Aritotelianism

The two greatest philosophers of the ancient pagan world both thought that a single, good, omnipotent god exists. Plato and Aristotle both thought that this was knowable and that their philosophies led rationally and undeniably to this conclusion.

I think that, more than any other single consideration, is what occasioned the modern (post-medieval) repudiation of Aristotelian-Thomism.  Grant the principles that Aristotle saw in nature -  especially the most basic, like actuality and potency – and one must logically and rationally conclude that there is a God. (Aquinas’s natural theology is essentially an exposition on what the god known to reason must be like. It is neither revelation nor mysticism, but a clear, succinct, and eminently reasonable treatise.)  Not only must there be a god, but also there must be absolute truth, right and wrong, good and bad action…all the things which our culture tries so hard to do away with.

Indeed, Aristotelianism has been trashed, but in name only and superficially. Modern quantum mechanics is understood in Aristotelian ideas couched in other terms. The flaws in Newtonian physics could have been (and were) exposed by concepts that ultimately derived from Aristotle’s Physics. Even the great non-teleology of Darwinian evolution is steeped in teleology, but by another name.

But why deny the obvious? Why deny that there are final causes when there manifestly are? Why routinely and automatically deride one of the greatest minds? Why would certain enlightenment philosophers try to prove the same things as Aristotle and Aquinas but reject their principles, the principles which really lead to the desired conclusions? It doesn’t make any sense when one regards only the intellectual.

But when you consider where these principles lead morally, then it makes sense.