feel of a disinterested scientist as he was intensely focused on classifying things, defining their important concepts and properties, and setting it all in proper order. In modern terms, it is not too far off to say that Aristotle was the first Analytic philosopher (due to his careful focus on language and logic) and Plato could be considered the first of the Continental philosophers (with his impulse for difficult narrative and language). Readers of Aristotle, however, will have no problem at getting at his main themes while Plato’s structure is often difficult to discern.

In future posts, we will discover how Aristotle’s conceptual framework of reality avoided Plato’s inherent Gnosticism. It is no surprise that when Socrates was to be executed, he thanked his executioners. What could be better, for one who believed that the body is the prison house of the soul, than to be released from a physical body? For the Platonist, the body just gets in the way of things. It prevents true disembodied union with the Good. For Plato, Plotinus, and the Platonic tradition generally, the goal of the individual is to escape the physical world of becoming, time, and instability of which the physical body is a part. Death and disembodiment are to be welcomed. On the other hand, Aristotle’s view that all things are made of a composition of form and matter—what has become known as hylomorphism (the view that all natural things require for their existence both passive “stuff” and an active, determining essence)—escapes the problem of Gnosticism.

Metaphysics simply means “after physics” it is a sub-field of philosophy which is interested in the principles, laws, and axioms which make all other sciences possible.

Aristotle believed that metaphysics is a science in a broad or general sense. In German, the word Wissenschaft refers to any theoretical study. In this sense, theology is a science, the study of ethical theory is a science, and the study of political thought is a science. Any theoretical study is a science and that is the way Aristotle approaches metaphysics.

But he distinguishes between particular sciences and what he calls “first wisdom,” “first philosophy” or “first principles,” what he calls the proper areas of focus for metaphysics.1 For Aristotle, metaphysics is the study of “being as being” in the most general sense. Metaphysics is the science of sciences. It is the overarching science of all the sciences. The most general of all the sciences. Now, particular sciences, are concerned with the various principles that are at work in a particular area of things and in different kinds of things. And it is Aristotle who introduces classification in terms of species and family and so forth. “First Philosophy” according to Aristotle, is the “science of sciences” or the science of all being and reality. It is the study of the universe and its basic properties that are not empirical. There are sciences having to do with animals, sciences having to do with plants, there are sciences having to do with heavenly bodies and their movements, sciences having to do with all sorts of things. All of the things that the physical sciences are about are beings. They are all particular sciences about specific things.

When it comes to metaphysics, however, Aristotle is concerned with what makes it all possible in the first place. Metaphysics is the investigation of “being as being” or being in the most general and richest sense. He wants us to think about the most universal principles and questions of reality. Why is there something rather than nothing? What makes unity out of the diversity we see all around us? These are the great metaphysical questions of being.

For Aristotle, then, metaphysics is the science which supplies the knowledge and foundation for which all other fields are grounded. The science of metaphysics applies non-empirical truths to the world around us by developing common-sense reasoning through studying the nature of existing things and developing philosophical principles from them. Ultimately, the study of metaphysics is concerned with foundational first principles such as the laws of logic, the law of noncontradiction, the principle of causality, the principle of predictive uniformity, and the principle that an effect can not be greater than its cause, an event can not precede itself, and other first principles of reality. What is to be … and to become? What is being itself? What does it mean to exist and stand out of nothingness? Now those are questions for the science of sciences, the science of being, the first wisdom we call metaphysics.

1It is true that Aristotle never used the term “metaphysics” in his work. He used the term “first philosophy,” “first wisdom” or “first principles” which marked out the field of metaphysics. His work entitled Metaphysics was a title given to a collection of works that went beyond physics by an early editor. Nonetheless, his work clearly laid the foundation for what we now think of as metaphysics as the primary field of philosophy and that which has to do with the ultimate principles of reality. I will use the term “first philosophy” for his understanding of metaphysics.

For those who want to dig more deeply into the important ideas that Aristotle gave us, here are some great resources:

A. E. Taylor, Aristotle

Mortimer J. Adler, Aristotle: Difficult Thought Made Easy

Henry B. Veatch, Aristotle: A Contemporary Appreciation