Chapter 15
                                  Conclusion Part II

    In the last chapter we studied Plato, and to a certain degree, Socrates,
to study the mood and intellect of the ancient dichotomous Greeks.  I feel
that we are beginning to see that in truth there is no difference between the
dichotomous Jew and the dichotomous Greek.  In this chapter we shall touch
briefly on Aristotle, who taught Alexander the great; and a pair of Roman
philosophers, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, who were slave and master.
    Aristotle was a critic in many areas, in the fields of science,
philosophy, morals, politics, and literature.  Because some of his statements
were later proven faulty or dead wrong, it is tempting to totally dismiss him.
However, if for no other reason than the fact that he was Alexander the
Great's teacher he must be mentioned here.  As stated earlier, Aristotle made
the final step away from Socrates by approaching all subjects through
scientific inquiry.  He was unwilling to accept a statement strictly on it's
theological value, but insisted on a physical explanation for everything,
through either deductive reasoning or inductive reasoning.  Because of this,
he was unable to make the transition from dichotomy to trichotomy.  This
requires a step of faith into the intangible and unexplained, and is not
proven through the scientific method.  Unfortunately, we are told, the final
proof, the visible return of our Lord and Saviour will close the time for
election, and judgement will commence.  There is a danger in over
intellectualizing our salvation.
    In Walter J. Black's publication of 'On Man In The Universe' by Aristotle,
we see in Metaphysics, Book XII, Aristotle's description of God, beginning in
Chapter 6: "There being three kinds of substance, two that are physical and
one immovable, we must now consider the last named and show that there must be
some eternal and immovable substance.  For substances are the first things
that are, and if they are all perishable, everything is bound to perish.  But
it is impossible that motion should have ever begun to be or should ever be

                                                         113
_______________________________________________________________________________


destroyed, for it always was.  Time too can never have begun; for there could
not be a before nor an after, if time did not exist.  Motion then is forever
continuing, as time is; for time is either the same as motion or a condition
of motion.  (But there is no continuous motion but motion in place, and of
this only motion in a circle.)
    If, however, there is something capable of moving or producing things, but
which is not actually doing so, there may be no motion, because that which has
the potentiality may not be making it actual.  Nothing is gained then by
supposing substances that are eternal, as the believers in ideas do, unless
there is in them a power to cause change.".
    We pause here for a few comments.  Aristotle was refuting Plato's theory
of eternally existing ideas.  He, also, seemed perplexed to some degree by the
need to describe perpetual motion, which he could not reproduce.  We see here
and throughout, his overwhelming need to label everything with a scientific
explanation.
    We now continue: "And even this would not be enough, nor would any other
substance beside the ideas be enough; unless it actually exerted its power,
there would be no motion.  Furthermore, even if it were active, it would not
be enough, if its essence were a potentiality, since in that case there would
be no eternal motion.  For a thing that exists potentially may perhaps not
exist.  There must therefore be a first principle of this kind, whose essence
is actuality.  Moreover, these substances must be free of matter, for they
must be eternal - if anything is to be eternal.  Thus they must actually
be....
    For these reasons some thinkers, such as Leucippus and Plato, believe in
something forever actual, because they say, motion is everlasting.  But why it
is and what it is they do not tell, nor, if it moves in such and such a way,
do they give us the cause.  Now nothing is moved at random, but there must
always be something there to move it, even as things are moved in one way by
Nature and in another by force or by mind or something else....  Therefore

                                                            114
____________________________________________________________________________
Home