Unlike the so-called "special" sciences (such as biology, zoology, or astronomy) which consider a particular domain of beings, Aristotle's Metaphysics explores being as being. By practicing "first philosophy," the metaphysician considers the underlying principles and causes that pervade the coming-to-be and passing-away of all beings, in both an accidental and substantial sense. In particular we find here an in-depth consideration of substance, the relationship between actuality and potentiality, and the special substance which Aristotle calls divine.
6 comments:
The more I read Aristotle, the more I understand his use of repetition. He reiterates his point every few lines in a different way. I almost feel like he is trying to one up Plato and his skills of rhetoric, without being fluid with his words. At the same time, I also think his repeating of ideas is to remind himself of the point he was trying to make. If you are trying to explain this major idea you have in your head to someone who doesn’t have a clue about what you are talking about, it may be difficult to stay on track. If you keep repeating your main point, you have a better chance of showing you actually know what you're talking about. At the beginning of each section of the reading, he makes a general statement and proceeds with his argument. From there, he continues with his line of reasoning adding onto what he has said. He has this major idea in his head that he wants to convince someone else of, but can't seem to get it out. Take the idea of the “first philosophy” for example, the whole idea of understanding being as being. Things can't exist without existing. It goes back to that whole idea we went over last week of the man becoming musical as the factor of being musical changes. The particular of musical can be swapped out for something like strong; either way, the man still has to exist for those things a man can be to exist. Throughout this part of the reading, he keeps repeating the idea of being and continues his idea that something, in our case a man, has to exist or have some form of substance. He recounts all of his previous info in the next selection, trying to keep everyone, including himself, focused on what he knows. He can't move on until he is sure in what he is saying; it is the building blocks for what he comes up soon after, the divine. He says that there is something beyond coming into being and passing away, something permanent, which he calls the divine. He says the divine has always been and can initiate motion by actualizing potential. He is drawing back on what he previously discussed about potential and actuality, only reiterating what he has already covered.
Aristotle’s Metaphysics is an in-depth look at what it is to be. Aristotle discusses the causes of being, the science of being, the study of substance, and then goes on to synthesize all of his observations in these categories into a list to describe how to decide what is being and what is not.
I was partial to his section on the study of substance. Aristotle describes that for something to be, it must have a “what-it-is” quality, and this quality is known as substance. A being can have a quality, for example it is good or bad, or it can have quantity, for example it is six or eight, but these do not actually describe what the being is. It is the substance that makes it what it is, not its quality or quantity, and I think this is a thing that people often forget. Today we get too wrapped up in quality and quantity of what we are looking at, whether it be a piece of paper, a trash can, or even a person. Each of these things can have a quantity or quality, but these characteristics do not change the “what-it-is”, and we need to start looking more at the substance in these objects, but most importantly in human beings. I hope that Aristotle is trying to link the idea of being in Metaphysics to the idea of human being. We use the term to describe a human as a being, as having substance, but to often substance is moved to the background while quality and quantity of person and their characteristics unrelated to substance are moved to the foreground of our concerns.
We can look at a trashcan, and see that it’s substance is to hold trash. That is it’s “what-it-is”. We (for the most part) do not care about what it looks like or how many there are, as long as it performs it’s task, so why are we so critical of human beings. It seems we are only concerned with quality in people, and not who people actually really are, and I am really hoping that this was a point that Aristotle was trying to push across when he decided to use the term being.
All of the "special" sciences (biology, zoology, etc) seem more concrete than the subject matter of Aristotle's "first philosophy," however Aristotle appears to argue that the principles studied by "first philosophy" are in fact better known in themselves. These principles are not ephemeral, but eternal. Even though these principles seem abstract and remote, Aristotle points out that they are to be studied only after one has an understanding of nature, ideas outlined in Physics. The subject matter of "first philosophy," unlike that of natural sciences, is not subject to change. Aristotle is interested in the science that studies that are eternal and independent of matter and objects- being as being. The concept of being seems pretty broad, and Aristotle acknowledges this by asserting that the study of being involves substance moreso than particular qualities.
We have only read two books by Aristotle so far, and in my opinion Aristotle sounds more and more like a scientist than a philosophy. Or if there was a median between the two Aristotle would fall right into that category. To me the Metaphysics is like the first coherent scientific writing of Aristotle's time. He begins with an inquiry into why everything is here and then begins to break down the matter of the physical world into smaller pieces, he is trying to figure out what everything is made of, what he calls "substance". He starts with his four causes: the material, efficient, formal, and final cause. After explaining these Aristotle moves to book Beta which consists of puzzles that have no answer but two instead. Aristotle moves from theorizing about his forms, to applying them to puzzles. Much like a scientist who was experimenting would, he is just following a method. In book Epsilon however, Aristotle tries to make the case that his philosophy and science are two different animals. Philosophy is trying to figure why we are here, where as science is trying to figure why things are the way they are. I disagree with this, I believe that his philosophy is just like that of a scientist. Both are moving from the large to the finite, trying to determine the answer to the fundamental question, why? Like a scientist Aristotle uses not only logic but tools as well, by creating these "causes" and applying them to situations Aristotle has succeeded is creating an experiment. And is almost following scientific method, he provides a question, uses the information he has to form a hypothesis, applies this knowledge, i.e. the causes, and formulates a theory as to why something is the way it is. For example he talks about a dog having properties and substance, the dog being brown is a material cause where as it having substance is final. Just like a scientist Aristotle is taking things in the natural world and is providing explanations for these things by use of a method.
Aristotle discusses the definitions of things saying that they are an account of the thing itself. This account consists in parts which correspond to a part of the whole. For Aristotle, these parts to the account or whole raise and issue with the definition because not all of the parts are included and different parts are included for different definitions. He contrasts the account of a syllable and the account of a circle. The syllable’s account includes mention of the letter which makes up the syllable, but the circles account does not include any mention of the segments which make it up. He goes on into a confusing explanation of matter and forms, but the idea of definitions seemed very interesting to me because Aristotle correctly points out that we seem to somewhat randomly choose facts to use in definitions of everything around us, whether it is people, events, or objects. By looking at these definitions, more than finding what they are made of, we find what those perceiving them project onto them. For example, we define people most often first by either their physical appearance or, if we know them better, by their possessions and status. As a species this presents an interesting perspective about what we value. We may speak out against racial and class segregation, but these are the first identifiers we fall back on to define a person. If these factors were truly irrelevant to us, we would not define others by them. Why do we not define an inner-city, black high school student as an honest and hard working student? Are there certain stereotypes we want to invoke through or definitions to prove a point?
In De Anima, Aristotle categorizes the soul into three different levels. He states plants as having the lowest level of soul, animals other than human beings as having a higher level, and human beings as having on the greatest level of soul due to their ability for reason. According to Aristotle, the human soul is based on our biological nature a human beings, and our unique capacity for emotions and thought. “We must maintain, further, that the soul is also the cause of the living body as the original source of local movement. The power of locomotion is not found, however, in all living things. But change of quality and change of quantity are also due to the soul. Sensation is held to be a qualitative alteration, and nothing except what has soul in it is capable of sensation.” Aristotle’s ideas about the relationship between body and soul are consistent with the metaphysics. In De Anima, Aristotle states that the body is developed before the soul, which coincides with the metaphysics’ idea that the soul consists of the substance that created it; not the quantity of the body which is the main focus of society today. Aristotle concludes: “The problem might also be raised, what is that which unifies the elements into a soul? The elements correspond, it would appear, to the matter; what unites them, whatever it is, is the supremely important factor.” Like the metaphysics, Aristotle focus’ on the final cause, instead of the individual parts and individuality.
Post a Comment