In his work, the True Intellectual System of the Universe, Cudworth takes it upon himself to challenge atheism and its various forms as it was present in the Renaissance. In the third chapter, Cudworth’s discourse on atheism takes on a very interesting digression. He arrives at forms of atheism that do not deny the existence of a “life different from animal”. The reason this is interesting is that such a conception threatens his previous forms of atheism. For example for an Atomic Atheist, a distinct life from animal (material) will signal either an actual Deity (being itself the life distinct from animal) or exist as a consequence of one.
A lack of life different from animal suggests that the world must be fundamentally composed of inanimate yet basic substances, quoting Aristotle, ‘simply existing physically, unmotivated by cause’. This is a prevalent and basic thought in atheism. Cudworth rightfully noted the many inconsistencies with such an argument. This material atheism would suggest that the world behaves by accident, simply in virtue of things existing within it, or simply in virtue of production and/or conservation of some motion.
Two outcomes.
Cudworth illustrates the two outcomes that come from neglecting this life different from animal, which he describes as a thing that acts for the sake of an outcome in a consistent and methodical manner. The two consequences are as follows: either the natural composition of all phenomena is purely accidental, without any guiding principles or understanding or God himself immediately takes it upon himself to be directly responsible for every single phenomena e.g. every body of every animal, every leg, every hair, etc.
Refuting the first claim, Cudworth suggests that it must simply be impossible that extremely consistent motions of matter that make up the world are results of pure accident. He appeals to a contemporary of his here, Henry More, another Cambridge Neoplatonist who assisted in the development of the idea that there must be some sort of guiding principle, in nature besides pure mechanism, something corporeal.
A digression on a similar theme.
A digression now is in order before the second consequence of this denial of non animal life is discussed. This discussion so far posits a problem that may be becoming noticeable to those familiar with the works of Descartes and other dualists. Specifically this is a form of the mind body problem or the union of the two. In this argument against atheism, Cudworth posits that there must be a God since natural patterns are evident in the form of essence which is a product of God. This God then, must have some sort of relation to matter, yet this relation is unclear. Something suggests that should this notion of a life different from animal be true, then that itself will be the connecting force between God and matter.
Plastic Nature
Returning to the second consequence, the argument posits that should there not be this corporeal force behind material phenomena, then God must be directly and immediately responsible for it instead. Cudworth describes that such a mode of operation would render God indifferent from nature as all the processes would be instant, ‘violent’ and without sufficient reason or innate principle. Furthermore, Cudworth suggests then that should it be God’s direct doing that all phenomena occur instantly, seems to be in contradiction with errors found commonly in nature as an omnipotent being would never make such a mistake.
With these two consequences taken care of, Cudworth posits that there must exist this incorporeal life that guides and is present within all material phenomena, which he calls Plastic Nature. He is careful to distinguish it however as a specifically inferior being to God, as it operates without choice or discretion (more on this later). Importantly, Cudworth states ‘if there be a plastic nature that governs the motion of matter, everywhere according to laws, there can be no reason given why the same cannot extend further, to the regular disposal of that matter into the formation of plants and animals and other things in order to that apt coherent frame and harmony of the whole universe.’‘
Ancient Connection.
It comes with no surprise that Cudworth’s plastic nature seems to resemble the concept of a ‘world soul’ as it was described in the Timaeus. Plato’s Timaeus was an extremely significant text for Renaissance Platonic thought. It helped reconcile the connection between a creator, formally the Demiurge and his influence over the material world. Indeed this connection lies in this concept of a world soul. Thus Cudworth’s plastic nature serves as a connecting force between the indivisible and incorporeal world and the material nature.
To help better conceive this plastic nature, Cudworth once more draws from the ancients descriptions of similar forces. This time, he takes Aristotle’s Nature as an art example. The art of shipbuilding to timber, nails, and its tools with all its concepts exists within all those things in the exact same way this plastic nature exists in all phenomena of the material world. Thus this art is found within all phenomena and acts upon them innately. Defined explicitly by Cudworth, plastic nature is then “Art itself acting immediately on the matter as an inward principle”.
Unconscious and Incorporeal
This nature as art in itself must be distinct from humane arts, writes Cudworth. Indeed the humane art must act from without, slowly becoming a form or an idea in the process, a house being built for example. Plastic nature does these processes from within, as God is inward to everything, this nature acts as an inward living soul upon matter.
Also this nature must be distinct from God. Yes it does act upon matter, thus it is living and serves as a force, but it does not act in virtue of being aware of a reason or an end goal of its own act. Similar to an axe which exists in order to chop wood, there is an end goal and reason alas those are not determined by the axe’s existence. This example illustrates how this incorporeal nature lacks the wisdom in virtue of what it propels matter towards an end.
An extension of the Divine
Finally to show that this plastic nature need not cognition of itself to live, Cudworth appeals to an example of humans when sleeping. Still living yet unconscious of it, life propelled forth by a process beyond a cognitive one. Thus plastic nature can and must exist as a living thing as all living things are incorporeal for bodies are not essential to life as evident by so many lifeless bodies. Thus without personal wisdom this plastic nature acts as a servant to it, it works towards an end it does not know without reason it understands, it is a reflex behind all phenomena in nature. It acts and exists as an extension of wisdom and reason which are in turns extensions of a perfect and omnipotent being, God himself.