Evolution” of the Roman Catholic Church’s

/in /by

The “Evolution” of the Roman Catholic Church’s Responses to Scientific Discovery

Introduction

Scientific discoveries constantly challenged the Roman Catholic doctrines, prompting the church to respond. These responses varied according to the different times and situations facing Roman Catholicism. During Galileo Galilei’s time in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the church adopted an authoritarian response. Sir Isaac Newton faced a moderate response while upon Charles Darwin’s discovery on evolution; the papacy went quiet for a long time before finally agreeing with science. This ‘evolution’ of the responses depicts a gradual change in the Church’s attitude towards science as well as an effort to remain relevant in the wake of the scientific revolution. The response of the Roman Catholic Church to science was also set in the background of ongoing tensions between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Hence, an array of factors should be considered when discussing the changes in the Vatican’s response to science.

Galileo and the Heliocentric Model

One of the earliest conflicts between the Roman Catholic Church and Science resulted from the work of Galilei (1564-1642). The topic at the center of this controversy was the heliocentric model, championed by Galilei (McGrath 18). This model originally developed by the Polish Polymath, Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), explained that the sun is at the center of the solar system instead of the earth. It, therefore, contradicted the geocentric model that had been advanced by the Greek scholar, Claudius Ptolemy, and accepted throughout the middle ages (McGrath 18). The geocentric model depicted the earth at the center of the universe. Furthermore, it was believed that all the heavenly bodies including the stars rotated in circular motions around the earth (McGrath 18). The Roman Catholic Church accepted this view since it was accommodated by the scripture. The idea of the earth being at the center was a false proof that the earth was at the center of the creation with the heavens above it, as depicted in creationism. Galilei’s advocacy for the heliocentric model was, hence, viewed as an opposition to the Church and condemned.

The Church had reasons for criticizing Galileo’s work. Among them is that the heliocentric model was found to be incompatible with the bible (McGrath 22). One of the commonly cited verses by the critics was Joshua 10: 12-13. In this verse, Joshua is said to have ordered the Sun to stand still so that he could defeat his enemies. This verse was interpreted literally as evidence that it is the sun that moves around the earth. Paolo Antonio Foscarini, a Carmelite friar, came to Galileo’s defense and argued that the heliocentric model was not necessarily incompatible with the bible (McGrath 22). According to the friar, there were three aspects of the bible that the Roman Catholic Church had not considered. The first aspect was the fact that the bible is not written literally, but rather metaphorically and with similitude. Secondly, the scripture was composed according to our understanding and level of knowledge. Finally, Foscarini argued that the writings of the bible are according to the common way of speaking at the time (McGrath 22). With this understanding, Foscarini explained that Joshua’s Bible story was written according to the common understanding of nature in those days and in the common language spoken at the time. Galileo also endorsed this explanation. However, the Church was quick to reply to Foscarini’s views, terming them as mere innovations without precedent in Christian thought (McGrath 23). Additionally, the Church maintained that the Bible was to be interpreted literary. New interpretations that defied the common understanding of the Holy fathers and theologians were unacceptable.

The other reason for the Church’s condemnation of Galileo’s work was due to an ongoing debate between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. The thirty years war that lasted from 1618-1648 led to a split between the Roman Catholics who insisted upon Christian traditions and the Protestants who favored liberal thinking. Hence, amid that tension, the Roman Catholic Church rejected any new interpretations of the bible advanced by the Protestants. Submitting to Galilei’s thinking was, therefore, a risky move that would be translated as a concession to Protestant teachings. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church was that any new interpretation of the Bible was mere innovation, hence, erroneous (McGrath 24). As such, the heliocentric model was dismissed.

The conflict between Galileo and the church commonly referred to as the ‘Galileo Affair,’ was a series of events. It would, however, be erroneous to state that there was no dialogue between the two parties. Galilei made six trips to Rome, each trip lasting many days. During the trips, he had the privilege of meeting high ranking members of the Church including the pope, with whom he shared his work. The second trip, in 1611, was the beginning of Galilei’s opposition as he defended the heliocentric model in public (Shea and Artigas 19). His ideas were not only rejected by the church, but also by his fellow scientists who followed Aristotle on the geocentric model. The holy office denounced his ideas prompting Galilei to make a third trip to Rome in 1615 (Shea and Artigas 49). He intended to defend his views and avoid the rejection of the heliocentric model. His efforts, although brilliant, were unsuccessful leading to the banning of his works and an order not to teach it (Shea and Artigas 82). Galilei had no option but to go silent. Fortunately in 1623, Pope Urban VIII who was a friend of Galilei, as well as an admirer of his works, came to office. As a result of this change in the papacy, Galilei made a fourth trip to Rome where he was readily welcomed. Pope Urban VIII allowed Galilei to publish his work on the condition that it was to be presented as mere opinions and not facts. The next few years were successful for the scientist as he wrote several celebrated works (Shea and Artigas 96). In 1630, Galileo made a fifth trip to Rome where he requested permission to print his book. This request was not readily granted although eventually, he managed to print the book outside of Rome. This was followed by a public outcry against Galilei’s book forcing the Church to act. In 1633, the father of modern science was summoned to Rome and put to trial (Shea and Artigas 258). The result of the trial was a censoring of Galilei’s book and house arrest, where he spent the rest of his life until he died in 1642. Nevertheless, Galilei’s work had already spread across Europe.

Newton and the Watchmaker’s Analogy

A few decades after Galilei’s death, the Church was confronted again by science. In this case, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was at the center of the controversy due to his findings on the mechanics of the universe (McGrath 26). Upon discovery of the laws of physics that governed the universe, Newton was convinced that mechanical perfections were underlying the operation of the universe. Consequently, the watchmaker’s analogy was developed. This analogy compared the mechanics of the universe to that of a watch. This popular teleological argument considers the working of the universe. It can be observed how the earth revolves around the sun while rotating around its axis in coordinated harmony to bring about seasons, days, and nights. The moon revolves around the earth periodically lighting the nights and so on. Newton compared these mechanics to those of a watch with the hour, minute, and second hand moving in a coordinated fashion to determine the time. Such a watch does not appear out of thin air but is designed by a watchmaker for a purpose. Similarly, it could be deduced that the universe too, had a designer and a special purpose (McGrath 29). Hence, suggesting a creator.

Initially, Newton’s work was embraced by the Roman Catholic Church. The watchmaker’s analogy served as a confirmation for the existence of God (McGrath 29). Furthermore, the analogy implied that God is the creator of the universe. Also, the church favored the idea that the universe was created for a purpose as this was compatible with the doctrines of Christianity. However, further studies into the celestial mechanics uncovered additional facts that the Church found unacceptable. This was the beginning of the conflict between Newton’s scientific findings and religion.

Newton’s work on celestial mechanics appeared to suggest that the world was self-sustaining. The creator had defined the fixed laws upon which the universe would operate such as the laws of motion (McGrath 30). For instance, the earth does not need any interference to keep rotating. Hence, the sun rises and sets without any continuous meddling but due to the fixed laws set at the beginning. As such, according to Newton, there was no need for continued divine intervention. This implied that God has no continuing role to play in our world. This view was heavily criticized by the Roman Catholic Church. The common belief of the Church, which persists up to date, is that God is ever-present in our lives. Such beliefs are supported in the Bible with stories such as the flood during the time of Noah, where God made it rain leading to a catastrophic flood as described in the book of Genesis. Therefore, due to the literal interpretation of the Bible by Roman Catholicism, it was believed that the universe is sustained directly by God.

The effect of Newtonian physics on religion went beyond simply casting doubts onto people’s minds regarding accepted doctrines of the faith. The scientific discoveries were so revealing that they fuelled a new religious movement. The movement of Deism used Newton’s work to legitimize itself (McGrath 29). Deism maintains the role of God in creating the universe but denies God’s special presence in the creation. In the late seventeenth century, following Newton’s discovery, Deism gained a massive following as former Roman Catholic followers joined the movement (McGrath 29). The failure of the Church to accommodate major scientific views was seen as an intellectual weakness. Furthermore, the Church also took major hits from famous scholars such as John Locke and Matthew Tindal. In one of Locke’s essay regarding human understanding, he suggested that the idea of God is as a result of human rationality and the highly regarded moral qualities at their highest and purest form (McGrath 30). Tindal was motivated by Newton’s assertion that God could be understood through nature. Consequently, in 1730, he argued that the religion of Christianity is nothing but a republication of the religion of nature (McGrath 30). This was a huge blow to not only Roman Catholicism, but also the entire Christianity.

Unlike in Galilei’s case, Newton did not get involved in a one-on-one tussle with the Roman Catholic Church. While Galilei made personal efforts to visit Rome and argue his case with the Church, Newton made no such efforts. It should be noted that Newton was not a Roman Catholic but an Anglican. Despite his immense scientific discoveries, he was devoted to matters of religion and was in fact, a theologian. Iliffe states that the most important aspect of Newton’s life was his Christian faith (4). Surprisingly, behind his Christian faith was a deep resentment for the Roman Catholic Church that qualified for heresy. Newton was not happy with many of the Roman Catholic practices. He felt that the Roman Catholicism was the biggest political and religious threat during the time, terming it as satanic and anti-Christian (Illife 6). He accused the church of cruelty, idolatry, and persecution. However, he never spoke of these accusations publicly and they only came to be known openly after his death. The conflict between the Church and Newton was, therefore, not mainly as a result of him publicly defending his scientific findings, but due to other scholars advancing his work. Among them were Newton’s associate John Locke and later on, Matthew Tindal.

The Roman Catholic’s response to Newton and his supporters was not as strong as during the Galilei’s Affair. This corresponds to the change in the perception of the Church. Roman Catholicism was no longer valued by many in the late seventeenth century as it had during the persecution of Galileo in 1633. The thirty years war that ended in 1648 dealt a heavy blow to the Church. Many had left the Roman-based Church and moved to the much accommodating Protestantism and emerging movements such as Deism (Lucci 14). Therefore, the Church’s stand on scientific matters was no longer held in high regard. Instead, these views were considered outdated. The refusal of the church to embrace science was not working in their favor. It was a relief when Newton’s findings seemed to confirm a major Catholic belief in creation. However, this harmony between science and Roman Catholicism was short-lived.

Darwin and the Evolution Theory

In the 19th Century, the Roman Catholic Church received yet another huge blow. This time, the blow came from the scientific findings of Charles Darwin (1802-1882). Darwin closely studied the work of selective breeding among animals. He observed how a breeder could choose which characteristics were desirable and which were not. The desirable ones would then be passed on to future generations. Ultimately, this would bring in variations between past and future species (McGrath 36). Darwin extended this observation to nature. He noticed a peculiar similarity between selective breeding and nature’s mechanisms. Nature appeared to select the species that would survive. The strong and adaptive species survived while the weak ones perished. He labeled this as natural selection within the natural order (McGrath 36). In 1859, Darwin published his controversial findings in his book, ‘On the Origin of Species.’

Darwin’s findings were against Roman Catholic doctrines. His findings contradicted the foundation upon which Christianity was built. At the center of this tension between science and religion, was the creation story. Unlike Newton’s findings which supported the creation of the universe, Darwin’s work suggested no creator. According to him, all species resulted from a long and complex process of biological evolution (McGrath 37). Up to this point, the church had insisted on interpreting the Bible literally. Hence, it was believed according to Genesis, that God created the world in seven days including man, animals, and plants. Darwin contradicted this by stating that these species had evolved from other organisms over millions of years through a process of adaptation.

Darwin’s work not only challenged the creation story but also the importance of man. According to the Bible, it was believed that man has a special place in God’s creation. The Roman Catholic regarded humanity as having a special place in the world, set apart from the rest of nature (McGrath 37). Additionally, it was believed that man is created in the image of God. Darwin disputed these beliefs by stating that according to his findings, there were no fundamental distinctions between the origins of people and animals (McGrath 37). Hence, the biological processes that had led to people were similar to those that had resulted in animal species.

‘On the Origin of Species’ also dismissed the notion that man had a special purpose in the universe. Roman Catholic teaching was that man was created for a purpose. This belief had been supported by Newton in his watchmaker’s analogy. The Scientific revolutionist had argued that a perfect mechanical system such as the universe could not be designed without a special purpose. Newton’s natural selection suspended any sense of purpose within nature. Instead, he depicted nature as a random process. A close associate of Darwin, Richard Dawkins, further disputed the watchmaker’s analogy by stating that the blind forces of physics were responsible for the world (McGrath 37). The depiction of physics as blind in this case implies random processes with no specific purpose. The Bible story that man had purpose and dominion over all other creation was, therefore, challenged by Darwin.

In Darwin’s case, there was yet another change in the Roman Catholic’s response to science. This time, the Vatican went quiet (Artigas et al. 4). Although there was opposition to evolution from various church authorities, the papacy never offered official communication regarding Darwin’s work. According to Artigas et al., Rome was not eager to have another conflict with the natural sciences as it had been the case with Galilei (5). Although they had managed to censor Galilei, his discoveries had been widely embraced across Europe. The church was, therefore, cautious in engaging in yet another conflict and sought to avoid it. One of the major Roman Catholic’s unofficial opposition to Darwin was titled ‘La Civilta Cattolica.’ However, such works were never endorsed by the papacy.  Some Catholic authors attempted to harmonize evolution with Christianity. Such authors were not condemned publicly by the Church authorities but would instead be asked to retract their ideas (Artigas et al. 6). The church was trying hard to avoid another Galileo Affair. It was not until 1950, almost a century later after the publication of ‘On the Origin of Species,’ that the Papacy commented on evolution. Pope Pius X11 stated that there was no apparent conflict between the evolution theory and matters of the church provided that Christians did not abandon important doctrines of the faith (Artigas et al. 1). Among the doctrines is the belief that people are created in the image and likeness of God and the recognition of the spiritual dimension. This was a great step towards creating harmony between religion and science. In 1996, another milestone was achieved when Pope John Paul II released an address stating that it was evident that evolution was not a mere hypothesis after conducting numerous independent studies.

Conclusion

Since the beginning of the scientific revolution, the Roman Catholic’s response to science has gradually changed. While studying these changes, various factors should be considered. The Galileo Affair was set up in the background of the thirty years war between the Roman Catholic and Protestants. The conflict with Newton happened during the rise of Protestantism and other movements such as Deism. Finally, in deciding how to respond to Darwin, a similar situation to the Galileo Affair had to be avoided. However, all the three scientist’s discoveries were mostly heretic and incompatible with the church’s doctrines at the various times they were made. Despite the conflict lasting for centuries, the Roman Catholic Church is gradually embracing science as shown by Pope John Paul II’s address regarding evolution.

 

Works Cited

Artigas, Mariano, et al. Negotiating Darwin: the Vatican confronts evolution, 1877–1902. JHU Press, 2006.

Iliffe, Rob. Priest of nature: the religious worlds of Isaac Newton. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Lucci, Diego. Scripture and deism: The biblical criticism of the eighteenth-century British deists. Vol. 3. Peter Lang, 2008.

McGrath, Alister E. Science & religion: a new introduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

Shea, William R., and Mariano Artigas. Galileo in Rome: The rise and fall of a troublesome genius. Oxford University Press, 2003.

Air Pollution in Pakistan Compared to Finland

/in /by

 

Problem Statement

Air pollution in Pakistan is a critical issue. The country is rated as the second most polluted country in the world (IQAir, 2019). The pollution levels in the South-Asian country exceed limits set by the World Health Organization (WHO). According to Amnesty International (2019), about 125,000 Pakistanis die every year due to air pollution. The situation has been labeled as a violation of human rights to life and health.

Prevalence of Air Pollution in Pakistan

Pakistan is ranked as the second most polluted country in the world (IQ Air, 2019). The company monitors the levels of particulate matter measuring up to 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5). These particles are relevant as they are capable of being absorbed through the lungs into the bloodstream, hence, leading to adverse health effects. Although no amount of PM2.5 is deemed healthy, the WHO advises that the levels should not exceed 10µg/m3. Shockingly, according to 2019 average levels, Pakistan has an average of 65.8µg/m3 (IQ Air, 2019). Gujranwala, the 3rd most polluted city in the world, has PM2.5 levels of 105.3µg/m3. Faisalabad follows closely with 104.6µg/m3. Other highly polluted cities in the country include Raiwind at 92.2µg/m3, Lahore at 89.5µg/m3, Karachi at 40.2µg/m3, and Peshawar at 63.9µg/m3 (IQ Air, 2019). Additionally, PM10, Carbon monoxide (CO), and Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) also exceed recommended levels. According to Colbeck, Sidra, Ali, Ahmed, & Nasir (2019), 81% of the population uses solid fuels resulting in 70,700 deaths from complications related to inhaling carbons, nitrates, and sulfates.

Types of Pollution in Pakistan

Primary pollutants in Pakistan include carbon emissions, sulfates, and nitrates. Vehicular emissions are mainly responsible for these pollutants as vehicles mainly use adulterated fuels and are poorly maintained (UNEP, 2013). The number of vehicles in the country has continued to increase rapidly. These consume about 47.4% of the petroleum products (UNEP, 2013).

Secondary pollutants in Pakistan include Particulate matter, ozone, and photochemical smog. Particulate matter or atmospheric aerosol is a chemically complex mixture of solid and liquid particles (Shahid, Kistler, Shahid, & Puxbaum, 2019). Ozone is formed indirectly by the action of sunlight on nitrogen dioxide (UNEP, 2013). Pollutants such as the phytotoxic Nitrogen oxide and PM react with sunlight to form photochemical smog, a common occurrence in Pakistan.

Sources of Pollution in Pakistan

            There are different sources of air pollution in Pakistan. Vehicular emission is the leading cause. This is due to an increase in poorly maintained motor vehicles in the country and the use of impure fuels. Vehicles emit 65% of nitrogen oxides in the country. They also account for 6% of PM and 16% of SO2 (UNEP, 2013). The use of dirty fuels in industries is also a contributor to air pollution. Fuels such as paper, wood, brick kilns, textile waste, and low-grade coal result in PM, SO2, and nitrogen oxide emissions from the industries.

Effects of Air Pollution on Health and Environment and Related Economic Cost

Pollution affects both health and the environment. The WHO reports that outdoor air pollution in Pakistan accounts for 22,000 premature adult deaths (WHO, 2020). 40 million cases of acute respiratory infections are reported each year in the country due to indoor air pollution, resulting in 28,000 deaths per year (WHO, 2020). According to health data from the country, lower respiratory infection is the fifth leading cause of death (Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, 2017). Amnesty International (2019), reports that 125,000 people each year due to air pollution. The pollution also causes chronic ear-nose-throat problems, asthma, and tuberculosis. The annual health cost due to air pollution in Pakistan is estimated at 65 billion Pakistan Rupees (UNEP, 2013). This corresponds to 1% of the country’s Gross domestic product (GDP) (Colbeck et al., 2019). The environment is also negatively affected. Winter fog is a common occurrence in Pakistan as a result of high concentrations of SO4.

Strategies Implemented by the Government to Reduce Air Pollution

            Various strategies by the Pakistan government are in place to curb air pollution. However, these are hardly implemented. The Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets the air quality and emission standards for the country. Some of the successful strategies include the introduction of unleaded gasoline, a reduction of sulfur in diesel, using unleaded fuel, and the use of compressed natural gas (UNEP, 2013). The use of alternative and clean energy sources in all sectors is advocated through mass awareness of the public.

Comparison to Finland       

Pakistan can learn a lot from Finland, one of the most environmentally friendly countries in the world. Compared to 5.2% of forest cover in Pakistan, 70% of Finland has forest cover which contributes to clean air. The Finnish government has put in place legislation to protect these forests. On the other hand, Pakistan’s limited forests are susceptible to deforestation and ineffective law enforcement (UNEP, 2013). Finnish laws are also in place to curb emissions from wood burning, transport sector, energy production, street dust, and industries. This is in contrast to the Pakistan government, which barely enforces environmental laws. 38% of Finland’s energy is renewable, compared to Pakistan which majorly uses thermal energy and other fossil fuels. Additionally, Finland aims to create a carbon-neutral society.

Solutions to Pakistan’s Air Pollution

            Pakistan’s major source of air pollution is vehicular emission. Hence, any solution must first address this problem. The government has already put in place measures to improve the quality of fuel used. Furthermore, poorly maintained vehicles are banned from operating. Unfortunately, the benefits of such laws have not been realized since they are barely enforced. In addition to their enforcement, the government should also discourage the use of motor vehicles. Instead, environmentally safe practices can be encouraged such as car-pooling and the use of bicycles. Another solution is to invest in renewable sources of energy. This would eliminate the thermal power plants which are a major source of pollution. Finally, the promotion of solar water heaters promotes the use of clean energy.

 

References

Amnesty International (2019, October 30). Pakistan: Hazardous air puts lives at risk. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/10/pakistan-hazardous-air/

Colbeck, I., Sidra, S., Ali, Z., Ahmed, S., & Nasir, Z. A. (2019). Spatial and temporal variations in indoor air quality in Lahore, Pakistan. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 16(6), 2565-2572.

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (2017). Pakistan. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from http://www.healthdata.org/pakistan

IQAir (2019). 2019 World Air Quality Report: Region & City PM2.5 Ranking. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from https://www.iqair.com/world-most-polluted-cities/world-air-quality-report-2019-en.pdf

Shahid, I., Kistler, M., Shahid, M. Z., & Puxbaum, H. (2019). Aerosol chemical characterization and contribution of biomass burning to particulate matter at a residential site in Islamabad, Pakistan. Aerosol Air Qual. Res, 19, 148-162.

UNEP (2013). The Environment and Climate Change Outlook of Pakistan. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/9396/-The_Environment_and_Climate_Change_Outlook_of_Pakistan-2014Environment_and_Climate_Outloo.pdf?sequence=3&amp%3BisAllowed=

WHO (2020). Pakistan. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from http://www.emro.who.int/pak/programmes/environmental-health.html

‘The Revolt of the Masses’ by José Ortega Y Gasset

/in /by

Summary of ‘The Revolt of the Masses’ by José Ortega Y Gasset

Chapter Ten: Primitivism and History

In this chapter, Gasset addresses the problem of primitivism and how to avoid it. He states that civilization is continuously threatened by primitive ideas (Gasset 61). Consequently, it is erroneous for the mass-man to think that civilization can sustain itself. It must be upheld, lest it slides into primeval nature (Gasset 61). The question, therefore, is how to prevent the invading jungle of nature. Gasset insists that the answer lies in history (63). It is only through historical knowledge that we can preserve and advance civilization. The author, however, cautions that this does not mean falling back into history, but rather recognizing it so that we may escape it and avoid previous mistakes (Gasset 66). An example of mass-men is given which includes the fascists and Bolshevists (Gasset 64). The author finds it inconceivable that fascists should embrace the same ideas that were triumphed over by liberalism. Such a move is labeled as primitive and retrogressive. Eventually, fascism is bound to be defeated by liberalism yet again (Gasset 65). Therefore, Gasset is against this primitive thinking by the mass-men and urges them to embrace history to uphold and advance civilization.

Chapter Eleven: The Self-Satisfied Age

            The problem presented in this chapter is that of the self-satisfied man. This is the typical expression of the mass-man. He is born into a life of abundance hence resulting in the impression that life is easy and plentiful without limitation. This allows him a sensation of power (Gasset 68). He, therefore, attains a sense of excellence which leads him to avoid subjection to judgment. With such character, he feels that he can intervene in all matters. Gasset compares such a person to a spoilt child or one born into a hereditary aristocracy (69). The latter, having worked for nothing, is forced to fit into the shoes of his ancestors. He can, therefore, never be himself and is subjected to a life of degeneration. Hence, a self-satisfied person cannot advance. This is a threat to civilization. Gasset affirms that over-abundance instills a sense of false-confidence and hence atrophying in people (70). He further offers examples of how the self-satisfied mass-man has made sports the center of his life and no longer pays attention to dressing. (Gasset 70). Such a man is labeled barbaric and uncivilized. People should, therefore, always be aware of the self-satisfied man as posing a danger to civilization.

Chapter Twelve: The Barbarism Of “Specialisation”

This chapter studies the mechanisms that produce the mass-man facilitated by the nineteenth-century civilization (Gasset 76). Liberal democracy and technicism are singled out as the mechanisms of that production. Technicism is the focus of this chapter. In the nineteenth century, the scientist is considered the typical mass-man since science is the root of civilization (Gasset 77). He is also considered superior in society due to his vast knowledge. However, scientists begin to specialize, and by the end of the 19th century, a typical scientist is only equipped with one science (Gasset 78). Despite the limited knowledge, the specialized scientist considers himself to be knowledgeable. Men with little knowledge can finally advance in science without studying its entirety. Gasset refers to such scientists as learned ignoramus (79). By falsely considering themselves learned, they do not subject themselves to the court of appeal. The result is the stupidity of thought, judgment, and action hence resulting in primitivism and barbarism (Gasset 80). It is for this reason that Gasset denounces specialization. Instead, he insists on the importance of consulting the history and entirety of science to sustain it and hence sustain civilization

Work Cited

Gasset, José Ortega Y. The revolt of the masses. WW Norton & Company, 1930, pp. 61-81.

Substance by Aristotle

/in /by

 

Introduction

The concept of substance is significant to Aristotle’s metaphysics. To understand why this is the case, one must first consider the three sciences that make up the science of metaphysics. These include the science of entity for what it is, the science of God, and the science of substance (Marias, 2012). The three are closely tied resulting in Aristotle’s conclusion that metaphysics is a single science. The science of entity studies different entities and regards the highest entity as God. This is an entity that is completely self-sufficient, hence, earning the title; ‘the highest entity’. The science that concerns itself with this entity is the highest science. This is the theological science or the science of God. Finally, all the entities find unity in substance. Substance permits the expression of entities and, consequently, that of being. Hence, Aristotle asserts that substance is the basic meaning of being. This relationship shows how substance features in Aristotle’s philosophy. All entities share the nature of being and the fundamental analogous unity of being is substance. Hence, all entities are substances.

Substances

In Aristotle’s metaphysics, a substance is a thing in itself. It is independent of others, hence exists in itself (Marias, 2012). This differs from the common understanding of the word such as when we refer to goods or property. Neither does it refer to the value of something such as when we talk of a man of substance. Instead, substances are viewed as things that consist of possibilities of each thing. For instance, we may consider ‘smooth.’ This is a word that describes the texture of a thing. Hence smooth cannot exist in itself. Therefore, it is disqualified as a substance. In this case, the substance is the thing it describes such as a stone. The stone makes smoothness possible. Qualities such as smooth are referred to as ‘accidents’ and are supported by substances. Another example is color. If we talk of a green leaf, the color green is made possible by the leaf hence it is dependent on the leaf. The color green is an accident while the leaf is a substance. Earlier on in the introduction, it was mentioned that substance is the analogous unity of being. It is important, therefore, to understand this relationship between being and substance.

Relationship between Being and Substance

            Being is the analogical nature of the entity. There are many different types of entities. In addition to the highest entity as mentioned earlier, there exist others including natural things and mathematical objects. Natural things are physical objects which contain the principle of motion within themselves, such as a tree, man, or a certain animal. Mathematical objects, on the other hand, do not exist as things but instead only exist in the mind (Aristotle, 2013). Regardless of the differences, all these entities share one thing in common. This is being. There are four modes of being including being by essence or by accident, by categories, true being or false beings, and potential and actual beings. These different modes share one thing in common; substance. Therefore, an understanding of being facilitates comprehension of substance.

Being by Essence or by Accident

            An entity can either be a being per se or by accident. For instance, we may describe a man as living and having athletic capabilities. This example enables us to distinguish between essence and accident. Life is a man’s essence. Without life, then there can be no man. On the other hand, athletic capabilities are gained by accident. In other words, prowess in athletics does not define a man in the same way that life does. However, whether by essence or accident, a being possesses substance. Life is possessed by a substance which in this case is a person. Similarly, the athletic capability cannot exist without a person as the substance. There are different modes of predicating a being. These are referred to as categories.

Categories

            The mode of categories permits us to observe the concept of substance openly. Aristotle offers several categories of being including substance, quality, quantity, place, relation, position, time, action, state, and passivity (Marias, 2012). All these categories share ‘substance’ in common. Suppose one asks: “what is the height?” In such a case one may answer, ‘6 ft.’ as the height. Placing aside the correctness of the answer, it is right to say that ‘6 ft.’ falls under the category of quantity. However, without substance, the ‘6’ does not make sense. In this case, the substance is represented by the word ‘is’ in the question. ‘Is’ may represent a man, a tree, a pole, or any other substance. In a different example, one may ask: “where is it?” If the answer is “it is in class”, then class falls under the ‘place’ category. ‘Is’ on the other hand represents the substance, whether a book or pen. Hence, all these categories only possess meaning when they refer to substance.

True Beings and False Beings

            Beings can either exist as true or false beings (Marias, 2012). The terms, in this case, are not applied in the commonly known sense. Instead of the common use of judgment to determine the trueness and falseness of terms, Aristotle refers to a specific thing. For instance, we may consider a common trend where a cake is baked to resemble objects such as a bottle. If we assume that great detail is put into the cake, then one might be convinced that it is a bottle at first glance. In such a case, the bottle is a false being as it shows a being other than its own. However, it is still a true being as a cake. Like in other modes, it is important to note that the beings described as true or false are substances.

The Potential and the Actual

            Beings can either exist as potential or actual. Aristotle offers us several examples such as that of a seed (Marias, 2012). Although it is a seed in actuality, it has the potential to become a tree. The same case applies to a bird’s egg. The egg is the actual while the bird is the potential. The same case applies to a child who has the potential of becoming a man. Aristotle, therefore, asserts that entities have an actual and a potential mode. This is the concept underlying the principle of motion which allows for potential entities to be achieved. Notably, one cannot describe these modes without mentioning substances, which in this case, are seed and tree, egg and bird, and child and man.

As explained above, substances are common to the different modes of being. Hence, the concept is central to Aristotle’s metaphysics. The study of modes of beings correlates to the different modes of substances. A different point of approach to understanding substances is by studying the various theories of substance to grasp the concept better. One of these is the theory of matter and form.

Theory of Matter and Form

            This theory explains the ontological structure of substance. Aristotle formulates it as a result of difficulties in classifying substances. One of the classes, the primary substances, is the individual things which are substances in the strictest sense such as a man, a tree, or a rock. The second class, secondary substances, is slightly problematic as it does not refer to individuals but instead to a collection. For instance, when one talks of trees in a general context, this does not refer to a separate thing. To clarify this issue, Aristotle explained that a substance is a compound of two elements: matter and form (Aristotle, 2013). Matter is defined as ‘what a thing is made of’ while form is ‘what makes the thing what it is.’ An example of a table is given, whereby the matter is wood, while the form is that of a table (Marias, 2012). Similarly if one considers a metal pole, the matter of the pole is metal and the form is that of a pole. This theory allows for the accounting of secondary substances such as species. Aristotle concludes that these are abstract ingredients of each separate thing. For instance, the species man is present in each individual man as the abstract form. Hence, they qualify as secondary substances.

Theory of Motion

            This theory explains motions within substances. It was earlier stated that substances consist of the possibility of each thing. In different wording, substances consist of the principle of motion (Marias, 2012). Like in many terms used in Aristotle’s philosophy, ‘motion’ has a different meaning in this case from our everyday use. It is closely related to the potential and actual modes of being as earlier explained. Hence, substances have an actual form and a potential form that constitutes motion. An oak tree is the potential form of its seed. Hence a seed possesses motion. Aristotle cautions that such motion is subject to reality rather than pure possibilities. An oak seed can only become an oak tree and not an animal, for instance, once it experiences motion. The same case applies to an egg. Once it turns to a bird, then it has experienced motion. Hence, substances experience motion from one mode to another. The only exception to this rule is God, who is pure actuality and uniquely referred to as the unmoved mover.

Theory of the Causes

            Through this theory, Aristotle makes substances to be known by their causes and principles. According to the theory, there are four causes of a substance. These include material, formal, efficient, and final causes (Marias, 2012). The material cause is the matter that a substance is made of. This was expounded in the theory of matter and form. The formal cause is also called the form. It determines the substance. The efficient cause is associated with the motion. It is the factor that initiates motion from the potential to actual substance. The final cause is the end substance or the purpose of the substance. If we consider the simple example of a table, then the material cause is the wood, the formal cause is the table, the efficient cause is a carpenter, and the final cause is also table. Notably, the formal and final causes coincide regularly. A different example is that of a pot. The material cause, in this case, is clay. The form is that of a pot while the efficient cause is the potter. Finally, the final cause is the pot.

Essence and Substance

            Aristotle took his time to distinguish between essence and substance. The term essence is used when describing the different modes of being. Hence, as earlier mentioned, a substance or entity can possess being by essence or by accident. Life is an essence in man but life is not a substance. Aristotle feels the need to expound on this. He clarifies that essence is what makes it possible for substances to exist (Aristotle, 2013). We can go further and ask ourselves; what is the essence of man? Modern science has already established that man is closely related to other animals that are mammals. However, various things set him aside from such animals. These include rationality and the ability to speak. Hence man is made possible by his rationality. Consequently, it is correct to state that man’s essence is his rationality. Similarly, a plant’s existence is made possible by its ability to carry out photosynthesis. Hence, photosynthesis is the essence of plants. These examples show both the distinction and relationship between essence and substance. Essence makes it possible for a substance to exist.

God as the Absolute Substance

            Various aspects of substance have been articulated including matter and form, motion, and causes. These aspects, however, introduce various problems. On the center stage is the problem of motion. If every substance consists of potential and actual mode, then events can be traced backward whereby we conclude that A was caused by B and B was caused by C and so on. If that’s the case, then we would keep moving back to infinity. Aristotle argues that this is impossible (Marias, 2012). Accordingly, there must have been a beginning to this motion. He refers to the beginning as God. God is pure actuality and the prime mover. This mover is neither moved nor does it move. Hence, God does not possess potentiality. However, this presents a second problem, that of matter and form. It was earlier indicated that a substance consists of matter and form. Matter is potential that actuates itself by adopting a form (Marias, 2012). But if God has no potentiality, then he cannot possess matter. Hence, God is pure form and also the absolute substance. Also, the Aristotelian God is absolutely self-sufficient and hence the highest entity. Since he is the prime mover, he makes it possible for the universe to exist. Consequently, it is important to distinguish him from the Christian God who is considered as the active creator of the universe.

Conclusion

            Substance is central to Aristotle’s metaphysics. The different types of entities described by the philosopher have one thing in common; they are all substances. Hence, this calls for an understanding of several aspects including the different modes of being and the various theories outlined in his explanation of substance. Such theories are that of matter and form, the theory of motion and that of causes. Aristotle’s metaphysics culminates in the description of God as the plenary substance and absolute entity. Notably, the substance theory succeeded in laying the groundwork for other sciences such as physics and offers an alternative understanding of God from a logical point of view rather than a religious one.

References

Aristotle (2013). The Metaphysics. Courier Corporation.

Marias, J. (2012). History of Philosophy. Courier Corporation.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

/in /by

 

The Context Surrounding the Case

This case is a consolidation of four different cases centered on the violation of the Fifth Amendment. The focus is placed on Ernesto Miranda as the petitioner. Miranda is convicted of kidnapping and rape in an Arizona state court (Miranda v. Arizona Podcast). This is amidst objection by the defense attorney that the defendant’s right to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments had been violated (Miranda v. Arizona [Oyez]). Among other things, the Fifth Amendment protects the accused against self-incrimination. Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused a right to be assisted by counsel. Contrary to this, the police had obtained a written confession from Miranda without adequately informing him of these rights. Following the court verdict, the defense attorney moves to appeal in the Supreme Court of Arizona. The decision of the state court is upheld with the ruling that these rights were not violated since Miranda failed to specifically request for counsel. Miranda’s attorney then appeals to the United States Supreme Court resulting in Miranda v. Arizona (1966). It is worth noting that before this case, the US Supreme Court ruling on a similar case, Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), had held that accused persons have a right to counsel during police interrogations (Miranda v. Arizona). The question in Miranda’s case is whether the protection against self-incrimination extends to police interrogations.

The Outcome of the Case and its Implications

The US Supreme court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda. The main ruling was that statements obtained during custodial interrogations are inadmissible in a court of law unless the prosecution proves that there were procedural safeguards against self-incrimination (Miranda v. Arizona). This ruling was controversial. In its effort to safeguard the US adversarial system of Justice, many feared that it frustrated the prosecution efforts. In their view, this judicial precedent created a leeway that the accused could use to escape prosecution and walk free. Judge Earl Warren and his colleagues aimed to dispel these fears. In the court ruling, Warren clarified that the decision was aimed at protecting the Fifth Amendment (Miranda v. Arizona). In many previous cases, written confessions had been obtained through coercion, physical violence, intimidation, and promises such as immunity. Furthermore, the police custody environment was found to be intimidating for the accused. These factors are sufficient to discredit written statements. This ruling allows the accused to remain silent if they wish. It also promotes the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. While many believe that this ruling strengthened the judicial system, others feel that it was an unnecessary interpretation of the Fifth Amendment which hinders police work.

Liberal and Conservative Perspectives

The Miranda v. Arizona (1966) judicial precedent reflects a liberal view. The liberal ideology in the US is closely associated with the promotion of various individual freedoms, equality, and social justice. Before this legislation, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments were mainly applied by the rich and educated. In contrast to the less-privileged citizen, such people had a proper understanding of their rights. They could also afford counsel to guide them through the legal process. Miranda’s attorney argued on these grounds, that there was a need to safeguard the rights of every citizen despite socio-economic status. This included adequately informing them of their rights and providing them with legal representation hence promoting freedom and equality. The precedent fails to reflect conservative views. Conservatism is closely associated with the preservation of American traditions and values. Consequently, a law that appears to benefit suspected criminals is unlikely to appeal to conservatives. Richard Nixon, a staunch conservative, strongly opposed this decision in his 1968 campaigns for the presidency.

 

 

Works Cited

“Miranda v. Arizona.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, Accessed Apr. 6, 2020, www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436.

“Miranda v. Arizona.” Oyez, Accessed Apr. 6, 2020, www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759.

“Miranda v. Arizona Podcast.” United States Courts, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Accessed  Apr. 6, 2020, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/miranda-v-arizona-podcast.