free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

rhirsch · Site Admin Joined: 13 Oct 2010 Posts: 74

Here is Tino's post (he's also having some trouble getting not the site, so I'm posting this on his behalf)

What is change? What role do the 4 “causes” play?

Aristotle believed that change was not chaotic, but rather something that happened in an orderly manner that could be explained with common sense (as much of his work is). Specifically, he believed that change occurs when something transforms from some “potential” to some “actuality”. All things have some sort of potential, be it a painting waiting for an artist to interfere, an asteroid plummeting through Earth's atmosphere, or even humans and their destinies. This brings up some interesting questions, as Mark already mentioned in his post, so I wont repeat what has already been said. To define change was not enough for Aristotle or the philosophical community however -- they also questioned the cause of change. The Aristotelian causes are what Aristotle came up with as a way to find the reason behind changes in objects, like the transformation of metal into a saw. The four causes are formal cause (what the “potential” of an object is like), material cause (the “potential” object itself), efficient cause (the action/thing that puts the transformation in motion), and final cause (the purpose behind the transformation).

Question
The reading says that Aristotle argued that “every natural object has a ‘nature’ ”(page 6), and goes on to reference nature quite a lot throughout the entire reading -- but what is “nature” (both in terms of the environmental definition and the property-based definition)? When does something stop being “natural”, if ever?

Reply -- to Zhuoran
Ah, how to define good. You could look at it as Plato would -- that “goodness” is a form, and in being a form, it is an unchanging constant that we can only dream of achieving in the “material world”. Just like there is no such thing as an absolutely perfect circle in our material world yet we can still imagine in our minds what a circle looks like, regardless of it’s imperfections in our world -- we still understand what goodness is, even if it’s something that we will never perfectly understand. So when we call something “good”, you could say that we instinctively say that because it matches our “form” of goodness. But what you ask -- is goodness something defined in itself or by people -- brings up the question: is the world of forms something that people define, or is it something that defines people? I think if Plato were here, he would have chosen the later. A baby doesn’t need to interact with other human beings to know that trees have some sort of “green-ness”, even if they don’t know the word green. The same thing goes for goodness -- and so I believe goodness -- true goodness -- is something defined in itself, not by society or people around us.

amartinez · Joined: 31 Mar 2014 Posts: 16

What is Aristotle's view of reality? How does it differ from Plato's?

Besides the fundamental differences between the two philosophers, I believe there are core agreements that inform both the student and the teacher's ideas to a degree that makes them appear quite similar. While Plato viewed the world as a composite of its segments - in this sense, he created an unbroken reality that valued even the parts as wholes themselves - Aristotle valued the way that humans naturally interacted with the world: a much more fluid sense of understanding that was strong in its intuitive rationality. This is to say that in much the same way "attributes existed in, and belonged to, individual dogs" (4) humans often cite a "God-given liberty" or role that is innate within ourselves; however, humans are only aware of this role as innately within ourselves because humans are able, to an extent, to understand their sense of individual existence. In relation to Plato, who saw the world primarily as an environment filled with process of elimination (in fact, both philosophers did, but Aristotle was far more willing to follow a series of steps to understand the existential - albeit in his own way, concerning the individual before this attempt would be made), an environment in which only the form existed, and objects grew from this existence, Aristotle saw similarities between forms. In a sense, Aristotle saw that as humans, we are forms, and thus we are able to only verify other forms in relation to ourselves. Plato would starkly disagree with this, because this would require an understanding of a separation between self as an individual and self as an existence, yet Aristotle's great strength in his argument was treating the world as humans treat it. In other words, humans use the world as a canvas to grow from and manipulate, we stand on the world; it's therefore easy to accept that form and matter do the same - form stands on matter - if we can imprint our own experience onto inanimate objects. As we know we are being and existent, so we can understand our own experience in the context of other forms upon the planet. However, as the text greatly questions, "if it makes good common sense, can it also be good philosophy?" I think Plato addressed this brilliantly in his argument that objects were reliant on their forms (as opposed to Aristotle's argument that form, the product of the object such as its color, was independent of matter, the product itself which was intriguingly dependent on its production), because he included the universal truths of others; by incorporating himself into the arguments of others through describing the same reality through different means, he also made his ideas inextricable from those of others - to remove their truths would be to remove his, and vice versa.
All this being said, I do think that a core similarity, as I alluded to earlier, between the two philosophers, is quite an interesting correlation. While Plato determined that form gives essence to an object, and Aristotle argued that matter is given form, both thinkers were concerned with dependency (which is a topic I hope we continue to consider), and in relation to what in the world we take for granted as stagnant - what we depend on as being immobile. As both philosophers point out, what we may view as static may actually simply be unchangeably part of the world, yet in and of itself in motion.

My question for you all: at the beginning of the text, a brief history of Aristotle's life is given; I found it fascinating that he informally taught at a garden that was populated by teachers. It caused me to think about education as an encounter rather than a continuous path and gateway to the world. So: is education simply additional? Do we innately have all the tools to understand the world at large, if these universal problems are thus universally created and solved? What I mean by this is: if we're creating the problems by observing them, do we not innately have the tools to solve them as well, without education as a supplemental tool?

amartinez · Joined: 31 Mar 2014 Posts: 16

"This leads to my question. Plato believed in a perfect form that each being was meant to have and Aristotle believed every being had an innate nature and ingrained purpose. Do they both in some way believe in fate? How are their beliefs in some higher power different or the same? Do either of them truly believe in a higher power or just some innate force to the universe?"

I think that because both philosophers were so absolute in the way that they approached knowledge - neither philosopher was particularly willing to combine elements of the other's ideas, for the most part - it's difficult for me to accept that they might have believed in fate. Fate, the way I understand it, is something that is a constant force, rather like an irritating gust of wind in your face. It will eventually require your attention, and likely your subsequent action. Therefore, I think that if one element of Aristotle's arguments was wrong, and 2 aspects of Plato's arguments were right (hypothetically speaking), it would seem natural, if they believed in fate or destiny, to mend the idea so as to create a quasi-Hegelian idea, in which the best of both their notions was combined. However, by treating both their ideas as absolute systems, in which the idea itself was contingent to the circumstance it was borne from, I'm reminded of when Einstein's theory of relativity was discovered, and his truth disproved all the security of truths built by scientists for centuries before. Who is to say which truth, in this scenario, and in Einstein's, was/is correct? If they are both able to coexist as absolutes, does that mean that neither is correct, or both are correct? These questions are so all-encompassing that I don't think they have much leeway to be crumbled by subtle detailed inconsistencies often brought up by disastrous Fates, so no, I don't think the two believed in fate.

Sorry this is so long winded, I don't mean to tear down your question, Julia!!

Paul Rubenstein · Joined: 31 Mar 2014 Posts: 2

This seems to be one of the most frequently answered question, and I'd think that's due to the fact that in my opinion, it's the most interesting question. In modern physics, there is a concept called causality. To make a very long and mathematical explanation short and bearable, causality is the theory of cause and effect. In practical physics, terms, it means that A causes B, and B cannot cause A. Again, in the physics terms, it also talks about how closely related two things have to be for one to cause another.

When Aristotle talks about change and his causes, he's talking about causality. As has been pointed out, the four causes are material cause, formal cause, moving cause, and final cause. These causes equate to, in Aristotle's mind, how something can change, and more aptly, why? While what Aristotle has lined up ins't exactly in line with what modern physics hold true now, I find the parallel between the two interesting, given the huge gap in time.

For my answer to another question, I'll be tackling Zhuoran's question about good. I think there are some inherently good things in the world, and they're mostly people. Most other objects just exist, but a person has the ability to choose to act, and if they act well for the sake of good, then they're inherently good.

Greg Wright · Joined: 31 Mar 2014 Posts: 9

What is Aristotle’s view of reality, and how does it differ from Plato’s?

Plato's view of reality is that everything we see is an imperfect version of the perfect. Plato had "vastly diminished the reality of the material world observed by the senses." Also, he believed that the "forms" that they possess are where they get all of their characteristics and their presence as objects. Aristotle, however, did not look at reality this way. He saw objects in two parts as well, form and matter. But, he believed that objects are not attached to some "perfect" ideal of the object but in fact are their own entity. The matter that the object consists of does nothing to connect it to the appearance of the object. Form, according to Aristotle are all the characteristics that make that object unique.

Ruby's question: What does Aristotle's creation of the "Prime Mover" suggest about his religious views? How did these views affect his philosophy? What about his views on the soul? Is his definition of soul the same as ours? Do we have a definition of a soul? Do his views on these two things contradict each other?

The creation of the "Prime Mover" may suggest that he does not believe in the surrounding religion of the greeks but instead still believes in a divine force of sorts.

There have been studies that compare the Iliad to the Odyssey where man may have evolved between the books. In the Iliad it seems as though the men doing things are doing them because one or multiple of the Greek gods told them to do it. While in the Odyssey it is from the viewpoint of one man who can put himself into other people's shoes, per se.

From what I understand, his Prime Mover idea still hinges on the idea of some pure, "perfect" entity that controls moves and changes the forms of objects.

His idea of the matter of an object being separate from the characteristics that the object holds seems quite unique and most probably in an attempt to answer the question of where these characteristics come from if they aren't based off of a "perfect fullness".

Aristotle's definition of soul is most definitely different from ours today. We now know that matter and form are one in the same. The matter holds the characteristics that make it an acorn on a windowsill or an itty bitty carbon atom. Our modern definition of soul has trumped past beliefs because we now have the technology to prove that matter is made of atoms and that "nature" is whatever atoms are in there and how fast they're moving.

My question (if anyone is still up to answer it this far past the due time): Aristotle sees form and matter as two different things. Could Aristotle or Plato have come up with a different answer for the question "why do objects do this?" within the same context?

Naomi Ingber · Joined: 31 Mar 2014 Posts: 10

What is Aristotle’s view of reality, and how does it differ from Plato’s?

Aristotle’s philosophy was based on the real world. While Plato believed that objects have an “eternal form” that is independent of the object’s existence, Aristotle disagreed. He argued that since real objects make up the real world, they cannot exist independently of their actual manifestation in reality. There is no set form of each potential object before it exists. He also separated objects into their “form” and their “matter.” The matter is the literal stuff that a thing is. The form is essentially the adjectives that describe it. By centering his philosophy on what he thought of as the real world instead of Plato’s more theoretical world, he could then build and focus more on what was real and how one learns and knows about reality.

Julia’s Question: Plato believed in a perfect form that each being was meant to have and Aristotle believed every being had an innate nature and ingrained purpose. Do they both in some way believe in fate? How are their beliefs in some higher power different or the same? Do either of them truly believe in a higher power or just some innate force to the universe?

Response: I don’t know about their personal beliefs in Gods or in an “innate force,” but I do think that fate is deeply ingrained in each of their philosophies. As Julia said, Plato believed that each object has a predestined form, which means that it is destined to be exactly that way. Aristotle believed that each object would live out its destiny because that was its nature. While the author presents these ideas as two different world views, I don’t think they are actually mutually exclusive. Plato focused on before an object’s existence and Aristotle focused on during, but I think that if I believed in fate, I would believe that an object had both a predestined form and a predestined nature and purpose.

My question: According to Aristotle, “every natural object has a nature.” Does that apply to humans as well? Do we “behave in predictable ways” as an acorn does? If we do, does that mean we don’t have free will?

Max LaBelle · Joined: 31 Mar 2014 Posts: 9

Hi everyone, sorry to be posting later than 11 (I got off the plane like an hour and a half ago!!)

Question I chose:
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?

I saw the primary difference between the celestial body that is the supra lunar and our earth which is the sublunar as the ability to remain eternal. The supralunar is jam packed with the substance of "Aether", and is in essence incorruptible. On the other hand earth is constantly going through changes of form. While the matter of objects stays the same, the form is always growing and dying while the heaven is caught in an eternal cycle that will never change.

My question is in regards to Aristotle's belief that the universe has no starting point. How would he explain the earth's limited supply of resources. While I know this probably wouldn't have been as apparent in his time but it surely would have been conceivable that even though everything is made of the same four elements, elements aren't naturally transmutable and some would surely expire before others.

My Response is to Tino's question. I think Aristotle would think of nature as the objects matter and tendency to choose a form. Despite constant change on earth, objects are consistent in their changes until an outside factor influences it. I think Aristotle would have thought of nature as the form or path an object chooses for itself.

Free Forum