Aquinas Fourth Way the Argument from Gradations - Essay Example

Aquinas Fourth Way the Argument from Gradations The Aquinas’s arguments about God are one of the interesting arguments as these arguments illustrate five ways arguments with regard to the existence of the almighty God. The fourth way of Aquinas’s reasoning may be summarized as “if things are more or less good, something must be best and this something is God” (Elders, 111). Generally, the interpretation of this argument is that since in nature there exist good things and better things, then there must exist best thing and this best thing must be God. However, throughout Aquinas’s arguments, there is belief that the argument for the existence of God is only possible if we could think of the works or the effects of God. For this argument to proceed Aquinas’s idea is that human beings have to think of something as an effects of God and in the fourth way of argument, this thing is the best effect of God The understanding of the Aquinas’s arguments for the existence of god therefore begins with the analysis of his gradation criteria. He talks about good, better, and best. He finds some things to be “better”, true, and noble while others are less good, true or noble respectively (Elders, 114). In this way of argument, it is difficult to integrate his arguments especially when it comes to this kind of comparison. Many philosophers and researchers have questioned his arguments asking questions. For example if comparing two or more things, then you say that A is better than B, is Aquinas trying to assert that there is something better compared to the two and many others whose perfection cannot be challenged? This forms the basis for criticisms of the Aquinas fourth argument. The challenge here is to prove that there is actually something that is perfect beyond improvement. However as observed by Soccio (228), it would be misleading to argue that given a number of things with different degrees of goodness, there is one among those things that would not be possible to make any changes with regard to improving it. In other words, he asserts that there is no point believing Aquinas’s idea that there is something perfect beyond improvement. It therefore forms the weaker point of the Aquinas arguments since he believes that if we have to group different things together, yes we will have some of the best things, however, it would still be possible to improve that thing with regard to the degree of goodness. It is also possible to improve better to become better than the best. Another critic of Aquinas’s fourth way of argument is that he describes God in a sequence of being best among a group but denies later in the proceeding metaphors that he cannot group him in a group of the same kinds. In the next lines, he states that he does not think of God as the best or a group of things that can be graded together with respect to intelligent (Soccio, 230). The question therefore is; how can you compare things as good, better and best or truer, nobler, etc if in the first place you can’t group them together or they are not similar? In this way, it does not explain or describe the truth about the existence of God in this fourth way of argument because it is not clear. While Aquinas describes the effects, it is also important to note that we can only compare things with similar characteristics but God has no characteristics similar to any as he explains. However other philosophers have argued that this use of parallel texts is not misleading but it is misinterpreted by the individual’s readers of the Aquinas texts. According to Wippel (469), the perfections mentioned by the Aquinas are the transcendental perfections. In this context the interpretation of things like the “more” or less do not necessarily mean that the arguments are based on the things that are perceived by the senses and known by the intellect. In this point of view, the true of the text does not refer to the logical truth of intellect but to the ontological truth of things. With this regard, it is important to realize that it is difficult to interpret the texts and the meanings would come out depending on your interpretation. The idea that effects are like their causes as described by Aquinas thinking is also misleading to some extent. It is not true to argue that the effects of any particular are similar to the causes. Naturally, there are different effects of nature that are not similar to their causes. As observed by Velde (209), something that gives others perfection has this perfection to the highest degree is misleading. However the way of thinking of Aquinas that the maximum being gives the maxim to the other. This way of thinking is acceptable to some extent. As outlined by Wippel (472), the idea that when an individual things needs restoration, it can only be restored to its normal being or functioning using the perfect or the maximum thing. In this respect, the maximum thing resembles the perfect nature of God. In this way of argument, something that is closer to the most perfect resembles high degree of perfection compared to those that are far from the perfect thing. As a result, we see a different thing with different perfection in nature. This explains the differences that we can see and God represent the perfect being that influences the nature of these other beings. It is also observable that this way of argument illustrates some of the most important differences between God and the natural things available on earth. In elaboration of this way of Aquinas arguments, it is important to realize if God is perfect, then it influences the level of perfection in other beings and hence it explains why other beings and materials may experience difficulties or deficiencies in one way or another. In this respect, the perfect being who is God has taken away some of the perfections and hence we should go back to him to seek for the perfections. The above arguments have however been very controversial to the understanding of what was meant by Aquinas in his argument. It is difficult for the reader to correlate both the deontological point of view and the transcendental point of view. For example, in the beginning of his texts he states things like more or less truth or more or less perfect which are very difficult to correlate with the actual experiences by the individuals. However as observed by Velde (212), his intention was to shrike thought among the individual people and not to incorporate literal meanings. He also observes that the intention of Aquinas is more relevant to the effects of the so described as the perfect being and not on the individuals. However lack of grouping makes it difficult to compare things in a sequence as good better best. The question that is not answered in the Aquinas way of thinking is that do we have other things that are similar to God? Of course we don’t have but the problem that still remains is how we can go ahead and says that God exists and is the perfect being or the maximum. The strongest point of the Aquinas’s argument and the way of thinking is in the last statements when he argues that “there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God” (Wippel, 471). This tends to give more light on the differences that exist within the nature. It is actually true and can be seen that there are different causes of goodness, from animals to plants. There must be something therefore that is in existence and hence result into these effects. This may explain the differences in beings as they are affected by the most perfect being. Other perfections are also caused by this being. According to Velde (213), this explains the differences in perfection and why it is important to seek for the perfection from the most perfect so as to become perfect as well. In conclusions, the fourth way of argument presents some of the best explanations and assists in the understanding of Gods existence. However, it is not very clear due to the parallel texts that are stated by Aquinas. In this perspective the first issue that most people cannot agree with is the idea that there is a perfect thing that cannot exhibit the possibility of making any further changes to it. The idea of having good, better and best does not explain the existence of God. This is because Aquinas also states in the next statements that this perfect thing is not comparable to any being and hence it is God. In this point of view, it is difficult to compare the incomparable as good better and best. Another observation is that the idea that the maximum in any genus is the cause of all that is in that genus is contradicted. However, the point of argument that there must be something that is perfect to all beings seem relevant as explained by Aquinas that this is the cause of the goodness in this beings. This is evident in all the activities and things happening in nature and hence we can believe that there is something that is the cause of this variability and hence that something is God. The explanation of Aquinas is therefore relevant to some extent but does not give clear account of the perfect being. The fourth way explains clearly the impacts and how the perfect being is exhibited but does not come clear on the issues of perfection. References Elders, Leo. “The philosophical theology of st. Thomas Aquinas.” Geneva: Laiden Publishers, 1990. Soccio, Doughlas J. “Archetypes of wisdom: An introduction to Philosophy.” Belmont: Wadsworth, 2007. Velde, Rudi A. “Participation and substantiality in Thomas Aquinas, volume 46.” Geneva: E. J. Brill, 1995. Wippel, John F. “the metaphysical thought of Thomas Aquinas: from finite being to uncreated being.” New York: Catholic University of America, 2000. Read More