Aristotle refutes Plato’s Theory of Ideas on three basic grounds: the existence of Ideas contradicts itself by denying the possibility of negations; his illustrations of Ideas are merely empty metaphors; and the theory uses impermanent abstractions to create examples of perception. Although the theory is meant to establish concrete standards for the knowledge of reality, Aristotle considers it fraught with inconsistencies and believes that the concept of reality depends upon all forms’ correlations to other elements. Plato believes that Ideas are permanent, self-contained absolutes that answer to each item of exact knowledge attained through human thought.
Ideas are concrete standards according to Plato, by which all human endeavor can be judged. The hierarchy of all ideas leads to the highest absolute, that of Good. The theory also claims that states of being are contingent upon the mingling of various Forms of existence, that knowledge is objective and thus more real, and that only the processes of nature are valid entities. However, Aristotle attacks this theory on the grounds that Plato’s arguments are inconclusive, either his assertions are not cogent, or his arguments lead to contradictory conclusions. For example, Aristotle claims that Plato’s arguments lead one to conclude that entities, such as anything man-made, and negations of concrete ideas could exist, such as non-good” in opposition to good. This contradicts Plato’s belief that only natural objects could serve as standards of knowledge.
Also, Aristotle refutes Plato’s belief that ideas are perfect entities unto themselves, independent of subjective human experience. Aristotle claims that ideas are not abstractions on a proverbial pedestal but mere duplicates of things witnessed in ordinary daily life. The ideas of things are not inherent to the objects in particular but created separately and placed apart from the objects themselves. Thus, Aristotle says that Plato’s idea that ideas are perfect entities, intangible to subjective human experience, is meaningless, for all standards are based somewhere in ordinary human activity and perception. Thirdly, Aristotle assails Plato’s efforts to find something common to several similar objects at once, a perfect exemplar of the quality those things share. Beauty is a perfect example; Plato considered beauty both a notion and an ideal, isolated by abstractions and fixed permanently while its representatives fade away.
Aristotle claims that abstractions like beauty cannot be cast as absolutes independent of temporal human experience. The idea of beauty changes with time and individual perceptions and cannot exist forever as a concrete standard, as Plato felt. Plato and Aristotle reach some agreement on the topic of reality. Plato believes that all reality was derived from his ideas, which themselves dealt with a concrete hierarchy of rational ideas. St. Anselm, though, makes the most dogmatic and logically tortuous case for God’s existence. He relies not upon explanations of goodness, truth, or rational order of ideas, but upon an absurd argument. He claims that everyone has some sense of God and that for one to deny God’s existence is an invalid and contradictory assertion. Therefore, God exists.
Also, Anselm believes that those who are capable of understanding God cannot believe that he does not exist. The enormity of the idea is so clear that only a fool could not perceive it. However, his arguments seem to be the weakest of the four viewpoints presented here. They are riddled with dogma and assume that God is a constant, using faith alone. Anselm considers faith paramount to logic or other forms of thought and does not ask any questions about what powers the universe or what goodness is. He basically follows the Christian party line” too closely to be valid. In general, St. Augustine combines Plato’s idea of a moral hierarchy with his own rational observations of truth and goodness being embodied in their highest form by God.
While Plato wavers on God’s superiority, Aristotle views man as God’s pawn, and Anselm uses tortuous dogmatic logic, Augustine’s arguments seem to make the most sense not only from a Christian point of view but also from a moral and rational one. The philosophies of Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St. Anselm on the existence of God all vary on the issue of God’s nature. Although each thinker takes a different approach to why there is a God, that of St. Augustine seems the most valid because he takes a rational stance and does not dogmatically assume God’s existence.
Plato’s philosophy assumes that God exists as a supremely good being whose goodness is analogous to Plato’s concrete concept of the ultimate good. However, God and
