Thread by @MilitantThomist

Plato Somehow Figured Out Stuff about Theology and We’re Too Dumb to Understand It 🧵

Aristotle, as a philosopher, ascended the rungs of intelligible being in order to argue that God is and gain some understanding from transcendental notions of perfection.

1/14

Plato, on the other hand, was ripped to the top by his mystical contemplations, and, like a theologian, judged all things in relation to the Divinity.

His view of the ideas/forms/etc., for example, was absolutely correct and illustrates a profound theological sense.

2/14

To explain this, we must distinguish between a pure and mixed perfection. Pure perfections (like being, goodness, beauty, truth, etc.) do not denote any imperfection or limitation in their notion. The only limitation present is found in the manner in which they exist

3/14

(participated in THIS truth or THAT beautiful thing, n.b., the individual participation provides the limitation, not the concept/notion itself).

From this, St. Thomas (as Plato did) argued that these pure perfections must FORMALLY exist in their pure and subsistent form.

4/14

Thus, God is pure and essential beauty, goodness, truth, love, etc. (this thread is not the place to explain the argument, but I will be releasing a course on the existence of God soon that covers this in the 4th way)

Yet, what about other perfections? Let's say, cupness.

5/14

Cupness implies some sort of material limitation IN THE NOTION. It must have THIS handle, THAT porcelain, etc.. (n.b., handle, porcelain, etc. are found in the NOTION of cupness, not merely in the manner of a cup's existence). It doesn't merely have imperfection in the

6/14

MODE in which it exists, but also has imperfection in the NOTION itself.

Thus, could we argue that there is some self subsisting cup *in the manner of our notion*? No. That would provide a fundamental contradiction. For, we would have something that is BOTH essentially

7/14

limited by its notion and essentially unlimited by its self-subsistence.

YET, we have already affirmed that it is a mixed PERFECTION. In that it has perfection mixed with limitation in its notion, it MUST come from God (again, this process is couched in the arguments for

8/14

the existence for God that I can't lay out here)

Thus, we MUST say that there is some preexistence of the perfection present in cupness (abstracted from the imperfection in the notion) in God (else, we have perfections in the effect that arent in the cause...big problem).

9/14

The theologians say that this perfection exists VIRTUALLY in God rather than FORMALLY in God.

Yet, this is to view things from the pov of creatures. What would happen if we viewed things from the perspective of God, who is subsistent perfection?

In this case, we would

10/14

have certain typical perfections, some participated purely in creatures, only limited by the manner in which they subsist, others participated limitedly BOTH in the manner in which they subsist AND inherent in the nature that is created. The second group would be creatures

11/14

that are mere shadows of the typical perfection from which they came, the former would be bright and shining witnesses (although certainly dulled from the luminous glory in which they essentially subsist).

Thus, we see that Plato, as a true theologian, judged all from

12/14

the perspective of the Divinity. Rather than merely stopping at the assent of knowing, stripping created things of imperfections to get some right and positive notion of the Divinity, Plato arrived at the

13/14

descent of being from which all things proceed from God as creator, perfections taking various limited and shadowy instantiations that preexisted eminently and virtually in the world of the forms (i.e., in God).

14/14