Basic Greek philosophy and atheism
Friends,
I am sure most people here on E.M.M. are not aware of basic distinctions in the nature of reality given us more than 2000 years ago by certain logical Greeks. Plato and Aristotle have been at odds for a very long time, metaphorically, but it seems that lately the noble debate has ended. How could it continue, given the widespread adoption of popular, simplistic atheistic humanism? It has not concluded because one side has triumphed; indeed, it seems to have stopped because no one cares anymore. In a sense, I suppose no one cares anymore because Plato won. By that I mean: Kant so downplayed our idea of perception in time and space that it has been put aside. The senses are derided as deceptive, illusory windows into truth. As a result of this neo-platonic idea, the grand old argument seems to have stalled... it really shouldn't have. Aristotle has been ignored once more!
How many of you who deny the existence of God bother to learn basic distinctions in human thought? What of existence, essence, form, matter, subject, object, nature, substance, accident? What of formal, material, efficient, and final causes? Do these not even matter anymore? Why is all argument against the existence of God reduced to three points of debate:
1. All things that exist can be perceived. We cannot perceive God; therefore, God does not exist. - This argument destroys all notions of abstract logic and makes the human being into a robot of the senses, a slave to 'science', the God of the godless. This is the "I can't see God so He musn't exist" argument. There are more complicated versions, but that is the basis of it.
2. Followers of religion X claim to bring the 'good news' of religion X. Followers of religion X are not uniformly good in of themselves, despite their message; therefore, religion X is inconsistent and untrue. - This is an excuse that has no relation whatever to whether religion X is actually true. A thing true in form may be warped in matter by corrupt actors, sadly. Its essence may not change, though its existence is obscured by bad people. What's more: a religion isn't false just because its members don't adhere to its tenets.
3. Religion X seems very ridiculous, so it couldn't possibly be true. - This argument ignores the fact that the very ridiculous event called the Big Bang occurred without any identifiable material, efficient, formal, or final cause. It just happened. Derp. Perhaps if the atheists who say this had any knowledge of Greek philosophy, they would actually be able to defend the proposition.
---
FOR ONE, a thing exists and it has an essence. These two are treated as separate by Plato, and as intimately connected by Aristotle. The existence is its actual fact in reality; the essence is very nature. A tree exists as an object in of itself, and has a nature. Its existence is its physical root, and its nature is the set of qualities that allow it to do treeish things, such as photosynthesise. Plato says that a thing/object may exist necessarily without an essential nature, and Aristotle says a thing cannot exist without an essential nature. Platonism says that there is one essential "treeish" essence, for example, that has always been a total concept even without trees actually existing. Aristotelianism says that "treeishness" is only a quality that exists in trees which already exist.
There's a huge difference here. If Plato's notion is true, then things here do not contain an essential core, but receive their nature from an abstract non-world of mere ideas, and so objects here aren't fully themselves; they aren't fully real, and we cannot perceive their totality with our mere senses. If Aristotle's notion is true, then things here each contain an essential core, and could not exist separate from their essence; things are fully themselves, and are themselves with their essence intact until they are destroyed or corrupted into something else (i.e. a tree is burned, so its treeish essence is gone and it obtains the essence of ashes; the nature of cinders). Plato says an essence cannot change, because it is locked in the aether, but Aristotle says essences shift as reality shifts. Essence is in the very center of existence, anyway.
Plato says all things receive their natural essence from the "perfect" realm of essences, but that they're basically empty shells down here. This perfect realm is the 'world' of ideas without any form or matter, just totally essential concepts. They have no form, no matter, no appearances; they are simply floating intellectual notions and essences. It is very odd indeed, from Aristotle's perspective.
Aristotle says that all trees receive their natural essence, indeed, from one single "treeish essence", by which they can all photosynthesise and do what they do; however, he says that even if there was some "original tree" which had the very first treeish essence, its essence was absolutely integral to its existence. If trees did not exist, the essence that is "tree" would not exist. This is very odd indeed, from Plato's perspective.
The general trend of Platonism is to reject this world and embrace the spirit-world of pure essences, because everything here is just an illusion or a shell. Our senses mean nothing, and can do nothing. We receive all our knowledge from innate concepts in the human mind, or from revelation from the essence-realm.
The general trend of Aristotle is to accept this world, and embrace all reality as one contiguous whole of essence intimately linked with existence. Our senses are the very window out of which we see the entire universe, true reality, and ultimate existence. When we see that tree, we see its whole and entire existence, not just a shell containing or hosting essence separate from itself.
By the five senses, we do three things: 1. we perceive the accidents (appearances and qualities) of a given object/thing, 2. we store the thing in our intellectual faculty, and 3. we use the reason (a power of the intellectual faculty) to sort the various accidents from one another, in order to understand the object properly and wholly. Once the various sensible accidents are perceived, sorted, and understood, the whole object perceived is said to be totally understood.
A thing cannot exist without an inherent essence. To receive its true existence from some abstract realm of essences and formless concepts is to make a sort of dualism. Platonism makes the entirety of truth separate into existence, and essence. Aristotelianism makes the entirety of truth one absolutely unbroken whole, and even "Heaven" is connected with Earth.
Importantly, it must be said that the five senses are not everything. We are able to think about "good", "evil", "happiness", and "sadness". These things are experienced by all sentient beings, and have certain qualities that make them impossible to miss. There may even be an essence of happiness, but it only exists in the happy individual, despite being absolutely universal. Those who deny that there are objective states called "happiness" (to which joy pertains) and "sorrow" (to which despair pertains) are following a sophistry which is as fallacious and opposed to true "love of wisdom" (philosophy) as the child is opposed to dental work. Both are really quite necessary, in the end.
Now, the lack of real investigation into ancient human thought causes very perfidious things to happen in the world of philosophy. Simplicity breeds contempt of truth. Today, the relationship between truth and God is never taken into higher realms than silly anthropomorphic abstractions: devoid of any value, exposition, and substance, but reading more like argumentum ad hominem, such as the "old man with the beard" or the "sky wizard". These are images produced by the human imaginative faculty, and are totally separate from totally abstract ideas produced by the intellectual faculty.
The problem with talking about human knowledge is that we have the very lowest order of intelligence. Our entire intellectual faculty is based on perceiving reality through some very weak senses. We see through a glass, darkly, or through a window, steamily. Plato says we see only a curtain against the glass or window, and we have to gauge what's behind it by staring at the movement of the curtain but never actually ripping the curtain aside. Aristotle says there isn't even a curtain, but just a plain window with fog on it. Nothing can be perceived properly in the former, but in the latter we can at least get an idea of what's out there. For Plato, we see only the shadows cast by the fire; for Aristotle, we see the forms obscured and blurred by the flame behind them.
WE KNOW that atheists who deny the existence of a single all-creating entity are ignorant of Existence and Essence. God is the being whose one essence is said to be incapable of shifting, for God's essence alone IS to exist. Whereas a tree's essence may potentially turn into the "ash" essence by the use of fire, there is no act or essence that can possibly reduce God's essence to another sort of essence. This is just a logical step, because everything we can observe and perceive in this Universe has an essence that can potentially be another essence; so, there must be something unobserved or unperceived that is not potentially anything other than ITSELF. This thing is God, because its own nature is so perfect that it exists by its own essence, and is essential by its own existence.
Atheists deny who deny God's existence must deny the existence of ... existence. There simply must be an entity whose very own essence is to exist, and all things must proceed from that essentially-existing entity, or else there simply wouldn't be anything extant. Essence pervades the entire universe, just as existence. You cannot say we don't exist. You cannot say we don't have an essence. What causes this essence? What causes this existence? The essence of all observed and perceived things here in the Universe is to perish or to change, so there must be an unobserved, unperceived thing whose essence is not to perish, and not to change. It's a foundation-stone, if you will.
God's existence is His essence. God's essence is to exist. This can be said of no other thing. To deny God's existence is to deny the existence of existence. To deny God's existence is to deny the very core of reality. It's illogical, unreasonable, and unscientific (that is: opposed to wisdom; scientia). Atheism is actually perfidious, in that it says we must take no steps of faith; however by denying God's existence (given Plato and Aristotle), they make an even greater leap of faith than any believer. The atheist denies God just as proudly as he believes in ultimate existence. How incongruous!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Tuor
Please forgive me...
.
... I loved being a homosexual and having homosexual thoughts and lusts long before I believed in God.
