The Philosophical Review/Volume 1/Review: Rolfes - Die aristotelische Auffassung vom Verhältniss Gottes zur Welt und zum Menschen
This book furnishes an interesting example of how strong a case can be presented by the counsel defending a cause "for conscience's sake." It impresses one, not as the decision of an impartial judge, but as the plaidoyer of the advocate. The outcome of the trial must be such as to justify the commentaries of Thomas Aquinas and acquit scholasticism of the charge of having prostituted philosophy. To this end nothing could be more favorable than an interpretation of Aristotle in the sense of the doctor angelicus and conformable to the spirit of Christian theology. Dr. Rolfes courageously undertakes this task, and does the best that can be done under the circumstances. Still, the reader feels that force is being used, that the case is prejudged, that the writer projects his own notions into the pages of the master whom he seeks to explain. Strangely enough Dr. Rolfes discerns in Zeller's universally recognized masterpiece of critical research an attempt on the part of its author to read his own "shallow deism" into Aristotle's doctrine. Is it not rather surprising that Zeller's preconceptions should unfit him for a work for which Thomas of Aquin and his partisans possess such marked advantages?
In a series of five theses Dr. Rolfes aims to give the correct Aristotelian conception of God's relation to the universe and to man. God is the beginning and end of all things, not only as τὸ τέλος, but also as efficient cause and living power; he is the creator of the world and its personal, guiding principle, omniscient, omnipotent, and free. The human soul is spiritual in its essence, of divine origin, and immortal. Although Aristotle conceives the deity as the ethical end of humanity, he purposely neglects the religious element in man, confining himself to his worldly perfection. On the whole, then, Aristotle's theology agrees with the Christian conception of the divinity,—a result which cannot but shame unbelief and strengthen our faith in God. The great Greek thinker merits the title of prince of philosophers, and furnishes the proper starting-point for a true philosophy. In the face of these facts, the achievements of scholasticism cannot be ignored with impunity.
Chief stress is, and must be, laid by the author on his first thesis, which asserts the efficient causality of the prime mover. He brings his most effective artillery into action here for the purpose of fortifying a position which forms the key to the whole situation. Accordingly this part comprises the best portion of the book. In the works of Zeller and others, Aristotle's God moves not as efficient principle, but after the manner of a final cause, as a quiescent, inactive end. A reversal of this interpretation does not seem to be warranted by the evidence offered by Dr. Rolfes. The utmost that his polemic could accomplish would be to bring into clearer relief the contradictions and inconsistencies found in Aristotle's writings. Yet it should be remembered that the passages quoted in support of our author's view contradict the spirit and principles of the great Greek's metaphysics,—a fact which diminishes their weight. Aristotle frequently declared that the first cause is contemplative, being endowed with intellectual activity only (θεωρία), not active in the sense expressed by the words πράττειν and ποιεῖν. He says: κινεῖ δὲ ὧδε. τὸ ὀρεκτὸν καὶ τὸ νοητὸν κινεῖ οὐ κινούμενα … κινεῖ δὲ ὡς ἐρώμενον, κινούμενον δὲ τᾶλλα κινεῖ. (Met. 12, 7). It is evident in what sense God is the πρῶτον κινοῦν. He moves without acting, as the good, as the perfect, eternal end after which all things strive. How could there be motion in this immaterial spirit or eternal form which is all actuality, ἐνεργεία, when motion is defined as the transition from potentiality to actuality, ἡ τοῦ δυνάμει ὅντος ἐντελέχεια ᾗ τοιοῦτον, κίνησίς ἐστι?
Even though we should assume the correctness of Dr. Rolfes's interpretation on this point, what warrant have we for the assertion that Aristotle taught a creatio ex nihilo, or at any rate came very near it? If God is the end of all finite existence, then, the writer maintains, simple logic demands that he be the originator of everything finite. But philosophers do not invariably draw the conclusions which may seem to some to be simple and natural. What right has the interpreter to make these deductions himself? Dr. Rolfes shoots beyond his mark in endeavoring to elaborate a system which he sets out to explain. Again, God is the principle of all things, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ πρῶτον τῶν ὄντων, says Aristotle, ergo the creator of all things, adds Dr. Rolfes. I know of no logic simple enough to render such a conclusion absolutely necessary. Again, Aristotle's conception of the principles of material essence logically demands the notion of creation. Form gives to matter its real existence. Hence the originator of the form is also the cause of matter (pp. 66–78). Aristotle nowhere draws these conclusions, as the author himself confesses, so this dallying with premises is "love's labor lost." Had he drawn them, he would have contradicted a fundamental principle of his philosophy, according to which the world is eternal.
The same general objections may be urged against the remaining portions of the book. The attempt to make Aristotle's thought square with Christian theology renders the application of force necessary at times. We except the exposition of the ethical system, which is not subjected to this heroic treatment and which presents, therefore, a clear and unbiased account of the philosopher's views.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1934, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 89 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse