Why we need Aristotle and Aquinas pt 5

In my last post on this subject I talked about how A-T philosophy is always tethered to the underlying reality of the existing universe.  The philosophical premises that form the foundation of A-T proceed from the notion that nature and reality are communicating real truths.  This leads to some resistance on the part of the modern mind, mostly because the modern mind simply doesn't know that there are other ways of thinking about the universe.

The first objection to such ideas lie in the physical properties of the universe and the perception by our senses.  It is pointed out time and again that the properties that we perceive are not the whole story and at times our senses can be incorrect.  This, we are told, proves that our ability to perceive truth through the senses is unreliable.

This objection fails on two fronts.  The first is that while the physical properties of an object or entity, such as the cup from my previous post, may have different physical properties than I originally perceive does not disprove that the cup is communicating reality and that the senses perceive that reality.  In fact in order to be corrected, my senses first perceive the "erroneous" data, then with scientific instruments, learn more about object.  And even if this new data itself is imprecise, I proceed in both cases that eventually the senses, with proper understanding, will eventually understand said properties.  This is not only in tune with A-T philosophy but the scientific pursuit practically begs for A-T philosophy to be true on this front.

The second is that while the accidents of entities such as my coffee cup are important in terms of what actually defines "cupness", they are not as important as the fact that both the cup and "cupness" exist.  A-T does not get caught up per se in the minutia of accidents.  It is far more concerned with entities themselves, and the truths that are derived from the existence of things, the universe, etc.  Thus the fact that our understanding of the accidentals of entities changes does not in any way impact the value of A-T philosophy and the truths that it pursues.  

The most important contribution to the discussion of A-T for the study of science though is the connection between the reality and the theories meant to explain that reality.  A lot of the silliness of modern skeptics (who happen to be scientists) could easily be avoided if a proper understanding of philosophy and the role it plays in conclusions derived from the physical universe were imparted.  As it is, modern skeptics such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc, will continue to make silly arguments that a first year A-T philosophy student can reduce to cinders in an instant.

A revival of A-T philosophy and modern derivations of this as well as Platonic studies are already underway.    We have an uphill battle ahead of us.  But the sheer sense that A-T philosophy as well as other classic schools of thought are a breath of fresh air to the nonsense that pervades most academic halls these days.  I have every confidence that the reformation is underway.

Why we need Aristotle and Aquinas pt 4

Having looked at current symptoms of the mechanistic thought process, it is finally time to look at why a rediscovery of Aristotelian and Thomistic (AT) metaphysics is desperately needed.

One of the key factors of AT metaphysics is that it proceeds from reality as it presents itself to us.  It takes for granted that the things that reality presents to us are in fact real.  This is distinct from mechanistic thought, which has the tendency to impose a view on reality to conform to a system.

The coffee cup on my desk is actually a coffee cup on my desk.  I can actually see the coffee cup on my desk.  What my eyes tell me is actually real.  While these may seem trivial observations, they actually state quite profound insights.

What I perceive is reality first.  The existence of objects and my perceptions of those objects are both real.  They communicate the way things are, and as such I perceive truth.  This means that sensory data is not only trustworthy in the general sense, but that they communicate reality as it is.

From this point AT develops metaphysical principles stemming from this primary source of reality.  Form and matter, potential and actual, efficient and final causes.  All stem from this connection with reality as presented.

Notice the distinction between this and what we see in modern thought.  All of the principles of AT philosophy are derived from the concrete reality that such is supposed to describe.  This is distinct from contemporary approaches to thinking, which more often than not impose a view on reality and then seek to have reality conform to the view.

The upshot of this is that unlike modern models of reality, AT metaphysics retains its grounding in the reality from which it derives.  It does not impose a reality.  It derives from the reality.

This emphasis on deriving a worldview from reality rather than imposing one on it via laboratory experiments is the fundamental distinction between medieval and modern thought.  We would do well to rediscover this important connection between reality and how we describe it.  And AT metaphysics would go a long way to reconnecting that bridge between reality and the human mind.

Why we need Aristotle and Aquinas pt 3

In the previous article on this subject I listed several experiences that while anecdotal, provide what I think are specific examples of a general problem for moderns.  The problem lies in that there is a disconnect between the rational abstractions we use and the underlying reality that those abstractions represent.  This manifests itself in several ways, such as the anecdotes I listed in my last post on this subject.

One of the worst cases is the tendency to "concretize the abstract" according to Dr. Edward Feser.  In this case, The person has taken an abstraction of a particular reality and turned it into the reality.  This is particularly true among materialist atheists, who routinely beg the question during their defenses of these views.

Another symptom is what I would call "the reality disconnect".  In this case the abstract model that one learns  loses its connection to the underlying reality that the model is supposed to be an abstraction of.  This occurs in its most obvious form in academic test settings, where answers provided to test questions are not only wrong but so wrong the professor is left wondering how the student did not know how wrong he was.

Both of these are the result of the denial of objective truth.  In the first case reality is constrained to the model that the individual mind can handle, and thus a warped view of reality is projected.  In the second case the model is all that there is, and the disconnect is due to the inability to connect the abstraction with the reality.  Both fail to deal with reality as is, and attempts to narrow reality in order to simplify the thought process.

I think largely this is due to the skeptical nature of modern thought.  Not in the sense of critical thought.  But the hyper-critical nature of modern philosophy.  The denial of objective truth and the ability to know such truth has severed our thoughts from reality.

A lot of this stems from Descartes' modernist philosophy and the subsequent mechanistic philosophies of modern thought.  Viewing the world through a lens that searches for utility rather than truth, the goal of modern philosophy is not to seek the truth but to utilize the physical world.  While this is useful from the scientific perspective, it is virtually useless when evaluating universal truth one way or another.

So now that we have laid out the issues with modern thought and the consequences of those thoughts, how does Aquinas come to the rescue?  That we will finally answer in the next post.

Why we need Aristotle and Aquinas pt 2

Perhaps the biggest complaint I've heard from educators (teachers, grad students who are TAs) is that modern American students do not have a firm grasp on concepts in physical sciences.  In particular, the average American student lacks the ability to translate a concept to the underlying reality that the concept is supposed to convey.

My own experience with this is anecdotal, but seems to capture the experience of a number of educators of varying experience levels.  The near constant lament that students are unable to recognize basic issues with the answers they write on tests.  The near unanimous testimony is that even when the students are right they still don't get it.

I will give an example where I did not fall into this trap to illustrate the point.  In my early college days I took chemistry as one of my sciences requirements.  During a test, we were told to balance an equation, and provide the numeric answer from one of multiple choices.  This was because we filled in sheets by bubbling in those stupid letters on a scanned sheet.

No matter how many times I checked my work I could not find a letter that matched my answer.  It occurred to me to look at the other answers.  Now if you remember these problems you know that when balancing a chemical equation your answer must have the same amount of components on both sides.  When looking at the wrong answers, I realized none of the answers yielded the correct answer, as all of them made the result unbalanced.  I pointed this out to professor who agreed, and noted that there should have been another letter, but the copier missed it.

When the professor announced the finding the class breathed a collective sigh of relief.  Either no one else made the connection or they were too afraid to.  Regardless, I began to sense something amiss in our school's approach to education.  This was only confirmed by complaints by TAs, profs, and commerce in general that educators teach a great deal of mechanics.  How to do the math, how to use the calculator, how to manipulate equations and formulas.  But not as much time as the concepts and the reality that those concepts are trying to encapsulate.

Let's step away from math though to another area like written communication.  This disconnect of the words from the meaning of words is pervasive in modern discourse.  And this disconnect makes communication all but impossible.

To illustrate, how often has this happened to you?  You write a post or comment, and some person fixates on one or two phrases ripped bleeding from their context.  Even if other words written negate the criticism, the person can't get past his impression of your opinion.

This is due to "code phrases" I would call them.  Some combination of words or a phrase that evokes a meaning in a hearer that has no connection to the actual words.  Take for example, "worker's rights."  Depending on who is hearing, it can either mean "the rights of a worker" or "Marxist totalitarian statist."  Or the phrase "supports the family" can mean anything from "supports the family" to "hates gays."  To put it another way, regardless of what a person is saying, the actual idea communicated via the words does not match a person's imposed interpretation of the words.

The underlying problem with all of these issues is the disconnect between ideas and the underlying reality of those ideas.  In modern discourse, this inability to connect ideas and underlying truths is rendering basic learning impossible, let alone communicating differing ideas.

So what does this have to do with Aristotle and Aquinas?  That is a subject for our next post.

Why we need Aristotle and Aquinas

In my last post I am rather critical of the so-called "free thinkers" who seem to pledge unswerving loyalty to the scientific method, so much so that to question the method is to question the concept of reality.  Unfortunately, it lacks context necessary to understand why this is a problem for modern thinking.  I touched upon what I feel is modern man's inability to engage in disciplined thought through my exasperation with one commenter's inability to follow his own train of logic.

All of these are symptoms of a larger issue however.  One that affects how moderns think in general.  Most moderns, particularly in secular Western civilization, are "shallow thinkers."

Before I say what I mean by that let's be clear what I don't mean.  This does not mean that moderns are stupid.  This does not mean that moderns are evil, unintelligent, or inferior.  Our culture seems to confuse errors in thinking with some sort of insult.  But this is yet another symptom.

What I do mean is that for any given conceptual level, be it thinking about universals (objective truth) or particular truths (natural sciences), people no longer see the connections between these different levels and thus fail to examine their own beliefs in light of these connections.

Now one who has followed my posting might consider this as based purely in modern society's rejection (actually just ignorance) of metaphysics and philosophy.  But I will argue that this inability affects a variety of disciplines, extending into the physical sciences themselves.

In this series I hope to accomplish three things:

1. Demonstrations that this disconnect holds for a variety of modern issues, such as education.
2. How our current assumptions of certain metaphysical principles (largely unexamined by moderns) leads to these problems
3. How Aristotelian and Thomistic (AT) philosophy are answers to these problems

Obviously, such musings do not have a lot of bearing on the Catholic Faith in general.  While the Church uses a lot of AT principles in a lot of its teachings, strictly speaking the Catholic Faith does not require AT, nor is it the only philosophy that Catholics use to describe the faith.  So these postings must be taken as my own opinion regarding society and philosophy.