Wednesday, October 8, 2008
From 10/8: Change We Can Believe In
Against the Parmenidean claim that nothing comes to be, Aristotle argues that change is indeed possible on both a substantial and accidental level. He then goes on to detail the four causes that are involved in the coming-to-be process (namely, the material, formal, efficient, and final) before considering whether luck and chance can be considered legitimate causes as well. Now that we've taken our first steps into Aristotle, let us know what you're thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
After yesterdays class I don't hate Aristotle as much as I did before. What we did yesterday was very helpful in examining the major parts of the Physics. I now understand that you have to read one small section for a half an hour with two other people to understand it! In all honesty, I now understand the four causes of action. What my group called: labeling, purpose, origin, and materials. I understand the difference between luck and chance in Aristotle’s terms. Luck is a part of chance; chance is luck when if effects you personally. Without humans there would be no luck. Since animals are not able to comprehend things like this there would be no personal events. Everything is chance in the animal kingdom. The difference between substantial and accidental change is that substantial change changes the thing (human, paper, physical object) while accidental change changes the quality of the physical object. Aristotle uses the example of the non-musical man. The man is still the man after he becomes musical. The quality of musicality changes which is an accidental change. Either change occurs with an action. In this case, the man might practice music and become musical. He is still the same man, just a more cultured man.
I agree with Ben that yesterdays class was very helpful in understanding Aristotle. The diagram drawn on the board was helpful in understand that luck is a part of chance. There is a chance that something will happen, but it takes a human to turn that chance into luck, whether it be good or bad.
The whole concept of change and how it is a common factor in nature seems very drawn out and repetitive in the Physics, but it was much more understandable in class. In order for change to occur, there must be a common factor. For example, at one point in his life the "musical man" was not musical. The man is the thing that stayed the same, and the quality of him being musical is what changed.
I must say that I find Aristotle incredibly confusing at times. I think that his points are valid but I do not like how in depth the language is. It almost makes it impossible to read. However, I think that yesterday's class helped me understand some of what he was getting at. At one point in particular we were discussing Professor Condella's misfortune for having his flight turned around and cancelled. Steve brought up an interesting point in saying that Professor Condella's flight being cancelled was effected by chance and the way that the cancelled flight effected Professor Condella was that he felt he had bad luck. Aristotle is talking here about chance and luck and how they happen to be. Perhaps in a way this idea of chance and luck correlates to cause and effect. When something happens to a person there has to be a cause and this cause is in some way a chance reaction. For if you were not around that something happening then it there would be no cause and no chance of anything happening. But then when something does happen it is how one is effected by the original cause or effect that creates the idea of luck. I think Steve was right in a way because honestly Aristotle is confusing enough and perhaps he was pointing his argument subtly in this direction.
After the other day's class I think Aristotle makes a lot more sense. Plus, learning that the book was made up of lecture notes makes me less angry at the horrible writing style. The way that we split into groups and each took on a single idea from the text was great. I felt like I was able to actually grasp what he was trying to say much easier. I also think that now that I understand more how to read and interpret the text it will be easier when I have to write the essay.
As for Aristotle's ideas themselves, I think that they actually make a lot of sense. He seems to have taken two basic ideas that don't seem to work, put them together, and said, "hey guys, doesn't this make more sense than what you said?" I think it is the way he was able to combine two leading theorys of the day, and the fact that his arguments are very logical, that allowed his ideas to become so well-spread and believed. He didn't go out on a limb at all, at least with the physical world, but simply told people something they could understand.
I'm actually looking foward to reading the medival philosophers to see how they took Aristole's ideas and deveopled them to include the concept of a God.
Post a Comment