13.07.2015 Views

Aristotle on Metaphysics(2004) - Bibotu.com

Aristotle on Metaphysics(2004) - Bibotu.com

Aristotle on Metaphysics(2004) - Bibotu.com

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

CRITICISM OF PLATO’S THEORY OF FORMS 333possibility of there being things that are separate and distinct from natureand in general from changing, material things. Rather, his objecti<strong>on</strong> isdirected against the view that all essences are separate and distinct fromchanging, material things. In particular, he argues that the essences ofchanging things need not be thought of as separate from those things(which is how Plato thinks of them), but may be thought of as inseparablefrom, and indeed as identical with, those things. He also argues that if (asPlato does) <strong>on</strong>e thinks that the essences of changing things are separatefrom those things, this leads to difficulties; and that his own view avoidssuch difficulties and is in general better off.But we may w<strong>on</strong>der why <str<strong>on</strong>g>Aristotle</str<strong>on</strong>g> is c<strong>on</strong>fident that his own<strong>com</strong>mitment to a single transcendent being—God, is not subject tosimilar difficulties. In particular, why is he c<strong>on</strong>fident that his own<strong>com</strong>mitment to a single transcendent thing—God, is not vulnerable to thethird-man argument, which he employs unsparingly against Plato and thePlat<strong>on</strong>ists? Formally, the answer is evident: while God explains rati<strong>on</strong>alchange, and while God is rati<strong>on</strong>al activity, this activity does not c<strong>on</strong>sist inrati<strong>on</strong>al change—indeed, God is <strong>com</strong>pletely changeless (see Chapter 8§8).Formally, this may succeed in deflecting the third-man argument. For todirect this argument against <str<strong>on</strong>g>Aristotle</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s God would be to argue that becauseGod is subject to the same rati<strong>on</strong>al change as the change that he explains inthe universe, therefore, a further God is needed to explain the rati<strong>on</strong>alchange that is <strong>com</strong>m<strong>on</strong> to the first God and the universe, and so <strong>on</strong>without end. <str<strong>on</strong>g>Aristotle</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s resp<strong>on</strong>se appears to be, precisely, that God is notsubject to the same kind of rati<strong>on</strong>al change as the universe. Indeed, God ischangeless. But although this resp<strong>on</strong>se is formally successful, it highlightsour original puzzle: how can God be active yet changeless? (seeChapter 8§8).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!