Book Reviews, Resources, Uncategorized

Review: An Introduction to Ethics, Brian Besong

by Dave Seng

Brian Besong. An Introduction to Ethics: A Natural Law Approach, Cascade Books, 2018. (Paperback ISBN:9781498298896); $30.00

The light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the divine light. – St. Thomas Aquinas

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. – Aristotle

Although it has largely been forgotten, natural law theory has played a primary role in the Western intellectual tradition for at least two thousand years. In his book, An Introduction to Ethics: A Natural Law Approach, (AIE), ethicist Brian Besong presents and defends a very accessible and easy to understand formulation of natural law. AIE itself is written as an introductory text for a college-level ethics course, but it is also a very nice resource for the general reader just wanting a basic understanding of ethics and the main ideas of the natural law tradition. Ethics, of course, is the branch of philosophy that seeks to explain how things like good and evil are applied to personal actions, decisions, and relationships, including one’s interaction in their community and society at large. Our moral values are what help us to determine right and wrong human behavior. Natural law is simply the ethical theory that helps us understand how general and universal rules of conduct, both at the individual and social levels, are derived from natural reason, and the world itself, which is conceived as rationally ordered.

Before we get to the review, I want to make a few comments about the natural law tradition and then posit three key concepts of natural law, which are important as they relate to AIE. As noted, natural law is an important idea in Western thought. It is important because it directly relates to human flourishing. In intellectual history, it can be seen in Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics (Epictetus, Seneca, Aurelius, and others), it was incorporated into Christian philosophical reflection, and is starting to see a re-discovery today. It is not necessary to be a Christian, or theist, in order to hold to natural law theory. Three key concepts of the classical natural law tradition are:

1. Human beings have an essential nature established by God, who designed humans to live and flourish in prescribed ways (philosophers from Aristotle to the Stoics have largely developed this concept).

2. Even without knowledge of God, reason as the essence of our nature, can discover the laws that are necessary for human flourishing (Aristotle and Aquinas primarily develop this line of thought).

3. The natural laws are universal and unchangeable, and they should be used to judge individual societies and their positive laws. Positive (or actual) laws of societies that are not in line with the natural law are not truly laws but counterfeits (mostly from the Stoics).

As we will soon discover, AIE does an excellent job explicating these key ideas. Besong’s book has two goals, (first) it seeks to lay out the central concepts of ethics, and why it is important to think about right and wrong human conduct, and (second), apply natural law thinking to the important questions and issues that arise from ethical concerns. As an introduction to ethics, Besong provides excellent illustrations which, I think, naturally resonate with many students today. The book succeeds in meeting these goals, which is not an easy accomplishment.

AIE has these six basic chapters—Foundational Issues, The Pursuit of Happiness, Good and Evil, Moral Responsibility, Rights and Duties, and Virtues and Vices. The book itself comes to 232 pages including two appendices (one on how to read philosophy, the other answering objections to natural law theory), a bibliography, and an index. Unfortunately, however, the book is poorly indexed as key terms are missing (this is probably due to the publisher, not the author, as a good index is expensive to produce). Each chapter has comprehension questions that the reader or student can use to better understand the content of the material. In addition, clear definitions of key terms are always given.

One of the first things that Besong discusses in his chapter, Foundational Issues, is that is it impossible to be a moral relativist. The reason for this is straightforward, if one were to hold moral relativism as objectively true, he or she would then be making an objectively true statement, and hold to an objective position, not a relative or subjective one. Further, our most basic intuitions of right and wrong are rarely incorrect. Who would really argue that torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable, or kindness to others is morally wrong? On occasion, our basic moral intuitions could be wrong (though maybe more rare at the most fundamental levels), they are generally corrected with careful reflection and thoughtfulness. After all, we have the ability to think rationally and carefully about which moral intuitions are correct and how they relate to one another. Human beings do have the capacity for rationality. Besong does a great job pointing out that moral laws have objective validity. The human faculty of reason is an important one.

Throughout the book, the importance of human rationality is highlighted. It is the unique capacity for rationality that makes humans distinct from other animals. Squirrels, kangaroos, and cephalopods do not rationally reflect on their actions or create institutions that benefit their species. Peregrine falcons do not build hospitals, law courts, libraries, or seek an education that promotes their well-being. As Besong points out, when humans reason well, they are using their characteristically highest function (51).

The chapter on happiness is significant and demonstrates the primary motivation in human action and the foundation for natural law. In addition to the natural use of reason in ethical reflection, it is also the drive for human happiness which is the chief concern for the natural law tradition and the key factor in human flourishing. Both Aristotle and Aquinas believe that everyone acts for some good which provides happiness. It is irrational to act towards one’s misery and dissatisfaction. Natural law explains that happiness is that which ultimately supplies human flourishing. When someone makes rational choices for a good end, happiness is the result, just as a well-governed, rational, and just state provides happiness and flourishing for its citizens. The human drive for happiness is easily discovered. When you ask someone why they do what they do, you will find that happiness is the chief end of human activity. Perhaps you have questioned someone, “why do you work so hard?” They might say, so I can meet the needs of my family and buy things.” But when you drill down and ask, “why do you want to meet your family’s needs or buy things?”, you will discover that happiness is the ultimate pursuit. Whatever we do, it is with the end of some form of happiness in mind.

Natural law is an important ethical theory. Brian Besong has done a service by bringing an introductory text to the student and general reader. As noted, one does not have to hold to Christian theism in order to believe in natural law–Aristotle and the Stoics were not Christians while Aquinas was. The important contribution of Western natural law thinking is a compelling and significant view of reality itself. It is the view that social and political values are built into human nature and reality itself. This is the important metaphysical foundation of ethics. Ethical values are properties of being and can be rationally discovered, expressed, and applied.

Intellectual History, Metaphysics, Philosophy

Aristotle and Augustine on Being, Truth, and Logic: Part Three

by Dave Seng

Part one can be found here.

Part two can be found here.

The law of noncontradiction holds primacy in another way as well. Aristotle believes that the law of noncontradiction is self-evident and it must be assumed before any other study, or science can get started:

For a principle which every one must know who knows anything that is, is not a hypothesis; and that which every one must know who who knows anything, he must already have when he comes to a special study. Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say. It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect. (524)

The law of noncontradiction and the resulting axioms of logic are self-evident, just as being is the first thing one experiences when waking up in the morning, and the first thing a baby experiences when he or she is born. Being is undeniable, and so are the laws of logic. (Even Descartes, with his systematic doubt, ultimately concludes that being can be known.) Aristotle believes that the law of noncontradiction “is the most certain” principle one can know and, in fact, is prior and foundational to all other knowledge and learning. It is important to note, however, that the basic law of noncontradiction cannot itself be proven. Because it is self-evident, one must have to assume the law of noncontradiction in order to deny it. In other words, one must rely on the law of noncontradiction if one were to try to disprove it, which is ultimately circular and self-refuting. The basic principles of logic are among the transcendent first principles of reality. Being cannot both be, and not be at the same time and same way. Further, Aristotle claims that there must be some basic first principles of reality in order to prevent an endless regression of explanations that ultimately lead nowhere. He believes it was the mark of an uneducated person to not understand this point:

But we have now posited that it is impossible for anything at the same time to be and not to be, and by this means have shown that this is the most indisputable of all principles. Some indeed demand that even this shall be demonstrated, but this they do through want of education, for not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education. For it is impossible that there should be demonstration of absolutely everything (there would be an infinite regress, so that there would still be no demonstration); but if there are things of which one should not demand demonstration, these persons could not say what principle they maintain to be more self-evident that the present one. (525)

The laws of logic are important when one gives reasons why something is true or not, or demonstrating why something is, or is not the case. They simply provide the rational grounds for avoiding definitional equivocation1. These laws are foundational when trying to understand being because they indicate what can or cannot be, (they also help us understand what we can or cannot know). They are transcendent in nature because they are part of being. They indicate truths which all things participate in if they exist at all. Nothing whatsoever can both be, and not be in the same way and same relationship. In a very real way, the laws of logic are part of being and help one to know and understand truth, because they are fundamental properties of reality. Aristotle refers to the laws of logic in many places, primarily in his works of logic, called the Organon (Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Topics, and On Sophistical Refutations), and in his Metaphysics. Regarding the laws of logic themselves, he says that, “these truths hold good for everything that is, and not for some special genus apart from others” (524). In other words, the truths of logic reflect the order of being as a whole and hold for everyone regardless of time, place, or perspective.

Not surprisingly, Augustine takes a more theological position regarding the laws of logic and applies the laws of logic to science, ethics, and the existence of God2. Although Augustine rarely explicates the laws of logic directly, he does believe that logical reasoning deals with the question of how truth may be discovered (319). He thinks that the Greek philosophers who first discovered the laws of logic are essentially correct because they “made efforts to discover the hidden laws of nature and the right and wrong in ethics, and in dialectic what was consequent according to the rules of logic and what was inconsequent and erroneous” (191). He also believes that philosophy has three branches or areas of investigation and that logic is one of these fields of study: “…philosophers have aimed at a threefold division of science, or rather, were enabled to see that there was a threefold division (for they did not invent, but only discovered it), of which one part is physical, another logical, the third ethical” (389). The natural (physical), rational (logical), and moral elements of philosophy have being in focus in some way, just as the field of ethics has to do with the discovery of right or wrong actions, the possibility of natural law, and the being of moral life—questions about whether or not humans are moral beings, rests upon metaphysical assumptions of freedom, the will, and what it means to be human and to flourish in this world. (Although it is beyond the scope of this essay, both Aristotle and Augustine believe that there are metaphysical foundations to the science of ethics.) For Augustine, however, the ultimate ground of all reason, logic, and ethics is found in the existence of God and is in agreement with the ancient Jewish understanding of God as the “ground of being3.” Augustine explains this position when he says, “And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God” (734). Augustine believes that logic is a natural part of reality.

Interestingly, Augustine applies the law of noncontradiction when it comes to the nature and existence of the universe. He believes that the universe did not create itself:

Earth and the heavens also proclaim that they did not create themselves. “We exist,” they tell us, “because we were made. And this is proof that we did not make ourselves. For to make ourselves, we should have had to exist before existence began.” And the fact that they plainly do exist is the voice which proclaims this truth. (114)

Augustine is simply making the point that something cannot exist before it exists. If something did exist before it existed, it would have to be, and not be at the same time and same way, which is impossible according to the law of noncontradiction. In order for the universe to create itself, it must be before it is. Augustine thinks that self-creation violates the law of noncontradiction. But in a larger perspective, Augustine agrees with Aristotle, that the principles of logic are properties of being because they exist eternally in the “reason of things” (734). For each thinker, at least one way being corresponds to reality is through the laws of logic, the first metaphysical principles of existence.

Why does one find so much overlap and commonality between Augustine and Aristotle? It is important to note that Augustine does not always follow Plato exactly. (I have written more about how Augustine modifies his Platonism, here.) As with Plotinus, he makes changes to his Platonism to better take account of reality. Augustine modifies his Platonism by placing forms or essences in the particular things—at least when it comes to describing change in physical reality4. Augustine believes that the form must be in the material object itself in order to account for change. “There can be no change where there is no form” (129), according to Augustine. This parallels exactly what Aristotle holds about nature and reality in general. Augustine realizes that without the potentiality of form, something can not change. If the acorn does not have the form and potency of the oak tree, it will not grow into a majestic oak tree. Augustine, then, has a higher respect for physical reality than Plato. That is why he can conclude that logic and truth are properties of being which reside in the nature of things. Aristotle, of course, agrees with this line of thought. Plato, however, would disagree due to his strict emphasis on the Forms and his “divided line” of reality5.

Questions of being, truth, and correct reasoning underlie humanity’s most important concerns and conversations about the meaning of reality and one’s place within it. Without the ability to reason correctly, investigations and discussions of perennial questions would lapse into conceptual incoherence, and it would be impossible to discuss anything in a meaningful way. In different ways, both Aristotle and Augustine help one to realize that truth is essential when it comes to understanding reality, and logic is a helpful tool that allows one to discover these most basic and ultimate concerns.

Works Cited

Aristotle. The Works of Aristotle: 1. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 7. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Augustine. The Confessions, The City of God, On Christian Doctrine. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 16. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

1 Although there are places when much common ground is possible in different positions, the laws of logic simply point out that only one thing or concept can be what it is at a time. If equivocation occurs the argument or discussion looses conceptual coherence and language becomes meaningless.

2Aristotle, however, believes that theology is a branch of metaphyics, see his Metaphysics, book I.3 and book VI.1.

3God’s self-disclosure to Moses in Exodus 3:14, “I am who I am” is generally understood to mean that God is the ground of all being. Another valid translation of the verse is “I am who causes to be.”

4While it is true that Augustine, as a Platonist, places the ultimate forms in the mind of God, in several places he has to modify his Platonism to account for physical change, which Plato is unable to do. For the brevity of this essay, I can only provide one example from Augustine here.

5Plato’s “divided line” is in book six of the Republic, Vol. 6, pages 386 – 387.

Intellectual History, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Uncategorized

Aristotle and Augustine on Being, Truth, and Logic: Part Two

by Dave Seng

Note: The first part of the series can be found here. In that post, we explored some possible overlap between Aristotle and Augustine and the nature of being. In this post, we will continue the conversation as it relates to being and truth.

The first theme one comes to is the relationship between truth and being—an examination of the connection between what is, with what is true1. Aristotle and Augustine ground the truth of things in being, or reality. For example, Aristotle in his Metaphysics makes the connection between that which is and that which is true:

It is right also that philosophy should be called knowledge of the truth. For the end of theoretical knowledge is truth, while that of practical knowledge is action (for even if they consider how things are, practical men do not study the eternal, but what is relative and in the present). Now we do not know a truth without its cause; and a thing has a quality in a higher degree than other things if in virtue of it the similar quality belongs to the other things as well (e.g. fire is the hottest of things; for it is the cause of the heat of all other things); so that that which causes derivative truths to be true is most true. Hence the principles of eternal things must be always most true (for they are not merely sometimes true, nor is there any cause of their being, but they themselves are the cause of the being of other things), so that as each thing is in respect of being, so is it in respect of truth. (512)

Aristotle believes there is a universal and transcendent quality to truth and many different things can participate in truth or be called true. Aristotle indicates that universal things, like being or truth, are in some sense eternal, or transcendent, because they are what particular things, which are temporal and always changing, participate in. If there is something that demonstrates truth, there must be a higher source which is the cause of that truth, because Aristotle is interested in investigating the primary causes of things. Similarly, in prayer-like fashion to God, Augustine writes in his Confessions:

I looked at other things too and saw that they owe their being to you. I saw that all finite things are in you, not as though you were a place that contained them, but in a different manner. They are in you because you hold all things in your truth as though they were in your hand, and all things are true in so far as they have being. Falsehood is nothing but the supposed existence of something which has no being. (63, Emphasis added)

At least two things are important in these passages. First, each thinker holds that the being of things are true in as much as they correspond to reality. And second, it is the eternal or transcendent things which provide the foundation for the things of this world. What is it these philosophers are trying to explain? One of the central concerns for the metaphysician is to get the terms “is” and “is not” correct. If one does not get the nature of reality right, she runs the risk of getting everything else about it wrong. Augustine reminds readers that things are true in so far as they have being, and false if they have no being. And Aristotle makes a similar claim when he says that as each thing is in respect of being, so is it in respect to truth. Aristotle puts a finer point on this concept when he says, “Again, ‘being’ and ‘is’ mean that a statement is true, ‘not being’ that it is not true but false” (538). Augustine and Aristotle are telling readers that a thing (or perhaps concept) must correspond to reality in order to be considered true. If something has no being or actuality in reality, it is not true. (For Aristotle, that which is “act” or “in act” is that which has existence or participates in existence.) This is simply a restatement of the correspondence theory of truth—truth is that which corresponds to reality. Truth is grounded in being or reality. Each thinker agrees with this. But do they have good reasons that support this position? Aristotle and Augustine would point to the laws of logic for support.

Aristotle and Augustine believe the basic laws of logic reflect the nature of reality (or being). The foundational laws of logic are generally considered to be the law of noncontradiction (nothing can both be, and not be at the same time and same way), the law of identity (a thing is what it is, a true proposition is true), and the law of excluded middle (something either is or is not, with nothing in between; a proposition is either true or false). The correspondence theory of truth depends on the laws of logic because they are basic properties of being. In addition, the laws of logic are considered among the first principles of being because all other laws and principles follow from them. The law of excluded middle and the law of identity follow from the law of noncontradiction. The law of noncontradiction holds primacy because it is a judgment between being and nonbeing, which is one of contradiction because one must first discern whether something is or is not. Augustine restates the law of noncontradiction and places it as the first principle of logic when he says, “For nonentity is contrary of that which is” (397). A judgment between compatibility or contradiction must first be made between what is and what is not. Speaking about the law of noncontradiction, Aristotle says that it is “naturally the starting-point even for all the other axioms” (525). Identity and excluded middle logically follow.

Next time, well look at another way the law of noncontradiction has primacy and Augustine’s use of it.

1A full conversation about the nature and metaphysics of truth is beyond the scope of this essay. Here, the primary focus is on descriptive truth—truth as an agreement between human cognition and external reality.

Works Cited

Aristotle. The Works of Aristotle: 1. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 7. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

Augustine. The Confessions, The City of God, On Christian Doctrine. Great Books of the Western World. Vol. 16. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1999.

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).