Reading: Review Session 1

This might be a good point in our course to stop and have a brief review over what we've covered so far. I'll just try to hit the main highlights — excuse me, the main points — in Aristotle's theory of reality, and then his theory of the state. After that, I'll go over the contrasting view that I laid out as a Christian perspective on the state called sphere sovereignty. I hope this review will assist you in your studies, readings, and preparations.

Let me begin by addressing the issues I found with Aristotle's theory of reality.

First, how is the unity of form and matter possible? It's one thing for Aristotle to tell us that the form is the essence and that it defines what a thing is, and how it impresses itself on the matter to produce a specific type of entity. Yet, he doesn't provide an account for how that's even feasible. The form is rational, universal, and unchanging, while matter is particular, mutable, variable, imperfect — they are essentially different in nature. So, how do these two interact? How does something purely rational organize a purely physical entity?

To understand the gravity of this issue, consider the old controversy between mind and body. The mind, being rational, represents the form of a human being, while the body symbolizes the matter. You have a mind that is non-physical; it's not present in space and doesn't participate in chemical reactions or any physical processes. So, how does a mental decision, like seeing a bus and thinking you should step back, translate into a bodily action? What bridges the gap between a non-physical mind and the tangible act of moving your legs?

Conversely, when you touch a hot stove and reflexively pull your hand away, how does that sensation travel through your physical nervous system and register in a mind that isn't bound by physicality?

At the core of Aristotle's philosophy lies a profound enigma about the relationship between the rational and the physical. How can something purely rational interact with something that isn't? How does the universal engage with the specific? How can the immutable influence the mutable? They are polar opposites. This dilemma led many later thinkers to conclude that everything is either solely mind or solely matter, as they couldn't fathom how these contrasting entities could possibly interact.

From my understanding, and what I believe to be the Christian perspective, nothing is purely rational or purely physical. Everything possesses a multitude of properties, governed by a myriad of laws, and they interact in countless ways. I reject framing the issue as Aristotle does, as it corners him into a predicament he can't escape from.

Secondly, Aristotle grapples with the question: how do things retain their identity?

And the answer he tries to give is that one part of a thing stays the same, while another part of it changes. Do you understand what he just said to you?

You're asking, how does this thing, maybe it's a tree you're looking at, stay the same through all of its changes? It's now 20 feet high, but several years ago, it was only six feet high. He says the form remained the same, but the matter changed. However, what stayed the same isn't the same as what changed. It's not the same thing. What he did was pull a fast one on you and begin to talk about two different things. One of which changes, the other doesn't. But we're not discussing two entities. We're talking about this one tree. It remained the same tree through changes, not something else, like its form. That's pulling a switcheroo. Instead of answering the question, it shifts the focus as though the question allowed for something other than the tree to change.

He places significant emphasis on definitions. Definitions correspond to real entities, termed essences. These essences are eternal and changeless. No new essences ever emerge in the world; all these essences are forever lasting. Later, he labels them substances. This term describes what's inherent in an object that withstands all its changes and stays consistent. These substances, he says, are immutable and eternal. Therefore, no new ones ever form, and no old ones ever fade. Every one of them is constant and everlasting. This perspective makes it impossible to explain any artifacts whatsoever. This fact was vital during Aristotle's time and is even more crucial now. We inhabit a world that's as much human-made as it is natural. Aristotle would argue that every new invention is merely a chunk of matter. It might accidentally serve a function, but that's not its essence. But it is its essence.

Take, for instance, a beaver dam. If you believe it's merely a pile of debris that randomly accumulated at a specific spot, you fail to recognize its true nature. It's a dam intentionally constructed by the beaver. But Aristotle's philosophy prevents him from acknowledging the creation of a new form when the first beaver built the first dam. He's confined by the belief that forms are timeless and unchanging. If they weren't, they couldn't be divine and thus wouldn't explain everything else. Yet, they don't elucidate anything anyway because he fails to clarify their relationship with matter.

Moving on, we explored Aristotle's theory of the state. In his opinion, the state is all-encompassing, the highest authority. Justice, for him, is whatever benefits the state. His perspective is hierarchical. The government stands supreme at the hierarchy's pinnacle, with all other entities falling under its command. Nothing lies beyond the state's authority. Contrarily, Christians always believed that the Church's authority was external to the state. However, that's just the starting point. Parents possess a God-given authority over their children. Similarly, a business owner or a teacher has authority in their respective domains. State officials have their dominion, and part of their responsibility is ensuring that no authority oversteps into another's realm. This belief contrasts starkly with Aristotle's collectivism, which asserts the state as the primary reality, leading to totalitarianism that governs every life aspect without constraints or restrictions.

Can the state truly limit itself? Sometimes it can, and there are instances of both success and failure in this regard. The kind of governance we end up with depends on the people we entrust with power. However, humans are imperfect. Even devout Christians have committed un-Christian acts. No belief guarantees adherence.

Sphere sovereignty, on the other hand, offers us a chance. It doesn't promise unanimity, but it recognizes and respects different authorities. Starting with this viewpoint is far more advantageous than embracing a collectivist perspective that envisions life under an unchecked state's dominance.

Consider the difference between individualist and collectivist views of society and governance. Individualism argues that individuals, by themselves, are sovereign and self-sufficient. They voluntarily form governments or other organizations. The collectivist stance asserts that government is a natural phenomenon. It naturally emerges when there's a sufficiently large group. Whether acknowledged or not, organized or disorganized, it's always present. Neither of these views aligns with the Christian perspective, which acknowledges multiple spheres of authority and responsibility.

Humans are not mere parts of a larger whole; they are sub-wholes. They aren't governed solely by their membership in any institution, whether it's a family, state, church, business, or school. Using Aristotle's example, a thumb severed in battle cannot be understood outside the context of a hand. In contrast, sub-wholes, like water's hydrogen and oxygen atoms, can exist and function independently of their larger entity.

In conclusion, as we look forward to our next discussion, I'll introduce an alternative, Biblically-inspired view of reality. Just as I presented a Bible-based view of society, sphere sovereignty, I believe we can derive a similar understanding of God and existence. This new perspective will challenge the notion that creatures have inherent qualities that define them. Instead, creatures are what they are because of God. They fundamentally rely on Him. Starting with this foundation will lead to a unique theory, which we'll explore in our next meeting.