metaphysics book 1 chapters 1-5

ch1- pink, ch2- orange, ch3- purple, etc.- teal

Aristotle’s four causes- with example

material, formal, efficient, final

material- the matter, physical definite qualities- separable

• smoothie ingredients- fruit, kale, yogurt, honey, ice

formal- substratum, the essence of the thing, explains reality- inseparable

• smoothie itself- also determines material, if Im making a peanut butter smoothie, peanut butter would be one of the materials

everything is made up of matter and form

efficient- what makes what is made, primary source of change, MOVER- cause from which motion/rest begins

• I’m the smoothie maker- I must have knowledge of how to make specifically a peanut butter smoothie, but I can’t know why I’m making the smoothie without the final cause

final- that for the sake of which a thing is done- the cause for all means towards it UNMOVED MOVER

• my own hunger is the unmoved mover, its the reason I made the smoothie in the first place

ch 1- all humans by nature desire to know

humans gain knowledge and particular delight through the sense- specifically sight

argumentation: all humans are beings that naturally delight in the senses. all beings that naturally delight in the senses desire to know. therefore all human beings desire to know

losismo

allows us to combine experiences to create universality

REASON vs techne- art

in terms of knowing

to know something, we have to recognize it’s difference from other things. to determine what falls under a kind (of thing), we must know the kind

humans vs animals

animals live by appearances and memories (cannot reason)

humans live by appearances, memories, art and reasoning

experience in science vs art

science and art born from experience

art (rationality) arises when you make a universal judgement about similar objects from many notions gained by experience

cognitive development and empiricism

1. sense 2. memory 3. experience 4. art

empiricism- knowledge is based upon experience: sensory content- we are not born with innate knowledge

from senses of particulars, we develop memories and retain particulars, experience is a collection of particulars (WHAT), knowledge is a collection of experiences (WHY)

cognitive development and bilious people

all these sufferers of disease B are bilious people with B

all bilious people with disease B are cured by drug A

therefore, all these sufferers of disease B are cured by drug A

knowledge results from a collection of experiences

experience vs art

knowledge and understanding belong to art rather than experience.

experience does not know the why or the cause

artists are wiser than men of experience because with experience you can only know the what not the why

master worker

know in a truer sense than manual workers because the know the cause of things- why things happen, not just what it is

men who know can therefore teach, the artist can teach

aitia

efficient cause- gives rise to something

moved- literal cause (sculpting tools)

unmoved- gives rise to movement/ action (knowledge/ passion for sculpting)

why is it problematic to limit aitia to external causes only?

because it ignores the intrinsic aspects of a thing, fundamental to having knowledge about thing

internal causes- material, formal

external causes- efficient, final

aitia is the cause/reason/explanation of a thing, limiting it to efficient causes therefore insinuates you can understand a thing solely from extrinsic particulars, which is not true

causes and necessary conditions

causes are kinds that are necessary conditions

four causes and explanation

do not have to explain X in the same way

there are plants because there are leaves roots and stems (like health accounting for surgical instruments)

there are leaves roots and stems because there are plants (like bronze accounting for a statue)

efficient cause and explaination

final/formal cause closer to what is being explained that efficient- the art is closer to the statue than the artist (statue is art, artist is simply an instrument)

particular experience

distinction between knowing “that” a thing is and “what” or “why” it is that

knowing that → knowing what → knowing why (knowledge)

what/ why- techne (art) science, universals

particulars vs how particulars fit into class

senses give us wisdom of that but do not tell us why

to know something we must grasp the principles/ causes of it

principle/ cause and demonstrated features- Thales

principle/cause- water

demonstrated features- earth rests on water, hot comes from moist, seeds have moist nature

principle/ cause and demonstrated features- Saw

principle/cause- hand tool for cutting wood

demonstrated features- serrated edges

experience and art- comprehensive understanding

experience is more practical but art gives knowledge

definition of wisdom

knowledge about certain causes and principles

ch2- philosophy begins in wonder

highest science not a manner of production but wonder

what are we wondering about?

how humans fit into the cosmos

wonder of our place in time

why could ancient philosophers wonder?

leisure in time to account for the universal

why do humans possess the ability to possess knowledge

divine science: only God can know

difference between mythical culture and the beginnings of greek philosophy

greek philosophy is the beginning of rational and scientific thought. prior to the milesians, people believed only what they could see. everything else was reduced to that of God. this prominent mythical culture was shifted by philosophical thought. all humans naturally have a desire to know and in pursuing this desire, wonder emerges. the milesians desired to know independent of God

ch3- earliest philosophers only have material cause

only knowledge about the particular nature of things

original causes

substance, substratum, source of change, cause opposed to change

substance

the essence (form)

matter/substratum

underlies varieties encountered in the world- accidents (material)

ex- water is a substratum for thales: everything can be reduced to water

accident

anything that doesn’t belong to the essence of a thing

ex- I (substance) dye my hair (accident) without ceasing to be the substance that I am

source of change

efficient cause

source opposed to change

that for the sake of which- the end of all generation and change (final)

hylozoism

living mater- all matter is alive/ animated

innate motion within all things

two basic features of objects

form= morphe, matter= hule

principles of the nature of matter

milesians- the only principles of all things

that of which all things consist, from which they came to be and into which they are finally

why can nothing really come to be?

the substratum can never be created or destroyed

there must be one conserved entity by which all other entities come to be

material monist

the presocratics- thales, anaximander, anaximenes: believed the entire universe comes from one fundamental, material substance

thales

the first philosopher- water as substratum

earth rests on water

nutriment is moist, heat is generated from moist, seeds have a moist nature

water the origin of moist things

water as ____

aperion: boundless, omnipresent

how does aristotle feel about thales

unsure how to interpret

saying water is what everything is made of?

or that everything emerged from primeval water

maybe the river styx? to give more rational account of humanity to Greek myth

what else did thales do

brought geometry to Greece and was the beginning of rational explanations for myths

anaximander

critiquing thales in his own voice- aperion as aperion (as principle the unlimited)

three characteristics of the aperion- anaximander

1. indefinite in quality, 2. unlimited in extent, 3. unlimited in time

1. cannot have definite qualities bc aperion by definition is infinite (but qualities must not conflict bc that would destroy the universe)

2. must reach and apply to all ends of the universe

3. must last forever

first rational argument for existence of God

equilibrium among opposites

components of the universe are equal and separate

apirone

cycles of the aperion- self regulating

hot/cold, life/death, up/down

anaximenes

the real material monist- the first to propose a definitive response to explain everything deriving from a single natural constituent- aperion

air as aperion- everything is a combination of hot and cold: the earth came to be from felted air

what did aristotle take from the material monists

1. earliest philosophers only have material cause

2. substratum underlies varieties and change (accidents) all things reduced to substratum

3. anything that’s not part of the substratum is an accident

were the material monists deficient in their reasoning

yes- move to search for the next cause

what were people looking to explain post socratics

concepts like beauty and goodness

post socratic belief- cause of the world and all of its order

reason- principle of things (which is at the same time the cause of beauty) and the cause from which things acquire movement