Tuesday, January 12, 2010
One then turns again in yearning to Plato’s intuition. If he does not understand being with the piercing clarity of Aristotle, his healthy agnosticism prevents the despair that may arise from the exacting attitude of the pupil’s system. As Socrates mildly raised his hands and refused to define anything that exists, he still believed there was such a Definition. Yet to him, this Definition was its own reality, not something dependent on man to cognize it.

Of course, with or without man five cows exist on a hill, even without a man to count five. Yet, Plato posited a living entity making that five to be what it was. Aristotle rejected the form of ‘five’, ‘horse’, or ‘beauty’, as it would require a further rationale to unite the Form with the thing participating in it. If Aristotle was correct in these particular instances, what would he say if one replied, ‘True, there is a Being above the things that are, and Its Existence makes them to be what they are.’?

Aristotle’s massive hand stamped the seal on how one must conduct clear-sighted introspection of this world; even Darwin and Galileo praised his method and said with enough evidence, it would always provide the accurate result. With Plato one learns the faith in reason necessary to follow Aristotle in his mapping of this world. Yet, one also prudently withholds judgment on the world that bore this present one, until its Ambassador comes forth Himself in the light of Divine Revelation.

There are ‘thoughtless patterns of thought’, but only the ‘Mind in wrought’ can say from whence they came.


About Me

My Photo
Warsaw, Poland
Domine, spero quia mundum vicisti. Lord, I trust that Thou hast overcome the world. Panie, ufam, żeś pokonał świat.
View my complete profile