Humans and Nature Finding Meaning Through Metaphysics Author Justin Stone

Rollins College
Rollins Scholarship Online

Master of Liberal Studies Theses
2013
Humans and Nature: Finding Meaning through

Metaphysics
Justin Stone
jstone@rollins.edu
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.rollins.edu/mls

Part of the Metaphysics Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of
Religion Commons
Recommended Citation
Stone, Justin, "Humans and Nature: Finding Meaning through Metaphysics" (2013). Master of Liberal Studies Theses. 42.
http://scholarship.rollins.edu/mls/42
This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Rollins Scholarship Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Liberal
Studies Theses by an authorized administrator of Rollins Scholarship Online. For more information, please contact rwalton@rollins.edu.
Humans and Nature:
Finding Meaning Through Metaphysics
A Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Liberal Studies
by
Justin S. Stone
May, 2013
Mentor: Dr. Hoyt Edge

Reader: Dr. Robert Vander Poppen
Rollins College
Hamilton Holt School
Master of Liberal Studies Program Winter Park, Florida
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Chapter 1 – Ancient Thought: Plato and Aristotle 7
Chapter 2 – Medieval Philosophy: From Augustine to Aquinas 22
Chapter 3 – The Scientific Revolution: Descartes and Bacon 34

Redefine Nature
Chapter 4 – Spinoza: God in the Machine 48
Chapter 5 – Heidegger: Return of Metaphysics 56
Conclusion 67
Index of References 72
1
Introduction
Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which
Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward
must find a home. That man is the product of causes which had no provision of the end
they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his
beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collisions of atoms…
- Russell Bertrand
Before the 19th Century, individuals who studied the natural world were called
natural philosophers. To explore and understand the inner workings of nature and
humanity, natural philosophers used many different modes of thinking such as logic,
mathematics, physics, and metaphysics, or “the ‘science’ that studied ‘being as such’.”1
The incorporation of these varied concepts brought about a comprehensive understanding
of nature and how humans relate to nature. Theories were devised from incorporeal
ideas, data was gathered from the human senses, and concrete evidence was pursued to
support philosophy.
However, through the years from ancient times to modernity, natural philosophy
slowly limited its use of revelation and metaphysics, restricting the quest for knowledge
to the methodical gathering of empirical data. Science, as humans now call this
procurement of knowledge, relies strictly on observation and calculation. And, because
metaphysics has been removed from the process, true associations between concepts and
observations are no longer identified, and all meaning is lost. Modern science often
appears as a flood of raw data that does not seem to apply to everyday life or connect one
theory to another. Thus, humanity is left with a one-sided empirical view of nature, and
the relationship between humans and nature is reduced to mechanistic coexistence. This
thesis will argue that metaphysics, or the study of the fundamental nature of being, is a
1
Van Inwagen, Peter, "Metaphysics," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/metaphysics/.
2
necessary component of natural philosophy in order for humans to understand and find
meaning in nature.
The word “metaphysics” comes from the Greek words meta, meaning “beyond”
or “after,” and physika, meaning “physics.” The fourteen books presently called
Aristotle’s Metaphysics was originally named by the ancient philosopher: ‘first
philosophy,’ ‘first science,’ ‘wisdom,’ and ‘theology.’ However, the initial use of the
word metaphysics occurred one hundred years after Aristotle’s death. Editors then
entitled Aristotle’s fourteen books Metaphysics to warn students that these advanced
topics should not be read until after reading and understanding Physics, his books
concerning the natural world.2
Aristotle claimed that change is the defining characteristic of nature and the
natural world; and on the other hand, the role of metaphysics in philosophy is to explain
the meaning of things that do not change. Peter van Inwagen argues that “in the
seventeenth century ‘metaphysics’ began to be a catch-all category, a repository of
philosophical problems that could not be otherwise classified: ‘not epistemology, not
logic, not ethics…’.”3 Consequently, metaphysics over time has boiled down to
everything that isn’t directly a question of science, eventually leading to the abandonment
of metaphysical thought by the natural sciences. Without metaphysics in modern science,
scientists are limited to gathering empirical data and drawing inconsequential
conclusions, thus missing the significance of how humans relate to their surroundings.
To prove that modern science is in need of metaphysics to connect humans with
nature, this thesis will trace the history of natural philosophy and signify the problems
2
Van Inwagen, Peter, "Metaphysics," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/metaphysics/.
3
Ibid.
3
that arise with the shift from comprehensive natural philosophy to strictly empirical
modern science. Starting with his explanations of being and nature, the Forms, Plato
established a first cause and final purpose for all natural phenomena. Plato’s Forms are
timeless and unchanging, unlike the physical world that humans experience with their
senses. The Forms are also Plato’s metaphysical source for abstract objects such as the
soul and mathematics. The Forms provide a universal picture of nature and human
interaction with nature.
Aristotle, Plato’s pupil, then observed many properties of nature and named his
observations Physics. To explain his concept, Aristotle created a metaphysical system
rooted in what is known as his four causes. These four causes explain changes within,
and causes of, natural phenomena. Aristotle was the father of teleology. Teleology, the
description of occurrences by their purpose rather than by their suggested cause, explains
all physical accounts of nature as existing for a final cause. Aristotle asserted that there is
a design and purpose to all natural entities, and he addressed the fact that humans have a
desire to understand their existence and their world through both their senses and their
ability to reason. Through his incorporation of metaphysical ideas with quantifiable
observations, Aristotle proposed a balanced view of natural philosophy that led to many
advances in knowledge.
The theories of Plato and Aristotle endured into the Medieval period of history in
the Western World, which was largely influenced by the Catholic Church. Ongoing
conversations amongst church scholars furthered the understanding of being and the
world. This thesis will follow the evolution of natural philosophy through Augustine of
Hippo and Thomas Aquinas during the Medieval time period.

4
Augustine advanced the understanding of human existence and nature through his
theories stemming from Plato’s philosophies. He recognized the importance of human
revelation; however, Augustine limited knowledge within the confines of Christianity.
Subsequently, Aquinas championed Aristotelian thought, and exemplified how revelation
and particularly deductive thinking can be used together to further the understanding of
natural phenomena.
Aquinas’ teachings prompted a surge in experimentation during the Renaissance,
resulting in an astounding amount of scientific discoveries. Subsequently, the Scientific
Revolution was the beginning of the rejection of ancient authority and metaphysics.
Separating the physical world from the incorporeal, or divine, natural philosophers of the
time held science as a separate entity from theology, in order to keep from threatening
church doctrine. For instance, Rene Descartes separated the human body from the human
mind by binding science to the physical world and theology to the metaphysical world.
Through his view of natural philosophy, Descartes conceived his own version of dualism,
subsequently called Cartesianism, which completely altered scientific views from the
comprehensive balance of natural philosophy to a more fixated empirical science
concerned only with matter, viewing nature as a complex machine. For other
philosophers, such as Francis Bacon, science was merely a tool for progressing
technology and the manufacturing of goods. Thus, the foundation for modern science
was rooted in the separation of philosophy and observation, and the goal-oriented
production of data.
The final dissolution of ancient natural philosophy, which was originally
comprised of both metaphysics and natural science, originated with the works of Baruch
5
Spinoza. Spinoza was fascinated with the rise of mechanical philosophy and materialism.
His book, The Ethics Demonstrated in Geometrical Order, portrayed a system that
created a mathematical explanation for existence and being, where the incorporeal world
reflected the material world. Spinoza presented a convincing argument as to why natural
philosophy no longer needed theology or metaphysical thought. Questions regarding
meaning and purpose were dismissed and natural philosophy was diminished to
mechanistic experimentation. Furthermore, he purported that nature does not work in a
teleological fashion; it has no first cause or final cause. And, purpose is a concept created
by humans to explain natural phenomena that cannot be understood through the senses.
Spinoza, and others who relate to his theories, brought about the definitive division of
philosophy and science. Mechanical philosophy is thus the end of metaphysical and
teleological thought, and the permeation of modern empirical science.
To argue for the return of metaphysics in modern science, this thesis then
demonstrates the shortcomings of modern science. As seen through the works of Martin
Heidegger, questions of being are no longer addressed by modern science. Instead, a
rapid production of technology has threatened to reduce humanity itself to a mere
resource. Heidegger argues that humans are not machines and science can no longer
ignore the human experience. He addresses the mind-body problem by proclaiming that
the human being is indivisible, thus dismissing Cartesianism. His philosophy of Dasein
is a concept that refers to the experience of being, as it pertains to humans. Heidegger
addresses the scientific community, proclaiming that scientists must once again address
issues of being, morality, and how natural phenomena relate to humankind.

6
This thesis will evaluate the progression of natural philosophy to explain the
origin of modern science, where it broke from the tradition of metaphysics in
combination with natural science, and why it must return to the conversation started by
the ancient philosophers. Natural philosophy has lost sight of meaning and mechanical
philosophy has oversimplified science. Metaphysics must be reincorporated within
modern science so that science may better serve humanity through answering questions
pertaining to how humans find meaning in nature. Modern science, stemming from
mechanical philosophy, is problematic because it concentrates solely on the study of the
physical world; it views everything—including humans and other living things—as a
machine, and it neglects investigations into cause and purpose for existence. As humans
are conscious of their own existence, they are inherently curious about why they exist and
how they interrelate with nature. To ignore questions pertaining to meaning is to
disregard purpose for humans and nature.

7
Chapter 1
Ancient Thought: Plato and Aristotle
We do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet, surely these give the most
authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they do not tell us the ‘why’ of anything—e.g.
why fire is hot; they only say that it is hot.
- Aristotle
Metaphysical deductions and scientific discovery are both essential for humans to
comprehend and relate to nature. This chapter establishes the foundations of natural
philosophy and proves that metaphysics in combination with empirical science brought
deeper understanding to the ancient world. Thus, to understand how science and
metaphysics diverge as history advances, this chapter begins with a focus on the roots of
topics such as being, the soul, and other various metaphysical ideas. This chapter will
also establish the ancient meaning for nature as an important concept that is explored
throughout the history of philosophy.
Classical thought is often found at the root of philosophical arguments and
scientific discoveries. Ancient philosophers studied almost every topic imaginable,
including natural science. They did not limit themselves to observation alone. Ancient
philosophers were able to find connections between different phenomena through
inference and deduction.
Theories from Plato and his student, Aristotle, exemplify the knowledge gained
from the combination of metaphysics and observations of the physical world. While
there are similarities between these two philosophers’ ideas, there are also many vital
differences. Plato’s ideas affect the early Christian world and Aristotelian concepts then
become more prevalent by the late Medieval period. The change from Platonic to
8
Aristotelian thought gives rise to the popularity of teleological explanations for nature
which define physical phenomena as having a purpose and a final cause.
Plato and Aristotle both wrote at great length about metaphysics. The two most
relevant ideas for the arguments of this thesis contained within their respective corpora
are Plato’s “Form of the Good” and Aristotle’s “Four Causes.” Both of their
formulations explore nature and the cause and effect of natural phenomena, referenced
often throughout history by many great thinkers. To comprehend philosophical thoughts
about nature and humanity’s role during later thought, it is important to first understand
the foundational arguments arranged by these ancient philosophers.
Plato’s Forms
Plato’s complex theory of Forms is at the very center of almost every argument he
makes. As Plato describes, the Forms are eternal and changeless entities that populate a
realm that is more real and more perfect than the world that appears to human senses.
Plato argues that because the corporeal world is defective and confusing, humans should
value the greater reality of the Forms. Because no one has ever seen a perfect circle,
Plato maintains that using the Form of a circle as a model is closer to perfection than
modeling a product from something corporeal. When a carpenter builds a wheel, he does
so by shaping his materials into the Form of a circle as best he can. Plato states that the
Form of the circle does not come from the mind or the will of humans:
The artisan must discover the instrument naturally fitted for each purpose and must
embody that in the material of which he makes the instrument, not in accordance with his
own will, but in accordance with its nature.4
The Forms are the non-material ideas of objects in the known world. The Form of the
circle is the metaphysical idea of a perfect circle. Richard Kraut states that the forms are
4
Plat. Crat. 389c.
9
“paradigmatic for the structure and character of our world.”5 Plato claims that something
is beautiful because it “partakes” in the Form of beauty.6 Beauty is an idea (a Form) and
therefore intangible, belonging to no single physical object.
The Forms provide causation to nature.7 The way that humans understand
physical objects is through each object’s relationship with the Forms. A single object in
the material world is comprised of many properties. For instance, a tree is tall, green, and
strong. Tall, green, and strong are the unchanging Forms of which the tree is associated.
Material objects are constantly changing and will one day cease to exist. The Forms,
however, are eternal and unchanging. The universal ideas of tall, green, and strong do
not change, but changes are observed in the tree. Changes perceived in nature are
therefore explained by objects shifting which Forms they associate with. Plato then
claims, through this logic, that only the Forms truly exist and therefore knowledge can
only be obtained through the study of Forms.8 Ian Bruce further explains that: “the forms
are eternal and changeless, but enter into a partnership with changeable matter, to
produce the objects and examples of concepts, we perceive in the temporal world. These
are always in a state of becoming, and may participate in a succession of forms.”9 The
metaphysical theory of the Forms offers universal traits for each object that can easily be
understood as the cause of properties found in human perception.
To clarify his theory of how humans perceive the Forms, Plato uses his “Analogy
of the Cave.” Plato first imagines several humans in a cave which is lit by a fire from
5
Kraut, Richard, "Plato," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/plato/.
6
Plat. Phaedo 100c.
7
Ibid. 100b.
8
Plat. Rep. 480a.
9
Bruce, Ian, “Plato’s Theory of Forms” (1998), http://www.ccs.neu.edu/course/com3118/Plato.html.
10
behind. These humans are prisoners and can only face forward. All they have ever
known is the shadows that dance on the walls in front of them.10 Next, one of the
prisoners is freed and shown the cause of the shadows for the first time. The fire light is
blinding and the cause of the shadows, what he held to believe as reality, is too bizarre
for him to immediately grasp as true.11 By force, the prisoner is then taken to the outside
world. While his eyes are adjusting to the light, he can only see the reflections of objects
in a lake. Slowly, he is able to see the objects directly and finally, he is able to see the
sun for the first time. Plato argues that the physical world is like that of the cave—
merely shadows. People who only study the shadows are not taking part in true
knowledge.12 As demonstrated through the Forms, knowledge is universal and certain,
unlike the flickering and changing images of the shadows.
The Form of the Good
The sun, the original source of light, is the symbol Plato identifies as the origin of
the Forms in his cave allegory. The Form of the Good is the immaterial source of
everything found in nature. The Good is the greatest of all Forms, and creator of all other
Forms.13 To illustrate the Form of the Good, Plato uses the sun as a metaphor:
I imagine you’d claim that the sun not only endows the visible things with their power to
being seen, but also with their coming into being, their growth, and their nurture, though
it’s not itself coming-into-being.”14
Plato states that the strongest and best source of light is the sun. Sunlight grants the
ability to see, but it is not vision itself. Instead, sunlight is a universal idea of light.
Objects illuminated by the sun directly are clear and are not cast in shadows.
10
Plat. Rep. 514a.
11
Ibid. 515d-e.
12
Ibid. 517a.
13
Ibid. 508e.
14
Ibid. 509b.
11
Explanations for the shadows can vary from person to person. Plato states that the source
of varying interpretation stems from fixating focus on traits that vary between one
observer and the next.15 To merely study what is observed “deals in seeming and grows
dim, changing its opinions up and down, and is like something that has no intellect.”16
The Forms give humans an idea of why opinions about the same object differ from one
person to the next.
Aristotle’s Four Causes
The Forms and the Form of the Good are very complicated ideas. The Forms do
not suggest meaning for the physical world, but merely indicate the cause for perception.
This lack of meaning does not satisfy the human desire to find reason behind occurrences
in nature. Human actions are accomplished with a purpose in mind, and thus it is easier
for a human to understand the actions of nature in a similar fashion. Aristotle looked
beyond his teacher’s theories for a teleological explanation for natural occurrences—he
believed it was important to understand both what something is and why something
exists. Aristotle illustrates, in his Physics, that nature has purpose and works in much the
same way as a human being through his explanation of causes. Nature is defined by
Aristotle as that which exists and is changing or has the potential to change.17 Whereas
Plato analyzed nature through his Forms, Aristotle investigated the causes of change to
understand nature.
There are four causes for change described in Aristotle’s Physics.18 The material
cause is “that out of which” or from that which an object is made. For example, the
15
Plat. Rep. 508d.
16
Ibid.
17
Aristot. Phys. 2.1; 192b 15.
18
Ibid. 2.3; 194b 17-34
12
material cause is the bronze of a statue. The formal cause is “the form” or genera of an
object. It is the shape of a statue. The efficient cause is “the primary source of the
change or coming to rest.” Aristotle names a father as the efficient cause of a child. The
final cause is “that for the sake of which a thing is done.” It is the teleological ending
purpose or final goal. Aristotle states that true knowledge of nature comes from
understanding all four of the causes.
The material and efficient causes are empirical in their nature; and they answer
the questions regarding what something is and what led to its production. The material
cause of a house is the wood and nails that were used to build the house. The efficient
cause of the house is the carpenters, plumbers, and other workers who built the house.
Modern science is primarily associated with these two causes, as the material and
efficient causes are data-driven and observable. The material cause examines the matter
from which an object is comprised, while the efficient cause examines what modern
science considers the source (or cause) of the production of the object. Nonetheless,
Aristotle was also concerned with why the house was built. Understanding the physical
properties of an object only provides a physical description, but it fails to answer
questions of purpose. Andrea Falcon points out that:
Aristotle recognizes the explanatory primacy of the final/formal cause over the efficient
and material cause. Of course this does not mean that the other causes can be eliminated.
Quite the contrary: Aristotle is adamant that, for a full range of cases, all four causes must
be given in order to give an explanation. More explicitly, for a full range of cases, an
explanation which fails to invoke all four causes is no explanation at all. 19
The formal and final causes, on the other hand, clarify why an object exists, thus offering
an explanation of the object’s origination and purpose, respectively. The house was first
19
Falcon, Andrea, "Aristotle on Causality," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/aristotle-
causality/.
13
represented on a blueprint of its design (the formal cause) that explained how the wood
and nails were fashioned into the form of the house. And, the house ultimately provides
shelter for human beings, thus denoting the final cause of the house. According to
Aristotle, the four causes provide a complete understanding of an object—what it is and
why it exits.
To merely describe the house as an object made of wood and built by a
construction crew does not reveal the house’s purpose, or how the builders worked
together to form the house. The formal and final causes reveal the purpose of the house
and from where it originated. These two causes go beyond the strict study of matter, and
are later separated from modern science in the 17th century. In subsequent chapters, this
thesis analyzes the implications associated with the removal of the formal and final
causes from science.
Aristotle’s Substance
According to Aristotle, nature “belongs primarily in virtue of itself and not in
virtue of a concomitant attribute.”20 That is to say, nature clearly exists because humans
are able to interact with it. Aristotle believes it is absurd to question the reality of nature
and the physical world.21 For Aristotle and other ancient philosophers, nature and the
causes of nature are interconnected. To attempt to prove otherwise is “the mark of a man
who is unable to distinguish what is self-evident from what is not.”22 Such a man as
Aristotle just described will be introduced in the third chapter of this thesis.
To understand Aristotle’s definition of nature, he introduces his idea of
“substance” to describe what exists. The idea of substance is contemplated by
20
Aristot. Phys. 2.1; 192b 21-24.
21
Ibid. 2.1; 193a.
22
Ibid. 2.1; 193a 5.
14
subsequent scholars over the next 2,000 years, and this thesis will later show the
progressing ideas surrounding the concept. Aristotle himself defines the all-important
building blocks of existence as that which primarily exists with no other thing or idea that
is needed to define it. Howard Robinson further explains Aristotle’s substance:
Aristotle acknowledges that there are three candidates for being called substance, and that
all three are substance in some sense or to some degree. First, there is matter, second,
form and third, the composite of form and matter. 23
Form, as discussed previously, is the unchanging idea of an object. Matter is what
associates with a form to give it a physical presence—the undifferentiated “other.” An
example of form and matter is a house (form) made of wood (matter). The combination
of both form and matter make up the house. Aristotle claims the composite of form and
matter cannot be a substance. Furthermore, Aristotle believes that a substance must be
separable and identified individually. Matter is neither separable nor individually
identifiable because matter owes its individuality to the substance it compromises. If the
house made of wood was destroyed, and the wood was used to make a boat, then the
wood is subsequently identified by the boat it comprises and no longer by the house.
This means that form is what Aristotle calls a substance.24 The form of a house
does not rely on particular matter to exist. For instance, if one of the walls of the house
was replaced with a new wall made of bricks, it would still be the same house. Matter,
on the other hand, cannot be described by itself. For example, if the wood was burned,
the matter would then take on the form of ash and smoke.
23
Robinson, Howard, "Substance," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/substance/.
24
Aristot. Met. 7,5;1031a
15
Aristotle’s Prime Mover
Aristotle believes that nature, defined as the composite of form and matter in the
Metaphysics, cannot be understood through the study of the physical alone. And, most
importantly, Aristotle’s describes a particular form as the final cause of everything in
nature. Istvan Bodnar suggests that:
Were there no separate forms—entities such as the unmoved mover at the pinnacle of the
cosmos—which are without matter and are not part of the physical world, physics would
be what Aristotle calls first philosophy. As there are such separate entities, physics is
dependent on these, and is only a second philosophy. 25
Aristotle and Plato both believe that there are forces beyond physical matter at work in
nature. This is an important distinction between the natural sciences during ancient times
and science in modernity. In the ancient world, natural philosophers questioned what an
object is, why it exists, and what purpose it serves for humanity. Modern science is more
concerned with questions regarding what an object is for the sake of understanding the
object, without necessarily taking into account how humans interact with the object.
Aristotle theorizes that motion is the primary cause for changes observed in
nature. Something that is in motion has to be put into motion by something else.
Furthermore, something that is put into motion had the potential to move before it moved
and is in a state of actuality once it is moving. Thus, it is impossible for something to be
both in a state of potentiality and actuality at the same time.26
Aristotle then points out that all things in nature are not in motion at the same
time. Both potential for motion and actual motion are observed regularly:
It is because, while some things are moved by an eternal unmoved mover and are
therefore always in motion, other things are moved by something that is in motion and
25
Bodnar, Istvan, "Aristotle's Natural Philosophy," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/aristotle-
natphil/.
26
Aristot. Phys. 3.2; 202a.
16
changing, so they too must change. But the unmoved mover, as has been said, since it
remains simple and unvarying and in the same state, will cause motion that is one and
simple.27
Motion is not successive, but continuous, according to Aristotle’s theory of the prime
mover. Motion does not have a starting point, but it is infinite. Aristotle takes his
concept of motion and conjectures that there must be an “eternal unmoved mover” that
was never moved but causes motion in everything else. His unmoved mover, or prime
mover, is eternal and, the final cause of everything found in nature.28
To the modern reader, Aristotle’s “prime mover” is an easier concept to explain
than Plato’s Forms. Everything in motion was placed in motion by something else.
While Aristotle claims that motion is infinite in nature and not successive, if a final cause
is sought, then the concept of infinity must be avoided. Therefore, there must be
something that moved without itself being moved by something else. The “prime mover”
is a frequently referenced explanation of nature throughout history and is later used by
Thomas Aquinas to define God. Aquinas’ successful adaptation of Aristotelian thought
contributes to the swing from Platonic thought to Aristotelian theory as the foundation of
medieval thought in the Western world.
Plato on the Soul
The idea of nature, as seen in the Form of the Good and the Prime Mover, also
comes into play when Plato and Aristotle explore the nature of humanity—the soul (or
mind) and the body. Cleaving the relationship between these two entities, Rene
Descartes later separates science from incorporeal metaphysical ideas. This is an idea
that pervades modern notions of empirical science. However, it is first important to
27
Aristot. Phys. 8.6; 260a.
28
Ibid. 8.6; 259a.
17
understand the ancient view on the connection between the mind and the body. Both
Plato and Aristotle argue that the soul is eternal and defines human nature. The ancient
philosophers differ, however, regarding the function of the soul. They agree that every
living thing in nature has a soul, and that the soul is what gives life. Furthermore, they
both seek to understand the nature of humankind so they can then, in turn, understand
humanity’s place in nature.
Much like his Forms, Plato’s idea of the soul is a complicated one and involves
many parts. His idea of an immortal soul is not a common thought during his time, as is
evident in the Republic. When Socrates relays Plato’s idea that the soul is immortal,
Glaucon responds in awe and wishes to know more.29 To Plato, the soul is an everlasting
entity. His idea of the eternal soul plays a huge role in the ancient Christian movement
discussed in the next chapter.
Along with its eternal quality, Plato also depicts the soul as the cause of life and
that which animates a body in Phaedo. Plato argues that the soul controls the body but its
purpose is to deal with the invisible things (Forms) that can only be grasped with
reason.30 Furthermore, when the soul spends too much time using the bodily senses,
“then it is dragged by the body to things which never remain the same, and it wanders
about and is confused and dizzy like a drunken man.”31 The soul is interested in wisdom,
which is the unchanging, pure, and everlasting thing of the cosmos—the Forms.
In the Republic, Plato splits the soul into three parts; appetite, spirit, and reason.
Appetite is the part of the soul that deals with the bodily senses and cravings. It is
29
Plat. Rep. 10.608d.
30
Plat. Phaedo 94b-94e.
31
Ibid. 79c.
18
concerned with food, drink, and sex.32 Spirit, on the other hand, is the motivating force
interested in honor and the recognition of others. It thrives on prestige and promotion,
rather than physical reward. Plato calls the spirit the “honor-loving part” of the soul.33
Reason, accordingly, is charged with guiding life and its tools are truth and knowledge.
It is the source of human thirst for wisdom.34
In Phaedrus, Plato claims that the appetite and the reason parts of the soul are
constantly opposing one another. He uses the analogy of a chariot pulled by two horses
to explain his theory. The first horse is white and clean. It is described as honorable,
modest, and needing no whip.35 The other horse is dark in color and described as
prideful, poorly groomed, and insolent.36 And, as stated in the Republic, the appetite part
of the soul is not rational and needs a ruler to keep it in check.37 Reason is the charioteer,
who wishes to guide his horses toward wisdom.38 Appetite is the dark horse and will
cause ruin and disaster if it cannot be reined under control. The spirit is the white horse
which, while rooted in the visible world, shares reason’s love for truth and depends on
reason to bring it to glory. When the appetite is ignored, irrational behavior occurs. And
when the spirit is ignored, emotional responses, such as anger, are triggered.
The appetite part of the soul is drawn to the physical world and physical
pleasures. The reason is concerned with understanding nature, its universal and divine
aspects. And, the spirit wishes to gain honor and glory in the material world and uses
reason’s understanding of truth to do so. The appetite, the reason, and the spirit are three
32
Plat. Rep. 4.439d.
33
Ibid. 9.581b.
34
Ibid. 9.580e.
35
Plat. Phaedrus 253d.
36
Ibid. 253e.
37
Plat. Rep. 4.442b.
38
Plat. Phaedrus 254b.
19
parts of a single soul. Hendrik Lorenz points out that the soul, as defined by Plato in both
the Phaedo and the Republic, is responsible for both thought and emotions:
the functions of reason and of the soul are not restricted to cognition, but include desire
and emotion, such as desire for and pleasure in learning, and so the functions of the non-
rational soul and of the body are not restricted to desire and emotion, but include
cognition, such as beliefs (presumably) about objects of desire, ‘descriptive’ or (rather)
non-evaluative (“there's food over there”) as well as evaluative (“this drink is
delightful”).39
In this regard, Plato has defined how humans are connected to nature and the divine at the
same time. Humans are capable of desiring both tangible things like nourishment
(connection to nature) and intangible concepts such as beauty (connection to the divine)
at the same time.
Aristotle on the Soul
Aristotle agrees with his teacher, Plato, in his assertion that the human soul is
eternal:
The intellect seems to be born in us as a kind of substance and not to be destroyed. For it
would be destroyed if at all by the feebleness of old age, while as things are what happens
is similar to what happens in the case of the sense-organs. For, if an old man acquired an
eye of a certain kind, he would see as well as even a young man. Hence old age is not
due to the soul’s being affected in a certain way, but to the happening to that which the
soul is in, as in the case in drunkenness and disease. 40
Aristotle does not believe that the soul is attached to the physical and psychological
functions of the body. To Plato, the soul is at war with itself. It is through this idea that
he accounts for a human wanting to perform two different actions at the same time. For
example, a soldier guarding his post might be scared and wish to flee, but at the same
time he feels obligated by honor to stay and perform his duty. Aristotle, by contrast, does
not view the soul in this manner. He claims that the human soul is the form or principle
of the human body. Aristotle states: “For, if the eye were an animal, sight would be its
39
Lorenz, Hendrik, "Ancient Theories of Soul," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/ancient-soul/.
40
Aristot. De Anima. 1.4; 408b 20.
20
soul; for this is an eye’s substance—that corresponding to its principle.”41 The body of a
human being is the physical embodiment of the soul and the soul is the principle for the
body.
The human body represents the potential of the soul. And, it is the soul that gives
the body its abilities. It is important to note that Aristotle labels the soul as “a kind of
substance.”42 The body is given life by the soul and therefore the body needs the soul to
exist. “The soul is the actuality of a body.”43 To further his idea, Aristotle then uses his
theory of the soul to define the human. He states: “Matter is potentiality and form
actuality. And since the product of the two is an ensouled thing, the body is not the
actuality of the soul, but the latter is the actuality of a certain kind of body.”44 A human
is the product of the form (soul) and the matter (body) combined.
Aristotle argues against Plato’s disregard for the bodily senses because he feels
they are necessary for understanding the way humans experience nature. Yet, he agrees
that the soul is naturally drawn to theoretical kinds of knowledge that explains the
purpose and final cause of objects and nature.45 Aristotle defines knowledge as knowing
the four causes of the subject, giving purpose to nature. Unlike Plato, Aristotle argues
that the body’s senses can and should be used to find wisdom:
All men naturally desire knowledge. An indication of this is our esteem for the senses; for
apart from their use we esteem them for their own sake, and most of all the sense of sight.
Not only with a view to action, but even when no action is contemplated, we prefer sight,
generally speaking, to all the other senses. The reason of this is that of all the senses sight
best helps us to know things, and reveals many distinctions. 46
41
42
Ibid. 2.1; 412a 20.
43
Ibid. 2.1; 412a 22.
44
Ibid. 2.2; 414a15.
45
Aristot. Met. 1.1; 981b 30.
46
Ibid. 1.1; 980a.
21
Plato and Aristotle both agree that the body and the soul work together and one cannot
function without the other. Aristotle’s theory, however, gives the physical world more
importance than Plato’s philosophy. Plato’s Forms are his explanations of what causes
change in nature. The Forms are intangible and can be contemplated, but not seen.
Aristotle’s Four Causes, on the other hand, can all be witnessed in nature. His ideas of
form and matter both become visible once they are joined.
In conclusion, through their writings Plato and Aristotle theorize the ways humans
live inside of nature. Plato gives an account for how and why humans identify with the
world through his Forms, and Aristotle gives meaning and purpose to nature through his
four causes, specifically through the formal and final causes. Both philosophers tie the
human soul directly to nature and the divine, and they each give an account as to how the
mind and the body work together through their explanations of the soul. And, as
discussed previously, questions regarding nature and existence are clarified through
teleological explanations and the concepts of the Forms and substance. Natural
philosophy in the ancient world successfully incorporates the physical aspects of nature
along with the incorporeal forces that cause change in nature to form a more complete
understanding of nature as it relates to humans. Plato’s idea of the soul connects humans
directly to both the physical world and the divine. The formal and final causes are
missing from modern empirical science and thus humans are not able to connect to nature
through science alone.

22
Chapter 2
Medieval Philosophy: From Augustine to Aquinas
The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not
gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny
shows to be false.
- Thomas Aquinas
The Medieval period philosophers further the studies started in the Classical age
and use the wisdom of the ancient cultures to support medieval Christian ideas. Natural
philosophy becomes confined within theology during this time, leaving its previously
broader scope as an exploration of the natural world. Natural philosophy is now tied
exclusively to the Christian God, and with the prohibition of questioning of church
doctrine, the acquisition of human knowledge is stifled. Because metaphysical
deductions and scientific discovery are both essential for humans to comprehend and
relate to nature, this shift in natural philosophy is detrimental to human understanding of
the physical world. This chapter explains how Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas
connect humans to nature through God, limiting the acquisition of knowledge to the
confines of Christianity and aimed at the advancement of the Church.
While Plato was driven by his wish to obtain knowledge and Aristotle sought
knowledge though the causes for change in nature, Augustine and Aquinas were
motivated by their religion. Both Augustine and Aquinas contributed to many of the
same ideas explored by Plato and Aristotle, such as the human soul and the idea of
substance, but they are most notably responsible for tying natural philosophy directly to
Christianity. Christianity became the primary focus of these thinkers, and an
understanding of nature was secondary to and subservient to Christianity.

23
Augustine and God
Augustine of Hippo was a Catholic bishop during the early years of the 5th
Century. Augustine uses many of Plato’s ideas to further advance Christianity in the
Western world and his writings exemplify how the Western world defines God, the soul,
and happiness for almost 900 years. Because of Augustine’s influence on European
culture, revelation is deemed a higher form of thought than observation and deduction: “I
say believe. For understanding is the recompense of faith. Therefore, seek not to
understand so that you may believe, but believe so that you may understand; for unless
you believe, you will not understand.”47 Augustine believes that God will reveal Himself
to those who believe. Thus, it is impossible to observe God without faith. His disregard
for the human senses causes problems for later natural philosophers because they are
limited to metaphysical thought without empirical science. Thus, they formulate theories
but lack evidence through observation to support their revelations. Although Augustine
uses Plato’s theories as a foundation for his ideas, he diverges from Plato’s recognition of
observation as a natural human tendency, albeit lesser in prominence than revelation:
When I was young I was tremendously eager for the kind of wisdom which they call
investigation of nature. I thought it was a glorious thing to know the causes of everything,
why each thing comes into being and why it perishes and why it exists. 48
Plato does not entirely dismiss the need for gathering knowledge through the senses, as
he understands that investigation of nature is a common way of learning, in addition to
higher level thinking. Augustine believes nature can only be understood through
knowledge of God, and God can only be understood through revelation.
47
Augustine. The Fathers of the Church. Trans. by Rettig, John W. (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1993)
18.
48
Plat. Phaedo 96a.
24
Plato’s Form of the Good and Augustine’s God are very similar—each one is the
creator of all things and the ultimate source of being and knowledge. Both Plato’s Form
of the Good and Augustine’s God are separated from nature in the sense that they are the
cause of nature, not part of it. Nature, according to early Christians, is simply the
physical world, and much like in Greek philosophy, there is a connection between the
physical world and the divine. However, Augustine believes that knowledge cannot be
gained through sight or the other senses. Rather, one must focus solely on the source of
all things. Plato’s influence on Augustine’s idea of God is evident in the following
passage:
And see, you were within and I was in the external world and sought you there, and in my
unlovely state I plunged into those lovely created things which you made. You were with
me, and I was not with you. The lovely things kept me far from you, though if they did
not have their existence in you, they had no existence at all. 49
Augustine describes a world that is created by God, but the physical world is only a
distraction—a shadow of God’s presence at best. Plato’s Form of the Good from the
Republic is clearly the inspiration for Augustine’s God: “the objects of knowledge not
only receive from the presence of the good their being known, but their very existence
and essence is derived to them from it.”50 Augustine is using Plato’s Form of the Good to
explain the physical world and define his Christian God as well.
Augustine synthesizes Plato’s ideas with another ancient source, The Book of
Psalms, to add additional Christian support to his Platonic foundation. It is this
combination that produces Augustine’s God, the Creator of all things:
The way, God, in which you made heaven and earth was not that you made them wither
in heaven or on earth… Nor did you make the universe within the framework of the
universe. There was nowhere for it to be made before it was brought into existence…
49
Augustine. Confessions. Trans. by Henry Chadwick (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991)
201.
50
Plat. Rep. 6.509b.
25
What is it for something to be unless it is because you are? Therefore you spoke and they
were made, and by your word you made them. 51
Like Plato’s Forms, God creates the ideas of perfection, the “framework” as Augustine
calls it, and the physical world is a product of God’s thought. Therefore, Augustine has
changed the focus of natural philosophy to the search for God through the natural world,
instead of the universal quest for understanding how humans relate to nature. The last
line of Augustine’s passage is taken from the 33rd Psalm: “For He spoke, and it came into
being; He commanded, and it came into existence.”52 Here, Augustine mixes Platonic
ideas with Christian doctrine, thus narrowing the scope of inquisition by eliminating the
empirical data necessary to fully support theory in general.
Augustine states that all things are created by God, but man cannot find the truth
of God in earthly things:
You, Lord, who are beautiful, made them for they are beautiful. You are good, for they
are good. You are, for they are. Yet, they are not beautiful or good or possessed of being
in the sense that you their Maker are. In comparison with you they are deficient in beauty
and goodness and being. Thanks to you, we know this; and yet our knowledge is
ignorance in comparison with yours. 53
Augustine’s Platonic view of the source of true beauty and wisdom is almost identical to
Plato’s idea of the Forms. God is the ultimate source of beauty, goodness, and being. To
know these things is not to see them in nature, but to know them as God knows them.
For Augustine, God is the Form of the Good, everything is created by God, and God’s
creations are only shadows of his goodness. Nature and humankind spring forth from
God’s design. Thus, Augustine establishes that true wisdom comes from God only, and
understanding of merely the physical world is “ignorance.”
51
225.
52
Ps. 32:9.
53
224.
26
Augustine on the Soul
To understand the connection between God and humanity, Augustine explores the
features of the soul. Augustine believes that the human soul is immortal and that death is
something that only affects the body. Just as Cebes questions the fate of the soul in
Plato’s Phaedo, Augustine addresses the fears of death in his Confessions:
But put aside that death can be like that. It is not for nothing, not empty of significance,
that the high authority of the Christian faith is diffused throughout the world. The deity
would not have done all that for us, in quality and in quantity, if with the body’s death the
soul’s life were also destroyed. Why then do we hesitate to abandon secular hopes and to
dedicate ourselves wholly to God and the happy life? 54
Augustine argues that the soul is unaffected by the body’s death. He uses the success of
the Church and how quickly Christianity has spread to strengthen his argument.
Augustine states that God would not allow the teachings of the Church and its doctrine of
the immortal soul to spread if they were not based in truth. But, Augustine realizes that
human curiosity is not satisfied until it has seen evidence to support such claims.
The fear of death is what Augustine uses to explain the wickedness of man.
Augustine states that what keeps humans from embracing full dedication to God is the
fact that “secular successes are pleasant.”55 There is a part of the soul, much like Plato’s
appetite, that yearns for earthly things. It longs for the pleasures that the world has to
offer:
What else should we be seeking for? I did not realize that that is exactly what shows our
great wretchedness. For I was so submerged and blinded that I could not think of the
light of moral goodness and of a beauty to be embraced for its own sake-beauty seen not
by the eye of the flesh, but only by inward discernment. 56
However, as Plato states before Augustine, the soul’s natural place is among the Forms,
or in Augustine’s case, with God. Spending too much time among earthly things causes
54
105.
55
Ibid.
56
Ibid. 110.
27
the soul to become confused. As Plato believed, knowledge and beauty should be sought
for knowledge and beauty’s sake. Per Binde describes the different relationships between
the body and the soul, as described by Plato and the stoics, and how this corresponds with
Augustine and early Christian thought:
Plato drew a sharper distinction between the soul, akin to the divine, and the body, as a
seat of evil animalistic drives and irrationality. In a similar vein the stoics considered
man, because of his faculty of reason, to be a divine being, a ruler and master of the
world of matter and the inferior soulless animals. The dualism between mind and matter
was incorporated early into Christian doctrine, mainly through the theology of St.
Augustine.57
Augustine does not believe that humanity is doomed to fall victim to appetite,
though. The soul of a human being should be controlled by reason, not the appetite.
Augustine explains that it is the human mind that reasons and not the body. Furthermore,
the body is unable to help the mind to understand God and His creations:
And, when we reason, it is an act of our mind; for only that reason which understands can
reason. Neither the body understands, nor the mind, aided by the body, understands,
because when the mind wishes to understand, it is turned away from the body. 58
As Ludwig Schopp states, “Augustine is here under the strong influence of the reality of
the Platonic realm of ideas.”59 True wisdom comes from knowledge of the unchanging
and the eternal. The body is neither unchanging nor eternal, and therefore cannot
comprehend either status. However, as Plato warns, Augustine has lost sight of the
importance of the appetite and an overall balanced soul—he is denying the soul physical
pleasures. He believes that humans should not seek to understand the corporeal world
(appetite), but instead seek to understand God (reason through revelation). This lack of
balance is as detrimental to natural philosophy as modern science falling victim to the
appetites versus having a balance of appetites, with spirit and reason. Modern science
57
Bind, Per. “Nature in Roman Catholic Tradition.” Anthropological Quarterly 74 (2001): 16.
58
Augustine of Hippo. The Immortality of the Soul. Trans by: Ludwig Schopp (D.C.: CUA Press, 1947) 16.
59
Ibid.
28
also does not allow for revelation in its studies; instead, it strictly seeks to understand the
physical world through observation. Consequently, revelation is a feature of the
intangible soul, rather than the tangible body, a popular thought until the 16th century,
explaining why revelation and deduction are proclaimed as higher forms of thinking than
experimentation and observation.
Thomas Aquinas
Several centuries following Augustine, the works of Thomas Aquinas cause a
shift in European culture, from Platonic thought to Aristotelian philosophy. In the 13th
century, Aquinas, a priest of the Dominican Order, uses Aristotle’s theories (and the
human senses) to support his theological doctrines and findings on the human condition
in Summa Theologica. Aquinas employs the teachings of Aristotle in the Western world
to explain God and nature. Unlike Augustine, who believes that God can only be seen
through revelation, Aquinas believes that God can be directly observed in nature. Belief
in God is not needed for Aquinas to prove that God exists. Aquinas states that “the
existence of God, in so far as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated from those
of His effects which are known to us.”60 His successful use of Aristotelian logic over
Platonism also gives rise to the acceptability of experimentation and observation
beginning in the Renaissance.
Aquinas and Aristotle
Before discussing why Aquinas references Aristotle, it is important to understand
why Aquinas’s use of Aristotle’s theories is so radically different from other scholars.
Prior to Aquinas, Plato is the prevailing philosopher of the ancient world through the
influence of Augustine. The Church believes that ultimate wisdom comes through divine
60
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Kindle Edition. (B&R Samizbat Express: 2009) 30.
29
revelation, not observation of the physical world. Aristotle, Plato’s student and champion
of reason, is then reintroduced to the Western world through Muslim and Jewish scholars.
Wyatt North argues: “the writings of St. Thomas were influenced by Averroes, the chief
opponent whom he had to combat in order to defend and make known the true
Aristotle.”61 Because Averroes, a Muslim scholar, was the first to introduce Aristotle’s
ideas to medieval Europe, Christianity initially views Aristotle’s teachings as paganistic.
However, Aquinas elicits value from Aristotle’s use of reason to find purpose in nature.
And, Aquinas proves that reason and revelation are not at opposition with each other, in
order to bring Aristotle’s teachings into his faith. Peter Blair states:
Christianity’s engagement with non-Christian thought proceeds from the Christian belief
that reason and faith are complementary, not oppositional. Thomas Aquinas’ synthesis of
Aristotle and Christianity is a vital chapter in this engagement. His interaction with the
philosophy of Aristotle demonstrates both the harmony of reason and faith and the
oneness of truth, which are both central to the Christian intellectual tradition. 62
Despite resistance from Platonists, Aquinas succeeds in using Aristotle’s model for
understanding God and nature, rather than Plato’s complex Idea of the Forms. Aquinas
reveals nature more efficiently through Aristotle’s model, rather than the popular Platonic
one, thus marking a turning point in Western thought. Because of Aquinas, the Church
and its philosophers move from Platonic thought to Aristotelian ideas. Aquinas’s
handling of Aristotle’s theories is deeper than merely “adding God to [Aristotle’s
teachings] to allow for more acceptances from our Christian society,” Melissa Atkinson
explains. She continues to say:
Aristotle and Aquinas both see God as the highest being and believe that the highest life
is one that acts for the sake of heeding to this highest being. However, their views on
exactly how God is are different. Aristotle was not a religious person. 63
61
North, Wyatt. The Homilies of St. Thomas. (New York: Wyatt North Publishing, 2012), 16.
62
Blair, Peter. “Reason and Faith: The Thought of Thomas Aquinas.” Dartmouth Apologia. (2010):
http://www.dartmouthapologia.org/articles/show/125.
63
Atkinson, Melissa. “Aristotle and Aquinas: Intrinsic Morality Versus God’s Morality.” Rebirth of
Reason. (2011).
30
For Aristotle, there is no Heaven motivating him to be a good person. To the ancient
philosopher, simply being a moral person is reward enough. Aquinas differs with
Aristotle in this respect as it is God who motivates humans to lead a righteous life and
God is the driving force behind nature. Therefore, the study and observation of nature is
directly linked to God. Still, natural philosophy is bound by the Christian God and, even
though Aquinas acknowledges the value of observation, he continues to limit the scope of
natural philosophy.
Aquinas on God and Nature
Aquinas uses Aristotelian wisdom to prove the existence of the Christian God.
He connects his physical observation with the divine and argues that for humans to
understand the first and last causes of nature, logically God must exist. Aristotle before
him makes a similar argument about the existence of a singular eternal “prime mover.”64
However, Aristotle’s ideas for the purpose of nature are very different from those of
Aquinas. Instead, Aristotle considers nature itself as an internal principle of change and
his explanations focus on what is inherently good for natural bodies themselves.65 Such
explanations are needed in empirical science because Aristotle believes that the human
desire to know the cause of being cannot be satisfied purely through physical
observations.
While infinity is a possibility for Aristotle, he claims that humanity would never
be able to understand nature if it does not clearly have a beginning and an end.
Consequently, the Classical idea of the “prime mover” as described by Aristotle is used
64
Aristot. Phys. 8.6; 259a 10.
65
Johnson, Monte Ransome. Aristotle on Teleology. Oxford Scholarship Online: 2005.
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199285306.001.0001/acprof-9780199285303.
31
by Thomas Aquinas to prove that there is a God, that He is eternal, and that He is the
creator of all things. Aquinas elevates Aristotle’s theories above Plato’s teachings for the
first time in the Western world, but he has misrepresented the meaning behind Aristotle’s
Physics as he has connected the “prime mover” with Christian doctrine. For Aristotle,
the four causes are not linked to theology, and the “prime mover” does not concern itself
with the morality of a human being. Aquinas, on the other hand, ties morality directly to
the influence of God.
Aquinas on the Soul
To Aquinas, the idea of the soul is at the very center of what defines humanity
and ties humans to both God and nature. But what is the soul and what is its function?
Aristotle claims that the soul is the form of the body and is a substance.66 Aquinas has a
different answer, however. He defines substance as objects in nature or “the enduring
things”, such as trees, humans, and animals that come into being and will some day cease
to be.67 The idea that the soul, unlike the body, is eternal comes from Aristotle’s
assessment.68 Aquinas agrees that the soul is eternal. It is not a substance, though; it is
something that can continue to exist after the body (a substance) has died. Thus, Aquinas
has changed the definition of substance and has implied the possibility for a separation
between body and soul. This idea will be addressed again by Rene Descartes in the
subsequent chapter of this thesis.
Thomas Aquinas again uses Aristotle’s theories to advance his Christian ideas.
He employs the Classical idea of forms, in much the same way as Aristotle, to describe
66
67
McInerny, Ralph and O'Callaghan, John, "Saint Thomas Aquinas," The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/aquinas/.
68
Aristot. De Anima. 1.5; 411b.
32
the connection between the mortal body and the eternal soul. “It is one and the same man
who is conscious both that he understands, and that he senses,” Aquinas explains. “But
one cannot sense without a body: therefore the body must be some part of man.”69 For
Aquinas, the substance is the body, but “man” is capable of existing without the body.
Aquinas concludes that the soul alone is not a human, but rather the soul (the form
of man) and a body, together, defines the human being. “This proposal puts the
disagreement between Aquinas and the ancient naturalist in a stark light,” Robert Pasnau
argues. “To their way of thinking, certain simple elements are the most basic and general
explanation for why a thing is the way it is.”70 Pasnau points to the first article of
question number 75 of the Summa Theologica where Aquinas states: “the philosophers of
old believed that nothing existed but bodies, they maintained that every mover is moved;
and that the soul is moved directly, and is a body.”71 Aquinas’ reply simply asserts that
the soul is not a body; rather it is the cause of the body’s actions, thus creating an
important distinction for Aquinas to connect humans with nature and also connect “man”
with God. Aquinas has altered an Aristotelian thought as Henry Veatch states:
[Aquinas creates] a psychology that is far more Aristotelian than it is Platonic or

Augustinian; a subtle theory that takes off from Aristotle but ends in a theory that is
distinctively Thomistic; an ingenious adaptation of the Platonic doctrine, coupled with a
thoroughgoing rejection of the Platonic Theory of Ideal Forms. 72
Aquinas’ theories become the foundation of education in the Western world—thus, to
argue with Aquinas or Aristotle is to argue against God.
69
Aquinas, Thomas. On Politics and Ethics. Ed. by Paul E. Sigmund (New York: Norton and Co, 1988),
615.
70
Pasnau, Robert. Thomas Aquinas on Human Nature. (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2002), 35.
71
Aquinas, Thomas. On Politics and Ethics. Ed. and Trans. by Paul E. Sigmund (New York: Norton and
Co, 1988), 603.
72
Veatch, Henry. Review of Aquinas’ Search for Wisdom, by Vernon J. Bourke. Speculum, Vol. 41, 3 (Jul
1966), 522.
33
To conclude, through the works of Augustine and Aquinas, natural philosophy
was subject to Christian theology during the Medieval period. Augustine claimed that
only revelation is pertinent for acquiring knowledge, completely disregarding the
importance of the intake of information through the human senses. Aquinas, on the other
hand, acknowledged the need for perception of the senses, but continued to limit natural
philosophy to the search for God in nature. Both philosophers deviated from the Greek
notion of acquiring knowledge for knowledge’s sake and limited the information
available to comprehend the physical world. Because metaphysical ideas and empirical
science are both important components for understanding how humans relate to nature,
this change from Greek accounts of the physical world removed all theoretical
explanations that are not part of the Christian view of God as the creator and sustainer of
the world.
34
Chapter 3
The Scientific Revolution: Descartes and Bacon Redefine Nature
Nature is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her,
or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are
understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense–
experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to
be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages
which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not
chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical
effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred
statements of the Bible.
- Galileo Galilei
The Scientific Revolution following the Medieval and Renaissance periods ushers
in a wave of new scientific discovery. Through Christian tradition, science as natural
philosophy is a part of philosophy, and therefore scientists must match their new findings
to the metaphysics of the Church. Divinity is an integral element of natural philosophy
and those who do not conform are excommunicated, jailed, or sentenced to death. In
response, Galileo, Descartes, Spinoza, Bacon, and other thinkers of this time endeavor to
remove theology from natural philosophy. However, with the removal of the parts
pertaining to meaning—as in theology, metaphysics, and ontology—natural philosophy
lacks significant associations between observations of natural phenomena and their effect
on a human’s daily life. Science no longer concerns itself with finding meaning in
nature, and its focus becomes an object-centered system of measurements. Thus, modern
empirical science is born.
This chapter focuses on the theories of Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon, and
examines the separation of science from philosophy. Descartes, like Aristotle and
Aquinas before him, provides his own definition of “substance.” Descartes’ uses his
dualistic substance theory to separate the human body from the human mind—the body
remains in the physical world and the mind is separated from nature, in the realm of
35
thought. Bacon, on the other hand, theorizes that humans are dominant over nature.
Together, both Descartes and Bacon argue against ancient metaphysics in their scientific
theories, forever changing natural philosophy and morphing it into the discipline of
science as it is known presently, thus creating the current limitations for science’s
interpretation of reality.
Rene Descartes
Rene Descartes was born in France in 1596. He spent most of his life in the
Dutch Republic where questioning religion was permissible. Descartes felt that only
numbers were truly universal and therefore pressed the use of mathematics as a universal
language for science. Nevertheless, making the connection to the Church was important
to Descartes, as he was a devout Roman Catholic by faith.
To further complicate the matter, Descartes was not a theologian. He received no
advanced degree in divinity, nor was he a member of the clergy. Unlike today, in the 16th
century, science, philosophy, and Christian theology were all interrelated. Those who
studied natural phenomena although were not theologians, like Descartes, began to
secularize natural philosophy. Amos Funkenstein explains the challenges Descartes
faced:
Their theology was secular also in the sense that it was oriented toward the world. The
new sciences and scholarship, they believed, made the traditional modes of theologizing
obsolete; a good many professional theologians agreed with them about that. Never
before or after were science, philosophy, and theology seen as almost one and the same
occupation.73
Unlike Aquinas before him, Descartes did not have the authority of the Church behind his
findings, and had to demonstrate that his theories were compatible with Church doctrine.
Descartes believed that he could align his theories with the Church, and saw no reason
73
Funkenstein, Amos. Theology and the Scientific Imagination: From the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth
Century (Princeton, 1986) 3.
36
why his method for discovery should conflict with theology. However, his findings were
highly controversial and caused a split in the scholastic world between those who found
merit in his method and those who did not.
Descartes’s Method
Aristotle, thanks to Aquinas, offered the accepted model for philosophy leading
up to the Scientific Revolution. But, because Aristotle viewed mathematics as an
insufficient language to describe the physical world, mathematicians were largely
overlooked by the Church. John Henry explains:
According to the Aristotelianism prevailing among scholastic natural philosophers,

mathematics was essentially irrelevant to natural philosophy, because it did not, could
not, deal with physical causation, and so could not provide the kind of physical
explanation in terms of causes which was the aim of natural philosophy. 74
Aristotle was concerned with the causes for change in nature. His Physics concentrated
almost exclusively on why changes occurred, or ontology. Descartes’ works argue that
science should only be concerned with observable, empirical data. Descartes defines
modern sciences as the study of matter.
The study of the physical in describing the natural world through only empirical
data is championed by a philosophical view called mechanical philosophy. Mechanical
philosophers, such as Descartes, believe that everything is comprised of small bits of
matter. Change and motion are caused when one bit of matter bumps into another. All
occurrences are thus explained through the study of matter and motion (the material and
efficient causes), according to mechanical philosophers, and Aristotle’s causes pertaining
to meaning (the formal and final causes) are not considered relevant. Descartes believed
that the formal and final causes should be assessed by the Church. Presently, modern
74
Henry, John. “Metaphysics and the Origins of Modern Science: Descartes and the importance of Laws of
Nature.” Early Science and Medicine, Vol. 9, 2 (Nejmegen: BRILL Publishing, 2004) 93.
37
science does not recognize theology as a part of science; and philosophy has been
reduced to superfluous opinion. Science is only concerned with how nature works, and
therefore greatly reduces the human power of explanation with the removal of
justifications containing purpose and meaning.
Descartes turns away from ancient philosophy to find the answers that remove all
doubt from what is being questioned: “I compared the disquisitions of the ancient
moralists to very towering and magnificent palaces with no better foundation than sand
and mud.”75 He believes that Mathematics provides universality and certainty—there is
no doubt that two plus two equals four. Descartes then proposes a method to find truth
and knowledge that begins with questioning all previously accepted knowledge. To
alleviate doubt, Descartes suggests breaking down a problem into its most simplistic
parts. By first solving these smaller problems, Descartes believes he can then find the
answer to the original larger problem. Even through the 21st century, Descartes’ form of
skepticism defines the philosophy of empirical science’s interpretation of the physical
word. His theory contends that human knowledge is only a collection of immediate
sensory data.76
To further his preoccupation with the removal of all doubt, Descartes suggests
that everything should be called into question and held against his new method for
finding truth. Descartes proposes a complete tearing down of Western thought so it may
be rebuilt on a new mechanical foundation. Edward Slowik explains Descartes’
ambitions:
75
Descartes, Rene. A Discourse on Method (1637). Project Gutenberg.
76
Hatfield, Gary. "René Descartes," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/descartes/.
38
Like many of his contemporaries (e.g., Galileo and Gassendi), Descartes devised his
mechanical theory in large part to refute the widely held Aristotelian-based Scholastic
explanation of natural phenomena that employed an ontology of “substantial forms” and
“primary matter.”77
Descartes calls into doubt the entire Aristotelian system and creates his own mechanical
system. Descartes describes nature as a large, complex machine, removing purpose from
the study of the physical—nature is merely input and output. Aristotle’s formal and final
causes are absent in the empirical notions of matter and motion, and are therefore not a
part of mechanical philosophy. To understand how Descartes introduces mechanical
philosophy and creates modern science, his separation of the human mind and the human
body needs to be analyzed.
Descartes and the “Malignant Demon”
The introduction of doubt initiates Descartes’ dilemma with the Church and
ultimately leads to the separation of science from philosophy in modern thought. To
defend his new method, Descartes published his Meditation on First Philosophy in 1641.
He holds true to his skepticism and proclaims that he cannot be sure of anything,
including his own senses:
All that I have, up to this moment, accepted as possessed of the highest truth and
certainty, I received either from or through the senses. I observed, however, that these
sometimes misled us; and it is the part of prudence not to place absolute confidence in
that by which we have even once been deceived. 78
Descartes proves that God has not deceived him through a series of realizations. First,
Descartes states that he did not create himself; therefore something else must have
created him. Next, he defines God as the infinite, independent, perfect, and all-knowing
77
Slowik, Edward. "Descartes' Physics," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/descartes-physics/.
78
Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/Meditation1.html. M1, 3.
39
power that created all that exists.79 This creator, being perfect and all-knowing, cannot
be a deceiver as deception is an imperfection.80 Descartes then acknowledges that
something else must be deceiving his senses: “I will suppose, then, not that Deity, who is
sovereignly good and the fountain of truth, but that some malignant demon, who is at
once exceedingly potent and deceitful, has employed all his artifice to deceive me.”81
Descartes understands that his senses may deceive him just as a dream may appear
tangible, but upon awakening, he realizes that it is merely a dream. Then, what is real?
Descartes calls into question everything that he sees, including his own body. Everything
is possibly a deception by the demon he has created.
Descartes on Mind and Body
To prove the existence of anything or everything, Descartes starts by proving his
own existence: “Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived; and, let him deceive me as
he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that
I am something.”82 Because Descartes is conscious of his own existence, he concludes
that he must therefore exist.
Descartes then questions what types of existence are real. Like many before him,
he uses the concept of substance as a building block for nature. Descartes asserts that
substance is “a thing which exists in such a way as to stand in need of nothing beyond
itself in order to its existence.”83 He also allows for an existing thing to be called a
substance if its only need to exist is God: “Created substances, however, whether
79
80
Ibid. M3, 38.
81
Ibid. M1, 12.
82
Ibid. M2, 3.
83
Descartes, Rene. The Principles of Philosophy. Gutenberg Project. LI.
40
corporeal or thinking, may be conceived under this common concept; for these are things
which, in order to their existence, stand in need of nothing but the concourse of God.”84
Descartes labeled the two created substances as mind and body in his Mediations.
The body of a human is an “extended substance;” it can be described
mathematically and observed with the senses.85 The mind, on the other hand, is
something completely different than the body. Descartes proclaims, “Thinking is another
attribute of the soul; and here I discover what properly belongs to myself. This alone is
inseparable from me. I am--I exist: this is certain.”86 Thus, he concludes that a human is
a “thinking thing,” and not a “rational animal,” as the ancient philosophers previously
declared.87 To further separate humans from nature, Descartes states that only humans
have a soul and that everything outside of the human mind should be viewed as a
machine. The ancients believed that every living thing has a soul, but as Gary Hatfeild
points out: “Descartes altered all such debates by applying his animal-machine
hypothesis to the control and direction of behavior. He argued, on both metaphysical and
scientific grounds, that although animals exhibit complex behaviors, they are unfeeling
machines.”88 It is through this view that Descartes substantiates the mechanical
philosophy claim that nature and everything in it, alive or otherwise, is a machine.
Even though the mind can imagine things that are untrue, the reality of the
thought is real and separate from that of the physical world.89 Howard Robinson points
84
Descartes, Rene. The Principles of Philosophy. Gutenberg Project. LII.
85
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/Meditation1.html.. M2, 5.
86
Ibid. M2, 6.
87
Ibid.
88
Broughton, Janet and Carriero, John Ed. A Companion to Descartes. (Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell Pub:
2011) 418.
89
Decartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy.
41
out that Descartes' idea of the mind-body problem is quite different from that of
Aristotelian tradition: “For Aristotle, there is no exact science of matter. How matter
behaves is essentially affected by the form that is in it.”90 Descartes, conversely, declares
that matter is an independent substance which possesses its own set of qualities or
function, which he calls attributes. Through his definition of substance, Descartes creates
his own version of dualism, subsequently called Cartesianism, completely shifting
scientific views from the all-encompassing balance of natural philosophy to the more
focused empirical science which is only concerned with raw data collection. Science is
now defined as that which studies matter. Matter, according to Descartes, is strictly
mechanical and can be described in mathematical terms alone.
Science, as it was evolving during the 16th century, shifted focus from the
theology-centered concentration of the Medieval period. Descartes played a large role in
the creation of modern empirical science as he established a new method for gathering
data and conducting observations. Gary Hatfield points out that:
Descartes himself contributed some specific new results to the mathematical description
of nature, as co-discoverer of the sine law of refraction, and as developer of an accurate
model of the rainbow. Nonetheless, as significant as these results are, his primary
contribution to the “new science” lay in the way in which he described a general vision of
a mechanistic approach to nature and sketched in the details of that vision to provide a
comprehensive alternative to the dominant Aristotelian physics. 91
Descartes argues against Aristotelian thought as a whole. Mechanical philosophy
contends that the physical world can be described in mathematical terms and all of its
components are like machines. Purpose and meaning are not important—ideas like the
soul, which explains purpose and meaning in life, are removed. Instead, life is described
90
Robinson, Howard, "Dualism," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward
N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/dualism/.
91
Hatfield, Gary. "René Descartes," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/descartes/.
42
as a mechanical function. Descartes explains his concerns with Aristotelian physics in a
letter to fellow mathematician Marin Mersenne: “I wish this mainly on account of
theology, which has been so deeply in the thrall of Aristotle that it is almost impossible to
expound another philosophy without its seeming to be directly contrary to the Faith.”92
To prove that new metaphysical ideas can be formulated without the use of Aristotelian
thought, Descartes writes The Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the
Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences, published in 1637.
By separating the mind and the body so absolutely, Descartes suggests that
science should be concerned only with the extended substances and theology should be
pushed out into the realm of thought. Through his assertions, Descartes has reduced the
world to an infinite geometrical realm without sense or purpose. Because matter is
purely a physical thing, descriptions of the physical world that are not mechanical in
nature would be considered explorations of the mind, rather than the study of the
physical. The fate of human thought is described by E. A. Burtt:
The universe of mind, including all experienced qualities that are not mathematically
reducible, comes to be pictured as locked up behind the confused and deceitful media of
the senses, away from the independent extended realm, in a petty and insignificant series
of locations inside of human bodies.93
Accordingly, Descartes has created the foundation for modern empirical science. He has
separated science from theology and philosophy to avoid criticism from the Church and
to allow for the study of science without the interference of the Church. He places
science harmlessly inside the world of perception and matter, which should not threaten
the Church, and places theology and thoughts about meaning inside the mind.
92
Cottingham, J., R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch and A. Kenny (eds.), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes,
Vol. III: The Correspondence (Cambridge, 1991), 14.
93
Burtt, E. A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. (Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press,
1980) 123.
43
Francis Bacon
While Descartes seeks to separate the mind from the material world to justify his
method to the Church, Francis Bacon is politically motivated and proclaims that humans
have dominion over nature. Bacon asserts that the rightful place for humans is above,
and thus in control of, the physical world. It is a metaphysical statement that is politically
motivated.
Bacon was an influential member of the English Court in the early 17th century.
Because he did not answer to the Catholic Church, but rather to the much more king-
centered English Protestant church, Bacon’s motives were political in nature. His ideas
predate Descartes, but only influenced the smaller protestant European community. The
English king and his government were very interested in any ideas that placed the king
and humans above all of God’s other creations. And, the King was pleased to elevate
Bacon who believed that humans should have complete dominion, or control, over
nature. Bacon created his “New Philosophy” rooted in Protestant Christian tradition.
Furthermore, his interest in science stemmed from his belief that science could provide
humans with greater control over nature.
Bacon’s New Philosophy
As a Protestant, Bacon stated that natural philosophy and divinity are rooted in
outdated ancient thought—true wisdom about nature could be gleaned directly from the
Bible as well as through observing nature. Like Descartes, Bacon also heralded
mathematics as a superior method for describing the natural world. And, he believed that
disregarding any tool that may help explain the natural world, mathematics or otherwise,
was a mistake.
44
Francis Bacon published the Novum Organum,94 or True Directions concerning
the Interpretation of Nature, in 1620. He defined the Four Idols of the Mind, or beliefs
without merit, which were direct attacks against ancient philosophy. The purpose of his
Four Idols is to tear down old ways of thinking and learning. Bacon summarizes: “in my
judgment all the received systems are but so many stage plays, representing worlds of
their own creation after an unreal and scenic fashion.”95 He implied that ancient thinking
is unrealistic and the scholastic world is merely charmed by its age and beauty. His new
philosophy is grounded in experimentation, rather than reasoning and deduction,
employing a method that forgoes ancient ideas and incorporeal thought.
Bacon and Protestant Tradition
Bacon rooted his claim that humans have dominion over nature in passages from
the King’s Bible. Completed in 1611, the King James Bible reads: “And God said, Let us
make man in our Image, after our likenesse: and let them haue dominion ouer the fish of
the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer the cattell, and ouer all the earth, and ouer
euery creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.96 Bacon drew special attention to the
word “dominion.” The true faith, Christianity, states that man is given complete
ownership and dominance over nature by God himself. This argument is successful
thanks to the Protestant literal interpretation of the Bible, rather than the Catholic
symbolic view of the scriptures. The protestant Christian tradition, and its importance to
Bacon, is elaborated by Elenora Montuschi:
Bacon explicitly placed his conception of knowledge and of a new science within the
Christian tradition. He conceived his project as an “advancement of learning”, aimed at
reproducing the original dominion of man over nature as symbolically represented in
94
This title is no doubt a reference to Aristotle’s Organon and expresses his wish to supersede it.
95
Bacon, Francis. Francis Bacon: The Complete Works. (Nook Edition: 2012). 484.
96
Gen 1:26.
45
Genesis, when God asks Adam to give names to the animals. Whatever the original sin
ruined, knowledge can largely mend. 97
Bacon claimed that concrete concepts, such as mathematics, must be employed to ensure
human domination over nature. Due to Adam’s fall from grace, humans must seek both
actions and knowledge to restore man’s rightful place as ruler over all the earth. If his
philosophy is sound, then humanity has dominion over everything on the planet, humans
answer to God, and God has proclaimed the king as the ruler of both the church and the
state. Thus, God has given humans dominion over nature.
Bacon and Nature
Bacon is perhaps best known for his views on nature and humanity’s role in
nature: “Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is not
known the effect cannot be produced. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed; and that
which in contemplation is as the cause is in operation as the rule.”98 Nature was created
by God for humans to command, according to Bacon, but first the laws of nature must be
understood. Bacon believed that nature works like a machine. Everything found in
nature can be reduced to mechanical principles, such as motion.
Arguing against what he believed are antiquated ideas in natural philosophy,
Bacon championed experimentation over revelation and deduction. R. W. Serjeantson
writes:
In a series of works, Bacon lambasted his contemporaries for their ignorance and
complacency about the natural world, and proposed a series of increasingly bold plans to
remedy the situation. In his grand encyclopedia of human ignorance, The Advancement of
Learning, he anatomized the failings in the contemporary human understanding of the
natural, human and divine worlds.99
97
Montuschi, E. “Order: God’s, Man’s and Nature’s.” (2010)
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/projects/orderProject/documents/Publications/MontuschiBacon.pdf.
98
Bacon, Francis. Francis Bacon: The Complete Works. (Nook Edition: 2012). 44.
99
Sterjeantson, R.W., “Natural Knowledge in the New Atlantis.” In Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis. Ed.
Bronwen Price, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002). 83.
46
Ancient and medieval natural philosophers were interested in knowledge for knowledge’s
sake or to reveal God in the natural world. Plato and Aristotle proclaimed reason and
deduction as the highest levels of human thought. Bacon, on the other hand, declares that
ignorance of the natural world comes from the belief that experimentation is beneath a
natural philosopher and wisdom is only revealed through revelation and deduction.
Furthermore, as E. A. Burtt describes, Bacon’s:
Conception of science as an exalted co-operative enterprise, his empirical stress on the

necessity and cogency of sensible experiments, his distrust of hypothesis and general
analysis of inductive procedure, all penetrated the leading scientific minds of the middle
of the century.100
Bacon demonstrates the power and importance of experimentation in his Christian
utopian novel New Atlantis. In New Atlantis, experimentation is found throughout
Salomon’s house and kingdom. There are instruments that generate heat and sound,
while motion is produced by engines. Experimentation is prevalent in chemistry labs
producing medicine, areas designated for the study of plants and animals, and
“perspective-houses” that create lenses. Serjeantson further explains:
Salomon’s House has a permanent staff of fellows who carry out various specialized
tasks, almost all of which involve “experiments” in some way. The purpose of the
institution is to produce knowledge; the kind of knowledge sought is, without exception,
the knowledge of nature.101
Bacon’s Christian utopia is made possible through scientific experimentation that
advances human control over nature. Here, Bacon illustrates the purpose of science as an
industry for advancing technology and providing goods, rather than seeking knowledge to
advance human understanding of nature.
100
Burtt, E. A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. (Highlands: Humanities 1980) , 125.
101
Sterjeantson, R.W., “Natural Knowledge in the New Atlantis.” In Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis. Ed.
Bronwen Price, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002). 82.
47
To conclude, Descartes and Bacon are responsible for the roots of modern
science. Both philosophers face the challenge of overcoming the Aristotelian concept
that experimentation and mathematics are lower levels of thought. And, they each
attempt to overcome obstructions from the Christian faith. Descartes separates the
worlds of matter and mind to escape persecution from the church. By disconnecting
theology, metaphysics, and ontology from natural philosophy, he has eliminated the tools
natural philosophy once used to provide meaning for its discoveries—science is reduced
to mechanical philosophy and is no longer interested in relationships between empirical
data and the human experience. Science is the strict study of physical matter. Even
though religious persecution is not a concern for scientists in the modern Western World,
science continues to separate itself from metaphysics. Bacon, on the other hand, is
primarily interested in experimentation for the sake of producing technology and goods.
He claims that humans have dominion over nature and do not need to be concerned with
reason and deduction. In both cases, the incorporeal mind is no longer a part of the study
of the physical world, thus natural philosophy changes into modern science through
removing or separating the human mind from nature.

48
Chapter 4
Spinoza: God in the Machine
There is no such thing as perpetual tranquility of mind while we live here; because life
itself is but motion, and can never be without desire, nor without fear, no more than
without sense.
- Thomas Hobbes
Descartes and Bacon champion a new kind of natural philosophy, mechanical
philosophy, which argues against ancient scholarship. Their ideas recognize the
doctrines of theology, but claim that God, or any other theological or metaphysical
thoughts, are not needed to understand the study of nature as a physical entity. As a
result, nature is treated like a machine. Humans, the only living creatures with a soul, are
tasked to understand and dominate nature.
From Descartes and Bacon, new ideas emerge during a time of great political
change, driven by new theology and a philosophy that rejects ancient authority. This
chapter examines the shift in theory from separating humanity from nature to
understanding both humans and nature as machines. And, questions of meaning
addressed through theology and philosophy are thus removed, ignoring the human
experience of nature.
The Reformation destroyed the unity of the Christian religion and violent wars
were fought over difference in doctrine. Philosophers depicted nature as a mechanical
process which could be described through the language of mathematics. J. Thomas Cook
explains the inevitable issue regarding how humans relate to mechanical philosophy: “It
was not long before people began to ask whether the sort of mechanical explanations that
49
the new sciences offered could be applied to human beings and human society as
well.”102
The stage was set for the complete separation of natural philosophy from theology
and the incorporeal. Baruch Spinoza, a Jewish scholar living in Amsterdam during the
latter half of the 17th century, takes great interest in Rene Descartes’ dualism. Spinoza’s
most influential work, Ethics, argues against dualism and lays out his mechanical
explanation of God, nature, and humanity. And, his growing interest in secular ideas
eventually leads to his expulsion from the Jewish community.
Spinoza and Substance
Rene Descartes explains that the mind and the body are two different entities.
The body is a material thing and therefore must abide by the rules of nature, while the
mind is nonmaterial and is not bound by nature. Each is a separate substance. Spinoza,
however, rejects this idea and proclaims there is but one substance in the universe. His
counter-view to Descartes’ dualism is called “substance monism” and is outlined in Book
One of Ethics. To prepare his argument, Spinoza first defines “substance,” “attribute,”
“mode,” and “God,” giving operational definitions for the terms he uses to illustrate the
foundations of his philosophy.
Spinoza begins with substance: “By substance I understand what is in itself and is
conceived through itself, that is, that whose concept does not require the concept of
another thing, from which it must be formed.”103 There are two parts to his definition.
First, while other things may exist as qualities of a substance, substance exists only in
itself. Second, no other idea is needed for a substance; it is what is conceived through
102
Cook, J. Thomas. Spinoza’s Ethics: A Reader’s Guide. (London, GBR: 2007) 6.
103
Spinoza, Ethics, I D3.
50
itself. In other words, a substance is an independent entity both conceptually and
ontologically.104 Similarly, Descartes defines substance as an independent entity,
however he allows for all substances to stem from the existence of God.
Using his idea of substance, Spinoza then defines mode: “By mode I understand
the affections of a substance, or that which is in another through which it is also
conceived.”105 A mode is dependent upon a substance in order to exist; it is the way a
substance can be represented in a particular example. Unlike substance, a mode is
defined by something else and not by its own essence. For example, large, purple, and
content are modes that need a substance which is large, purple, and content in order to
exist as a description. Large, purple, and content cannot exist on their own. Steven
Nadler suggests that:
the modes of a thing are concrete manifestations of the attribute or nature constituting the
thing. They therefore cannot be conceived without also conceiving the attribute or nature
that underlies them.106
An attribute, according to Spinoza, is “what the intellect perceives of a substance,
as constituting its essence.”107 Thus, an attribute is the way a substance is observed.
Finally, Spinoza defines God as “a being absolutely infinite, that is, a substance
consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite
essence.”108 God is infinite in that His attributes are infinite and there is no attribute that
He does not possess.
104
Waller, Jason, "Spinoza’s Metaphysics," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition),
University of Tennessee, http://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/#H2.
105
106
Nadler, Steven. Spinoza’s Ethics: An Introduction. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 2006.) 58.
107
Spinoza, Ethics. I D4.
108
Ibid. I D6.
51
In a nod to Descartes, Spinoza also claims that the only attributes understood by
humans are thought109 (mind) and extension110 (material objects). He justifies this claim
by stating that humans are composed of two attributes, thought and body (an extended
thing): “We neither feel nor perceive any singular things, except bodies and modes of
thinking.”111 Only the mind of a human can comprehend other minds and only the body
of a human can relate to other bodies, according to Spinoza. When further questioned
about this in a letter from a friend, Tschirnhaus, Spinoza replies:
the mind's power of understanding extends only as far as that which this idea of the body
contains within itself, or which follows therefrom. Now this idea of the body involves
and expresses no other attributes of God than extension and thought. 112
Accordingly, Spinoza claims that humans cannot find two or more substances in
nature with the same attribute.113 As previously discussed, the reason humans can relate
to the attributes of the mind and extension is because they are attributes of the same
substance. Steven Nadler further explains:
Like Descartes before him, Spinoza thus makes ontological independence the hallmark to
substance. Unlike Descartes, however, Spinoza is not willing to compromise and say that
there is a secondary degree of substantiality, whereby a finite thing can be caused by an
infinite substance and still qualify as a substance, just as long as it is not dependent for its
being on some other finite thing. 114
Substances must be completely independent from one another. Because of his definition
of substance, Spinoza claims that “God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes,
each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists.”115 Through his
logic, God is the only substance and He possesses every attribute.116 If another substance
109
Spinoza, Ethics. I P21.
110
Ibid. I P11.
111
Ibid. II A5.
112
Spinoza, Benedict de. The Ethics and Other Works. Ed. Edwin Curly. (Princeton, Princeton University
Press: 1994)270.
113
Spinoza, Ethics I P5.
114
Nadler, Steven. Spinoza’s Ethics: An Introduction. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 2006.) 83.
115
Spinoza, Ethics, I P11.
116
Ibid. I P14.
52
besides God exists, then it shares an attribute with God, which by definition of substance,
is impossible. Spinoza proclaims: “Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can be or be
conceived without God.”117 Thus, God is everything and everything is God. If all things
conform to the same substance, furthering the idea of mechanical philosophy, then
Spinoza has removed the need for metaphysical concepts outside of God.
Spinoza on Mind and Body
If God is the only substance, then how does Spinoza explain the differences
between the mind and the body? According to Spinoza, minds are modes of God and are
seen as the attributes of thought. Bodies are also modes of God and they are viewed as
attributes of extension.118 Through his explanation, mind and body are two aspects of the
same thing. Furthermore, he states: “The object of the idea constituting the human mind
is the body, or a certain mode of extension which actually exists, and nothing else.”119
The mind is the idea of the body, and the body is the blend of various ideas of the mind.
Spinoza’s explanation of how the mind and body work together is called
“parallelism.” Parallelism maintains the importance of physical science, but also finds
answers as to how the mind seems to affect and is affected by the physical world.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The parallelist preserves both realms intact, but denies all causal interaction between
them. They run in harmony with each other, but not because their mutual influence keeps
each other in line. That they should behave as if they were interacting would seem to be a
bizarre coincidence. This is why parallelism has tended to be adopted only by those who
believe in a pre-established harmony, set in place by God.120
117
Spinoza, Ethics. I P15.
118
Ibid. II P10.
119
Ibid. II P13.
120
Robinson, Howard, "Dualism," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition),
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/dualism/.
53
For Spinoza, the mind and the body are mirror reflections of one another, merely two
modes of two attributes that describe the same substance.
Moreover, to complete his reduction of humanity to that of motion and
mechanics, Spinoza addresses the idea of free will. Descartes states that the human mind,
unlike that of an animal, exists outside of nature and because of this, humans enjoy free
will. Spinoza disagrees with Descartes. He believes that free will is only a possibility for
a substance, and because God is the only substance, humans do not possess free will.
Also, everything exists inside of God, so therefore everything is constrained by God.
Spinoza explains:
That thing is called free, which exists solely by the necessity of its own nature, and of
which the action is determined by itself alone. On the other hand, that thing is necessary,
or rather constrained, which is determined by something external to itself to a fixed and
definite method of existence or action.121
As previously discussed, there is but one substance that exists in this manner, God, and
free will is a myth. In Book Three of Ethics, Spinoza begins by addressing the popular
thinkers before him:
Most of those who have written about the affects, and men’s way of living, seem to treat,
not of natural things, which follow the common laws of Nature, but of things which are
outside of Nature. Indeed they seem to conceive man in Nature as dominion within a
dominion. For they believe that man disturbs, rather than follows, the order of Nature,
that he has absolute power over his actions, and that he is determined only by himself. 122
Descartes, according to Spinoza, uses clever language to create free will (or thought
which is not created by an external cause), and the idea that humans have complete
control over anything is erroneous: “But my reason is this: nothing happens in Nature
which can be attributed to any defect in it, for Nature is always the same, and its virtue
and power of acting are everywhere and one and the same.”123 Human beings then,
121
122
Ibid. III Preface.
123
Ibid.
54
according to Spinoza, do not have free will. They are a part of nature and are therefore
defined by nature. Spinoza concludes: “I shall consider human actions and desires in
exactly the same manner, as though I were concerned with lines, planes and solids.”124
Humans are simply another mode that exists with other modes, occurring in and defined
by nature.
Spinoza and Nature
Spinoza capitalizes the word “Nature” throughout Ethics because to him, Nature
is God and God is Nature. Thomas Aquinas also addresses this issue,125 but concludes
that while nature is a part of God, it is only connected in the sense that an arm is a part of
a human being. The properties of a human being cannot be discerned merely from the
study of the arm. Spinoza believes that God is not above nature, nor is He beyond
substance. God is the only substance and therefore Nature is God.126
Consequently, God as Nature is an important concept in understanding Spinoza’s
promotion of the physical sciences. In his work Theologico-Political Treatise, Spinoza
contends that the belief in miracles goes against the belief in God. He begins by stating
that miracles exist in the Church only to oppose students of the sciences. He claims that
the Church is wrong to insinuate that God works above natural causes. According to
Spinoza, everything is a mode or attribute of God, and therefore the laws of nature cannot
be broken. He writes:
We can conclude that a miracle, whether in contravention to, or beyond nature, is mere
absurdity; and, therefore, what is meant in Scripture by miracle can only be a work of
nature, which surpasses, or is believed to surpass, human comprehension. 127
124
Spinoza, Ethics. III Preface.
125
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Kindle Edition. (B&R Samizbat Express: 2009) 129.
126
Spinoza, Benedict de. The Ethics and Other Works. Ed. Edwin Curly. (Princeton, Princeton University
Press: 1994) 57.
127
Spinoza. Theologico-Political Treatise. Trans. by R.H.M. Elwes. Gutenberg Project.
55
Science is a method used to comprehend God. True knowledge, for Spinoza, is not found
in superstition but in understanding the world at a more concrete level. Even God is
bound by the laws of nature, as they are His essence, and miracles are simply as yet
unexplained acts of nature. God’s mechanics can be observed and reveled through the
study of nature. Spinoza argues that knowledge is gained through advanced
understanding of nature.
In conclusion, Spinoza presents a very strong argument as to why natural
philosophy no longer needs theology or the metaphysical. If God is everything and
everything is God, then the study of the physical is all that is needed to understand God.
And, if humans and nature are truly mechanical, what need is there for the study of the
incorporeal? Questions regarding meaning and purpose are no longer addressed and
natural philosophy has become completely empirical. Spinoza has included the human
mind in Descartes’ claim that everything in nature, living or not, is a machine. Finally, if
God is Nature and God himself abides by the laws of nature, it stands to reason that the
best way to understand God is to advance human knowledge of nature through
observation alone. Therefore, modern science has removed metaphysics entirely and
discounted any contributions from theology or philosophy.

56
Chapter 5
Heidegger: Return of Metaphysics
Then since we are in perplexity, do tell us plainly what you wish to designate when you
say “being.” For it is clear that you have known this all along, whereas we formerly
thought we knew, but are now perplexed. So first give us this information, that we may
not think we understand what you say, when the exact opposite is the case.
- Plato
Modernity is shaped by rapid growth in science and technology. The popularity
of mechanical philosophy continues as Spinoza brought the mind-body problem to its
logical conclusion. To explain how the thoughts of the mind and the actions of the body
relate, they have both been defined as belonging to the same substance. The natural
sciences offer strictly a physical account of nature. Modern science defines the physical
world by a single substance—matter. The metaphysics of natural philosophy has been
removed from the study of science, and questions pertaining to meaning and purpose are
no longer relevant. This chapter argues for the return of metaphysics to science so that
the questions of why, such as in reference to Aristotle’s formal and final causes, can be
answered. Mechanical philosophy, which disregards explanations of origin and purpose,
does not elucidate meaning for humans and nature. Without exploring the questions
pertaining to why an object exists and how the object relates to a human being, it is
impossible to fully understand the object of study.
Elements of Descartes’ dualism remain in modern science. If humans only have
access to the world through their senses, how can knowledge be defined? Even though
Spinoza rejected the idea that the mind is different from the body, in the sense that it is
not a unique substance, mechanical philosophy does not offer a satisfying explanation for
the connection between mind and matter. Furthermore, it rejects the substance of mind as
Descartes defined it, and treats even human thought as mechanical. This mechanical
57
view of humans denies the existence of the soul and free will. The absence of ontological
answers, an account for how one entity relates to another, in science creates disconnect
between humans and nature. This chapter will, with the help of Martin Heidegger’s
theories, define modern metaphysics through phenomenology and ontology and argue for
the need for metaphysics in science.
Heidegger and Modern Metaphysics
Heidegger, a mid-20th century philosopher, observes that people are confused by
modern science, and he addresses the issue in the opening sentences of his work Being
and Time. The problem, as Heidegger sees it, is that not only are metaphysical questions
not being answered, but the right questions are not even being asked. Heidegger isn’t
interested in the definition or characteristics of a being; he wants to know what it actually
means “to be.” Being and Time addresses the question of being and its importance to
humanity.
To ancient philosophers, metaphysics explored the reality of an object. Thomas
Sheehan explains: “Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas agree on calling a thing “real” if it is
and is something, i.e. if it exists and has a form or essence. For these three philosophers,
the question ‘What makes anything real?’ is answered formally by ‘being’ and
materially.”128 Aristotle first looked at the nature of an object and then searched for the
first cause, or source, of that object. For Plato, the Forms are his divine, immaterial
answer for the metaphysical source of all objects found in nature.
Heidegger, on the other hand, is not interested in an object-focused form of
metaphysics. His metaphysics is human-centered and questions the meaning or purpose
128
Dreyfus, Hubert L. and Wrathall, Mark A. Ed. A Companion to Heidegger. (Oxford, Blackwell Pub:
2005) 195.
58
of an object as it relates to a human being. Sheehan elaborates: “Heidegger abandons an
object-focused theory of being for a correlation-focused theory of meaning—in a word,
phenomenology.”129
Heidegger and Phenomenology
Heidegger’s method of phenomenology is explained through his book Being and
Time. He is searching for a basic understanding of the world and a human’s place in it.
As Charles Guignon and Derk Pereboom explain, “it sets out to ask how entities in
general come to show up for us as mattering in determinate ways—how they come to
mean something to us in relation to our lives.”130 Phenomenology, as Heidegger presents
it, finds meaning in ordinary objects and occurrences in daily life. The methodology of
Phenomenology is to explore experience, rather than how something can be empirically
described. David Woodruff Smith elaborates: “It is that lived character of experience that
allows a first-person perspective on the object of study, namely, experience, and that
perspective is characteristic of the methodology of phenomenology.”131
Heidegger’s phenomenology, the study of experience through a human’s point of
view, can be explained as “fundamental ontology”132 or the primary source of being.
Fundamental ontology is Heidegger’s quest to find what gives meaning to that which
exists. Like Aristotle, Heidegger realizes that “all men by nature desire to know”133 and
Heidegger questions the nature of what he calls meaningful. He is also curious regarding
129
2005) 196.
130
Guignon, Charles and Derk Pereboom, ed., Eistentialism: Basic Writings (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001),
188.
131
Smith, David Woodruff, "Phenomenology," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/phenomenology/.
132
Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson (Oxford: Blackwell,
1973), 34.
133
Aristot. Met. 1.980a.
59
from where the meaningful originates. Nature, or the world as Heidegger denotes, is a
network where all things with meaning exist. The world is the space where humans
create meaning for themselves and their surroundings. An object acquires meaning when
it is given human purpose. Sheehan explains the origin of meaning: “What constitutes
the meaning of things is the context of human involvement within which those things are
met, the matrix of human purpose ordered to human interests and ultimately to human
survival—that is, a world.”134
Heidegger contends that individuals are at the center of their own world, and
because there are multiple people in existence, a singular person interacts with multiple
worlds. In this sense, each person must live in a world that is not completely their own.
Heidegger calls humans Dasein, a German word meaning “being-there,” and describes
them as entities that recognize their own existence. Rather than exploring the world
through planned scientific methods, Heidegger proclaims that humans are engaged in the
world as they encounter it. However, Heidegger states that human beings are constantly
searching for meaning, regardless of their level of interaction.
The search for meaning is at the very root of Dasein. Heidegger suggests that
Dasein can be described as “Being-in-the-world.” This term describes both the subject
(human) and object (what the human is interacting with) at the same time. Heidegger
believes that splitting subject and object, as modern science does, does not describe
human experience of the world. Heidegger conjectures there is no separate independent
world, in and of itself. Furthermore, there is no independent separate self. The reality of
human existence is that a human is constantly immersed in a world filled with other
134
2005) 199.
60
beings. He expresses that Dasein is a “unitary phenomenon” and “must be seen as a
whole.”135 Throughout Being and Time, Heidegger attacks Descartes’ dualism and, also
regardless of its popularity, refuses to take the modern stance that the mind can be
reduced to matter. Guignon and Pereboom claim: “On the contrary, what he tries to show
is that the whole assumption that we have to understand reality in terms of substances is
suspect.”136 Instead, Heidegger claims that the whole argument has no bearing on how
humans comprehend the world.
To explain Dasein, Heidegger depicts a world filled with familiar things that are
defined solely by their use. His example involves a door and a door nob.137 Heidegger
calls such objects “ready-to-hand.” Ready-to-hand can be further described as equipment
that is defined by its use, purpose, or goal, and it is easily recognized without the need for
reflection.138 Heidegger states that humans view the world as a collection of ready-to-
hand objects most of the time.
To illustrate ready-to-hand, Heidegger explores how a human interacts within a
workshop. The workshop is filled with objects that have meaning and propose. The
individual objects are experienced as equipment used to complete a project. The saw is
used to cut wood; and the hammer and nails are used to attach the pieces of cut wood
together. The environment defines the human as a craftsman, and the human experiences
all actions and equipment associated with his work as a project to be completed.
135
1973), 78.
136
Guignon, Charles and Derk Pereboom, ed., Eistentialism: Basic Writings (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001),
189.
137
1973), 96.
138
Dreyfus, Hubert L. and Mark A. Wrathall, ed., A Companion to Heidegger (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005),
4.
61
Dasein is described by Heidegger as “Being-in-the-world.” The Being-in-the-
world experiences nature much like a craftsman views a workshop. Within nature, every
object presents itself as having meaning. The act of using a hammer to build a chair is an
example of how a human sees and understands nature. All pieces of equipment—a
hammer, nails, wood—have purpose for their existence and also define the person
building the chair as a craftsman. In this regard, matter cannot be separated from
thought. Dasein experiences the world as ready-to-hand.
Ready-to-hand is not the only form of being, however. Heidegger explores what
happens when a craftsman working in his shop encounters a disruption to his work. For
instance, a hammer is a “hammering-thing”139 until it breaks. Once broken, it is no
longer ready-to-hand, and the craftsman now views it as an object without worldly
purpose. Heidegger calls this form of being “present-at-hand.” Present-at-hand objects
are seen as existing independent of human purpose and function. The broken hammer
now appears as existing independently of the craftsman because it is no longer is a
functional part of the project to be completed. Scientists perceive an object of study as
present-at-hand, which is not the way things are typically encountered in the world.
Thus, present-at-hand is only observed without concern for its usefulness or history, such
as would be the case if the object were ready-to-hand.
This disruption during the craftsman’s work can cause him to think that the world,
at its basic level, is actually made of present-at-hand objects. Heidegger argues that the
craftsman’s point-of-view, caused by a disruption in perception, is just an illusion. He
139
1973), 98.
62
describes a human being as an entity that is familiar with significance.140 Objects are
ready-to-hand: “No matter how sharply we just look at the ‘outward appearance’ of
things in whatever form this takes, we cannot discover anything ready-to-hand.”141
Heidegger thus argues that ready-to-hand is more “primordial” than present-at-hand as
there is no way to explain ready-to-hand exclusively in terms of present-at-hand
characteristics because objects are given meaning through human experience. Heidegger
has illustrated the flaw in Descartes’ separation of mind and matter. The mechanical
account of matter does not describe how a human experiences an object in nature.
Because ready-to-hand is a more elemental view of an object, Heidegger believes that
science also should study an object as ready-to-hand, rather than simply present-at-hand.
Thus, when present-at-hand objects disappear into the background, it is precisely
at this moment that human beings truly experience nature: “The wood is a forest of
timber, the mountain a quarry of rock; the river is water-power, the wind is wind ‘in the
sails’. As the environment is discovered, the nature thus discovered is encountered
too.”142 It is from previous experiences with ready-to-hand objects that humans can
define and give meaning to the present-at-hand.
Heidegger claims that the world at its most basic level is full of meaning, thus
allowing humans to define themselves through their circumstance. For example, a human
becomes a sailor when he or she is on a boat in a body of water. Heidegger’s problem
with the natural, or empirical, sciences comes to light as he states: “The view of reality
we get from modern natural science—the assumption that the world at the most basic
140
1973), 120.
141
Ibid. 98.
142
Ibid. 100.
63
level consists of inherently meaningless objects that we humans come to endow with
significance and value does not reveal the most basic way of Being of entities.”143
Heidegger claims, in contrast, that the world is filled with meaning and it is in this world
where humans live out their everyday lives. Thus, it is vital that science recognizes the
human experience when interpreting observational data.
Heidegger on Metaphysics and Modern Science
The rise of empirical science in the modern era starts with the rejection of ancient
and medieval authority, along with its metaphysics, and adopts an “objectified” view.
Descartes’ method can be seen in modern science’s skepticism and strict focus on the
object of study. Object-centered study has regrettably trained scientists to think of the
world as intrinsically meaningless. The separation of mind and matter, introduced by
Descartes, leaves meaning, if there is any, only in the existence of the mind. And,
mechanical theory rejects meaning by considering only Aristotle’s efficient and material
causes.
Heidegger proclaims that science is the study of the characteristics of matter.144
That is to say, that the world is comprised of only present-at-hand objects. Nevertheless,
he asserts that he is not completely against science, and recognizes the advancements that
science has made:
Where genuine and discovering research is done the situation is no different from that of
three hundred years ago. That age also had its indolence, just as, conversely, the present
leaders of atomic physics, Niels Bohr and Heisenberg, think in a thoroughly
philosophical way, and only therefore create new ways of posing questions and, above
all, hold out in the questionable.145
143
Guignon, Charles and Pereboom, ed., Eistentialism: Basic Writings (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001), 192.
144
Heidegger, Martin. “What is Metaphysics?” (1953) Translated by Tomas Sheehan. Acumen Publishing:
2013. http://essential.metapress.com/content/y115p7t77h62jm77/. 8.
145
Heidegger, Martin. Natural Science and Metaphysics (1967). Nook Edition. 2.
64
The subject of research becomes the center of knowledge in order for that object to
appear as what it is (present-at-hand), rather than what a human perceives it to be (ready-
to-hand). Heidegger states: “Scientific research and theory are beholden to their objects,
and this is the reason why the sciences are able to assume a proper, if limited, role of
leadership in the whole of human existence.”146 Heidegger suggests that science is
limited to answering observation-based questions, leaving out questions pertaining to
meaning. While it is useful to understand what something is, Heidegger believes that a
human’s perception of an object is much more important in matters pertaining to the
question of existence. Much like Aristotle’s use of the four causes, Heidegger believes
that it is significant to know both what something is and why it exists and, most
importantly, how it is related to human experience.
Modern science’s rejection of ancient knowledge causes great limitation.
Heidegger proclaims that modern science’s criticism of Aristotle—that his ideas are
purely fantasy, lacking any research or evidence—is erroneous.147 Aristotle said: “And
that issue, which in the case of productive knowledge is the product, in the knowledge of
nature is the unimpeachable evidence of the senses as to each fact.”148 Here, Aristotle
claims that he has deduced his theories from what he has witnessed in nature, and has not
merely come upon his theories through mere speculation. His formal and final causes are
aided by the material and efficient causes. The four causes together provide a complete
picture of the object of study and the human experience.
The object-centered view of science is unnatural because it does not describe how
humans experience nature. Positivism is the philosophical approach to interpret nature as
146
Heidegger, Martin. Natural Science and Metaphysics (1967). Nook Edition.. 9.
147
Ibid. 8.
148
Arist. De Cael. III, 7, 306a 16-17.
65
only matter. The philosophy of positivism refers to knowledge gained from that which
can be observed and measured. The positivism movement aspires to turn philosophy into
a modern science and, in its most extreme expression, believes that the study of purpose
or meaning is unscientific. A positivist believes that knowledge beyond observation and
measurement is impossible.149
A group called the Vienna Circle adopted logical positivism as its foundation.
The Vienna Circle’s influence in philosophy was immense during the early 20th century.
In 1932, Vienna Circle member Rudolf Carnap published “The Elimination of
Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language.” In his article, Carnap claims that:
“Metaphysicians are musicians without musical ability.”150 And, thus, positivism labeled
metaphysics as meaningless.
Heidegger continues to argue that the positivist line of thinking cannot help a
human being find meaning within his self or the world. The human, described as Dasien,
does not encounter meaningless independent objects as described by science. It is
through metaphysics, the exploration of how humans experience an object in nature, that
meaning is revealed.
Heidegger has redefined the role of metaphysics in modern science. He has
removed metaphysics from the arguments rooted in the idea of substance and replaced it
within the search for meaning. To escape the object/subject view of dualism, Heidegger
describes the human, what the human is conscious of, and the world, as interconnected.
By doing so, he also reconnects the human mind with the human body through his
149
Fetzer, James, "Carl Hempel", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward
N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/hempel/.
150
Carnap, Rudolf, The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language, trans Arthur
Pap (1932) http://www.mnemoforos.ufrgs.br/AcidoCetico/RCarnap_Elimination1957.pdf.
66
concept of Dasein, thus solving the mind-body problem. Heidegger clearly demonstrates
how humans are part of nature and take part in nature. Through his system of
metaphysics with concepts of ready-to-hand and present-at-hand, Heidegger uncovers
how humans understand and interact with nature, using both metaphysical concepts and
empirical observations. Humans naturally view objects in nature as having purpose
(ready-to-hand) and this is why the object-centered (present-at-hand) view of mechanical
philosophy and logical positivism fail to provide meaning and purpose to their objects of
study.
67
Conclusion
The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from
which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these
laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them.
- Albert Einstein
From ancient times through modernity, this thesis has analyzed the history of
natural philosophy from its balanced origins in combining metaphysics with natural
science, through its current status in modern empirical science where its goal has been
reduced by mechanical philosophy to the study of only matter. Natural philosophy began
with varied sources for information such as revelation, mathematics, logic, observation,
reasoning, and metaphysics. The blending of these various concepts allowed for a
comprehensive interpretation of nature and the relationship between humans and nature.
However, the utilization of the concepts that give meaning, such as revelation, reasoning,
and metaphysics, diminished over time. Modern science has arisen from the empirical,
data-driven side of natural philosophy. Metaphysics has been removed entirely and
relationships between humans and the objects of study are no longer relevant. Thus,
purpose and meaning are lost. Humanity now struggles with a massive influx of
experimental data, with no real significance to daily life, making it difficult to connect
with nature, or anything else for that matter.
The account of natural philosophy began with Plato as he established his
explanations of being with the concept of Forms. He proposed that the Form of the Good
is the highest Form and the source of all wisdom. Timeless and unchanging, Plato
contended that his Forms are more complete and more perfect than objects in nature, and
they allow for abstract concepts like the human soul. Aristotle then introduced his four
causes to describe changes within, and causes of, physical phenomena. His teleological
68
approach gave interpretation of cause and purpose for all natural entities, directly
addressing the relationship between humanity and nature, and the acquisition of
knowledge through the intake of information from the senses and through reason.
Through Aristotle’s integration of metaphysical philosophy with physical observations,
he proposed a balanced foundation for natural philosophy to use all available tools for
data-gathering.
However, during the Medieval period, the power of the Catholic Church produced
a shift in philosophy. Christianity became the primary focus of these thinkers, and an
understanding of nature was secondary to and subservient to Christianity. Augustine and
Aquinas both championed the ideas of their ancient predecessors, but were limited within
the constraints of Christian doctrine. Augustine was highly influential in developing
Christianity for western civilization, but nonetheless lost sight of the importance of the
physical world and an overall balanced approach to knowledge acquisition. Thus, he
proclaimed revelation as a higher form of assessment than observation and deduction.
After Augustine, Aquinas diverged from Platonic thought and delivered a more
Aristotelian approach. Aquinas demonstrated how deductive thinking could be used in
combination with experimentation and observation. However, Aquinas persisted in
restricting natural philosophy to the search for God in nature. Both philosophers departed
from the ancient concept of acquiring knowledge for knowledge’s sake and limited the
ways in which knowledge could be acquired. Because metaphysical thoughts and
physical observations are both important mechanisms for comprehending how humans
relate to nature, constraining natural philosophy within the limits of Christian doctrine
restricted the topics for discussion.

69
The Scientific Revolution then furthered the division between metaphysics and
science through the works of Descartes and Bacon. In theory, by separating the physical
world from the divine, natural philosophers of the time were able to conduct their
research without threatening church doctrine. In an attempt to please the Church and
avoid persecution, Descartes separated the human body from the human mind and thus
created a dualistic view of natural philosophy where science ascribed directly to the
physical world and theology to the metaphysical world. He fashioned a more empirical
system for data collection that rejected the need to find meaning in natural phenomena.
Descartes’ method championed mechanical philosophy and viewed nature as a machine.
Only humans have a soul, according to his reasoning, and it is in the soul, or mind, where
meaning is generated and found. Thus, Descartes reserved all studies of the realm of
thought and meaning to the Church and philosophy. Bacon, on the other hand, was not
influenced by the Catholic Church, but by the politics of the king-centered Protestant
Church. Bacon perceived science as a means to advance technology and manufacture
surplus goods. Therefore, humans procured dominion over nature through scientific
knowledge, and nature was only viewed as a resource to serve a technological function.
Applying the concept of mechanical philosophy to natural philosophy, Spinoza
then positioned a more distinct division between metaphysics and empirical science. He
created a system that exemplified a mathematical explanation for existence and being,
where all components ran like a machine. Spinoza argued that God is everything and
everything is God, and therefore the study of physical elements is the only necessary
component to understanding God. And, he purported that humans and nature are truly
mechanical, so there is no need for the study of the incorporeal. Spinoza removed
70
meaning and purpose and replaced them with a mechanical account for God. Positivism
also took a mono-substance stance and claimed that only matter exists. Therefore,
metaphysics was removed from modern science entirely; and now any contributions from
theology or philosophy are irrelevant.
In this thesis, the shortcomings of modern science were demonstrated through the
works of Martin Heidegger. Through his phenomenological method, Heidegger sought
meaning for humans, whom he believed to be conscious and concerned with being.
Heidegger’s metaphysics argued that nature, at its most primal level, is defined by
meaning and purpose for the human interacting with it and observing it. And,
furthermore, he proved that the human being is an indivisible entity, thus not a separate
mind and body. With religious persecution no longer a threat to science in the Western
World, Heidegger dismissed Cartesian theory as a solution for a problem that no longer
exists.
Through evaluating the history of metaphysics, this thesis critically analyzed the
reasons for the dissolving relationship between philosophy and science. Mechanical
philosophy has proven inefficient in providing meaning to nature and humanity. To
understand how humans and nature are interconnected and how nature affects humanity,
metaphysics must be reintroduced as a part of the scientific vocabulary. Purpose and
meaning must infiltrate the questions of science once again. This thesis has exposed the
danger in disconnecting metaphysics from natural philosophy, leaving a mechanical view
of nature and humans, devoid of meaning and purpose. Metaphysics is an essential
element of natural philosophy, as Aristotle proved with his four causes and Heidegger
demonstrated with Dasein, because it is necessary for humans to understand and find
71
meaning in their surroundings. Aristotle, through his four causes, both describes nature
(material and efficient causes) and finds meaning (formal and final causes) in nature.
Similarly, Heidegger elucidates meaning in a different way through his
phenomenological approach by illustrating how humans are constantly experiencing the
world, and therefore cannot be separated from the world. Metaphysics must be
reintroduced to modern science so that science may better serve humanity through
providing answers for questions pertaining to meaning and being—bringing the role of
humans back to participating as an active part of nature, rather than just a detached
observer.
72
Index of References
Aquinas, Thomas. On Politics and Ethics. Ed. and Trans. by Paul E. Sigmund. New
York: Norton, 1988.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Kindle Edition. B&R Samizbat Express: 2009.
Aristotle. A New Aristotle Reader, trans. J.L. Ackrill. New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Aristotle. Metaphysics. www.perseus.tufts.edu. Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.
Aristotle. The Basic Works of Aristotle. Edited by Richard McKeon. New York: Modern
Library, 2001.
Atkinson, Melissa. “Aristotle and Aquinas: Intrinsic Morality Versus God’s Morality.”
Rebirth of Reason. (2011):
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/atkinson/Aristotle_and_Aquinas_Intrinsic_Mo
rality_versus_Gods_Morality.shtml. Accessed Mar. 29, 2012.
Augustine. Confessions. Trans. by Henry Chadwick. New York: Oxford University Press,
1991.
Augustine. The Fathers of the Church. Trans. by Rettig, John W. Washington, D.C.:
CUA Press, 1993.
Augustine. “From Augustine to Jerome.”

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102166.htm. Accessed Jan. 18, 2013.
Augustine of Hippo. The Immortality of the Soul. Trans by: Ludwig Schopp. D.C.: CUA
Press, 1947.
Bacon, Francis. Francis Bacon: The Complete Works. Nook Edition: 2012.
Bind, Per. “Nature in Roman Catholic Tradition.” Anthropological Quarterly 74 (2001):

15-27.
Blair, Peter. “Reason and Faith: The Thought of Thomas Aquinas.” Dartmouth Apologia.
(2010): http://www.dartmouthapologia.org/articles/show/125. Accessed Mar. 29,
2012.
Bodnar, Istvan, “Aristotle's Natural Philosophy,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/aristotle-natphil/. Accessed Apr.
26, 2013.
73
Broughton, Janet and Carriero, John Ed. A Companion to Descartes. Oxford, Wiley-
Blackwell Pub: 2011.
Bruce, Ian, “Plato’s Theory of Forms.” (1998),

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/course/com3118/Plato.html. Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.
Burtt, E. A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. Atlantic Highlands,

Humanities Press: 1980.
Carnap, Rudolf, The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language,

Translated by Arthur Pap (1932)
http://www.mnemoforos.ufrgs.br/AcidoCetico/RCarnap_Elimination1957.pdf.
Accessed Apr. 19, 2013.
Cohen, S. Marc, “Aristotle's Metaphysics,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/.
Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.
Cook, J. Thomas. Spinoza’s Ethics: A Reader’s Guide. London, GBR: 2007.
Cottingham, J., R. Stoothoff, D. Murdoch and A. Kenny (eds.), The Philosophical

Writings of Descartes, Vol. III: The Correspondence. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press: 1991.
Descartes, Rene. A Discourse on Method (1637). Project Gutenberg,

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm. Accessed Feb. 18, 2013.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/meditations.htm
l. Accessed Feb. 18, 2013.
Descartes, Rene. The Meditations and Selections from the Principles. Translated by John
Veitch. Chicago, Open Court: 1913.
Descartes, Rene. The Principles of Philosophy. Project Gutenberg.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4391/pg4391.html. Accessed Apr. 28,
2013.
Dreyfus, Hubert L. and Wrathall, Mark A. Ed. A Companion to Heidegger. Oxford,

Blackwell Pub: 2005.
Falcon, Andrea, "Aristotle on Causality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/aristotle-causality/. Accessed
May 3, 2013.
74
Fetzer, James, "Carl Hempel," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/hempel/. Accessed May 1,
2013.
Funkenstein, Amos. Theology and the Scientific Imagination: From the Middle Ages to
the Seventeenth Century. Princeton, Princeton University Press: 1986.
Guignon, Charles and Derk Pereboom (eds.), Eistentialism: Basic Writings. Indianapolis,
Hackett: 2001.
Hatfield, Gary. "René Descartes," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer

2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/descartes/. Accessed Apr. 26,
2013.
Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time, Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward
Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell, 1973.
Heidegger, Martin. Natural Science and Metaphysics (1967). Nook Edition.
Heidegger, Martin. “What is Metaphysics?” (1953) Translated by Tomas Sheehan.

Acumen Publishing: 2013.
http://essential.metapress.com/content/y115p7t77h62jm77/. Accessed Mar. 1,
2013.
Henry, John. “Metaphysics and the Origins of Modern Science: Descartes and the
importance of Laws of Nature.” Early Science and Medicine, 9,2 Nejmegen:
BRILL Publishing, 2004, 73-114.
Johnson, Monte Ransome. Aristotle on Teleology. Oxford Scholarship Online: 2005.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199285306.001.0001/acprof-
9780199285303. Accessed Apr. 26, 2013.
Kraut, Richard, “Plato,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/plato/. Accessed Apr. 26, 2013.
Lorenz, Hendrik, “Ancient Theories of Soul,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Summer 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/ancient-soul/.
McInerny, Ralph and O'Callaghan, John, “Saint Thomas Aquinas,” The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edited by Edward N. Zalta,
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/aquinas/. Accessed Jan. 18,
2013.
75
Montuschi, E. “Order: God’s, Man’s and Nature’s.” (2010)

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/projects/orderProject/documents/Publications/Mon
tuschiBacon.pdf. Accessed Feb. 18, 2013.
Nadler, Steven. Spinoza’s Ethics: An Introduction. Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press: 2006.
North, Wyatt. The Homilies of St. Thomas. New York: Wyatt North Publishing, 2012.
Pasnau, Robert. Thomas Aquinas on Human Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2002.
Plato. Complete Dialogues of Plato. MobileReference, 2010.
Plato, Cryatylus. www.perseus.tufts.edu. Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.
Plato. Republic. www.perseus.tufts.edu. Accessed Dec. 30, 2012.
Plato. Republic, trans. Joe Sachs. Newbury: Focus Publishing, 2007.
Robinson, Howard, “Dualism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/dualism/. Accessed Feb 18,
2013.
Robinson, Howard, “Substance,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/substance/. Accessed Apr. 26,
2013.
Slowik, Edward. “Descartes' Physics,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/descartes-physics/. Accessed
Apr. 28, 2013.
Smith, David Woodruff, "Phenomenology," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/phenomenology/. Accessed on
Apr. 30, 2013.
Spinoza. Theologico-Political Treatise. Translated by R.H.M. Elwes. Gutenburg Project:

1997. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/989/pg989.html. Accessed Oct. 4,
2012.
Spinoza, Benedict de. The Ethics and Other Works. Edited by Edwin Curly. Princeton,
Princeton University Press: 1994.
76
Sterjeantson, R.W., “Natural Knowledge in the New Atlantis.” In Francis Bacon’s New
Atlantis. Edited by Bronwen Price, 85-105. Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 2002.
Targoff, Ramin, “Traducing the Soul: Donne’s ‘Second Anniversarie’.” PMLA 121, 5
(2006): 1493-1508.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. Colorado Springs: International Bible
Society, 1984.
Van Inwagen, Peter, “Metaphysics,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/metaphysics/. Accessed Apr. 2,
2013.
Veatch, Henry. “Review of Aquinas’ Search for Wisdom, by Vernon J. Bourke.”

Speculum, 41,3 (Jul 1966): 521-523.
Waller, Jason, “Spinoza’s Metaphysics,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer

2009 Edition), University of Tennessee, http://www.iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/#H2.
Accessed Feb. 19, 2013.

Humans and Nature Finding Meaning Through Metaphysics Author Justin Stone

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Humans and Nature Finding Meaning Through Metaphysics Author Justin Stone

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Humans and Nature Finding Meaning Through Metaphysics Author Justin Stone

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rollins College

Rollins Scholarship Online

Humans and Nature: Finding Meaning through

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.rollins.edu/mls

A Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

Mentor: Dr. Hoyt Edge

Chapter 1 – Ancient Thought: Plato and Aristotle 7

Chapter 2 – Medieval Philosophy: From Augustine to Aquinas 22

Chapter 3 – The Scientific Revolution: Descartes and Bacon 34

Chapter 4 – Spinoza: God in the Machine 48

Chapter 5 – Heidegger: Return of Metaphysics 56

The incorporation of these varied concepts brought about a comprehensive understanding

procurement of knowledge, relies strictly on observation and calculation. And, because

Aristotle’s Metaphysics was originally named by the ancient philosopher: ‘first

concerning the natural world.2

seventeenth century ‘metaphysics’ began to be a catch-all category, a repository of

of metaphysical thought by the natural sciences. Without metaphysics in modern science,

scientists are limited to gathering empirical data and drawing inconsequential

To prove that modern science is in need of metaphysics to connect humans with

interaction with nature.

observations Physics. To explain his concept, Aristotle created a metaphysical system

ability to reason. Through his incorporation of metaphysical ideas with quantifiable

Hippo and Thomas Aquinas during the Medieval time period.

theories stemming from Plato’s philosophies. He recognized the importance of human

revelation; however, Augustine limited knowledge within the confines of Christianity.

Subsequently, Aquinas championed Aristotelian thought, and exemplified how revelation

Aquinas’ teachings prompted a surge in experimentation during the Renaissance,

resulting in an astounding amount of scientific discoveries. Subsequently, the Scientific

comprehensive balance of natural philosophy to a more fixated empirical science

The final dissolution of ancient natural philosophy, which was originally

philosophy no longer needed theology or metaphysical thought. Questions regarding

mechanistic experimentation. Furthermore, he purported that nature does not work in a

teleological thought, and the permeation of modern empirical science.

Heidegger, questions of being are no longer addressed by modern science. Instead, a

rapid production of technology has threatened to reduce humanity itself to a mere

is a concept that refers to the experience of being, as it pertains to humans. Heidegger

issues of being, morality, and how natural phenomena relate to humankind.

origin of modern science, where it broke from the tradition of metaphysics in

philosophy has oversimplified science. Metaphysics must be reincorporated within

mechanical philosophy, is problematic because it concentrates solely on the study of the

physical world; it views everything—including humans and other living things—as a

how they interrelate with nature. To ignore questions pertaining to meaning is to

disregard purpose for humans and nature.

Ancient Thought: Plato and Aristotle

throughout the history of philosophy.

Classical thought is often found at the root of philosophical arguments and

scientific discoveries. Ancient philosophers studied almost every topic imaginable,

philosophers were able to find connections between different phenomena through

inference and deduction.

which define physical phenomena as having a purpose and a final cause.

often throughout history by many great thinkers. To comprehend philosophical thoughts

the foundational arguments arranged by these ancient philosophers.

therefore intangible, belonging to no single physical object.

understood as the cause of properties found in human perception.

knowledge.12 As demonstrated through the Forms, knowledge is universal and certain,

unlike the flickering and changing images of the shadows.

The Form of the Good

person to the next.

Aristotle’s Four Causes