Reference: Religion
Socrates almost had his finger on it when he posed the question, “Can man be made self-determined and responsible for his own actions?”
Plato lost it when he recommended the use of religion (supernatural authority and fear) to control the wild beast nature latent in every person.
Aristotle came close to defining it, but the logic that brought him so close to an understanding of divinity, also prevented him from defining it precisely. Let us take a look at that one final step that he could not take.
Aristotle follows Socrates’ lead to examine such common terms as, justice, morality, virtue, etc., to uncover the unknowing assumptions made by people. He applies Plato’s Doctrine of Ideas to voluminous observations to define the concepts, laws, and principles that underlie all that we sense. He coins many new terms, such as, faculty, motive, energy, actuality, maxim, principle, etc., to communicate those concepts precisely. He formulates a scientific method so others may continue with this process.
Aristotle digs deep into observations, especially in the field of biology and natural sciences, and comes up with general frame of references (universals) from which to evaluate further observations. Thus he simplifies the management of voluminous observations by uncovering categories with logical connections.
He, then, digs deep into these categories to come up with a more fundamental frame of reference. He reduces all observations to (a) FORM (the shaping force), and (b) MATTER (the raw material being shaped).
To Aristotle, FORM is the inner necessity or impulse which exists in MATTER. MATTER is continually being formed into new, complex shapes by FORM that is inherent to it.
Aristotle considers MATTER to be without beginning. MATTER is worked into more complex and varied shapes by FORM. To him, God is “Prime Mover Unmoved.” God is the source of all motion. But, God has no motion within itself.
Aristotle never answers the question how MATTER arose in the first place. To him, this is like asking the question, “How God came to be in the first place?” And, that is as far as Aristotle goes. The inherent consideration here seems to be that ability, or potential, needs a “vessel” through which to express itself.
We find most viewpoints in the “Western thought” to be based on this frame of reference. It leads to the viewpoint that God must have a beingness in which to exist.
Can there be God without beingness? Can there be FORM without MATTER? Can there be Motion with no motion at its core? Can there be a Cause that is not itself caused?
DIVINITY
When we observe this universe, we cannot separate GOD from BEINGNESS, FORM from MATTER, MOTION from NO MOTION, and CAUSE from EFFECT.
These pairs, or dichotomies, appear simultaneously when a manifestation is perceived. Even the most fundamental ideas of MANIFESTATION and PERCEPTION seem to form a dichotomy. We all have struggled with the questions, “How does a manifestation appear?” “How is it perceived?” “Who or what creates?” “Who or what perceives?” The ultimate focus has been on “how,” “who” or “what.” It all boils down to the speculation that somebody or something must exist beyond all existence.
Essentially, the mind and its logic has hit a ceiling. Any attempt to pierce this ceiling runs into a fundamental inconsistency, such as, “unmoved Mover” or ”uncaused Cause.” This inconsistency seems to point to something that cannot even be conceived.
It would be beyond any mental conception. It would be beyond logic. It would be beyond any description. It would not be a form or cause. It would not even exist or be.
It would seem that
- A manifestation may occur without any prior consideration.
- A perception may occur without any prior consideration.
And in there, somewhere, may be Divinity, or may be not…
.
