By
Mike Robinson
 |
| All true philosophy finds its source in God. |
In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John
1:1).
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End,” says the Lord, “who is and who was and who is
to come, the Almighty”
(Jesus Christ: Revelation 1:7-8).
Behind this unreliable world of appearances
is a world of … “Forms” or “Ideas” (eidos/idea in Greek). But what
is a Platonic Form or Idea? Take for example a perfect triangle... This would
be a description of the Form or Idea of (a) Triangle. Plato says such Forms
exist in an abstract state but independent of minds in their own realm.
Considering this Idea of a perfect triangle, we might also be tempted to take
pencil and paper and draw it. Our attempts will of course fall short. Plato
would say that peoples’ attempts to recreate the Form will end up being a pale
facsimile of the perfect Idea, just as everything in this world is an imperfect
representation of its perfect Form. The Forms are not limited to geometry.
According to Plato, for any conceivable thing or property there is a
corresponding Form, a perfect example of that thing or property. The list is
almost inexhaustible. Tree, House, Mountain, Man, Woman, Ship, Cloud, Horse,
Dog, Table and Chair, would all be examples of putatively
independently-existing abstract perfect Ideas.[1]
The thinking Christian knows that God is the
foundation for the laws of logic and other immaterial truths. Pressing
this actuality is a potent way to refute materialistic atheism (see my post Here). Most atheists are materialists
and even strict materialists (physicalists). Nonetheless, there is a small
minority of atheists who affirm the reality or possibility of immaterial things
such as the laws of logic, selected universals, and Forms.[2] Sundry schools
affirm immaterial Platonic Forms[3] of one sort or another. Yet what in an
atheist world could produce or ground such immutable universals? The human mind
and the material cosmos both lack immutability and universal reign. God is
immutable and has universal reign and thus the ontological capacity to ground
immutable universals such as selected Forms, ideas, and the laws of logic.
Problems with the Theory of Ungrounded Forms
A.
Various
problems appear when one attempts to ground any immutable universal outside
God. Selected queries that should be asked regarding ungrounded &
impersonal Forms:
1.
Plato’s
Forms look as if they are arbitrary as well as incomplete. Are all variety of
things Forms such as mud, urine, and skin?
2.
When
and who decides when a Form is not one particular Form but another? When is a
large stream Form a creek and not a stream? And when is a large creek a river?
Or a large lake Form actually a small sea Form? When is a large hill
form actually a mountain Form. Plato’s Forms look, under scrutiny, to be more
than a bit problematic.
Who is the world’s shortest giant or the
tallest midget?
3.
Are
Plato’s Forms something definite and if so, where do they reside? What is the
ontological makeup of Plato’s Forms? Are they transcendent or immanent? Or
both?
4.
If one
suggests that Plato’s Forms are transcendent how do they effect the land of the
living—the non-transcendent? If they are merely a Form, they do not possess
causal powers, so how do they affect the material world? By what power do they
achieve their rule?
5.
Are
the Forms atemporal and aspatial? –if they are, how do they effect the temporal
and spatial realm?– by what means do they bridge the gap? Forms are impersonal
so they lack will and the power to act and determine things, so how does any
non-theistic Form rule as God rules? God is a divine person so He acts, wills,
and has the power to effect the non-transcendent.
6.
If one
denies theism, I cannot apprehend any evidence
that a Form or Forms exist anywhere. But there seems to be
counterevidence against the possibility of ungrounded Forms, since Forms
cannot avoid an infinite regress of negative Forms. Is a Form of a bear also a
Form of “not-deer,” and “not-car,” and “not-tree,” and “not-planet,” and
“not-number 2” and ad infintum? I cannot see how a Form avoids such. The
concept of ungrounded Forms falls into an infinite regress.
A Theory of Forms fails to explain most of
reality. It appears that such theories lack the ability to explain change? Additionally,
a Theory of Forms may have trouble explaining particulars, love, and the moral
ought?
God Has the Explanatory Capacity to Explain
Material and Immaterial Truths
In the
beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).
God is
the beginning, middle, and end of all. He is the supreme mind or reason, the effectual
cause of all things, eternal, unchangeable…[4]
The Christian worldview has the explanatory
power to explain all things–it appears that the Theory of Ungrounded Forms
falls infinitely short in accounting for things it’s designed to enlighten.
In your light do we see light (Psalm 36:9).
The distinctiveness
of the Platonic philosophy is precisely this direction toward the supersensuous
world, it seeks the elevation of consciousness into the realm of spirit. The
Christian religion also has set up this high principle, that the interior
spiritual essence of man is his true essence, and has made it the universal
principle.[5]
A dualism[6] that manifests in the Theory
of Forms might be compatible with minority schools of atheism, but it appears
to be an awkward amalgamation. The Theory of Forms advances the existence of
mental constituents such as ideas, minds, and souls. These immaterial elements can
intrude causally in the physical world of change. Similarly, God is a
non-material Person—a Spiritual being that ordains and interposes His will on
the material world. Most atheists believe the notion that it is incongruent
that an immaterial thing can intrude causally in the physical world.
Accordingly, consenting to the reality that immaterial mental elements exist
seems to eliminate a major objection to the existence of God.
Moreover, how did these immaterial elements and ideas
come into being through unguided evolutionary progression?
A dualism that
exhibits itself in a Theory of Forms might be united with marginal schools of
atheism but seems to be an uncomfortable unification. It would be easier to
press Sasquatch’s feet into Dorothy’s ruby slippers than a Theory of Forms into
atheism.
See my new
Apologetics eBook Reality and the Follyof Atheism HERE
2.
Forms: I capitalize
the word “Form” in order to help the unfamiliar reader correctly identify the usage.
3.
The importance of Plato for the history of philosophy is
evident… For Plato to understand anything … is to relate it to its class
concept [Form or Idea]… Greg Bahnsen: Van
Til’s Apologetic, p. 318.
4.
Plato,
Republic. 716 A.
5.
Hegel. History of Philosophy, Vol. 2.
6.
Plato believed that the same point could be
made with regard to many other abstract concepts: even though we perceive only
their imperfect instances, we have genuine knowledge of truth, goodness, and
beauty no less than of equality. Things of this sort are the Platonic
Forms,
abstract entities that exist independently of the sensible world. Ordinary
objects are imperfect and changeable, but they faintly copy the perfect and
immutable Forms. Thus, all of the information we acquire about sensible objects
(like knowing what the high and low temperatures were yesterday) is temporary,
insignificant, and unreliable, while genuine knowledge of the Forms themselves
(like knowing that 93 - 67 = 26) perfectly certain forever. Since we really do
have knowledge of these supra-sensible realities, knowledge that we cannot
possibly have obtained through any bodily experience, Plato argued, it follows
that this knowledge must be a Form of recollection and that our souls must have
been acquainted with the Forms prior to our births. But in that case, the
existence of our mortal bodies cannot be essential to the existence of our
souls—before birth or after death—and we are therefore immortal. http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2f.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment