Aristotle

[mindlight]

It was after the fall of Constantinople in 1204 that Latin versions of the Greek, without an Islamic intermediary became available in the West.

The Orthodox church basically rejected Aristotles way of doing things and it took the schism and the fourth crusade to release the texts to scholars in the Western church. Theologians like Thomas Aquinas then used this new found Aristotelianism to construct a vast scholastic theological system.

I am interested in what Orthodoxy considered to be so wrong about Aristotle and his world view and so apparently harmful to Christian interests. As a Protestant I too am not in love with the scholastics and wonder if we took a dead end with this turn´of events but am interested in the specifically Orthodox reasons for this rejection.

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer on this one.

 

[mindlight]

My understanding is that Anselm was much influenced by Aristotles view of God forming his argument for Gods existence on a similar basis to Aristotles view of Gods being as being that of the únmoved mover, of being all actuality with no potentiality for further improvement:

"that than which nothing greater can be conceived".

Aquinas may also have been influenced by the notion of 4 causes used by Aristotle in building his own closed dogmatic system and in the formation of his 5 proofs for the existence of God for instance.

1) Material
2) Formal
3) Efficient
4) Final


However the Aristotelian God was devoid of anger and love in Aristotles and apparently Anselms view also as in many Muslim and Jewish theologies also. He only appears to us to have these emotions. This seems inconsistent with the biblical record which states God is love for instance.

The use of negative categories seems to have been adopted by Orthodoxy as a way of describing what God is not and indeed other doctrines also. e.g. God is not nonexistent

e.g. Incarnation
Jesus is not just Divine
Jesus is not just a man
The Divine and the human are not mingled
etc.

Muslim and Jewish scholars both seem to have used Aristotle a lot also and I wonder how this influenced the development of Muslim theology especially.

Aristotelian view of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I also wonder at the influence of Aristotles ethics and the differences between Orthodoxy and catholicism on this for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics

e.g. the view that the interests of the individual should be subordinated to those of the polis (state)

The ways in which Thomist ethics were extracted from readings of Aristotle and then these were asserted as prior to all other systems by the Catholic church.

 

[MKJ]

I don't think what Anselm said about God with relation to love is inconsistent with Scripture. I can't speak for Thomas. What he said, and as far as I know all Christian theologians say, is that God does not have emotions. Properly speaking, love is not an emotion at all.

He also said that to us, and in Scripture, it sometimes seems as if God has emotions of changes his reaction to us, but that is the effect of how we change, and how we perceive God based on that change. God is in fact above emotion, above love, and above reason. We are not, and we perceive God according to our mode of being, not according to his.

Aristotle and the other ancient philosophers had quite a different view of God, which Thomas didn't adopt whole hog, at all. For them god didn't will creation or even know about it. It (not he) is abstract, not a person or a personality, not loving, simply the source of all and the ground of all reality.

These ideas did have a lot of influence on Christian philosophy, even earlier than when Aristotle was reintroduced to the West by Thomas and Albert. The neoplatonic philosophers, who were followes of both Plato and Aristotle, lived at the same time as many of the early Christian thinkers in the East. So if you look at Pseudo-Dionysius and all the thionkers who were influenced by that book, that is very neoplatonic material. In the West you see it in someone like John Scotus Eriugena, or in Augustine who was at one time a neoplatonist, though to me it has a much less neoplatonic character that what you see in the East. I think the Romans were much to earthy and practical to be really good neoplatonists.

So I always find the claim that Thomas was doing something new in looking at pagan philosophy really weird myself. I'd also say that while in the Catholic Church Thomas has often been understood to be very Aristotelian, some scholars think he was much more influenced by neoplatonic thought than is usually claimed. I can't speak to this myself.

 

[Barky]

There's a lot to say here, more than I could put in a post. I can recommend a book, "Aristotle: East and West" by David Bradshaw. It illustrates how Aristotle was taken in the East and The West and shows how that mattered in the theology of both.

 

[ProScribe]

Aristotle was not the only Philosopher, but there were others as well.

 

[MKJ]

Aristotle was not the only Philosopher, but there were others as well.

Too true.

 

[Tzaousios]

There's a lot to say here, more than I could put in a post. I can recommend a book, "Aristotle: East and West" by David Bradshaw. It illustrates how Aristotle was taken in the East and The West and shows how that mattered in the theology of both.

I second the recommendation of Bradshaw's book. It is very thorough and addresses this exact topic.

The OP might also keep in mind that there was something of a resurgence in interest in Aristotle among Orthodox theologians in the early modern Tourkokratia period. They sought to rescue him from being pressed into the missionary efforts of Catholic Jesuits and Scholastics among the Orthodox at the time.

 

[mindlight]

I don't think what Anselm said about God with relation to love is inconsistent with Scripture. I can't speak for Thomas. What he said, and as far as I know all Christian theologians say, is that God does not have emotions. Properly speaking, love is not an emotion at all.

Jesus as fully God and fully man in one person experienced what we mean by emotions in his humanity. Gods delight in goodness and the eternal love relationship of the Trinity into which we are invited may be far more than our understandings can grasp and are clearly transcendent to our merely human understandings of love as an emotion or the satisfaction we feel with something that is good, noble, pure, beautiful or lovely for instance.

Surely in Christ the divine mode of feeling begins to become accessible. Aristotle did not understand this. At the last Aquinas may have understood it (when he had a dramatic experience of God which left him suggesting that everything he had written was as straw.)

He also said that to us, and in Scripture, it sometimes seems as if God has emotions of changes his reaction to us, but that is the effect of how we change, and how we perceive God based on that change. God is in fact above emotion, above love, and above reason. We are not, and we perceive God according to our mode of being, not according to his.

I am not sure we need to try and defend Aristotelian notions of immutability or impassibility. God may not change like a man changes but that does not have to imply there is not a divine mode of feeling in which through Christ we may to some small extent be privileged to share.

Aristotle and the other ancient philosophers had quite a different view of God, which Thomas didn't adopt whole hog, at all. For them god didn't will creation or even know about it. It (not he) is abstract, not a person or a personality, not loving, simply the source of all and the ground of all reality.

So is Aristotle a deist?

These ideas did have a lot of influence on Christian philosophy, even earlier than when Aristotle was reintroduced to the West by Thomas and Albert. The neoplatonic philosophers, who were followes of both Plato and Aristotle, lived at the same time as many of the early Christian thinkers in the East. So if you look at Pseudo-Dionysius and all the thionkers who were influenced by that book, that is very neoplatonic material. In the West you see it in someone like John Scotus Eriugena, or in Augustine who was at one time a neoplatonist, though to me it has a much less neoplatonic character that what you see in the East. I think the Romans were much to earthy and practical to be really good neoplatonists.

So I always find the claim that Thomas was doing something new in looking at pagan philosophy really weird myself. I'd also say that while in the Catholic Church Thomas has often been understood to be very Aristotelian, some scholars think he was much more influenced by neoplatonic thought than is usually claimed. I can't speak to this myself.

Interesting thoughts I need to look these guys up again and reread my Anselm. I have a lot to research here

 

[mindlight]

There's a lot to say here, more than I could put in a post. I can recommend a book, "Aristotle: East and West" by David Bradshaw. It illustrates how Aristotle was taken in the East and The West and shows how that mattered in the theology of both.

Thanks for that I will look out for it. Was there anything in that book which particularly struck you about Aristotles contribution negative or positive to orthodoxy?

 

[mindlight]

The OP might also keep in mind that there was something of a resurgence in interest in Aristotle among Orthodox theologians in the early modern Tourkokratia period. They sought to rescue him from being pressed into the missionary efforts of Catholic Jesuits and Scholastics among the Orthodox at the time.

Yes I feel that the contrast I drew at the beginning is breaking down. It seems both east and west used Aristotle, in a myriad of different ways and thinkers, although the West was slower in that process. It was an incidental benefit of the fourth crusade ( an otherwise entirely shameful and self destructive episide for Christendom) that these texts were released into the west in Latin.

It is interesting to note as you say the Orthodox response to Aristotle mania in the medieval Catholic church also.

 

[ElijahW]

The Orthodox church basically rejected Aristotles way of doing things and it took the schism and the fourth crusade to release the texts to scholars in the Western church. Theologians like Thomas Aquinas then used this new found Aristotelianism to construct a vast scholastic theological system.

Aristotle was a substance guy. His understanding of God was a pure push. The early Christians were on the side of Plato and the idealists, who opposed that thinking completely, regardless of how well Aristotle argued his points. Aquinas used Aristotle’s method to argue his understanding of God and the universe but the understanding was completely different. His understanding of God’s primary act was to exist, instead of pushing/moving God like Aristotle.

 

[mindlight]

Aristotle was not the only Philosopher, but there were others as well.

Too true but my special interest is in Aristotle because he was also a link man with the theological discussions with Islam and Judaism at the time of Aquinas. Aristotle provides a rationalistic platform for these three religions to converse from. Muslims were indeed deeply enthusiastic about him although it seems in the light of what has been shared here that they drew much of their thinking from the works of earlier Orthodox theologians and scribes.

Various myths have been passed around about Islam passing Aristotle on to the West. But in fact it seems the ransacking of Orthodox Constantinople was the key factor. I am not sure why Constantinople was unable to share these thoughts freely with Rome before the schism?

 

[mindlight]

Aristotle was a substance guy. His understanding of God was a pure push. The early Christians were on the side of Plato and the idealists, who opposed that thinking completely, regardless of how well Aristotle argued his points. Aquinas used Aristotle’s method to argue his understanding of God and the universe but the understanding was completely different. His understanding of God’s primary act was to exist, instead of pushing/moving God like Aristotle.

Interesting way of putting it. So the unmoved mover pushes everything in Aristotles way of thinking while the primary thing for the neoPlatonic thinking was that our primary experience of God is that He is who He is and will always be what what He will always be. The irresistable God of the book of revelation who has preordained his unstoppable acts versus the God Moses experienced at the burning Bush.

 

[gzt]

Bradshaw gives a rather idealistic pro-Orthodox reading of Aristotle which other scholars might disagree with.

But, to say the very least, it would be wrong to say that the Orthodox are anti-Aristotle and the West is pro-Aristotle (it isn't even universally so, Augustinian vs Thomist is a very old divide in Catholicism). It definitely is true that the Orthodox don't like Scholasticism, specifically Thomism, but that doesn't mean we must dislike Aristotle.

 

[ElijahW]

Interesting way of putting it. So the unmoved mover pushes everything in Aristotles way of thinking while the primary thing for the neoPlatonic thinking was that our primary experience of God is that He is who He is and will always be what what He will always be. The irresistable God of the book of revelation who has preordained his unstoppable acts versus the God Moses experienced at the burning Bush.

I’m not sure what that last sentence means.

While understood as constant, I think the primary experience, is that God is unknowable for the Platonist and their ilk. Aristotle is explaining how/why his clockwork understanding of the universe moves.

 

[Tzaousios]

Bradshaw gives a rather idealistic pro-Orthodox reading of Aristotle which other scholars might disagree with.

This is true, because Bradshaw is actually an Orthodox Christian. He was also an academic physicist before switching to philosophy. This probably accounts for a certain amount of skepticism towards Aristotle!

But, to say the very least, it would be wrong to say that the Orthodox are anti-Aristotle and the West is pro-Aristotle (it isn't even universally so, Augustinian vs Thomist is a very old divide in Catholicism). It definitely is true that the Orthodox don't like Scholasticism, specifically Thomism, but that doesn't mean we must dislike Aristotle.

Yes, I would say there is not really an inherent hatred for or distrust of Aristotle on the part of Orthodox theologians because of his philosophical presuppositions. Rather, hardened battle lines were drawn between a Scholastic, Catholic "Aristotle" and the more speculative, Orthodox "Plato/Plotinus" during the polemical debates of the councils of union in the later middle ages.

 

[MKJ]

I don't think I would call Aristotle a deist mindlight. That to me implies a god who is not at all immanent, and I don't think it would be correct to describe Aristotle's view that way. But for all of the pagan philosophers it would be true to say that god is in no way a person.

I also think it is very wrong to set Aristotle and Plato against each other too much. Aristotle was Plato's student, and many of the differences between them are Aristotle exploring problems or deficiencies in Plato's system of thought, and trying to find a solution.

The philosophers that we now call neoplatonists did reject some of Aristotle's solutions, but they really were not pure platonists. They were as much influenced by Aristotle as they were by Plato.

I think Aristotle is very interesting to Christians for several reasons. For one, compared to Plato he is very positive about matter, he is much closer to seeing it as something real and good in itself, not just a prison for pure spirit.

And then, one of the difficulties Plato had was showing how the mutiplicity that is creation could spring out of the absolute oneness of god. Aristotle said that god was like mind, and what a mind does is think. What does it think about? Itself, because it is the only perfect object of thought. So into god is a division, he is both subject and object at the same time, unity and multiplicity. That is the multiplicity that the created world springs from for Aristotle.

From a Christian perspective I think that is a very facinating bit of pre-Christian philosophy.

 

[mindlight]

I’m not sure what that last sentence means.

While understood as constant, I think the primary experience, is that God is unknowable for the Platonist and their ilk. Aristotle is explaining how/why his clockwork understanding of the universe moves.

At the burning Bush God reveals his name to Moses as "I am who I am" . It is the definition of pure being. There is no analogy by which he can be known. Plato comes nearest to this way of looking at God

The book of Revelation is a series of predetermined , unstoppable events pushed out by God, without negotiation. God is the mover and we are the recipients of his push. So this seems more Aristotelian .

God may be unknowable to Platonists but if he chooses to reveal himself not least in human form he can be known if only as a voice from a burning bush.

 

[mindlight]

Bradshaw gives a rather idealistic pro-Orthodox reading of Aristotle which other scholars might disagree with.

But, to say the very least, it would be wrong to say that the Orthodox are anti-Aristotle and the West is pro-Aristotle (it isn't even universally so, Augustinian vs Thomist is a very old divide in Catholicism). It definitely is true that the Orthodox don't like Scholasticism, specifically Thomism, but that doesn't mean we must dislike Aristotle.

More food for thought , thanks.

 

[mindlight]

Bradshaw gives a rather idealistic pro-Orthodox reading of Aristotle which other scholars might disagree with.

But, to say the very least, it would be wrong to say that the Orthodox are anti-Aristotle and the West is pro-Aristotle (it isn't even universally so, Augustinian vs Thomist is a very old divide in Catholicism). It definitely is true that the Orthodox don't like Scholasticism, specifically Thomism, but that doesn't mean we must dislike Aristotle.

So would it be fair to say that in the Orthodox view Aquinas misread Aristotle or is it the case that they were just less willing to use his methods to create an all embracing scholastic system.