Aristotle Refutes Plato
Aristotle refutes Plato's Theory of Ideas
on three basic grounds: that the
existence of Ideas contradicts itself by
denying the possibility of negations;
that his illustrations of Ideas are
merely empty metaphors; and that they theory
uses impermanent abstractions to
create examples of perception. Though the
theory is meant to establish
concrete standards for the knowledge of reality,
Aristotle considers it
fraught with inconsistencies and believes that the
concept of reality depends
upon all forms' correlations to other elements.
Ideas, Plato believes,
are permanent, self-contained absolutes, which answered
to each item of exact
knowledge attained through human thought. Also, Ideas are
in Plato's view
concrete standards by which all human endeavor can be judged,
for the
hierarchy of all ideas leads to the highest absolute - that of Good.
In
addition, the theory claims that states of being are contingent upon
the
mingling of various Forms of existence, that knowledge is objective and
thus
clearly more real, and that only the processes of nature were valid
entities.
However, Aristotle attacks this theory on the grounds that
Plato's arguments are
inconclusive either his assertions are not al all
cogent. Aristotle says, or his
arguments lead to contradictory conclusions.
For example, Aristotle claims that
Plato's arguments lead one to conclude
that entities (such as anything man-made)
and negations of concrete ideas
could exist - such as "non-good" in
opposition to good. This contradicts
Plato's own belief that only natural
objects could serve as standards of
knowledge. Also, Aristotle refutes Plato's
belief that Ideas are perfect
entities unto themselves, independent of
subjective human experience. Ideas,
Aristotle claims, are not abstractions on a
proverbial pedestal but mere
duplicates of things witnessed in ordinary daily
life. The Ideas of things,
he says, are not inherent to the objects in
particular but created separately
and placed apart from the objects themselves.
Thus, Aristotle says,
Plato's idea that Ideas are perfect entities, intangible
to subjective human
experience, is meaningless, for all standards are based
somewhere in ordinary
human activity and perception. Thirdly, Aristotle assails
Plato's efforts
to find something common to several similar objects at once, a
perfect
exemplar of the quality those things share. Beauty is a perfect
example;
Plato considered Beauty both a notion and an ideal, isolated by
abstractions and
fixed permanently while its representatives fade away.
Aristotle claims that
abstractions like Beauty cannot be cast as absolutes,
independent of temporal
human experience; the Idea of Beauty changes with
time and individual
perceptions and cannot (as Plato felt) exist forever as a
concrete standard.
Plato and Aristotle reach some agreement, though, on
the topic of reality. Plato
believes that all reality was derived from his
Ideas (which themselves dealt
with concrete hierarchy of rational ideas. St.
Anselm, though, makes the most
dogmatic and logically tortuous case for God's
existence, relying not upon
explanations of goodness, truth, or rational
order of ideas but upon an absurd
argument. He claims that everyone has some
sense of God, and he claims that for
one to deny God's existence is an
invalid and contradictory assertion;
therefore, God exists. Also, Anselm
believes that those capable of understanding
God cannot believe that he
does not exist - as if the enormity of the idea was
so clear than only a fool
could not perceive it. His arguments seem the weakest
of the four viewpoints
here, for they are riddled with dogma and assume that God
is a constant -
using faith alone. Anselm considers faith paramount to logic or
other forms
of thought and asks no questions as to what powers the universe or
what
goodness is - he basically follows the Christian "party line" too
closely to
be valid. In general, St. Augustine combines Plato's idea of a
moral
hierarchy with his own rational observations of truth and goodness
being
embodied in their highest form by God. While Plato wavers on God's
superiority,
Aristotle views man as god's pawn, and Anselm uses tortuous
dogmatic logic,
Augustine's arguments seem to make the most sense from
not only a Christian
point of view but from a moral and rational one as well.
The philosophies of
Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St. Anselm on
the existence of God all vary
on the issue of God's nature; though each
thinker takes a different approach to
why there is a God, that of St.
Augustine seems the most valid because he takes
a rational stance and does
not dogmatically assume God's existence. Plato's
philosophy assumes that God
exists as a supremely good being whose goodness is
analogous to Plato's
concrete concept or the ultimate good. However, God and
goodness are not one
and the same; Plato does not directly state that goodness
is good, but that
God is good, since he exemplifies the idea at the top of
Plato's
hierarchy. In short, God does not equal goodness, but God encompasses
it
better than any other being. This implies not that God is perfect, but
that
God's intentions and actions have good aims - goodness may emerge
from other
sources besides God. The main problem with Plato's philosophy is
his
inconsistency; he owes the existence of his Ideas to both God and
goodness, but
he claims the two are not identical. God becomes subordinate to
the
"universals" in Plato's ordered cosmos, and his defense of God
appears
rather weak. While Plato assumes God exists as the ultimately good
(but not
omnipotent) being, Aristotle questions God's active role in the
universe and
claims that nature depends upon an immaterial Supreme Being. For
example, he
cites natural genesis and the perpetuity of movement as evidence
of God's
immaterial existence, and he implies that God is a self-sufficient,
compelling
force for both nature and man. Aristotle's concept of God seems
valid as a
pre-scientific explanation of the universe; however, he seems to
ignore God's
embodiment of moral goodness and man's ability to think and act
freely and still
be good. He believes that all goodness comes from within God
and that the
goodness in man is drawn toward God and nothing else.
Aristotle's ideas on God
seem, from a modern point of view, effective only as
explanations of the
supernatural and even of the miracle of life. St.
Augustine links God with
rational thought and states that human knowledge of
truth depends upon man's
relationship to God. His argument moves him from
existence of the self to the
objectivity of truth and finally to God's
reality. Augustine assumes that God is
a rational being and that the rational
and the good are identical. Only God
could be superior to truth, he says, and
therefore must be the ultimate good;
therefore, truth, goodness, and God are
one and the same. His argument seems
fairly clear-eyed and rational, for he
does not approach God's goodness
dogmatically or automatically assume God's
existence. Instead, he works toward
that end by evaluation the rationality of
truth and goodness, and he casts God
in that role as the ultimate embodiment
of both. In general, Augustine implies,
God represents goodness and
occupies the pinnacle of the concept like unity and
twoness). He considers
unity and goodness the combined center of his system of
Ideas and stated
that the Ideas had to be more real and concrete than any
objects of ordinary
experience. Aristotle, meanwhile, agreed with Plato's notion
that the
immaterial (form) and the material (matter) were distinctly
separate
entities; however, he did not share Plato's belief that all forms
were
permanent, freestanding truths; he felt that form correlated to matter.
Ideas,
he stated, correlated to something material and were thus changeable
and often
dependent upon the observer. In general, Aristotle refutes Plato on
the grounds
that his Theory of Ideas tries too hard to establish concrete,
universal
definitions for things that depend too much on the material. Though
both
thinkers agree on the separation of the material and immaterial (which
gave both
a somewhat similar view of God), they still differ sharply over the
permanence
of standards by which human nature and endeavor can be judged.