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).

Philosophical Theology, Theology, Uncategorized

St. Augustine on Death and Confession of Christ

by Dave Seng

For no sooner do we begin to live in this dying body, than we begin to move ceaselessly towards death. — St. Augustine

Maybe it is because we are in the season of the year in which dark and deathly images prevail in our neighborhood, or perhaps it could be the fact that my beautiful wife works in the area of providing social services to the elderly and dying, or it just could be that I never really came out of my existential phase, but whatever the reason, I have recently been thinking about the philosophical and theological aspects of death.

St. Augustine, one of the greatest intellectual figures in Western Christianity, thought and wrote a lot about different aspects of death. In the following chapter, St. Augustine addresses the question, what happens to those who die unbaptized and yet confess Christ as Lord and Savior? That might sound like an odd question to those belonging to American evangelicalism, but as a confessional Lutheran and classical Christian, baptism is the central sacrament which works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare (Small Catechism, IV). So, although the concern which St. Augustine addresses, might sound odd to those adjacent to (though perhaps not completely outside of) classical Confessional Christianity, it really was of first importance to the early church.

St. Augustine restates the theme of this chapter several times. It is the comfort in which Christians have in the face of death. “Precious, therefore, is the death of the saints, to whom the grace of Christ has been applied with such gracious effects, that they do not hesitate to meet death themselves, if so be they might meet Him.” Christians, as justified sinners, receive the victory Christ achieved over death. That is why we can not separate our doctrine of justification from a correct understanding of death. The Gospel is simply this—Christ who did not need to die, since he was sinless, entered into death (Phil. 2:7, I Cor. 5:7, I Pet. 3:18), died “for us” (Mark 10:45, Rom. 5:6, I Thess. 5:10, Heb. 2:9) and conquered the devil and death and rose with power over them. Christians receive the gracious imputation of Christ’s righteousness to their account by genuine confession or by baptism. Either way, the sinner is declared right before God because of Christ’s righteousness. This is why justification is the gospel and the reason Christians do not have to fear death.

Of course, St. Augustine has a lot more to say about death, and what it means to the Christian. There is much more to say about this topic. Nonetheless, I found this chapter particularly insightful. Enjoy it and I encourage everyone to read the rest of St. Augustine’s City of God.

___________________________________________________________

St. Augustine, City of God, Book XIII, Chap. 7.

Of the death which the unbaptized suffer for the confession of Christ.

For whatever unbaptized [literally “unregenerate”] persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of baptism. For He who said, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, (John 3:5) made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven; (Matthew 10:32) and in another place, Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it. (Matthew 16:25) And this explains the verse, Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. For what is more precious than a death by which a man’s sins are all forgiven, and his merits increased an hundredfold? For those who have been baptized when they could no longer escape death, and have departed this life with all their sins blotted out have not equal merit with those who did not defer death, though it was in their power to do so, but preferred to end their life by confessing Christ, rather than by denying Him to secure an opportunity of baptism. And even had they denied Him under pressure of the fear of death, this too would have been forgiven them in that baptism, in which was remitted even the enormous wickedness of those who had slain Christ. But how abundant in these men must have been the grace of the Spirit, who breathes where He lists, seeing that they so dearly loved Christ as to be unable to deny Him even in so sore an emergency, and with so sure a hope of pardon! Precious, therefore, is the death of the saints, to whom the grace of Christ has been applied with such gracious effects, that they do not hesitate to meet death themselves, if so be they might meet Him. And precious is it, also, because it has proved that what was originally ordained for the punishment of the sinner, has been used for the production of a richer harvest of righteousness. But not on this account should we look upon death as a good thing, for it is diverted to such useful purposes, not by any virtue of its own, but by the divine interference. Death was originally proposed as an object of dread, that sin might not be committed; now it must be undergone that sin may not be committed, or, if committed, be remitted, and the award of righteousness bestowed on him whose victory has earned it.

Philosophy, Uncategorized

Imagine

by Dave Seng

Imagine if …

People embraced the law of identity, or better, the law of non-contradiction.

People embraced the principle of causality.

People embraced the intelligibility of being and the idea that truth corresponds to reality.

People embraced the fact that reality is the determinate of order, not their theories about it.

People embraced the first principles of reality and the consequences that would have for society and culture?

Go ahead, imagine that. It’s easy if you try.

Intellectual History, Metaphysics, Philosophy

Aristotle’s Actual Answer to Plato

by Dave Seng

Science can never dispense with Reality in the metaphysical sense of the term. — Max Planck

In many introductions to philosophy courses and textbooks, it is typical, to begin with Plato and Aristotle. The textbook or instructor always begins by comparing and contrasting the differences each thinker had regarding the ultimate nature of reality. This is done for good reason and is important for a foundational understanding of philosophy itself. I have covered these differences in my writings (here and here). It is correct to say that Plato believed in an ultimate transcendent realm of the forms (or universals, or Ideas), while Aristotle, his student, stressed the concrete nature of reality itself and the fact that forms and essences are in the objects themselves. In this sense, concrete means “grown together” or the “coalition of particular things”. For Aristotle, all physical objects have an essential nature to them, which makes them the kind of thing they are. “How else would we understand what a horse is without the nature of the horse inherently existing in the horse itself”? Aristotle would ask. A dead horse is a corpse, not a horse. Horseness is the formal constituent element of the horse just as humanity is the shared essential nature of President Trump, Queen Elizabeth II, and Dave Mustaine. Of course, essence is not limited to living things but that is a topic for another post. The broader point is that being is common to all things and I think that is Aristotle’s real answer to Plato. It is Plato’s misplaced universal. It is an answer which goes beyond the common textbook discussion.

Aristotle’s actual answer to Plato rests in a passage from his Metaphysics, Book VI, chapter 1. In his quest for the universal and the unity of being, Aristotle explains that the concept of being goes beyond mere genus and nature:

One might raise the question whether first philosophy is in any way universal or is concerned merely with some genus and some one nature. In the case of the mathematical sciences, their objects are not all treated in the same manner; geometry and astronomy are concerned with some nature, but universal mathematics to all. Accordingly, if there were no substances other than those formed by nature, physics would be the first science; but if there is an immovable substance, this would be prior, and the science of it would be first philosophy and would be universal in this manner, in view of the fact that it is first. And it would be the concern of this science, too, to investigate being qua being, both what being is and what belongs to it qua being.

Aristotle was right. All the immediate objects of human cognition are sensible things. In response to Plato’s notion of transcendent forms, Aristotle would reply that being itself is universal because it is common to all things. Being is common to all because it can be applied to any act of existing (in Aristotelian terms, “to be in act” means to exist). Additionally, to exist means to stand out of nothing, and to exist means to have being. Being is the universal that participates in all concretely existing things. That there is a metaphysical reality uniting all physical things should not be a surprise to modern readers. The German physicist and mathematician Max Planck said something very similar, “Metaphysical reality does not stand spatially behind what is given in experience, but lies fully within it” (Planck, Scientific Autobiography, 98, italics in the original). Planck was certainly a kindred spirit with Aristotle.

Aristotle teaches us, in response to Plato, that since metaphysics studies beings insofar as they are beings, the science of first philosophy will always have being in the concrete as its subject matter. The true universal of being in itself, understood in the concrete sense, is common to all. This, at least in part, is what unites the one with the many, and one of the most significant insights Aristotle shared with the Western intellectual tradition. Aristotle brings us the missing piece of reality which Plato missed. The study of being as being is the true science of metaphysics.