Aquinas V Plato,[round 2]

The argument has started off. Both philosophers have traded a couple of blows. The Judges scored the round even.
We enter round 2, Aquinas has squared up to Plato, he lands a series of uppercuts to Plato's argument.
Plato reels from the fourfold onslaught, as Aquinas calls on years of asceticism and tough mental training....
We re-join the debate....

The Importance of Aristotle’s Four Causes

Aquinas adopts Aristotle’s doctrine of the Four Causes and couches much of his theology and philosophy in its terms. (See Chapter 2, Aristotle, Physics, p. 47.) The Four Causes are (1) material cause, (2) formal cause, (3) efficient cause, and (4) final cause.

The material cause, as its name implies, pertains to matter or the “stuff” of the world. Matter is potentiality, that is, that which something can become.

The formal cause is the form or pattern that governs a particular thing, or the genus to which it belongs. The formal cause can also be called a thing’s essence.

For example, the formal cause of a particular human being is his or her humanity, the essence of what it means to be human.

God is the only creature embodying pure actuality and pure being, and God is thus the only pure formal cause. The efficient cause is what we normally understand by the word cause and indicates something that has an effect. The final cause is the goal or purpose toward which a thing is oriented.


Each of these causes is given a special application in Aquinas’s thought. The concept of material cause is crucial to his view of how humans gain knowledge of the external world and also appears in his proofs for the existence of God.

The concept of formal cause is essential to his theory of knowledge and the nature of man but also defines his conception of God, whom Aquinas sees as complete actuality and thus without potential.

The concept of efficient cause predictably appears in his theory of knowledge about the physical world but also explains human action, which is directed by the will.

The concept of final cause explains the nature of the will itself, which naturally strives to achieve its goal of beholding the Divine Essence.

Existence as Superior to Essence

Aquinas revolutionized a thousand years of Christian tradition by rejecting Plato in favor of Aristotle.

Plato maintained that ultimate reality consists of essence, whereas Aristotle maintained that existence is primary.

For Plato, the world around us that we perceive with our senses contains nothing except impermanent, ever-changing objects.

Plato reasoned that for our observations of the world to count as true knowledge and not just as anecdotal evidence, our minds need to make a conceptual leap from individual instances of things to general ideas. He concluded that there must be something permanent that lies behind and unites individual existences, and he referred to this something as “essence.”

According to Plato, existence, or the everyday world of objects such as tables, chairs, and dogs, is inherently inferior to essence.

Early church thinkers saw in Plato’s ideas a parallel to their own division of the universe into the inherently imperfect, corrupt world of matter and everyday existence and the perfect and heavenly world of spirit.

Aquinas follows Aristotle in concluding that Plato’s theory is deficient, in part because it is unable to account for the origin of existence and in part because it is unacceptably dismissive of existence.

Holy Scripture states that after each of the six days of Creation, God saw that the fruit of his day’s work was “good” or even “very good.” Furthermore, when Moses asks God how he should refer to him, God responds, “I am that I am,” thereby equating himself with being.

In other words, God is pure existence or Being itself.

Aquinas argues that man’s purpose consists exactly in developing himself toward Being, not in attempting to escape Being.

In the traditional church view prior to Aquinas, the difference between God and his creatures was one of kind, as existence was something that in itself separated us from God.
In Aquinas’s view, the difference between God and his creatures is one of degree, and we are separate from God insofar as we do not have as much existence as God.
Prior to Aquinas, traditional church thought maintained that existence was the chief impediment to the realization of our spiritual destiny. Aquinas held that our spiritual destiny consists precisely in the enhancement of our existence.


End of round 2.

The Judges tonight are;

Studs Terkel [USA]
Mr,S,Stallone[USA]
The Sun God Ra[Egypt]
Mr. K. Dodd [GB]
Mr,John Lennon-Ono[USA,and GB]
Judith Sheinlin[NYC, USA]

[A heated argument has ensued...]
Studs,'Well I can see a Platonic argument here, but Aquinas has landed a beauty, bringing God into the equation, this guy has a lot of potential....'

Judith S, 'Potentential shomelemtial!, it's a no-brainer! Hey! I'm TALKING HERE!

Lennon-Ono,' Give peace a chance!'

Ra,' Negative, both are heading towards an abyss....'

Dodd;   'How tickled I am with this debate!'

Stallone,'Both these guys, are up for this debate, but I see Aquinas, as having the edge here, he hasn't resorted to dialectic, DRRRRRR, potential, yes, potential....'

After round two, the Judges have, Aquinas ,slightly ahead.

Do YOU, want to adopt the 'personna', of one of my [fictional] Judges?

Post your comment below, indicating which 'personna', you are using.

The referee's decision is final.[The referee is Mr.C.G Jung of Switzerland]