But the question must arise how then does man observe a hat and know it is a hat? If this world is merely a shadow of a real world, how then does man know he has got the right universal applied to the right shadow of his existence?
Plato’s answer was that Man, before birth, had access to this real world. And then, sometime after birth, during an encounter with a chair–or a hat or a couch– man’s memory is inspired to remember what he forgot. This explanation is called Innate Ideas. Man innately understands the relationship between the shadow world particular and the perfect world Form. So it is a pre-existing consciousness that makes possible the translation of particulars to Universals.
Plato’s formulation for Universals remained until Christianity objected to the concept of pre-existence. The Christian theological solution was to adopt Plato’s theory of Universals and merely eliminate pre-existence. Man does not exist before birth, but at birth God grants general revelation such that man can have an intuitive or spiritual understanding of this super-naturalist world. So Christianity maintained innate ideas but shifted the source of innate ideas to the imputation of revelation. Christian theology maintained that Universals are objects in a “pure” reality, above human experience. This was a metaphysical necessity because the world of matter was infused with sin and corruption. The perfect transcendent world is the “real” world. The earthly material world is a false evil replica. Universals are real. This world of particulars is a vapor.
Plato’s theory of Universals is called Extreme Realism.
Moderate Realism
Aristotle started his philosophical life as a Platonist, fully committed to the whole of his mentor’s formulation. But some years later, after leaving the Plato’s school called the Academy, he saw fundamental flaws in Plato’s theory of Universals. His criticism was that Plato offered no explanation on why or how the world of Universals interacted with the world of particulars. Innate ideas (pre-existence or post existence) does not explain how the Universal’s “shadow” is cast into this world. This poses a central problem: If Plato’s theory is correct, then Universals are fully separate from the world of particulars, which means they are separate from the whole of human cognition.
Aristotle offered his own explanation to the problem of Universals. He said that only particulars exist, but Universals are real. Particulars exist, but Universals only exist in particulars. The distinction is that Universals are not things. They are not particulars, but rather the product of human cognitive integration; they are the foundational objects of conceptual thought.
Let us take a closer look at Aristotle’s formulation. Everything is particular, and it is concrete; everything is a “this.” The “this” has a certain nature, but it also shares characteristics with other “this,” and these characteristics are a “such.” Particulars exist as a metaphysical compound comprised of two elements: a primary substance and a secondary substance. The secondary substance is a “such.” The “such” is used for classification, and the classification is the universalizing element. Universals are the product of particulars and shared by all representatives of a class. So everything is comprised of an individualizing element and a universalizing element.
Aristotle used specific terms for these elements: For the particular, individuating element, he uses the term matter. This is the Greek word enérgeia, that is the English word energy and might be best understood as the potential or the possibility within the particular. The secondary substance of a particular is (borrowing from Plato) form. When Aristotle speaks of a particulars “form” he is identifying the ousía, which is a Greek word that means “essence” or “being.” (2 See Trinitarian note)
Aristotle further explained that action, motion, and quantity are specific to entities. It is important to grasp this point: Prior to Aristotle, the ancient world made no conceptual distinction between hat and hat-ness, or blue and blue-ness, or big and big-ness. So to ask an ancient Greek philosopher, “Do you still have a blue hat if you remove blue from the hat?” and he would respond with no, because the blue and the hat are, in his mind, both synonymous. The Greeks may have made common sense distinctions in day-to-day life, but action, motion, quantity, color, and temperature, et cetera, were synonymous with the particular. So Aristotle’s formulation was a profound metaphysical and epistemological shift. In The Categories, he takes great pains to make the distinction between the particular and attributes. Aristotle’s conclusion: There was no such thing as action for action’s sake, or motion for motion’s sake, or number for number’s sake. There is no such thing as walking unless something is walking. There is no such thing as breathing unless something is breathing. There is no such thing as big unless something is big. There was no such thing as blue unless something was blue. There is no such thing as 5 or 500 without 5 or 500 something. Aristotle’s conclusion was that change, motion, and quantity are names for what entities do.
Natural law?
Hummm… well, in as much as I think that morality is inextricably tied to man’s nature, and that man’s nature is recognized by Aristotle’s Law of Identity it would be correct to say that morality is derived from natural law. (I might amend this later but for the moment I think that is an accurate statement)
Altruistic moral standard . . . yes most people trip over this. They have heard for so long that altruism is THE moral ideal that they struggle to grasp its true implications.
The oldest moral standard (held by all religions, in all ages) is that Man must sacrifice . . . that Self Sacrifice is the highest moral standard. This is the root animal and human sacrifice. While most people object to this moral expression today they think nothing of demanding that a man “sacrifice” for his neighbor’s healthcare. And by sacrifice they mean to say that the able, working men should be politically compelled to provide medical services to the sick. But in reality the only difference between the sacrificial bull and the man is that the man is a living sacrifice. While man lives he has no moral right to the sum and substance of his life. He MUST kill himself in service to those who have need. And this is what altruism really means: Altruism demands the destruction of values as such. To be altruistic is to destroy a value BECAUSE it is a value. You can have no values. The moment you hold a value is the moment that value must be destroyed.
No man can actually live by this standard . . . by definition . . . so the only choice is to divorce morality from practicality. The result is that people cheat to live. Of course they don’t think they are cheating because so many people do the same thing. No one cries foul when the cheating abounds.
And your examples are good examples of this cheating.
“I may just be coming at it from the wrong angle, but in my own personal faith walk I still believe that “self-sacrifice” is necessary.”
Necessary? Why? From where does this necessity come?
“I don’t love answering my annoying little brothers phone calls and trying to put up with him, but I know he needs a male figure in his life. I sacrifice my time for that.”
This is the cheating I was speaking about. You are misstating your own values to accommodate the moral standard. Your implied moral standard is that you SHOULD place your time above the needs of your brother but to be moral you must subordinate your time to his “annoyance.” But in truth your value structure places the benefit of your brothers DEVELOPMENT above your “annoyance”. As well you should. The absence of “Annoyance” is not a value worth perusing. No man can create an environment absent annoyance because it is the byproduct of whim, of emotion.
But your brother’s social development IS a value worth pursuing in as much as your brother uses your input to develop.
Man has value because he is man as such they are worth investing values (time, energy, relationship, money). As such it is a correct individual expression to give what is within your power and good pleasure to give.
But do not confuse this with giving to a man who holds no personal worth, who aspires to no values, and specifically seeks to destroy the values given him. This later would be the true definition of altruism . . . demanding that you give your time, money, knowledge knowing full well that your answers and influence would serve no purpose what-so-ever.
“I try to give money sometimes even when I’d rather not, because God has blessed me with so, so much including a business. “
Again, you cheat. The real motive for giving is because you see it as a means of eventual increase. This is not sacrifice. Deferring a momentary pleasure to achieve a long term goal is called an investment. Just like a farmer who plants a seed of corn cannot say he sacrificed a meal, you can’t say you sacrificed a dollar when you ultimately believe you will receive many more dollars (or the equivalent) in the future.
“I feel like giving keeps our hearts healthy, even if it’s just giving a bit, God can still use it to mold us.”
And this is probably the greatest cheat of all—The presumption that generosity is a product of altruism. In fact Altruism destroys generosity at the root. By definition you can make no claim to a value . . . so you are not being “generous” when you give, you are merely handing over what the needy person was rightfully entitled to posses. You can make no claim to spiritual or psychological health based on the altruist moral code. You can reap NO benefit by your actions.
The only way man can be truly generous is to own the sum of his life without moral recrimination. Only then can it be said that his act of giving is an act of generosity. He had no moral requirement to give, so if he does give it is because he sees the act of giving as a worthy expression of his personal value.
Argo . . . this is exactly right.