PHIL 2010-b: Aristotle

Aristotle's Metapyhsical View

Substances are the ultimate reality of the universe.

Aristotle's Definition of Substance

Substances are composed of form and matter, each of which do not exist separately in reality though we can think about them separately. The form of the substance is its "whatness" that is, what kind of thing it is or as Plato said "what something is". The matter of the substance is its "thisness" that is, the matter that the substance is made of. Aristotle is both agreeing with Plato in the sense that the definition of form is "what something is", but he is also disagreeing with Plato because form for Aristotle does not exist independently of the substance (and the matter with which it is unified).

Other examples of substances are: a tree, a rock, a dog, the sun, a particle or bronze. Aristotle is not thinking of matter as atoms or that substances are composed of elements on our periodic table. Substances are "macro-objects" we experience with our senses and our thinking, not "micro-objects" that we experience with scientific devices or induce from experiments.

Aristotle's Epistemological View

To gain knowledge, one must understand the Four Causes of any susbstance.

1. Material Cause

2. Efficient Cause

3. Formal Cause

4. Final Cause

Material Cause

Is what something is made of. A bronze sword is made of bronze. A brick is made of clay. A column of the Parthenon is made of marble.

The material cause is present before, during, and AFTER the effect.

It is from the modern perspective somewhat counter-intuitive to affirm that the cause can also occur AFTER the effect or continually to keep the effect happening.

Efficient Cause

Is that which initiates a substance, the catalyst which brings it into being, what did that or triggered the substance into being.

The efficient cause is present before and during the effect. This cause is most like the modern understanding of causality.

In the Medieval period, the efficient cause was associated with motion and frequently called the "moving cause".

The brick maker is the efficient cause of a brick; the blacksmith is the efficient cause of the bronze sword.

formal cause

Is the principle, the essence, the design of the substance or that which makes it one thing rather than many (since the formal cause is "what is one and the same" about a substance and makes it that kind of thing).

Visually, the formal cause is linked to the shape of a substance. Non-visually, the formal cause is linked to the structural design or organization of the substance.

The brick's shape and the sword's shape are their formal causes, but also the principle whereby the shape is designed is part of the formal cause to emphasize the non-physical aspect of formal cause (the organizational methods and procedures by which the brick and the sword are formed).

The formal cause is present before, during and AFTER the effect.

Final Cause

Is the overall purpose, goal & end of the substance.

The final cause is WHY the formal cause and the efficient cause do what they do. Without a purpose or goal, one would not know what formal cause or design to create for a substance. In affirming that all substances have a final cause, Aristotle affirms that everything that exists has an inherent purpose.

The purpose of the brick to be in a wall is its final cause. The purpose of the sword to kill people in warfare is its final cause. The final cause is "what the substance is ultimately for".

The final cause is present before, during and AFTER the effect.

Teleology

Is the study of end, goals and purposive activity.

Aristotle's affirmation of Final Causes leads to teleology and the teleological view that all substances aim at some end or goal. For Aristotle, there is NO non-purposive activity in the universe and teleology is the sub-area of philosophy that attempts to identify the purposes that all substances must have (even if we don't know what those purposes are at this time).

This also leads to a study of values since in so far as everything in the universe is structured to aim at some goal, that goal is also good. Thus, discussion of what constitutes "good" comes up in discussing which activities help us fulfill our purpose (those would be "good") and which activities do not help us achieve our purpose (those would be "bad"). Hence, ethics is tied to Aristotle's reflections on teleology and the final cause of human beings.

What is one of Aristotle's most fundamental convictions regarding the structures of Language, Thought and Reality?

That they are the same. This means language and thought have the same structure and if we can figure out some things about language like for example, language has subjects and verbs, then we are also figuring out something about thought, meaning thought itself can be divided into subjects and verbs and furthermore that even reality can be divided into subjects (which Aristotle would call "substances") and verbs (which Aristotle) would call change, process, energy.

This does not mean that Language, Thought and Reality are identical terms or synonymous, only that they are metaphysically connected and figuring out one of them helps us figure out the others on the conviction that their structures/patterns of organization are the same.

Aristotle's Main Criticisms of Plato's Theory of Forms

1. Instead of explaining the world, Plato's theory of Forms creates a second world, thereby doubling the number of things that require explanation.

2. Plato's theory of Forms provides no explanation of change. Plato essentially devalues change as appearances or visible shadows that don't have enough being to warrant being called "reality". Change is experienced, but not ultimate reality for Plato and this Aristotle is pointing out as a criticism.

3. Plato's theory of Forms confuses intellectual abstraction with independent existence. Just because two items are separable in thought does not mean they are separable in reality. Just because we can think of the real triangle as a Form (like a concept) not on the board separable from the ink representing the triangle on the board doesn't mean in reality the Form and the ink are separable is Aristotle's point. Thinking of two items as separate doesn't prove they are in reality separate which means Aristotle doesn't affirm that form is separable from matter, not can it exist separately. Note though that Aristotle does agree with Plato that form is important and the basis for knowledge, but not that it is separately from material.

4. Following from #3, Aristotle criticizes Plato's discussions of "participation" where Plato describes how the Forms "participate" in the material representations pointing to them. Aristotle does not find the idea of "participation" adequate.

Aristotle's Explanation of Change

Because Aristotle always affirms that form and matter occur together in substance, he disagrees with Plato's devaluing and denial of the reality of change (though change is an experience). Aristotle instead thinks by having form and matter and another distinction Aristotle affirms between "potentiality" and "actuality" that he can metaphysical explain change whereas Plato did not. Change for Aristotle is the movement from potentiality to actuality. Matter is associated with potentiality and form is associated with the actuality. A block of marble in front a sculptor has the potential to be anything. As the sculptor starts chipping away the marble more and more though, the marble block cannot be as many potential things as it once could be because the form is being actualized.

Note: this also applies to humans. As a human baby substances, your parents may have affirmed you could be anything, but as you get older and your form (your soul takes on fixed shapes and patterns), Aristotle is affirming you can't be anything anymore, because you are being actualized along the way and this process is irreversible. Change is the movement from possibilities to actualities, the fulfillment of purposes, ends or goals.

What is the purpose of human life?

Aristotle's has an objective universal answer to this question: Eudaimonia is the purpose for all human life. He has many arguments which objectively define the meaning of this term eudaimonia which commonly is translated as "happiness". He does not believe the term is subjective or different for each person. There is one objective meaning of the term which applies to us all, but expressions and representations of happiness as embodied in our lives can vary, but not the meaning of the term.

Alas, the definition of eudaimonia is more than this quizlet flash card can bear. You will have read some Aristotle or simply trust the opinions of others regarding a question that affects your entire life. I will only say Aristotle has some rational arguments that money cannot be the basis of eudaimonia.