Reading: A Philosophical lecture on the Ontology of a contemporary Christian

Below we have the contents of a speech given Henk Geertsema at a symposium honoring Philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff. In it, Geertsema gives us a good introduction to the ontology of a contemporary Christian philosopher. In it you will find a discussion of the nature of reality, especially as it relates to the concept of God speaking.  It is a very intriguing lecture. I have excerpted only a short part of the whole which can be found at the link given in the citation below.

Wolterstorff and the philosophy of religion. About being and creation

Introduction In the context of the symposium in honor of Nicholas Wolterstorff I am asked to say something about his philosophy of religion. I am happy to do so. I will try to characterize it in general terms with the history of Western philosophy as a background. My leading question will be: should Wolterstorff’s philosophy of religion, or his ontology, be characterized as onto-theology? I am aware that because of this approach I will not do justice to the important contribution Wolterstorff has rendered to the philosophy of religion. My discussion will be about his method and general approach, not about specific topics. Yet, I will relate to an issue which is almost unique for Wolterstorff, the question whether God is able to speak, which is central to his book Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks. Philosophical reflections on the claim that God speaks (1995). The way Wolterstorff deals with this question reminds me of a discussion between him and Henk Hart years ago in Philosophia Reformata (1979, 1981). It relates to the final section of his book On Universals. An Essay in Ontology (1970) and concerns the scope of the relation Creator – creature. Is this relation all-encompassing and the most fundamental or is it possible that structures exist which are even more encompassing and more fundamental? I will pick up on this discussion. How this relates to onto-theology will, I hope, become clear in the course of what follows.

Thinking and being

To give a first impression of what I mean by onto-theology I start with a characterization of ontology. I guess Wolterstorff will agree with the following description: ontology is the philosophical analysis of the basic characteristics of reality, or, rather, of all there is. Onto-theology implies that this analysis includes the being of God. In this sense onto-theology goes at least back to Parmenides who connects thinking and being in an all-encompassing way. Plato, Aristotle, but also Thomas Aquinas, Kant and Hegel follow in his steps. Sometimes thinking and being are closely related to language. In this respect the method of contemporary analytic philosophy, which, taken in a broad sense, is also practiced by Wolterstorff, seems rather similar to that of Aristotle. Be it as it may, in onto-theology questions about God are discussed within the framework of a general theoretical analysis of being in terms of concepts which are well defined and relations that are analyzed by means of the general rules of logic. It seems clear that Wolterstorff as far as his ontology is concerned is part of this tradition. I only have to refer to the Epilogue of On Universals. I quote:

 The predicable / case / exemplification structure holds for all reality whatsoever – necessarily so. Everything whatsoever is either a predicable, a case of a predicable, or an exemplification of a predicable. ... Nothing is unique in that it falls outside this fundamental structure of reality. God too has properties; he too acts. So, he too exemplifies predicables. The predicable / case / exemplification structure is not just the structure of created things. … It is a structure of reality, of what there is. (299)

Wolterstorff is saying here that the most general and fundamental structure of reality, of what is there, also applies to God. Philosophical thought in its theoretical analysis of what is does not face a boundary when it is directed to God. It is able to discover structures to which God Himself is subjected. The discussion between Wolterstorff and Hart was about the question whether this claim takes account of the fact that God is the Creator of all there is. Does God’s being the Creator of all there is not imply that every structure that can be discovered is dependent upon Him instead of God being dependent on such a structure Himself? If this dependence of all things on the creator is denied, as Wolterstorff’s claim seems to do, are the boundaries of our thinking not being transgressed? In other words, does he take into account that our thinking itself is always creational? If our thinking is indeed creational, then, it seems, we cannot take a stand outside of the relationship of creature – Creator. Does not Wolterstorff ignore this state of affairs when he claims that God is dependent on certain structures that we discover by way of theoretical analysis? Does this contention not pretend that in our thought we can take a stand outside of that relationship and thus ignore the boundaries of our own creatureliness?

 ………..

My point of discussion here is this relation between being and meaning. An essential element of onto-theology seems to be that ‘being’ is not a neutral term. It is loaded with meaning. That starts even as early as Parmenides, who places (true) being over against the illusionary world of appearances. The tradition is continued by Plato with his world of forms in which the Idea of the Good has a central place. But also in Aristotle the essence or substance of things, which is known by the intellect or reason, is deeply connected with their inner destination, their … telos. For him theology is the highest science (scientia) because it is directed to the highest being. Medieval philosophy carries on with this tradition. God is the highest being or being itself. Everything else is because in one way or another it participates in the divine being. Being is therefore understood as intrinsically good. The medieval transcendental ideas of being, truth, goodness and beauty are deeply interrelated. That is why ontology as onto-theology can cause a feeling of excitement and joy. It relates to the inner meaning and destination of humankind and the world.

…..

By Henk G. Geertsema

http://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/Geertsema/HGGWolterstorff.pdf

As we read this lecture, a couple of things stand out for me:

1. 1.    Onto-theology, as it is called, has to do with the fundamental nature of what it means to be real. The nature of reality and the very character of being itself both are focused on the nature of God and God’s personhood.
2. 2.    A good philosophical work always takes into account the history of philosophy so that we can trace the development of ideas over the centuries.
3. 3.    The concept of something or someone being the subject of a sentence with a predicate (which is good English grammar, but may not be so in every language under the sun) means that such a thing “exists ” to the extent that we can make sense when we use words in that manner. Of course, one can always try to say things that are nonsense or that are lies; that is, statements which do not conform to reality as we know it.
4. 4.    Geertsema asks an interesting question when he wonders if trying to speak of God with the same terms as we use in the discussion of created reality might overstep the boundary between Creator and Creature.
5. 5.    The final paragraph included in our excerpt points toward a topic which we will not even delve into in this course – that is, what is the purpose of the creation? Toward what end or telos do we exist? What is the primary, indisputable reason that we are alive? That is a huge question and we will not even have the opportunity to discuss it during our time together.