Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:17 pm Post subject: Re: Aristotle Reading and Post
rhirsch wrote:
*How do the heavens and the earth differ with regard to:
what they are made of
what kind of change occurs
what kind of motion exists
The universe is considered a large sphere, divided into an upper and lower region by a spherical shell which contains the moon. The lower region is the earth, and it is made up of the four basic elements: earth, water, air and fire. The upper region is the heavens, and it is comprised of the quintessence, or aether. In the Aristotelian view, there is no empty space: it all contains some kind of element.
These elements move in respect to their natures. On earth, the elements are given weight classes, or amount of levity. Earth is the heaviest, followed by water, followed by air, followed by fire. Thus in a perfect world earth will move towards the center of the universe, and around it will form the water, and around the water forms the air, and around the air forms fire. On earth, change is possible. Elements are made up of distinctive forms, and these can change just like any other forms, leading to absence of the "perfect" world mentioned above.
The celestial objects in the heavens exist in a constant state of unchanging. There motion is governed by the existence of "Prime Movers." These are living deities who represent the final cause of the celestial objects, which compel them to imitate its "changeless perfection by assuming eternal, uniform circular motions."
Question: Do you agree with the author's view that a philosophical system should only be judged by its predecessors, and not in terms of the questions that we are asking today?
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 6:59 pm Post subject: Re: Aristotle Reading and Post
Responding to Ben: I would disagree with the author's statement that the philosophical system should only be judged by its predecessors. I believe that in order for authoritative beliefs to evolve and grow with time that they need to be reviewed with the current events of what is going on, including with the questions that are being asked in the present day.
*What is Aristotle’s view of reality, and how does it differ from Plato’s?
Aristotle and Plato's views of reality greatly differ from each other.
Plato's views of reality "diminished (without totally rejecting) the reality of the material world observed by the senses. Reality in its perfect fullness, Plato argued, is possessed only by the eternal forms, which are dependent on nothing else for their existence. The objects that make up the sensible world, by contrast, dervie their characteristics and their very being from the forms; it follows that sensible objects exit only derivatively or dependently" (4.)
Aristotle's views on reality are "they [sensible objects] must have autonomous existence, for in his view they were what make up the real world. Moreover, the traits that give an individual object its character do not, Aristotle argued, have a prior and separate existence in a world of forms, but belong to the object itself" (4.)
Plato looks at the larger aspect/bigger picture of the world and what it is made up of, whereas Aristotle is focused on the small details that make up the bigger picture. Together they compliment each other by being able to look at the bigger picture, and the small details of each other; just like how we said that scientific and historical descriptions help us get all of the facts compared to only one side.
Q: Today in 2013, as well as in the past decade or so, what view of reality do you think philosophers tend to favor? Aristotle or Plato?
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:02 pm Post subject: What is change? What role do the 4 “causes” play?
What is change?
Unlike Plate, Aristotle took the common sense route, believing that our sensory world was made of the potential for change in individuals. Change can be proven by using form and matter, when an object undergoes change it's form alters, having the option of achieving it's new form or being absent of the new form, while it's matter stays the same. However, this argument only works if everything can be compared to having a form and a matter.
Aristotle very much narrowed down the possibilities of change, really only giving the option of either something happens, or it doesn't happen. Something changes or there is an absence of change. I think that this is left very open, almost to the point where it seems meaningless, but maybe that's because I just take this idea for granted.
Change can happen during the transition of the three types of being:
1. nonbeing 2. potential being 3. actual being
By adding potential being Aristotle got out of Parmenides' objection to all change (something out of nothing). This idea of there never being nothing connects to Aristotle's views that the universe is eternal and his denying of the possibility of a beginning.
What role do the 4 "causes" play?
The four causes are:
1. formal cause 2. material cause 3. efficient cause 4. final cause
They are used to understand the process of production or creation an object must go through as well as the outcome or purpose of this creation.
The role they play is to break down the action of change. Instead of leaving it as going from potential being to actual being Aristotle broke down the different parts of change by naming the material being altered, the way it was altered, the force controlling the change, and the final purpose of the change.
Response to Ben and Lexi:
I think that Aristotle's imagery of the universe is so beautiful!!! Even though it does sound a little far fetched with what we know now, I feel like it still has a lot of artistic or inspirational value.
My Question:
While reading this what I really had on my mind was:
Is it really necessary to speak so gallantly while talking about philosophy? This question started when within the first page or so the author said about how Aristotle's works could take up a whole bookshelf. This is off topic a bit but, is the practice of wordiness in academia (specifically philosophy) something which is learned or inherently needed to talk about such difficult topics?
I feel like I should als post a question related to change...
How does this idea of going from potential being to actual being work with reproduction? Does that mean that within each of us there is potential being for hundreds of generations to come..or until humans cease to exist at least?
Responding to Lex: That’s a really great question! I think it might not be an either-or situation, but a mix. There are many cases where philosophers (and people in general) look at big pictures while in other circumstances they focus on specific individuals and details. But although people try to be objective while observing and presenting what they consider as reality, their brains give each of them (people) a different perspective and thus my reality might very well be different from yours. “Truth lies within the observer.”
To Rachael’s question: What is change? What role do the 4 “causes” play?
According to Aristotle, “…change is genuine. Change is never open-ended, but confined to the narrow corridor connecting pairs of contrary qualities; order is thus discernible even in the midst of change.”(5)
Before I go into the four causes, I just want to quickly say that I don’t think changes have to necessarily alter the object to the contrary direction. There are 180 degrees changes, but there might also be 30, 90 or 120 degrees, which still count as changes since the products are different from the original thing.
The four causes are: formal cause (the new form), material cause (the unchanging matter), efficient cause (the agency) and final change (the purpose). Out of the four Aristotle believed the most important was the final change, for it gave things a purpose, and with the purpose we could understand the function, then the forms (because function determines forms). (6,7)
Question: Aristotle mentioned three categories of being: nonbeing, potential being and actual being. While he did say things can start from potential being and skip the stage of nonbeing, he didn’t define the stages in between the 2nd and 3rd categories. Say monkeys evolved into humans over time, then shouldn’t some species that are somewhere in between those two (sort of a transition) existing somewhere? Don’t his 3 categories fit on a continuous line? Or are they just 3 disconnected points?
In response to Ben's question I actually think that a philisophical system should not be judged by its predecessors because they were not in that situation themselves and the questions are different. But I also agree that it is important to question and push those systems so that, as was said before, our authoritative beliefs do continue to grow and evolve, otherwise we would not be anywhere near where we are today.
“What is the role of experience and logic in acquiring knowledge?”
In Aristotle’s case his process is very circular, he viewed knowledge as being what we would say today as empirical. He said that to start one has to start with what he knows basically then the idea goes through the inductive form, in which inductive reasoning is used to achieve, hopefully, a “universal definition”. Which then can be put to use in deductive demonstrating. (Which is what we recognize today as lab experiments.)
The funny part of all of this is that, although he came up with this system, Aristotle didn’t really use it and stuck mostly to familiar and proven procedures that were not a result(s) of his philosophical methodology.
He didn’t follow his methodology in action because sticking to his theory(s) in the absence of controlled experimentation the object would simply do what its nature makes it do. So nothing is gained from doing nothing. But then on the other hand adding artificial constraints and restraints also prove nothing about the thing’s nature so Aristotle comes to a dead end in experimentation.
Connecting this back to the experience of logic in acquiring knowledge, at least in Aristotle’s case, he seems to have shown that logic leads to experience (demo/lab) but sometimes, as he realized action is not able to be taken based on logic and experience; both of which chase each other in a circle, growing together and leading back to one another. i.e. when one experiences more, then one can use logic to theorize and then through experiment experience more ect.
Question: It is mentioned in the reading that Aristotle creates a “Prime Mover” , to help his theory of space and planets, but where do you think the other regular Greek God’s fit in his picture of the universe? Since they are not like the Prime Mover. Do you think because he was a philosopher/scientist he was not religious?
I'm posting a quick question and coming back later...
Aristotle's epistemology indicates that “knowledge is gained by a process that begins with experience", "the process of acquiring knowledge begins with sense experience; from repeated sense experience follows memory; and from memory, by a process of 'intuition' or insight, the experienced investigator is able to discern the universal features of things." (page 5)
From what I understood, Aristotle is suggesting that knowledge can only be acquired from a first hand experience which is to be present at a situation that we can utilize our senses to receive information. While I largely disagree with him that "knowledge is empirical and nothing can be known apart from such experience", my question is then, if we have not had the first hand experience, is the knowledge we claim to have acquired still authentic? If not, is history still a knowledge that we are able to acquire?
I consider the process of acquiring knowledge in the example of observing the dog an attempt to study the form/property of a substance, so that in future instances the subject/matter of this substance can be recognized. But from my common sense I don't have to be in a presence of a dog to grow accustomed to its traits: simply knowing the descriptions of its features would help me recognize it. (Also does this imply that the form and matter can be separated from each other? since several subjects can share one identical property.)
Last edited by mijiawang on Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
What are the important features/characteristics of his biological system?
The important characteristics of Aristotle’s biological system are based on a hierarchy of organisms. “beginning with the prime mover at the top and descending through the human race to viviparous, oviparous, and vermiparous animals, and finally to plants.” (p13 packet). The next defining characteristic is the concept of vital heat which was used to justify why animals were as they are a fish had gills because it lived in water so unlike a mammal or something with lungs it used water to cool its body because vital heat is well, hot. he explains vital heat as coming from the heart which was the central organ responsible for emotion and sensation prominent theme in Aristotle’s writings seems to be the final achievement of perfection of the organism which is interesting in that it sounds very similar to the theory of evolution.
To answer the question I think that Aristotle’s theory of a primary mover does not make him atheist nor does it leave no room for the pantheon. In my opinion the prime mover could be a system rather than an omnipotent single being rather the pantheon could be the prime mover.
QUESTION: looking at Aristotle’s theory of motion how does it look when compared to our concepts of motion and force? Are there similarities?
sorry i answered an old question i was fighting with the log in screen for a while
QUESTION: looking at Aristotle’s theory of motion how does it look when compared to our concepts of motion and force? Are there similarities?
Coming back to answer a question 'cause I went first? Right? Anyways.
Aristotle takes a very logical method to the concept of motion. Many of his theories make logical sense, but when tested fall through. This falls in line with his lack of a rigid experimental background regarding physics. Important similarities seem to be the identification of force as something real, to be measured. Although his idea of its application is quite different than what we now know (how it effects objects once the initial force wears off, for example), this seems like an important breakthrough in the study of physics.
Unlike the sublunar world, the heavens contained a fifth element: aether. The heavens were also immune to chance, following a consistent pattern of movement.
Aristotle believed the celestial bodies moved in "eternally unchanging cycles." The heavens operated under a cleaner more predictable set of physical laws. Eternity and consistency lay in the heavens. Aristotle thought that there must be another element in the heavens for the terrestrial elements were far too fickle, eternally fluctuating between polar spectrums of hot-cold, dry-wet. The terrestrial elements followed linear movement, but the heavens moved in circles, cleaner shapes with simultaneously one and infinite sides. "The heavens must consist of an incorruptible fifth element:" aether.
The continuous motion of the celestial bodies had to have a cause but if that cause was another moving object, than it too would have to have a cause, so Aristotle explained that there was a "prime mover," or "unmoving mover." This sounded a lot, to me, like the big bang theory, in which one action, independent of time and space acted as the initial cause from which all proceeding actions derived. An important difference is that Aristotle described multiple prime movers.
I find it interesting that the heavens, which are deemed holy by Aristotle who placed within them deified Prime Movers, differed from the terrestrial world because they follow an order. Aristotle adored order. He believed that all objects had potential forms which they would inevitably become, and he coined "the final cause" which said that all change followed an ultimate purpose. I feel like our modern definition of holy is usually applied to things which defy scientific explanation and everyday patterns, like miracles, and extreme acts of selflessness. My question is: How does the definition of holiness today compare that of Aristotle?
Responding to Anastatia:
Reproduction is an interesting topic in the context of Aristotle. He believed all organisms must be made from something, be made by something, and must ultimately become something, fulfill a purpose. But what organisms ultimately become is an adult ready to reproduce and start the whole 3-step process over again. The ultimate purpose of an organism is to create another organism so it can fulfill its purpose of creating another organism so IT can fulfill its purpose of creating another organism. Is there an ultimate purpose to an entire species, or only on the individual level? Is a woodchuck today working to fulfill the same purpose as his great great great grandmother or does each subsequent offspring just work to fulfill their own redundant purpose? Is it cyclical or linear?
*What is the role of experience and logic in acquiring knowledge?
In Aristotle's epistemology, experience and observation are the foundation of all understanding of the nature of an object. Whereas Plato's understanding of qualities believed that they were universal and external, manifesting themselves in objects and individuals, Aristotle's understanding stood in stark contrast - with the focal point being the individual. The individual/object embodies traits and so trait may only be encountered and understood in the context of contact with an individual/object.
I think I faced similar confusion to Mijia. As someone who dedicated their life to the sciences, academia, and the general acquisition of worldly knowledge,the belief that knowledge of the nature/quality of all that is object is gathered by experience seems problematic. The bulk of his life work - both teaching and learning, and the incredible legacy it has left, ultimately relates to teaching and the transmission of knowledge in second-hand accounts and theoretical hypothesis, so it seems like that he couldn't truly have believed that that was the empirical nature of knowledge.
Also I was wondering about the nature of natural/organic classification was at the time. With a modern understanding of chemistry the concepts form and matter being intrinsically related but distinctively separate seems strange. If there was knowledge of different stones, ores, etc. how come it was gold has the property of shininess vs. gold is shiny as a characteristic dictated by the matter? This question probably could've been worded better, but the concept was difficult for me
The world is said to be made up of the changes on could go through. A change is something that in the end alters the way something was in the beginning. However, the way that Aristotle looked at change, had no room for small change. Something to be completely different or else it had not changed at all. When something changed, it occured during transition of 3 different types of being: nonbeing, potential being, and actual being. The 4 causes are categories in a sense that something must go through whilst going through a change. The 4 causes are important because they make it so that a being does not go through change without a process.
Response to Mingwei:
I was actually thinking the same thing about what you said about "30 90, or 120" degrees being a change even though it is not a complete change. It made me think about what it would be considered if an object were to simply go through a mild change, would it be considered the same as it was before?
question:
what is one idea from Plato's idea of reality that you think most contradicts what Aristotle says?
Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:49 pm Post subject: Yiwei Qi
*What is the role of experience and logic in acquiring knowledge?
I would relate my answer to this question to Mijia's question about whether we can truly gain knowledge without first-hand experience. I think the knowledge described by Aristotle, the knowledge that requires repeated sense experience, memory and deduction is different from what we nowadays consider knowledge. In a modern view, knowing the historical facts such as the year that the Constitution was ratified would be considered a knowledge. But it's not quite what Aristotle would define as knowledge. After going through the steps he proposed, "the experienced investigator is able to discern the universal features of things". His theory of knowing something is to repeatedly see something, imprint its image in one's mind and extract that image to match the actual subjects in reality. The knowledge he here explained is to establish a system that could be applied universally. This system helps us to predict. In predicting is when logic is being applied. One must use what's in his/her head to figure out what the objects on the outside world means to him/herself. Without deduction, the imprint in one's head is disconnected with what's out there.
On the contrary, knowing historical events doesn't necessarily enable us to predict. Indeed there are patterns that are repeated throughout history, but the chance of two exact same events is rare.
Simply knowing the descriptions without looking at the real thing or at least its photos does not help one truly "knowing". If a parent gives an infant words such as fuzzy/soft without letting him/her experience a fuzzy/soft thing, the infant cannot connect the description with the real objects. When toddlers are presented pictures of dogs over and over, they would be able to recognize a real dog when encountering it. And that's where learning happens.
My question: Aristotle believed that "all change and motion can be traced back to the nature of thing", but what exactly is that "nature"? Can it be further broken down? What made him believe in it? Was he saying this only because there was not other ways to explain changes/motions?
Aristotle's idea of change is filled with the purpose of becoming, that he kind of creates an obligation for substances that everything must be made to become something. Because Aristotle denies the possibility of a beginning, the the universe has to be eternal, I suppose that he viewed the creation of an object as a transition from the state of "non-being" to "being". While the matter is a constant that remains, it is the form where changes undergo. Although the form of an object changes, it remains as the same matter. Aristotle believes that everything must be made out of something (material cause) by something (efficient cause) to look like something else (formal cause) for the purpose of serving something (final cause).
(I decided to respond to Alex's question instead)
I think the fundamental difference between Plato and Aristotle is whether defining abstract thoughts as reality. The reality Plato accepts is based on corporeal matter aka the subject while he declines sensible objects as reality for their dependency on the subject.
Last edited by mijiawang on Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:14 pm; edited 2 times in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
