Ancient Philosophy Final

Aristotle Readings

According to Aristotle, what has changed and what has stayed the same when an unmusical person becomes musical? Include both the simple change and the composite change.

Aristotle initially suggests that there are 3 principles involved when an unmusical person becomes musical. He later suggests that it would be more precise to consider only 2 principles. Why does he believe that it is more accurate to think of natural objects as having 2 principles rather than 3?

• See Physics I. 7.2-3

1) SIMPLE Change:

• a person goes from unmusical to musical

• this is a change from privation to form

2) Composite Change:

• there is an underlying subject- the person that REMAINS the same

• what changes: lack of musical ability (privation)

• musical ability (form)

Three Principles (Initial View):

1) Matter (subject)- the person

2) Form (musical ability)

3) Privation (lack of musical ability)

Why Aristotle reduces to 2 principles:

• privation is just the ABSENCE of FORM, not a real independent principle

• so, only 1- matter (what persists) and 2- form (what is gained)

• Natural objects are better explained by matter and form, not 3 separate principles.

For Aristotle, what is the difference between something natural and something artificial? Explain why, according to Aristotle, an unmoving rock would be natural but a dynamic smartphone artificial.

• See Physics II.1

Natural things- have an INTERNAL principle of MOTION/CHANGE

• ex- plants, animals, elements

Artificial things- depend on an external clause (human maker)

• rock is natural because even if unmoving, it has an internal nature (ex- falls downward naturally)

• smartphone is artificial because movement/functions come from human design, NOT an internal nature

  • natural= self-moving internal principle

  • artificial= externally caused

Demonstrate your understanding of the 4 causes described by Aristotle by comparing the 4 causes of a horse to the four causes of an iron skillet. Indicate both the efficient cause for a horse coming to be and the efficient cause for a horse once it is alive. Indicate both the efficient cause for an iron skillet coming to be and the efficient cause for an iron skillet once it exists.

Finally, indicate in what way the formal, efficient, and final causes COINCIDE for something of nature and the way in which they do NOT coincide for something artificial.

• See Physics II.3 and II.7

Horse:

• material cause: flesh, bones

• formal cause: structure/form of a horse

• efficient cause (coming to be): parents

• efficient cause (once alive): the horse itself (self-improvement)

• final cause: to live as a horse (grow, reproduce)

Iron Skillet:

• material cause: iron

• formal cause: shape/design of a skillet

• efficient cause (coming to be): blacksmith/manufacturer

• efficient cause (once exists): still external (user)

• final cause: cooking food

Key Difference

Natural Things (horse):

• form= efficient = final cause often coincide

  • the nature of the horse explains its growth and purpose

Artificial Things (skillet):

• causes are SEPARATE

  • form (design), efficient (maker), final (use) are DIFFERENT

• nature= unified causes

• artifacts= divided causes

From what Aristotle has said, what does it mean to say that matter is potential and form is actuality? Or, to ask about the same idea in a different way, what does it mean to say that matter is not a ‘this’ but form is why a thing is called ‘a this’?

• See De Anima II.1

Matter (potential):

• not yet fully defined (“not a this”)

• has the capacity to become something

Form (actuality):

• what makes a thing what it is (a “this”)

ex:

• body= potential

• soul= actuality

• matter= possibility

• form= realized identity

How does Aristotle define the soul? Show that you are aware not only of what he says but of what he means.

What is the easiest way to tell the difference between something ensouled and something that does not have a soul?

• See De Anima II.1

Definition of soul= “FIRST ACTUALITY of a NATURAL body with life POTENTIALLY”

• means: the soul is what makes a living thing alive

• the soul is not separate, it is the form of the body

How to tell if something has a soul:

• it shows life functions, such as:

  • nutrition

  • growth

  • sensation

  • thinking

• living= has soul

• non-living= no soul

Aristotle claims that there is a hierarchy to souls. What is the lowest level of soul? What is the highest level of soul? What makes one soul higher or lower in this hierarchy?

• See De Anima II.3

Lowest: NUTRITIVE soul (PLANTS)

• growth, nutrition

Middle: SENSITIVE soul (animals)

• sensation, desire

Highest: RATIONAL soul (HUMANS)

• thinking, reasoning

What determines level:

• the number and complexity of functions

  • higher souls INCLUDE lower ones

What does Aristotle mean when he claims that happiness is the highest good for a human being? What does it mean to say that happiness is complete and self-sufficient?

• happiness (eudaimonia): the highest good because it is:

  • Chosen for ITSELF

  • Not for anything ELSE

• it is complete because:

  • it is the FINAL END, nothing beyond it

• it is self-sufficient because:

  • happiness makes life FULLY DESIREABLE ON ITS OWN

• happiness= “activity of the soul in accordance with virtue over a complete life”

Aristotle objects to three different kinds of life that are sometimes said to be the best way to find happiness. He objects to the life that pursues moneymaking, the life that pursues honor, and the life that pursues pleasure. Give ONE of Aristotle’s fundamental objections to each kind of life. The fundamental objection to the life of pleasure MUST include a DISCUSSION of the FUNCTION of a human being.

• See Nicomachean Ethics I.5 and I.7

Aristotle’s Objections to 3 lives:

1) Pleasure

• too “animal-like”

• fails to reflect human function (reason)

  • humans are RATIONAL, not just pleasure-seeking

2) Honor

• depends on others giving it

• not truly your own good

3) Wealth

• only a means, not an end

• always for something else

What does it mean and why is it important to Aristotle to say that moral virtues are NEITHER by NATURE nor CONTRARY to nature?

• See Nicomachean Ethics II.1

• we are NOT born virtuous

• but we are NATURALLY CAPABLE of becoming virtuous

• virtue comes from: habit (repeated actions)

  • importance- explains moral responsibility

What is necessary in order to acquire virtue? What are the criteria that Aristotle discusses in order for a virtuous act to be done by a virtuous person? Would someone who is acting moderately necessarily be moderate (that is, have moderation as part of their character); why or why not?

• See Nicomachean Ethics II.1, 3-4)

How to acquire virtue:

• by repeatedly doing virtuous actions

Criteria for a truly virtuous act:

• done with knowledge

• chosen for its own sake

• from a stable character

• doing a good act does NOT mean being virtuous

• ex: someone acting moderately is NOT necessarily moderate UNLESS it reflects their CHARACTER

In what way are the virtues a MEAN according to Aristotle? Use Aristotle’s discussion of fear as it relates to courage to demonstrate your understanding of virtue as a mean. Indicate whether one could have TOO MUCH courage as part of that discussion. If the virtues are RELATIVE TO US, does Aristotle believe that the virtues are WHOLLY RELATIVE, that I can define courage or moderation, for example, in ANY WAY that I want?

• See Nicomachean Ethics II. 2, II.6, and II.7

• virtue= a MEAN between EXTREMES

ex- courage:

• deficiency= cowardice (too much fear)

• excess= rashness (too little fear)

• mean= courage (right amount of fear/confidence)

Can you have too much courage?

• Yes- becomes rashness

Is virtue relative?

• it is relative to us (DEPENDS on PERSON/SITUATION)

  • but not totally subjective

    • guided by reason and practical wisdom

• you CANNOT define virtue however you want