Module 3 review quiz

Thomas Aquinas' 'Five Ways' to prove the existence of God are what kind of arguments? O Aristotelian arguments

Aquinas' arguments start with observation of the world and from there continue to infer the existence of God. Therefore, they are not ontological or Platonist (purely conceptual) arguments. Due to the emphasis on final causes (unmoved mover, etc.), Aquinas' arguments do not qualify as scientific, but are Aristotelian in nature.

What is the problem with teleological explanations, and how do they differ from scientific explanations? Can you provide (your own) concrete examples?

Aristotle's epistemology is empiricist, but NOT scientific. Both Aristotelian epistemology (his teleological explanations) and scientific empiricism start out with observation, but science focuses on (what Aristotle calls) 'efficient causes', whereas Aristotle focuses on 'final causes' (purpose). Science would explain an acorn growing into an oak tree by pointing at observable processes of change (e.g. cell division, photo synthesis, etc.), whereas Aristotle claims that the acorn's 'purpose', its telos, is to become the perfect oak tree, that the acorn is 'pulled' toward being the most perfect oak tree by a perfect entity, the so-called 'prime mover. Due to the fact that final causes (purpose) are NOT observable, Aristotle's empiricism is incompatible with science.

What are the drawbacks of various forms of government, according to Aristotle?

For Aristotle, all three possible types of government (rule by one person, rule by an elite, rule by the people) have their own drawbacks. Monarchy can deteriorate into tyranny, aristocracy can deteriorate into oligarchy, and polity can deteriorate into democracy. Thus, for Aristotle, democracy is the 'dark side' of the notion that the pe ple should rule. Democracy is problematic, according to Aristotle, because the uneducated and poor masses tend to make shortsighted decisions, motivated by selfishness. This criticism of democracy is different from Plato's who looked at it from the other end, saying that only the most qualified should rule, the philosopher-kings. Plato's criticism is not so much motivated by his distrust of the masses, but his notions of idealism and rationalism.

For Aristotle, democracy is problematic, because.. O the uneducated and poor masses tend to make shortsighted decisions, motivated by selfishness.

For Aristotle, all three possible types of government (rule by one person, rule by an elite, rule by the people) have their own drawbacks. Monarchy can deteriorate into tyranny, aristocracy can deteriorate into oligarchy, and polity can deteriorate into democracy. Thus, for Aristotle, democracy is the 'dark side' of the notion that the people should rule. Democracy is problematic, according to Aristotle, because the uneducated and poor masses tend to make shortsighted decisions, motivated by selfishness. This criticism of democracy is different from Plato's who looked at it from the other end, saying that only the most qualified should rule, the philosopher-kings. Plato's criticism is not so much motivated by his distrust of the masses, but his notions of idealism and rationalism.

Teleology

For Aristotle, understanding the four causes of a given Substance amounts to knowledge of that Substance. Especially in explaining nature, Aristotle focuses on the final cause. It is the final cause that drives the actualization of a potentiality. The final cause is the telos (goal, purpose, function, nature) of a thing. For example, the telos of the acorn is the oak tree. For Aristotle, nature is a teleological system. Every Substance strives to fully actualize its Potentiality, or - to connect to previous terminology - to realize its Essence. Since all entities are striving for perfection, Aristotle concludes that perfection must exist. This perfect entity Aristotle calls the prime mover. Prime Mover, from the Stanza della Segnatura (1509-1511), by Raphael. The notion of the prime mover has been used by Christian philosophers to prove the existence of the Christian God.

How would you explain the Aristotelian notion of Substance in terms of Actuality and Potentiality? Can you provide (your own) concrete examples?

I can look at an object (for Aristotle, as Substance) in the natural world, and I can distinguish its Actuality from its Potentiality. So, if I pick up an acorn and see a small, hard, brown thing, that's the Actuality, but since I know that (under the right conditions) it will grow into an oak tree, the Potentiality 'oak-tree-ness' (the Form) is already contained in the Actuality (acorn). This allows Aristotle to explain why an acorn will always grow into an oak tree (under the right circumstances), but never into a palm tree, a duck, or a dinosaur.

Aristotle - Conclusion

Science (in the modern sense) is a rational and systematic effort to provide comprehensive knowledge of the natural world through testable explanations that allow for predictions and technological applications. Aristotle's 'science' is explanatory and empirical, but teleological. Since final causes are not testable, Aristotelian teleology is ultimately incompatible with a scientific understanding of the world. ELABORATE - TIE BACK TO INITIAL DEFINITION

Rationality

"Man is a rational animal." For Aristotle, the Essence of human beings is rationality. Rational thought is grounded in three basic logical principles (the laws of thought): excluded middle: (p or not p). For any proposition, either the proposition or its negation is true. It is either true that it is raining right here and right now, or it is true that it is NOT raining right here and right now. There is no third option. law of identity: (p = p). Each thing is identical to itself. Thus, for example, you cannot use the same term with two different meanings. law of non-contradiction: (not: p and not p). Contradictory statements cannot both be true. It cannot be raining and not raining at the same time in the same place Aristotle is the founder of logic, the philosophical discipline that studies the form of valid inferences. PreviousNext

Political Theory

"Man is by nature a political animal." For Aristotle, humans by nature are social creatures that form communities and have a natural drive to participate in the political process. Aristotle's political theory results from his teleological framework. The purpose (telos) of the state is to ensure eudaimonia ('happiness') for its citizens. According to Aristotle, three possible types of government would be able to accomplish this goal of a just state: rule by one person (monarchy) rule by an elite (aristocracy) rule by the people (polity) These three possible types of government each have their own drawbacks. Monarchy can deteriorate into tyranny. Aristocracy can deteriorate into oligarchy, where the elite abuse their power to exploit the citizens. Polity can deteriorate into democracy, where the uneducated and impoverished masses make decisions motivated by shortsighted selfishness.

How would you explain the 'problem of evil?' What are the individual steps? How does it exemplify the clash between rational argumentation and religious doctrine?

According to (traditional) biblical understanding, God is defined as (among other things) all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful. This definition, however, seems to be logically incompatible in the light of all the pain and suffering in the world. This is how the 'problem of evil' is usually understood to unfold: 1. There is evil (pain and suffering) in the world. 2. If there is evil in the world, God knows about it. 3. If God knows about evil, he wants to prevent evil. 4. If God wants to prevent evil, he will not allow evil to exist. 5. If God does not allow evil to exist, then there is no evil. 6. But there is evil (pain and suffering). 7. Therefore, there is no (such) God. It is important to understand that (in the traditional understanding of the 'problem of evil'), there is nothing wrong with the logic of the argument itself (the steps of reasoning from the premises to the conclusion). The inference is logically correct. This is how the problem of evil exemplifies the clash between faith and reason that characterizes medieval philosophy. Of course numerous solutions to the problem of evil have been proposed, and these solutions focus on undermining the premises (assumptions of the argument). These theological arguments (about the nature of God and what evil means for God as opposed for humans, etc.) make assumptions that go beyond the argument itself (or possibly even beyond rational discourse) and (in some instances) may constitute logical fallacies. As you can imagine, there is a great deal of controversy surrounding these proposed solutions and the criticism of these solutions.

Anselm of Canterbury and the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

Anselm of Canterbury (ca.1033 - 1109) was a Christian philosopher and theologian who served as the Archbishop of Canterbury in England. He is famous for his ontological argument for the existence of God. The ontological argument is meant to work as a purely conceptual proof of God's existence. Anselm argues that since God is understood as the most perfect being, he necessarily must exist. God is defined as the most perfect being "than which nothing greater can be conceived." If God didn't exist, he wouldn't be the most perfect being, lacking the perfection of existence. For Anselm, understanding the concept of God (the definition of God as being all-perfect) entails the understanding that God must necessarily exist.

Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God states that. God is defined as the most perfect being and therefore necessarily (with logical necessity) exists.

Anselm's so-called ontological argument is a purely rational (conceptual) proof of God's existence. It is neither dependent on having faith, nor does it depend on (supposed) empirical evidence for God's existence. It is meant to be convincing for every rational being, including the atheist who denies the existence of God, According to Anselm, even the atheist understands that God is defined as the most perfect being (in the same manner that a triangle is defined as a three-sided figure). Anselm then claims that a being that exists only in people's imagination (or faith, etc.) would NOT be 'most perfect, as it would be lacking (guess what?) existence. Thus the most perfect being necessarily (by logic alone) MUST exist, according to Anselm.

For Anselm, the statement 'God does not exist' is .. O a logical contradiction.

Anselm's so-called ontological argument is a purely rational (conceptual) proof of God's existence. It is neither dependent on having faith, nor does it depend on (supposed) empirical evidence for God's existence. It is meant to be convincing for every rational being, including the atheist who denies the existence of God. According to Anselm, even the atheist understands that God is defined as the most perfect being (in the same manner that a triangle is defined as a three-sided figure). Anselm then claims that a being that exists only in people's imagination (or faith, etc.) would NOT be 'most perfect, as it would be lacking (guess what?) existence. Thus the most perfect being necessarily (by logic alone) MUST exist, according to Anselm. Understood in this manner it follows that to deny the existence of God is irrational. To say that 'God does not exist' is to say that 'the most perfect being is not perfect. And THAT is a logical contradiction.

O by faith AND by reason.

Aquinas distinguishes philosophy from theology. In philosophy, truth results from rational inquiry. Theology accepts divine revelation as a source of truth. Within theology he distinguishes revealed theology (religious truths accepted purely on faith) from natural theology (where religious truths are subject to proof of reason). If philosophy and theology would be diagrammed as overlapping circles, then natural theology would be the overlapping area. For Aquinas, knowledge of God's existence falls into this overlapping area. God's existence can be known from faith AND is subject to rational proof (the 'five ways').

How are Aquinas' 'Five Ways' supposed to work? Can you identify the teleological underpinnings?

Aquinas' 'Five Way's are all very similar. Contrary to Anselm's ontological argument that tries to prove God's existence on purely conceptual (purely rational) grounds, Aquinas' arguments start with the observation of the world ('there is motion', there is cause-and-effect', 'there are contingent entities, 'there is imperfection', 'there is order in the universe') and from these observations infer the existence of God (as the 'first mover', 'first cause', the 'necessary being, 'the perfect being', the designer/orderer of the universe). These arguments are teleological (Aristotelian) in nature because they stipulate purpose in the universe.

Aesthetics

Aristotle's aesthetics also emerges from a teleological background. For Aristotle, the function of art is mimesis ('representation' rather than 'imitation'). Contrary to Plato, art does not try to imitate the physical world (for example, in statues of gods, vase paintings of heroes, etc.), but strives to represent universal truths. In that sense, art becomes a form of philosophy. The function of tragedy is not the 'imitation' of particular moral dilemmas experienced by the character(s), but catharsis, the purging of built-up emotions on the part of the audience.

Especially when explaining how the natural world works, Aristotle focuses on which of his four causes? O the final cause.

Aristotle's epistemology is empiric st, but NOT scientific. BothAristotelian epistemology (his teleological explanations) and scientific empiricism start out with observation, but science focuses on (what Aristotle calls) 'efficient causes', whereas Aristotle focuses on 'final causes' (purpose). Science would explain an acorn growing into an oak tree by pointing at observable processes of change (e.g.cell division, photo synthesis, etc.), whereas Aristotle claims that the acorn's 'purpose', its telos, is to become the perfect oaktree, that the acorn is 'pulled' toward being the most perfect oak tree by a perfect entity, the so-called 'prime mover. Due to the fact that final causes (purpose) are NOT observable, Aristotle's empiricism is incompatible with science.

The notion of causality used in modern scientific explanations corresponds most closely to which ones of Aristotle's four causes? O the efficient cause.

Aristotle's epistemology is empiricist, but NOT scientific. Both Aristotelian epistemology (his teleological explanations) and șcientific empiricism start out with observation, but Aristotle calls) 'efficient causes, whereas Aristotle focuses on science focuses on (what 'final causes' (purpose). Science would explain an acorn growing into an oak tree by pointing at observable processes of change (e.g. cell division, photo synthesis, etc.), whereas Aristotle claims that the acorn's 'purpose', its telos, is to become the perfect oaktree, that the acorn is 'pulled' toward being the most perfect oak tree by a perfect entity, the so-called 'prime mover. Due to the fact that final causes (purpose) are NOT observable, Aristotle's empiricism is incompatible with science.

Aristotle - Relevance

Aristotle's metaphysics and epistemology have remained largely unchallenged until the beginning of modern philosophy in the 16th century. Aristotle's substance metaphysics dominated medieval philosophy that focused on trying to reconcile Aristotelian rationality with Christian belief. Christian medieval philosophy used both Aristotelian logic and teleology to provide rational arguments for the existence of God. Carlo Crivelli: St. Thomas Aquinas (1476) Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was the most influential medieval scholastic philosopher and theologian. His 'five ways' of proving God's existence are driven by Aristotelian teleology. Most explicitly in the so-called argument from design (or teleological argument), Aquinas argues that from the apparent design of the world we can infer the necessary existence of a designer. One might say that the purpose of the specific pattern of the wing of this moth is to scare away predators. Used as causal explanation for the pattern, this is a teleological argument, driven by final causes. The teleological argument, however, is an argument from analogy, and not a causal explanation in the modern sense, because only efficient causes (and not final causes) are empirically testable. Contemporary 'personhood' arguments against abortion are likewise driven by teleology. According to some versions of personhood arguments, a fertilized human egg must be considered a person, because of its potential to develop into a fully formed human being. Aristotle's empiricism is often understood as the beginning of systematic scientific inquiry. But Aristotle's explanations of the natural world are teleological, concentrate on final causes and therefore stipulate a purpose in nature.

Aristotle - Summary

Aristotle's metaphysics is characterized by realism. Contrary to Plato, ultimate reality resides in the physical world that we experience. Reality is the totality of substances. Reality can be known starting with sensory experience. Aristotle's epistemology thus is committed to empiricism. Substances can be analyzed in terms of the four causes. Especially in investigating the natural world, the emphasis is on final causes. Nature is a teleological system, where all substances strive to actualize their potential, realize their perfection. Aristotle's ethics likewise is guided by teleology. The telos for human beings is eudaimonia. This specific 'happiness' requires the cultivation of moral virtues, and the golden mean is a rational principle to determine which character traits qualify as moral virtues.

What is the relevance of Aristotelian thinking? Can you think of examples of teleological thinking in today's debates?

Aristotle's substance metaphysics dominated medieval philosophy that focused on trying to reconcile Aristotelian rationality with Christian belief. Thomas Aquinas, for instance, developed influential proofs of God's existence that are driven by Aristotelian teleology. In today's debates there are instances, where teleological thinking (focusing on final causes, 'purpose') is not sufficiently distinguished from scientific thinking (focusing on what Aristotle calls 'efficient causes'). For instance, so called 'personhood arguments' in the abortion debate claim at a fertilizėd human egg is a person because of its potential to develop into a fully formed human being. Such arguments are driven by teleology.

How would you describe the natural world as a teleological system? Can you provide (your own) concrete examples?

For Aristotle, all the entities in the natural world are characterized by their telos (form, function, purpose), and all these entities strive to realize their Potentiality, they strive for perfection. All acorns are 'on track' to become the most perfect oak tree, and all humans are 'on track' to fully realize their rationality.

Four cause

For Aristotle, detailed knowledge of the world requires the analysis of causes. Aristotle uses the term cause in more general sense than we do today. Identifying the cause(s) for something answers the question: How come a thing is the way it is? Four questions may be asked to determine why a thing is the way it is. What is the thing? This question asks for the formal cause. What is it made of? This question asks for the material cause. What made it? This question asks for the efficient cause. What is its purpose? This question asks for the final cause.

How would you explains Aristotle's theory of the Four Causes?

For Aristotle, detailed knowledge of the world requires the analysis of causes. Aristotle uses the term cause in more general sense than we do today. Identifying the cause(s) for something answers the question: How come a thing is the way it is? Four questions may be asked to determine why a thing is the way it is. 1. What is the thing? This question asks for the formal cause. 2. What is it made of? This question asks for the material cause. 3. What made it? This question asks for the efficient cause. 4. What is its purpose? This question asks for the final cause. For instance, in Michelangelo's Renaissance marble sculpture David, the formal cause is David (more specifically, the defining characteristics of the biblical hero), the material cause is the marble it is carved from, the efficient cause is the Michelangelo chipping away, and the final cause is the designated location for the sculpture (initially along the roof line of the Florence Cathedral, but in the end next to the entrance of the Palazzo Vecchio).

For Aristotle, a substance is an entity composed of (and to be explained in terms of) form and matter essence and accidents. actuality and potentiality. O any and all of the above.

For Aristotle, reality is a collection of what he calls 'substances.' A substance can be analyzed as composed of 'form' (what something is, e.g. a chair) and 'matter' (what the particular entity is made of), 'essence' (what makes a thing what it is and cannot be otherwise) and 'accidents' (what can be different), or 'potentiality' and 'actuality'. Any substance can be explained using any of these three distinctions. These three sets of distinctions are used by Aristotle for different purposes, however. To refute Platonists, he uses the distinction between form and matter. When focusing on the uniqueness of human beings, he focuses on the distinction between essences and accidents. And to explain the dynamics of the natural world, he uses the distinction between actuality and potentiality.

For Aristotle, the natural world is .... O a purpose-driven system where each entity has a built-in drive to realize its full potential.

For Aristotle, reality is a collection of what he calls 'substances.' A substance can be analyzed as composed of 'form' (what something is, e.g. a chair) and 'matter' (what the particular entity is made of), 'essence' (what makes a thing what it is and cannot be otherwise) and 'accidents' (what can be different), or 'potentiality' and According to Aristotle, each substance is driven 'driven' become the perfect oak tree.) Thus 'oaktree-ness' is the acorn's telos

For Aristotle, reality consists in ... material entities in the world, so-called substances.

For Aristotle, reality is a collection of what he calls 'substances.' A substance can be analyzed as composed of 'form' (what something is, e.g. a chair) and 'matter' (what the particular entity is made of). Contrary to Plato, however, for Aristotle, the 'form' of an entity does NOT exist independently, but is a human abstraction. Thus, for Aristotle, what exists are material, physical entities in the world, and our knowledge of these entities has to start with observation.

Aristotle's epistemology (theory of knowledge) is characterized by ... O empiricism, the claim that knowledge of reality starts with experience (perception, observation).

For Aristotle, reality is a collection of what he calls 'substances.' A substance can be analyzed as composed of 'form' (what something is, e.g. a chair) and 'matter' (what the particular entity is made of). Contrary to Plato, however, for Aristotle, the 'form' of an entity does NOT exist independently, but is a human abstraction. Thus, for Aristotle, what exists are material, physical entities in the world, and our knowledge of these entities has to start with observation. We look at chairs and understand

For Aristotle, the essence of human beings is ... rational thought.

For Aristotle, the 'essence' of a substance is what makes a thing what it is and what cannot be otherwise. Thus, for an object to be a chair it has to be a 'seating implement with a backrest, for one person. This is what distinguishes a chair from a stool or a sofa. Similarly, what makes humans unique, different from other critters, according to Aristotle, is the capacity for rational thought, being bound by basic laws of logic, for instance, the impossibility to think contradictions.

How would Aristotle characterize the nature of human beings in terms of telos and eudaimonia?

For Aristotle, the Essence of human beings is rationality, the fact that we are bound by the basic laws of thought. In Aristotle's teleological framework, all human strive to fully realize their rationality toward the telos of eudaimonia. Eudaimonia translates as 'happiness', but it is not happiness in the sense of subjective satisfaction or chasing cheap thrills, but in the sense of happiness resulting from the application of our rational faculties to the development of virtue. This connects Aristotelian teleology to his ethics, the Theory of the Golden Mean, which is the attempt to provide rational arguments for which character traits qualify as virtue and should be developed and nourished throughout one's lifetime.

What is the function of art, according to Aristotle? How are his views different from Plato's?

For Aristotle, the function or purpose of art is not 'imitation' (as for Plato), but the 'representation' of universal truths. Art functions as applied philosophy. The experience of such universal truths on the part of the audience allows for a purging of emotions and is connected to human flourishing (in a teleological sense, as always with Aristotle).

For Aristotle, art . functions as representation of universal truths and is meant to lead to catharsis, the purging of emotions, on the part of the audience.

For Aristotle, the function or purpose of.art is not 'imitation' (as for Plato), but the 'representation' of universal truths. Art functions as applied philosophy. The experience of such universal truths on the part of the audience allows for a purging of emotions and is connected to human flourishing (in a teleological sense, as always with Aristotle).

Eudaimonia

For Aristotle, the telos (goal, nature, purpose) of human beings is what he calls eudaimonia ('happiness'). Eudaimonia is described as "an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue." Eudaimonia is 'happiness' in a special sense, not happiness as an emotional state, but happiness as a special kind of activity. Since this activity is rational activity, we can make the connection to Aristotle's notion of rationality as the essence of human beings. PreviousNext

For Ockham, the knowledge that God exists is ... a matter of faith alone (revealed knowledge), but not subject to rational inquiry.-

For Ockham there are two types of knowledge. Religious 'knowledge' is revealed knowledge, and knowledge of the world is empirical knowledge. Thus God can be 'known' only from faith alone, and the knowledge of God is NOT subject to rational proof. By contrast, the world can be known by means of observation and rational inference. It is important to note that these are two very different notions of knowledge. If these two types of knowledge would be diagrammed as circles, then contrary to Aquinas - there would be no overlapping area and the circles would remain separate. Thus, for Ockham, knowledge of God is completely outside of the scope of rational inquiry. This means that proofs of God's existence are impossible, according to Ockham.

How would you explain the Aristotelian notion of Substance in terms of Essence and Accidents? Can you provide (your own).concrete examples?

If you ask 'what are the necessary characteristics for something to be what it is?', then you ask about the Essence. It is the Essence for any chair to be a seating implement with a backrest for one person.Otherwise it wouldn't be a chair. Rationality is the Essence of being human (according to Aristotle). If you ask 'what can be different and the thing still would be what it is'?, then you ask about the Accidents. Thus, chairs can differ in size, color, upholstery, arm rests, etc., but they are all chairs (as long as they are designed for one person and feature a backrest). Humans differ in countless ways, so thirfgs like gender, race, ethnicity, hair color, etc.) are Accidents of what it means to be human, according to Aristotle.

How is Aristotle's moral theory, the Theory of the Golden Mean, supposed to guide people in moral decision-making? Can you provide (your own) concrete examples?

In morality, Aristotle focuses on character. To be a good person is to develop and cultivate good character traits. But since our essence as human beings isfationality, I cannot simply assume that I know (through upbringing, for instance) which character traits qualify as good ones (virtues). Instead, I need a rational test to determine this. The 'Golden Mean of Moderation' serves as a 'test' to determine good character traits. If a character trait can be conceptually understood as the middle ground between extremes (e.g. 'courage' is the middle ground between 'cowardice' and 'foolishness'), then the character trait qualifies as a virtue; otherwise not.

For Aristotle, to be a (morally) good person means... to develop and cultivate good character traits, using the 'Golden Mean' as a test to detérmine which character traits qualify as good ones (virtues).

In morality, Aristotle focuses on character. To be a good persor is to develop and cultivate good character traits. But since our essence as human beings is rationality, I cannot simply assume that I know (through upbringing, for instance) which character traits qualify as good ones (virtues). Instead, I need a rational test to determine this. The 'Golden Mean of Moderation' serves as a 'test' to determine good character traits. If a character trait can be conceptually understood as the middle ground between extremes (e.g. 'courage' is the middle ground between 'cowardicé' and 'foolishness'), then the character trait qualifies as a virtue; otherwise not.

Ethics and The Golden Mean

In the center of Aristotle's ethics is the notion of virtue. Virtue is defined in a teleological manner, as a functional excellence (areté), useful in navigating through life and making moral decisions. Moral virtues are acquired not by theoretical understanding (i.e. what makes dishonesty morally wrong), but by imitation and habituation. Going through life, one should cultivate good character traits (virtues) and get rid of bad ones. Of course this begs the question of how we know which character traits qualify as virtues. As rational creatures, we cannot simply defer to tradition. What is needed is a theory that provides a rational argument as to which character traits qualify as virtues Aristotle's Golden Mean of Moderation holds that a character trait is a virtue if and only if it can be explicated as the middle ground between deficiency and excess. For instance, courage is the middle ground between cowardice and foolishness and thus qualifies as a virtue. Is the penguin courageous? Or foolish? This is a conceptual analysis of the meaning of moral concepts (e.g. courage defined as 'overcoming fear of realistic danger and doing something worthwhile'), NOT a theory of mediocrity. PreviousNext

How does William of Ockham distinguish between two types of knowledge? What are the consequences of this distinction for the possibility of proving the existence of God?

Ockham distinguishes knowledge of the world from knowledge of God. He (unfortunately) uses the same term 'knowledge' for both notions, but they are very different. For Ockham, religious knowledge is revealed knowledge, and knowledge of the world is empirical knowledge, derived from observation. Thus, for Ockham, God can be 'known' from faith alone, and the "knowledge' of God is NOT subject to reason. By contrast, the world can be known by means of observation and rational inference. Ockham's distinction between these two notions of knowledge makes him a precursor of the analytic movement in 20th century philosophy. In analytic philosophy in the 20th century, the term 'knowledge' is going to be reserved for empirical knowledge, whereas the term 'certainty' is used for Ockham's notion of the 'knowledge' of God. Knowledge of the world is always subject to correction and revision (scientific progress), whereas the knowledge of God is certain (makes no sense to doubt) for the believer.

How would you describe 'Ockham's Razor?' Why is this relevant today?

Ockham's Razor is an integral part of the scientific method. It is a requirement for simplicity in explanation and insists that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity." Ockham's Razor holds that an explanation that contains fewer or simpler entities is to be preferred over a more complex or convoluted explanation. The simplest explanation is the best (and most likely to be true).

According to Ockham's Razor, which of the following is the best explanation? Correct! O The diversity of life on earth is the result of evolutionary processes.

Ockham's razor is a methodological principle that urges reductionism in empirical explanations. His emphasis that 'entities should not be multiplied without necessity' holds that the simplest explanation is the best. It is important to note that the emphasis is not just on 'simple' but also on 'explanation.' Thus, consistent with Ockham's insistence that knowledge of reality is empirical, 'explanations' involving God (who, for Ockham, can be 'known' - in a different sense of 'knowledge' - by faith alone), or explanations involving aliens would not qualify as explanations at all. The 'explanation' involving the government introduces additional (and unsubstantiated) complexity and therefore would also violate Ockham's Razor.

Faith vs. Reason

Philosophy in the Middle Ages is characterized by the tension between the rationalism of classical philosophy and the doctrines of Christian faith. Medieval philosophy struggles to reconcile the truth of reason with the demands of faith. Philosophy ('love of wisdom') is the rational and systematic study of the grounds for fundamental beliefs about the world and our place in it. Philosophy is a critical activity, evaluating explanations for consistency, coherence, and plausibility. Philosophy is also an integrative activity, trying to build coherent systems of explanation that answer fundamental questions about the nature and structure of the world, the extent and limitations of human knowledge, and the origin and justification of the values that guide our lives. Philosophy began in Greek antiquity, partly because Greek religion did not have a sacred scripture or religious doctrine. Unlike the God of Jewish, Christian, or Islamic monotheism, the Greek gods were not seen as a source of ultimate truth and knowledge. In a climate of (relative) freedom of intellectual inquiry, Greek philosophy required that explanatory claims be subjected to rational scrutiny.

Summary and Relevance

Philosophy in the Middle Ages struggles to reconcile religious belief with the demands of rational understanding. The study of the claims and arguments set forth by medieval philosophers is very instructive for evaluating religious arguments in the public debate surrounding contemporary issues. PreviousNext

How can the problem of necessity and free will be understood as a result of the clash of rational argumentation and religious doctrine?

Somewhat similar to the problem of evil, there seems to be logical conflict between God being all-knowing and humans having free will. The existence of human free will is of course necessary for the notion of sin. If humans did not have free will, they could not be held responsible for their transgressions. The problem of necessity and free will is usually presented as follows: 1. If God is all-knowing, then God knows the future. 2. If God knows the future, then future events occur according to God's knowledge. 3. If future events occur according to God's knowledge, then future events are necessary (cannot be otherwise). 4. If future events are necessary, then there is no free will. 5. If there is no free will, then there is no sin. 6. If there is no sin, humans can't be held responsible for their actions. In order to preserve a medieval philosophers commitment to both rational inference AND Christian doctrine, a solution for this problem is required.

St. Augustine and the Problem of Necessity and Free Will

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) was an early Christian Neo-Platonist philosopher and theologian, whose writings shaped Western Christian thought. In his Confessions, Augustine traces the spiritual journey that brought him to Christianity and tries to reconcile Christian doctrine with the demands of rational understanding that characterizes classical philosophy. His City of God (written 413-426) was a reaction to the invasion of Rome by a Germanic army in 410. Augustine contrasts the 'city of the world,' inhabited by non-Christians and bound to be eventually destroyed, with the 'city of God', founded in heaven and inhabited by the Christian faithful. Perhaps philosophically most interesting is Augustine's famous inquiry into - and solution to - the problem of necessity and free will. The problem of necessity and free will arises from God's omniscience, the idea that God is all-knowing. The problem is that God's omniscience and human free will seem logically incompatible. This means that the Christian doctrine of God's omniscience seemingly contradicts the notion of human free will. The problem of necessity and free will is usually presented as follows: If God is all-knowing, then God knows the future. If God knows the future, then future events occur according to God's knowledge. If future events occur according to God's knowledge, then future events are necessary (cannot be otherwise). If future events are necessary, then there is no free will. If there is no free will, then there is no sin. If there is no sin, humans can't be held responsible for their actions. St. Augustine proposed two solutions to the problem of necessity and free will. His first solution denies that foreknowledge entails causation. God knows our decisions, but he doesn't decide for us. Therefore, he claims, necessity is compatible with free will. His second solution provides a very intriguing analysis of time. St. Augustine's subjective theory of time argues that time is only in the human mind, because only the present exists, the past is no longer, and the future isn't yet. As only the present exists, we must distinguish between a 1. present of things present (perception) 2. present of things past (memory) present of things future (expectation) Time, St. Augustine holds, is only in the human mind. God, however, is outside of time. That's what it means for God to be eternal. The problem of necessity and free will arises only if we describe God's foreknowledge in the context of a subjective (human) notion of time. Strictly speaking, St. Augustine's subjective theory of time is less a solution to the problem of necessity and free will, but rather a dis-solution. The problem is dissolved by showing that it ultimately rests on confusion. This approach to dissolve philosophical problems by showing that underlying assumptions or inferences are based on confusion will become a very important strategy for (what will be called) Analytic Philosophy in the early 20th century.

How can St. Augustine's subjective theory of time provide a solution to (or dissolution of) the problem of necessity and free will?

St. Augustine's subjective theory of time argues that time is only in the human mind, because only the present exists, the past is no longer, and the future isn't yet. Time, St. Augustine holds, is only in the human mind. God, however, is outside of time. That's what it means for God to be eternal. The problem of necessity and free will arises only because WE (humans) apply the 'arrow model of time' to God. Whereas OUR 'arrow' from past to present to future is finite, we might think that God being eternal (and knowing - since the beginning of time - everything that will happen) means that HIS 'arrow' simply reaches infinitely back into the past and infinitely forward into the future. However, St. Augustine holds, this is a mistake. God is not characterized by the 'infinite arrow of time', but rather is outside of time altogether. Time is a human dimension only. Therefore, the problem of necessity and free will arises only if we describe God's foreknowledge in the context of a subjective (human) notion of time.

How would you explain the Aristotelian notion of Substance in terms of Form and Matter? Can you provide (your own) concrete examples?

The Form of an entity is its 'whatness! If you ask 'what is this?', and the answer is 'it's a chair,' then you asked about the Form, the definition explaining the characteristics (in this case 'seating implement with a backrest, for ope person'). The Matter of an entity is its 'thisness'. If you ask 'what makes THIS chair different from all the other chairs (even of the same design), then you ask about the Matter, the specific pieces of material THIS chair is composed of.

Form and Matter

The first manner in which Aristotle explains the notion of Substance is the distinction between Form and Matter. Looking at objects in the physical world, in this case, at the (Lego version of the) modernist Schröder House designed by architect Gerrit Rietveld, we can distinguish WHAT something is (A house, A tree) from what makes it unique (THE Rietveld Schröder House, THIS oak tree). The Schröder House is unique, but it shares WHAT it is (A house) with other unique objects (other houses). Thus, in Aristotle's use of the term, the Schröder House has the same Form as other houses. Continuing our theme of early 20th century modern architecture and design, this chair designed by Gerrit Rietveld (1888-1964), shown here in the actual Schröder House, shares its Form ('seating implement for one person with a backrest') with all other chairs. Hence, for Aristotle: The 'whatness' of an object (a chair) is its Form. The 'thisness' of an object (this Rietveld chair) is its Matter. An entity comprised of form and matter is a Substance. Contrary to Plato, for Aristotle the Form does NOT exist independently of the Substance it is inherent in. Thus, the Form of this chair designed by Gerrit Rietveld (1888-1964) is that it is a a piece of furniture with a backrest, for one person to sit on. The Matter of the Rietveld chair consists in these particular twenty (or so) pieces of plywood it is made from.

Four Causes

The formal cause: Looking at this particular Rietveld Chair (really, for the last time), the formal cause would consist in the specific design that makes it a seating implement with a backrest, for one person. The material cause: The material cause of a particular Rietveld Chair would consist in the specific pieces of plywood used to build it. The efficient cause: The efficient cause of a particular Rietveld chair would consist in the assembly process that converts the raw materials into the finished product. The final cause: The final cause of a particular Rietveld Chair would consist in the specific purpose of that particular chair. In this case, this chair's final cause is to be used by Mrs. Truus Schröder-Schräder and her children in the house that Rietveld designed for her. Exterior view of the Rietveld Schröder House in Utrecht (Netherlands), built in 1964, designed by Gerrit Rietveld. Interior view of the Rietveld Schröder House in Utrecht (Netherlands), built in 1964, designed by Gerrit Rietveld.

The problem of evil holds that.... in the light of the evil in the world, the omniscience, omnipotence, and omni-benevolence of God (that is, the Christian God being all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good) are logically incompatible.

The problem of evil starts out with God being defined as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good and maps out the logical consequences of this definition of God in the light of the evil in the world. Once it is agreed that there IS evil in the world (pain and suffering, bad things happening to good people, etc.), then it follows that an all-knowing God knows about it, an all-good God wants to prevent it, and an all-powerful God would have no trouble doing so. Thus it logically follows that there cannot be evil. But since there is evil (the first premise), it logically follows that there cannot be such a God (having all three attributes). In other words, God's omniscience, omni-benevolence, and omnipotence are logically incompatible in the light of the evil (pain and suffering) in the world, The Problem of Evil has nothing to do with free will (although human free will could be thought of as a "solution to the Problem of Evil. It is not an attempt to prove God's existence, but arises from the understanding (definition) of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent.

The so-called problem of necessity and free will claims that ... O human free will is incompatible with God being all-knowing.

The problem of necessity and free will arises from God being defined (among other things) as all-knowing. Since God knows the future, the future necessarily must happen exactly how God always knew it would. Therefore, all events in the future are strictly determined. It might "feel" to you or me that we could have decided differently, but God always "knew what was going to happen. Therefore, so the argument (or problem), either God is NOT all-knowing OR humans do not have free will. However, both God's omniscience (God being all-knowing) and human free will are central notions of Christian doctrine.

For a Christian philosopher, the problem of necessity and free will must be solved (or dissolved), because... O if it is not solved, then sin is impossible,

The problem of necessity and free will arises from God being defined (among other things) as all-knowing. Since God knows the future, the future necessarily must happen exactly how God always knew it would. Therefore, all events in the future are strictly determined. It might "feel" to you or me that we could have decided differently, but God always "knew what was going to happen. Therefore, so the argument (or problem), either God is NOT all-knowing OR humans do not have free will. However, both God's omniscience (God being all-knowing) and human free will are central notions of Christian doctrine. Without human free will, the concept of sin (doing what you know to be wrong) becomes meaningless. Therefore, a solution (or dissolution) is needed.

St. Augustine solves (or dissolves) the problem of necessity and free will by ... O showing that the problem arises from a misunderstanding of the concept of time when applied to God.

The problem of necessity and free will arises from God being defined (among other things) as all-knowing. Since God knows the future, the future necessarily must happen exactly how God always knew it would. Therefore, all events in the future are strictly determined. It might "feel* to you or me that we could have decided differently, but God always "knew* what was going to happen. Therefore, so the argument (or problem), either God is NOT all-knowing OR humans do not have free will. However, both God's omniscience (God being all-knowing) and human free will are central notions of Christian doctrine. Without human free will, the concept of sin (doing what you know to be wrong) becomes meaningless. Therefore, a solution (or dissolution) is needed. St. Augustine's (dis)solution holds that the problem arises in the first place only because we attribute a human notion of time to God. Our human notion of time can be understood as an 'arrow', coming from the past and pointing into the future. Using this model of time, God's 'arrow' would then be simply stretching infinitely into the past and infinitely into the future, and thus the problem of necessity and free will arises. However, St. Augustine argues that this is NOT what is meant by God being eternal. It rather means that 'time' does not apply to God at all. God is outside of time. Once 'time' as applied to God is understood correctly, the problem does not arise in the first place. Therefore, St. Augustine's argument is best understood as a DISsolution of the problem (rather than a solution), because correctly understood there is no problem in the first place.

Essence and Accidents

The second manner in which Aristotle explains the notion of Substance is the distinction between Essence and Accidents. Looking at objects in the physical world, we can distinguish what is essential (necessary) for something to be what it is (a house, a tree, a chair) from what could be different. An entity comprised of essence and accidents is a substance. Looking (one last time) at the Rietveld Chair, we can re-frame the previous analysis: The Essence of the Rietveld chair is 'something to sit on for one person, equipped with a backrest.' The Accidents of the Rietveld chair consist in this chair's particular size, shape, color, material, etc. Aristotle, of course, was not terribly interested in chairs. The much more important question is: What is the Essence of human beings? What makes us unique? What is the defining characteristic for being human?

The Problem of Evil

The so-called problem of evil is the problem of how to explain evil if there is a God who (supposedly) is omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful), and omnibenevolent (all-good). The problem of evil is usually understood as problem of logical incompatibility. This is how the 'problem of evil' is usually understood to unfold: There is evil (pain and suffering) in the world. If there is evil in the world, God knows about it. If God knows about evil, he wants to prevent evil. If God wants to prevent evil, he will not allow evil to exist. If God does not allow evil to exist, then there is no evil. But there is evil (pain and suffering). Therefore, there is no (such) God. For our purposes, the philosophical interest in the 'problem of evil' is not as a (problematic) argument against the existence of God, but to showcase the conflict between rational argumentation and Christian doctrine that characterizes medieval philosophy. It is important to understand that (in the traditional understanding of the 'problem of evil'), there is nothing wrong with the logic of the argument itself (the steps of reasoning from the premises to the conclusion). The inference is logically correct. Proposed solutions to the problem of evil question the premises (assumptions). Among others, the following ideas and strategies have been suggested as 'solutions' for the problem of evil, questioning underlying assumptions: Evil is not really evil, but ultimately will result in the ultimate good, according to God's plan. Evil is necessary for moral goodness. Evil is a result of human free will. It is important to note that most of these attempts to solve the problem of evil make theological arguments aimed at undermining the premises (assumptions). These theological arguments (about the nature of God and what evil means for God as opposed for humans, etc.) make assumptions that go beyond the argument itself (or possibly even beyond rational discourse) and (in some instances) may constitute logical fallacies. As you can imagine, there is a great deal of controversy surrounding these proposed solutions and the criticism of these solutions. For example, one well-known counter-argument that criticizes proposed solutions #2 and #3, above, is the argument from 'natural evil'. This argument, developed by philosopher William L. Rowe (1931-2015) is supposed to refute the notion that the evil in the world results from human free will or is necessary for moral goodness: "Suppose in some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering." This scenario, so the argument, cannot be caused by human free will (people deciding to cause pain and suffering) and neither can it be used to improve the moral competence of human beings.

Actuality and Potentiality

The third manner in which Aristotle explains the notion of Substance is the distinction between Potentiality and Actuality. In order to explain change in the natural world, Aristotle re-frames the distinction of Form and Matter as the distinction between Potentiality and Actuality. Hence, a Substance is an entity comprised of Potentiality and Actuality. The butterfly, as Potentiality, is contained in the Actuality of the chrysalis (the pupal stage). The Potentiality (the Form 'butterfly-ness') is in Actuality contained in the Matter of the chrysalis. Similarly, in Aristotle's own example, an acorn's Form ('oak tree-ness') is as potential contained in its matter. The acorn IS an oak tree (just not yet). The distinction between Potentiality and Actuality is the connection between Aristotle's metaphysics ('what is ultimately real?') and his epistemology ('how exactly do we obtain knowledge?'). PreviousNext

Greek Philosophy

The two major philosophical systems of Greek antiquity were developed by Plato (c. 427-347 B.C.) and Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Plato's Theory of the Forms and Aristotle's substance metaphysics are two competing philosophical frameworks. However, both require well-founded assumptions, rational inference, and logical consistency. Christian philosophy is characterized by the struggle to fulfill these requirements when explicating the nature of God.

How is Anselm of Canterbury's ontological proof for the existence of God supposed to work? What are some underlying assumptions?

This argument is very short but arguably very complex. Anselm starts out with the definition (concept) of God as the most perfect being, and then he asks whether it could be possible for the most perfect being NOT to exist. This is meant to refute the atheist's position that holds that God is a product of human imagination. Anselm argues that 'the most perfect being' cannot exist solely as a product of human imagination? Why? Because then he would NOT be perfect, lacking true existence. A being existing both in human imagination AND in reality surely is more perfect, Anselm argues, than a being that exists only as a product of huban imagination. Therefore, for Anselm, understanding the concept of God (the definition of God as being all- perfect) entails the understanding that God must necessarily exist.

Plato vs. Aristotle

This detail from Raphael's fresco The School of Athens shows Plato on the left, pointing upward to the real of the Forms and Aristotle to the right, making a gesture of moderation (the notion of moderation is the focal point of Aristotle's theory of virtue). Plato distinguished two worlds: the phenomenal world of everyday perception and the eternal world of the Forms that constitutes ultimate reality. For Aristotle, however, ultimate reality resides in the physical world of real-life objects, in what he calls substances. For Aristotle, the Forms are not independently existing entities, but embodied in particular objects in the physical world and the result of human conceptualization. PreviousNext

Thomas Aquinas and the Five Ways

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was the most influential medieval scholastic philosopher and theologian. His philosophical efforts focused on reconciling Aristotelian philosophy and Christian doctrine. Aquinas distinguishes philosophy from theology. He defines philosophy as that area of human inquiry that is subject to reason. Philosophical truth is the result of rational inquiry. Theology, on the other hand, accepts divine revelation as a source of truth. Within theology he distinguishes revealed theology (religious truths accepted purely on faith) and natural theology (religious truths subject to proof of reason). Aquinas' natural theology is what we would call today philosophy of religion. According to Aquinas, doctrines such as original sin, virgin birth, the holy trinity, etc. are not to be understood by reason but must be accepted on faith alone. They are therefore part of revealed theology. The existence of God, however, according to Aquinas, can be understood by faith alone (revealed theology) AND by rational proof (natural theology). In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas offers five proofs of God's existence, called the Five Ways. The First Way: There is motion in the world. Everything is moved by something else. There must be a first unmoved mover. This unmoved mover is God. The Second Way: Everything is caused by something else. There must be an uncaused cause. This uncaused cause is God. The Third Way: Most things are contingent and corruptible. They can exist or not exist. Not all things can be that way. There must be some incorruptible and necessary being. This being is God. The first three of the Five Ways are versions of what is called the cosmological argument, because they start out with observation of the world. The Fourth Way: There are varying degrees of perfection in the world. These are approximation to a maximum degree of perfection. Therefore maximum perfection must exist. The being with maximum perfection is God. The Fourth Way is called the moral argument. The Fifth Way: There is order in the universe. All natural entities strive to realize their inner nature. There can't be order without an orderer. This orderer is God. The Fifth Way is called the argument from design or the teleological argument. Aquinas argues that from the apparent design of the world we can infer the necessary existence of a designer. One might say that the purpose of the specific pattern of the wing of this moth is to scare away predators. The teleological argument is an argument from analogy, and not a causal explanation in the modern sense.

How would you explain Thomas Aquinas' notion of natural theology? Where do his 'Five Ways' fit in?

Thomas Aquinas first distinguishes philosophy from theology. He defines philosophy as that area of human inquiry that is subject to reason. Philosophical truth is the result of rational inquiry. Theology, on the other hand, accepts divine revelation as a source of truth. WITHIN theology he distinguishes revealed theology (religious truths accepted faith) and natural theology

The Notion of Substance

Throughout his writings, Aristotle explains the notion of Substance in various ways, depending on his philosophical purpose. The distinction between Form and Matter is a rebuttal of Plato's notion of Forms as ultimate reality. The distinction between Essence and accidents proves historically very influential for medieval arguments for the existence of God. The distinction between Potentiality and Actuality provides a theory of change and drives Aristotle's understanding of the natural world.

Ockham's Razor

William of Ockham (c. 1288 - c. 1348) was an English anti-scholastic philosopher and theologian, who is known for Ockham's Razor, a methodological principle of enormous influence. For William of Ockham there are two types of knowledge. Religious knowledge is revealed knowledge, and knowledge of the world is empirical knowledge, derived from observation. Thus, for Ockham, God can be 'known' from faith alone, and the 'knowledge' of God is NOT subject to reason. By contrast, the world can be known by means of observation and rational inference. It is important to note that these are two very different notions of knowledge. Ockham's distinction between these two notions of knowledge makes him a precursor of the analytic movement in 20th century philosophy. In analytic philosophy in the 20th century, the term 'knowledge' is going to be reserved for empirical knowledge, whereas the term 'certainty' is used for Ockham's notion of the 'knowledge' of God. Knowledge of the world is always subject to correction and revision (scientific progress), whereas the knowledge of God is certain (makes no sense to doubt) for the believer. Ockham is most famous for a methodological principle that bears his name. Ockham's Razor is an integral part of the scientific method. It is a requirement for simplicity in explanation and insists that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity." Ockham's Razor holds that an explanation that contains fewer or simpler entities is to be preferred over a more complex or convoluted explanation. The simplest explanation is the best (and most likely to be true).