Search blog.co.uk

Aristotle and the Great Chain of Being

by ranfuchs @ 2008-01-30 - 01:31:06

Great_Chain_of_Being

We continue from the previous post to describe the world according to Aristotle

On earth, Aristotle suggested a hierarchical model he called The Great Chain of Being. It was not only a systematic method of classification, but also a scale of value – the higher an item was in the hierarchy the more it was worth. It gave organic items higher value than inorganic matter; living organisms were placed higher than planets; and within living organisms worms were at the bottom and men at the top. In Aristotle's view, the universe was ultimately perfect, which meant that the Great Chain was also perfect with no waste or duplication – each link contained exactly one species. This left no room for change or development and led to the doctrine of fixed species: if every link is occupied and none is occupied twice, no species can ever move from its original position. To do so would leave one level empty and put two species on another level.

It is easy to see why the Church adapted to Aristotle so willingly and why it eradicated any potential challenge. Aristotle’s philosophy separated the transient, corrupt earth from the perfection of the eternal heavens, and left room for the Divine and the angels beyond the outer spheres. (Some, for instance, speculated that the angels were pushing celestial bodies in their orbits.)

The Great Chain of Being was treated not only as a description of nature, but also as philosophical justification for social immobility; that is the futility of people attempting to change their status and position in society. Man, at the very center of the universe, was the crown of the creation. Christians were superior to every other man, and the Church was assigned to rule. This was a law of nature. This was the way the Church wanted it to remain.

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

PrettyintelligentprincessPrettyintelligentprincess [Member]
2008-01-30 @ 01:33

Sits, smiles and thinks...no f**king way am I even going to start!!!x

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-01-30 @ 01:35

no I've lost you completely. ???

alecwestonalecweston pro
2008-01-30 @ 22:25

... and where did he place women?

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-01-31 @ 01:23

it's an interesting question. I have never encountered him making any distinction. I suppose he referred to both man and woman as the same specie. Sometimes I am not sure he was right about it :)

jackfrostjackfrost pro
2008-01-31 @ 10:31

Agnosticism is for me!!

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-01-31 @ 12:06

was it a choice for you? why did you chose it?

jackfrostjackfrost pro
2008-01-31 @ 12:17

Theres a loaded question
this might help

Enlightenment philosopher David Hume contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt

The fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition (as in, "all bachelors are unmarried" or "all triangles have three angles"). All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that...." For instance, when one says, "I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy," one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence. Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that the sun will rise the next day, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the sun might be destroyed; the earth might be shattered in collision with a rogue asteroid or that person might die and will never see the sun rise.

What sets apart agnosticism from the general skepticism that permeates modern Western philosophy is that the nature of god is the crux of the issue, not whether god merely exists. Thus, the nature and attributes of god are of foremost concern, not whether God is merely "out there
Agnosticism maintains that the nature and attributes of God are beyond the grasp of man's finite and limited mind; those divine attributes transcend human comprehension. The concept of God is just too big a subject for a person to wrap his or her mind around. Humans might apply terms such as those found in the Catholic Encyclopedia that attempt to characterize god, terms such as "infinitely perfect spiritual substance," "omnipotent," "eternal," "incomprehensible," "infinite in intellect and will and in every perfection but, the agnostic would assert, these terms only underscore the inadequacy of our mental equipment to understand so vast, ephemeral and elusive a concept.
Many mainstream believers in the West embrace an agnostic creed. As noted above, for instance, Roman Catholic dogma about the nature of God contains many strictures of agnosticism. An agnostic who believes in God despairs of ever fully comprehending what it is in which he believes. But some believing agnostics assert that that very absurdity strengthens their belief rather than weakens it.

As for choosing it...i suppose my time in norten ireland as a soldier watching catholics and protestants coming out of church having prayed to the same "God"...then start throwing petrol bombs at each other...as a police officer seeing some of the hoorors that no real "God" would allow....

Well you did ask!!:))

P.S My children go to church as they should be allowed to discover...or not...religion for themselves..

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-01-31 @ 12:28

Thanks Jackfrost, this is fascinating. But if I understand correctly the concept of God behind our comprehension is also questionable isn’t it. Do you need to believe in the existence of such God to be agnostic?

As for examples like ‘the sun will surely rise tomorrow’ this is naturally only a guess or maybe a statistical statement. However, in my view question about our knowledge of the universe go even further. Like can a statement like ‘the sun shining now’ can be taken as a fact?

jackfrostjackfrost pro
2008-01-31 @ 12:42

That’s the point… I have no idea if he/she/it exists but if there is a God it is way beyond my comprehension to grasp what it is...If there is, I could only imagine that it may make more sense after I die...who knows...I would have thought the concept of being an agnostic would have appealed to you……I did consider if I was indeed an atheist…but I cannot bring myself to believe that we just are….

I believe the religions around the world are there to help the human race accept their mortality and for the leaders of the church to exert power and control on the masses…after all I think that if the Egyptians did not believe in their Gods the pyramids had no chance of being built…the belief that a better life in heaven awaits us allows the poor and suppressed to accept their lot….for if they didn’t there would be anarchy

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-01-31 @ 22:46

it seems that belief is something built into us. Church and other organisations take full advantage of this need and abuse it, but they could not have done it if it was not in us in the first place.

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).