The Death of God pt. 2: Aristotle

Regarding how the first misunderstanding of God began with Aristotle

The first misunderstanding

The first misunderstanding concerning the nature of God in the Western world originates with Aristotle. Plato equates God with his First Principle, the One, while Aristotle equates God with his Second Principle, the Intellect. Plato identifies his God with a mode of contemplative thought that he defines as noesis. It forms the ground for dianoesis, the discursive thought that defines the Intellect.

Plato explores this relationship in book IV of the Republic. In his writing, Plato records for the first time in history the Law of Non-Contradiction, one of the key principles of reason and logic that survives to this day. He writes,

"The same thing clearly cannot act or be acted upon in the same part or in relation to the same thing at the same time, in contrary ways"

To put it simply, Plato is stating that an object may not possess contrary properties at a given point in space and time. However in doing so, he indicates this Law is a hypothesis regarding reality, that may be falsified under the right conditions. In doing so, he is clearly implying there is a prior first principle that this hypothesis derives from. This prior principle is the unity of The One that allows reason to proceed in the first place.

This distinction is lost for the modern mind. Our current understanding of Non-Contradiction is so fundamental to our logic and reason, that it cannot be thought of as anything but self-evident. Our ability to reason discursively depends on the ability to distinguish accurately what we perceive with our senses. For example, it would be nonsense to state that water is both hot and cold at the same time, or that a car is both stationary and in motion. In order to operate in the real world we need to make judgments regarding these properties.

Aristotle agrees with this line of reasoning, and in doing so departs from Plato, stating that the Law of Non-Contradiction is the most fundamental axiom of reality. He denies any possibility that discursive reasoning could be hypothetical at all, and in doing so identifies discursive reason as the first principle from which all reality originates.

On the Unmoved Mover

It should come as no surprise then, that Aristotle identifies his God, the First Cause for all motion in nature, with discursive thought. His 'Unmoved Mover' is his solution to one cause always preceding another cause in nature. In order to solve the infinite regress that must follow, his God is a First Mover that does not itself move.

His God is similar in many respects to Plato. He is pure potentiality, completely immaterial, imparting causality to all else while remaining eternally changeless itself. It thinks perfect thoughts, and as the only thoughts worthy of a perfect divinity is itself, it contemplates itself. By such a process it sets the world in motion by attracting all else towards itself.

The constant reflection of Aristotle's God upon its own properties is a form of activity. While Aristotle defines this discursive thought as his form of perfection, he does not distinguish the fact that it has an object it preoccupies itself with is a form of imperfection. The Platonic God, by contrast is defined by utter simplicity and stillness, and thereby being perfect within itself it has no need to reflect on its own nature. It's essence therefore transcends all understanding, and is known only by its activity, while Aristotle's God shares a common, identifiable essence with material things.

On substance

Aristotle's justification for this departure from Plato hinges on his idea of teleology, which states that all subjects contain an essence that indicates its purpose as dictated by divine design. This essence is contained in all material subjects in both potential and actual form. A subjects potentiality is identified with their raw matter, while their actuality defines their immaterial function. For Aristotle, God is pure actuality which allows for its immaterial existence.

Aristotle and Plato have a very different sense in their understanding of essence. Plato disagrees it may be located in physical existence, referring instead to the eternal Forms, accessible by reason, that are the only basis for any knowledge regarding essence. Referring again to the law of non-contradiction, he argues any proposition regarding sense knowledge can always be X and not X, at different time to different observers in different contexts. Therefore only opinion may be achieved regarding what we perceive with our senses. He would therefore disagree with Aristotle's definition of a stable, material essence that persists through a process of change.

On the soul

Aristotle's views on God have a number of consequences for his views on human nature. His worldview allows for a soul, but it does not allow for a participation of that soul to share in the essence of God. Unlike Plato's God, the Unmoved Mover is not a unity that encompassess all existence. Instead it stands apart from existence, causing all change to take place but remaining unfamiliar to the beings within.

Aristotle equates the soul with an 'animator'. It is this animation that allows a body to function, possessing the functions of nutrition, perception, thought and movement. Unlike Plato, he concludes souls are not immortal, anymore than skills can exist apart from skilled men. The soul is biological and cannot exist apart from the body, only thought comes from outside and is divine. He assigns thought an eternal nature, but remains adamant there is nothing in thought that can assist one in determining the nature of God.

On ethics

Finally, Aristotle's definition of God has interesting implications for ethics. Aristotle's highest aim for a human is to attain 'eudaimonia' which is to attain excellence, in becoming good at living life. For Plato, excellence is a natural consequence of knowing the Good. One can remain steadfast in the knowledge that despite adverse circumstances, remaining true to one's principles means one is leading a purposeful life.

For Plato, this result flows from a state of being that comes about through participation in the One. However as Aristotle has removed that principle from his understanding of the soul, his view on virtue is different. Instead for him it is not enough to know the Good, it must be put to use. Therefore happiness becomes a way of being in action. There is no such thing as simply being good, instead it must be continually practiced through righteous action, in which one can hope to form the proper habits that leads one to living a virtuous life. His view on virtue always lay in the mean between deficiency and excess.

So whereas Socrates states that all unrestrained behavior is a result of ignorance, Aristotle states it instead results from a lack of character. Self-mastery for him comes from pursuing good for its own sake, and not for seeking reward. While this definition is admirable and close in character to Plato, the lack of participation in the One means it must always be an effort to pursue and maintain a virtuous character, rather than a state of being. Aristotle concludes that a man cannot find happiness if all his efforts have been in vain and he still leads an unsatisfactory life. This apparent distance from God will feed into Christian understanding of the world, and their eventual justifications of finding happiness in the afterlife.