Though Aristotle takes more of an interest in the natural world than his predecessor, Plato, his relections on nature revolve around the relationship between being and becoming. In the Physics we find Aristotle discoursing on some of his famous doctrines, including the four causes, the relationship between form and matter, and the order apparent within the natural world. So let us begin again, retaining (hopefully) what we have already learned.
4 comments:
There are three principles of nature. Aristotle believes that all change or process involves something coming to be from its opposite. The form or idea of the change must have existed before the actual thing, so the form must be a principle of nature. Another principle must be the privation or absence of this form, the opposite out of which the form came into being. Besides form and privation, the third principle of nature, matter, remains constant throughout the process of change.
Change takes place according to four different kinds of cause. These explain why the change came to pass. The first is material cause and it explains what something is made of. The second is formal cause and it explains the form or pattern to which a thing corresponds. The third is efficient cause and it is the original sources of change. The last is final cause and it is the intended purpose of change.
Aristotle defines change as “the actuality of that which exists potentially, in so far as it is potentially this actuality.” Change rests in the potential of one thing to become another. Time is a measure of change just as space is a measure of distance. He denies the possibility of empty time.
Aristotle asserts that nature has an order in the natural world. It is organized toward a final end. Therefore, natural things have a form, matter and purpose. Organisms cannot come into being randomly, so they must be designed with a purpose.
Aristotle repeated himself a lot. I don’t want to make any assumptions here, but I feel as if the majority of people (hopefully) do not need a concept explained to them twenty times. Also, I did find this book pretty dull, which may be because I’m not into science at all. I felt a lot of the time Aristotle also used very, different, metaphors for his explanations. He seemed to use ones that were very opposite from the ‘nature’ he was trying to explain, for instance, I personally don’t think that an unmusical man becoming musical is the same as bronze being cast into a statue, but it did get his point across.
Which is the greatest thing about this new set of readings. Unlike Plato/Socrates, Aristotle actually makes points! He comes to conclusions and it’s very refreshing. He made have made the same point over and over again, but he made a point and I find that exciting.
The was one issue with the text was that with all the <>, it was a bit difficult to read for me. I have a tendency to emphasize any words or phrases that stand out, and so I tended to stress the wrong words, and I found myself reading the same line over again. I want to ask if anyone knows why certain words are in <>, because I couldn’t find an explanation. My best guess would be that the document is damaged and the translators guessed those bits.
Also, if I can make one point, I found it a bit sad that Aristotle said near the beginning that all the other philosophers before him were wrong when they came up with ideas about nature. I wonder if he is including Plato and Socrates.
While Plato was more concerned with morals, Aristotle had more secular ideas. I did not enjoy reading this book. It was much more dry and scientific that Plato. Aristotle created a theory then proved it repeatedly. He defined nature as anything that can move. Moving in this case can be growing or changing its qualities. He believes, as Plato believed, that things come from their opposites, so they were always there. I found myself drifting into a sound sleep as I was reading this. I found that Aristotle took what Plato wrote and put his scientific spin on it. Aristotle is more logical, whereas Plato used his imagination and didn't try to completely explain everything. He had faith in things. He/Socrates could argue there way into making people believe them.
With this reading, I had to read most passages three or four times to understand what Aristotle was talking about. The words that were used and how they were used were very complicated to me and caused me to take extra slow time reading the passages. But even after reading them over and over I wasn’t impressed by any of his theories. Out of all the subjects in a general education, science is the one I dislike the most because I have the hardest time understanding the concepts presented. I hope that the next reading I do for Aristotle is more interesting for me because previous to this class I have never read any of his works. His reputation is obviously that of a great philosopher and I hope that I can agree with that statement later on in the course. In Physics, Aristotle talks about nature and the form it is defined as. He provides numerous examples (almost too many) to prove his theories. I found this to be unnecessary because I didn’t really understand it after his first examples and after reading all of his others I just became more confused than before. Again, I found the words used in this text to be very cryptic. Hopefully I will have a better understanding of this material after we discuss it in class.
Post a Comment