Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:58 pm Post subject: Aristotle's Philosophy of Nature
What is change? What role do the 4 “causes” play?
According to Aristotle, change is not "the emergence of something out of nothing" but rather the progression from "potential being" to "actual being". A sperm and an egg don't just spontaneously become an embryo out of "nothingness" - they merely go from potential embryo to actual embryo, and that potentiality is an intrinsic part of the sperm and egg.
What's worth mentioning is Aristotle's perception of form and matter. Form is the idea or principle of an object, whereas matter is the physical mass of that object. Form and matter are mutually exclusive but inseparable - reality is bound in both form and matter. For example - a human's "matter" consists of a heart, a brain, a stomach, a liver and so on, but a pile of organs on the ground isn't a human. The form is the underlying principle of physiology that dictates how all these parts fit together to make a "human". You can't have a human without its physical constituent parts (organs), and you can't have a human without the figurative structure of those parts (anatomy/physiology).
Aristotle's causes try to explain why and how change occurs by dividing change into isolated parts. The four causes are formal cause, material cause, efficient cause, and final cause. When it comes to a physical object or phenomena, Aristotle argues that all these causes come together to enact change onto the form of the object. Material cause is what's being changed, or the subject of the change, formal cause is how the matter changes, efficient cause is who or what enacts the change of the form in the matter, and final cause is why the agent goes about changing the form of the matter. All the causes are related to each other while still being distinct. Aristotle places the most value on the final cause - in order to understand "change", one has to understand the purpose of its change. Ultimately, the causes are just Aristotle's way of asking, "why?".
EDIT: I totally neglected to ask a question! I hope people see this.
Regarding "potential" vs. "actual" being: how far does that system of potentiality spread? An acorn has the potential to become an actual tree, but if it stays on a windowsill, it will never achieve that actual form. So, does that potentiality even exist? Wouldn't the actual being of this particular acorn just be as the acorn? Along with that - I have the potential to be a grown man, but what kind of grown man? What job will I have, where will I live, what kind of person will I be? Infinite possibilities - which one is my actual being? Are all those possible Future Marks my actual being, or is there only one? Of course there will be only one Future Mark, and I am the potential for that "actual" Future Mark, but any decision I make can change who that Future Mark might be! So how can there be an "actual" being at all if it can change at any moment?
Last edited by Mark Gartsbeyn on Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:16 pm; edited 3 times in total
What are the important features/characteristics of Aristotle’s biological system?
The key features of all plants and animals are essentially their function, and how their form serves that function. The form is not solely aesthetic, but includes the organism’s features such as internal organs (the heart being the most important) and such parts as teeth, which are very clearly designed not by chance, but out of necessity to serve the function of survival.
This sense of function stems from Aristotle's theory of causes, in particular "final cause," which Mark touched upon. A form or being is nothing, or will not become or have the potential to become anything, according to the philosopher, without the final cause: its reason for existence.
As Mark explained it, "in order to understand 'change,' one has to understand to purpose of its change." This does not just go for change over time, such as an acorn growing into a tree, but also for difference--the difference, say, between a human's teeth and a dog's teeth. One exists in order to best provide people with the ability to consume a varied omnivorous diet, and the other, a dog's carnivorous diet. Although the theory of evolution was far from being unveiled in Aristotle's day, he was certainly onto something along the lines of natural selection.[/quote]
What is Aristotle’s view of reality, and how does it differ from Plato’s?
Plato viewed reality as flawed. He believed that the forms on our Earth were imitations of the perfect form. Aristotle disagreed with him, and believed that there were no perfect forms of anything, but everything was independent. He believed that the world was made up of natural forms, and they weren’t copies or imitations of some “perfect” world.
Aristotle believed that everything was made up of form and matter, like just how Mark stated. Form are the traits of an object, and matter is the substance. Mark explained it as "Reality is bound in both form and matter.”, which is true to what Aristotle believed. One does not really exist without the other; they aren’t true reality until they are put together, until the traits come together with the substance and an object is made.
As the reading put it, it might be hard to reject the reality of traits, such as “cold or red”, but “we can never collect a bucket of either one”. To Aristotle, reality is form and matter, and unlike the view of Plato, there are no perfect forms of anything.
Response to Mark’s question: I think that there is always a potential for everything, which highlights, in my opinion, a flaw in Aristotle’s thinking. I think that everything is always in the state of potential being. Aristotle thought that empty space did not exist, and that means that everything is something, and if everything is something, then everything has the potential to be something else. I don’t think anyone can ever say that something is impossible, because there is always that potential to become something else. So, to answer your question, I think that the system of potentiality is infinitely spread. Of course, some possibilities are more likely than others. If an acorn grows into a tree, there’s still a possibility that it will still change. It could still become something else, even if the chances are 1 million to 1.
My question: “Aristotle adamantly denied the possibility of a beginning, insisting that the universe must be eternal”. Aristotle believed that the universe didn’t just start or begin somehow. How is that possible? How is it possible for something to just exist infinitely, never starting and never ending? Is it even possible at all?
Last edited by Emma Rochon on Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
What is Aristotle's view of reality and how does it differ from plato's?
Aristotle believed that sensible objects are autonomous and that they make up the real world but that their traits do not have a "prior existence" but they belong to the object they define. Plato believed that reality was possessed by external forms that are dependent on nothing for existence and that are perfect, and that sensible objects get their traits from the forms and therefor they only exist " derivatively or dependently" and that they are imperfect replicas of the perfect forms. Aristotle believed that corporeal objects have properties such as color and weight which is form and a subject which is matter.
"Plato's attention was naturally directed toward external forms, knowable through reason or philosophical reflection. Aristotle's metaphysics of concrete individuals, by contrast, directed his quest for knowledge toward the world of individuals, of nature, and of change- a world encountered through the senses"
Which theory do you prefer?
In regard to Marks question about the acorn on the windowsill, the acorn still has the potential being, yet it just has not gone through the passage from potentiality to actuality and maybe never will but that does not mean it does not possess the potential.
Last edited by Eve Frankel on Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
“Aristotle adamantly denied the possibility of a beginning, insisting that the universe must be eternal”. Aristotle believed that the universe didn’t just start or begin somehow. How is that possible? How is it possible for something to just exist infinitely, never starting and never ending? Is it even possible at all?
I think it's important to keep the zeitgeist of Aristotle's era in mind. I mean, this was back when geocentrism was still the norm. I don't know, I figure that Aristotle believed in the infinite permanence of the universe because it was the simplest solution and he had no reason to believe otherwise - this was millennia before even the idea of the Big Bang came about. Besides, Aristotle viewed the cosmos in almost a pseudo-spiritual way, and to imply that something so "godlike" could be impermanent like a human would be, in essence, sacrilegious. He relished the idea that the "supralunar" region was constant, orderly, continuous, so perceiving it as infinite doesn't seem like a far stretch.
If you believe in God, would you believe that he was immortal? I would. That's the nature of God, and I think that's the nature of Aristotle's universe.
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:07 pm Post subject: What is the role of experience and logic in acquiring knowle
What is the role of experience and logic in acquiring knowledge? :
Aristotle believed that each "thing" in the world was put on earth for an evolutionary purpose (to put it in modern terms). Each "thing" had one or more jobs that contributed to a flowing existence between species. Each of the "things" jobs were its only identifying characteristics. There was nothing extra and no "void" or space where nothing existed. Every space on earth was taken up exactly the way that it was meant to be, and there was no such thing as a waste of space. For example, this idea is similar to the way our eco-system works ideally. The basis of our eco-system are chemical elements. One chemical element has a specific number of protons, and this is the identifying characteristic of the element on the Periodic Table. Aristotle theorized that in order to know something, one would have to know all of its identifying characteristics. The author gives this example :
"By the repeated observation of dogs, for example, the experienced dog breeder comes to know what a dog really is; that is, he comes to understand the form or definition of a dog, the crucial traits without which an animal can not be a dog" p.50.
Until one has become a scholar on the "thing," by experiencing it, one is trying to know, one cannot "know" this said "thing," because one may in fact be getting to know something else.
I see Aristotle's point, however he seems very influenced by the religion of his time. Although Aristotle challenged much of the understanding of how the universe worked in his day, he was still, possibly unknowingly, tied to, and so limited by, his contemporaries views on religion. It seems he was even trying to prove religion to be scientifically accurate. He did this, using a brilliant logic, by creating an ideally perfect scientific world, where everything "fit."
My question is: How would history have differed if Aristotle had been more (excuse my French) ballsy, or less limited by the beliefs of his time, and perhaps strayed farther from believing in the Greek Gods or any type of religion?
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:14 pm Post subject: Aristotle's Philosophy of Nature
•What is the role of experience and logic in acquiring knowledge?
Post: Aristotle argued that if a person is to acquire knowledge he must start by gaining “sense experience”, an observation or common opinion based on the accepted existence observed. This is not enough to gain knowledge for if this “sense experience” is to have any validity it must be explained or coupled with an intuitive deduction about why and how such observations fit into the understood reality. If this “sense experience” is not put into a logical demonstration “(nicely illustrated Euclidean proof)” that adheres to the basic understanding of the universe, it is not knowledge and is flawed until otherwise proven. This was the method used by Aristotle in all his endeavors attempting to explain and justify the world.
Question: Were Aristotle’s methods for explaining the world flawed?
Comment: He would come up with a basic explanation of how everything fit together “naturally” and rather than being open to other possibilities in his investigation, he scorned all contradicting proofs, by saying they were flawed for not fitting the basic universal proof. The knowledge he gained was irrelevant and incorrect until he could show how it fit his theories.
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:18 pm Post subject: What is Aristotle’s view of reality, and how does it differ
What is Aristotle’s view of reality, and how does it differ from Plato’s?
Aristotle’s view of reality is everything in this world is individual. A perfect form is not existed because each thing is defined by itself. For example, a dog is just a dog individually, there is no perfect form for dog. The dog is what it really is, which is a dog. There are people’s thoughts and the object itself, the object is more important. If there is no objects, there is no properties.
However, Plato thinks that the world it observed by senses. The dog is a dog because in people’s mind is dog is a not, it is not because dog exists as a thing in the world by itself. He also believes that
Reply to Eve’s question: Which theory do you prefer?
I prefer Aristotle’s theory. I believe the thing has to be existed first and then people come up with all the properties of it. So compare to the properties, the object itself is what it really is. The perfect form doesn’t exist because there is not a point for a thing to be perfect because they are all defined individually.
My question: Form the first part of the reading, do you think if a thing is good, is that because it is good by itself, or it is good because other people think it is?
Joined: 31 Mar 2014 Posts: 9 Location: United States
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:20 pm Post subject:
What is change? What role do the 4 “causes” play?
According to Aristotle there are four different causes of factors in regards to change. There is the “form received by a thing” this is simply the form of whatever undergoes the change. There is the “matter underlying that form” this stays the same throughout the change, while the form does not. Third, there is the “agency that brings about the change”, whatever the force behind the change of form was. And lastly the “purpose served by the change.” This is perhaps the most important one of the four, as Aristotle believed that in order to understand change one needed to understand its purpose. “Aristotle argued that many things cannot be understood without knowledge of purpose or function” this was the same with change.
These four things were, as Mark pointed out respectfully called, formal cause, material cause, efficient cause and final cause. All of these things act together to change the form of an object and without any one of these a change would not be possible.
In regards to Marks question regarding the potential of the acorn. I believe that the potential being of any one thing is simply to have reached or grown to its full potential, whatever that may be. So if the acorn was grown in a pot on a window sill its potential is no longer to become a large tree but simply to fill as much space as possible within its boundaries. So therefore its potential being would only to be when it had filled its limited potential.
Question: The reading alludes to it being difficult to identify the cause and if they happen at all on many cases, can you think of what some of these things might be? Can you still find the four causes?
[b]What is Aristotle's view of reality and how does it differ from Plato's?[/b]
Plato and Aristotle's differing ideas about how knowledge should be acquired relate back to their different concepts of reality. Plato believed that our world is made up of imperfect embodiments of perfect concepts. His world view stated that the world our senses perceive should not inform our view of reality. Instead, he argues, we perceive a world of imperfect derivatives of perfect eternal forms "which are dependent on nothing else". Aristotle did not proscribe to this belief and instead put almost complete stock in reality of his lived experiences. He argued that each thing is not an imperfect copy of some higher idea, but instead its own individual being that existed in its own right and independently. These individual beings could share basic forms or matter, the author uses the example that while all dogs are different they share the basic idea of 'dog', but they are all possess these shared qualities as part of their whole individual being.
The best way I can understand to summarize the difference between their two realities is that Plato based his ideas of reality on the idea of some sort of grander scheme, not of the physical world while Aristotle to a large extent believed that what he perceived was what existed.
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?
To answer Eve's question I like Aristotle's view more. I understand the idea of conceptual thinking, but if it comes down to it what is a reality that is never observed? If everything is some imperfect replica of Plato's reality than we never observe reality. Aristotle's concept that reality is the collection of observations of our lived experiences makes much more sense to me.
This is Will's post - he's having trouble getting onto the site, so I said I'd post it for him...
What is Aristotle’s view of reality, and how does it differ from Plato’s?
Plato's argument was that reality and perfection can only exist within eternal forms. Which is to say, all existing forms are imperfect, as they are only inexact copies of the eternal forms. Aristotle's counterargument is that the traits in a form that make it imperfect have no perfect counterparts in a prior version of itself. Simply put, Aristotle claimed that all forms are independent, and Plato claimed that all forms derived their imperfections from perfect forms. Plato's belief was founded under the idea that there are no perfect forms in existence, and Aristotle argued the opposite, somewhat.
RESPONSE: In response to Mark's prompt, I think there's an important distinction to be made here about the difference between Actual Mark and Future Mark. I think, to put it simply, Future Mark is, well, Future Mark. Actual Mark and Future Mark cannot be the same person, because they represent different people at different stages in life, no matter the potential outcomes of Actual Mark. Actual Mark represents Mark of the present, future outcomes aside.
QUESTION: While writing this, I noticed some similarities in the differences between the arguments of Plato and Aristotle. Plato's argument that all beings descended from higher, perfect forms corresponds to religion and spirituality, and Aristotle's argument that all beings are independents corresponds to athiesm and the lack of belief in a higher power. Is this a valid observation? Is there another argument that could support this?
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:49 pm Post subject: Aristotle Vs Plato
The basic premiss is that Aristotle believed that what we as humans sense and observe is reality, where as Plato believed that reality exists only in an ideal form which we do not sense and what we do sense are simply external forms of the original ideal form. A popular analogy for this is that of a cave. If people were sitting around a campfire in a cave people might look at shadows on the wall and see those as reality but Plato would say those are not reality only the original objects from which the shadows are created are reality. Aristotle would argue that the shadows are reality and what we observe is reality. This is a slightly more imaginative analogy as generally we are not dealing with shadows but the principles still stand. The analogy the reading gives is also very helpful while being a little more concrete. In the case of dogs plato would believe only that a perfect form of a dog exists and that all other dogs are simply deviations or imperfect replications of this ideal dog, while as Aristotle rejects this idea. To Aristotle each dog is individual, and there is no perfect dog. Yes these individual dogs share certain characteristics, but those attributes belong to individual dogs.
In my mind it in some ways takes the whole seeing is believing idea to a whole other level. Of course thats not really the idea of their philosophies but there certainly seems like there is some sort of connection.
my question is do either of these explanations begin to in any way work in a modern sense of science and reality?
Wills QUESTION: While writing this, I noticed some similarities in the differences between the arguments of Plato and Aristotle. Plato's argument that all beings descended from higher, perfect forms corresponds to religion and spirituality, and Aristotle's argument that all beings are independents corresponds to athiesm and the lack of belief in a higher power. Is this a valid observation? Is there another argument that could support this?
Response: Yes this is a valid observation! There is an argument that could be made to support this, if it was Platos and Aristotoles thinking during the process? I dont know. But there is a great argument for it. In many religions (although not so much greek mythology so probably not as much the thinking of the time though you can definitly draw the parallels to modern religion) god is seen as a perfect entity, far far superior to humans. Humans are also supposed to be made in gods image but for various reasons are much more flawed. Atheists do not believe in god/a higher power/a perfect entity and therefore are more inclined to believe humans are individuals that share a set of attributes, but are not modeled after any one perfect being.
Last edited by rliberty2014 on Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
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
Aristotle believed the eternal universe to be comprised of a large sphere, split into upper and lower regions by a second sphere that contains the moon. He deemed the region above the moon "the celestial or supralunar region (7)" and the region below "the terrestrial or sublunar region (7)." The former is characterized by eternal unchanging cycles while the latter includes "birth, death, and transient change of all kinds (7)."
He reduced the contents of the terrestrial realm to four basic elements, fire, air, earth, and water. The building blocks of these elements are "sensible qualities (7)," hot/cold, and wet/dry, push and pull contrasting ideas that make up much of Aristotle's reasonings. With observation of the unwavering circular motion of the heavens, he concluded that they cannot be made of these terrestrial elements, rather, they are made up of a fifth element, "the quintessence or aether (7)." By viewing things as continuous wholes, Aristotle concluded that "the universe is full, a [i]plenum[/i], containing no void space (8)."
The idea of motion in the terrestrial region is wholly based upon the idea that the cosmos are formed by a set of concentric elemental spheres, with earth and water, the heavier of the pairs, being drawn towards the centered, followed by air and fire, those with levity. These elements have arranged themselves according to each ones nature, [ex. "the natural tendency of earth is to move toward the center of the universe (9)."] In this region, according to Aristotle, the medium in which an object is moving can also receive the force of the mover to continue to propel an object after direct contact has ceased.
Motion in the celestial region is very different. Though logical that a region incapable of qualitative change would sustain no motion, this theory is easily disproven by simple observation of the sky. Thus it received the moniker of "continuous uniform circular motion (10)." This simple definition did not satisfy Aristotle as it had various philosophers before, he sought to discover why this movement occurred. Thus he created the unmoved mover, or "Prime Mover," "a living deity representing the highest good, wholly actualized. totally absorbed in self-contemplation, non spatial, separated from the spheres it moves (11)." This mover is "the object of affection and the final cause of its motion (11)" for each celestial sphere.
In response to Mark's question, he addresses this idea indirectly in the biology section of the reading, "The biologist in Aristotle's view, always needs to know the complete, mature form or nature of an organism. Only such knowledge will enable him to understand the structure of the organism and the existence and interrelations of its parts (13)." His ability to predict which of the potentially infinite Future Marks that you will become rests upon the assumption that he has seen and observed that Future Mark at work and play and can move backwards to discover the steps to that lead to the final cause of your creation and understand each of the three other causes. This of course would not be possible and would not satisfy either his theory or what you are looking for. It seems that his ideas can be much more easily applied to a being that occurs over and over again in the terrestrial world, for he can't readily observe the mature form of you as an organism if you have not yet reached that point.
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?
Last edited by rrose2014 on Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:29 pm; edited 3 times in total
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
According to Aristotle's view of the heavens and earth, earth is made of four elements; earth, water, fire, and air. He theorized that the heavens were made of a fifth element, a kind of "essence". While the ground, or earth region is characterized by being changeable and chaotic, the heavens were described as peaceful and had a "superior, quasi-divine status." The earth is also characterized as being "sublunar" and the heavens "supralunar", otherwise known as above and below the moon. On earth, Aristotle thought that the four elements were all either hot or cold and wet or dry. Elements could change through the changing of these attributes. Each element was either heavy or light, indicating whether it would sink or float. Aristotle thought that earth would fall to the center, surrounded by water, then air, then fire. This can never actually happen due to the changeable nature of the sublunar region, but this motion would theoretically create four concentric rings.
Responding to Emma's question: It's really difficult for me to wrap my head around something existing indefinitely forever, with no beginning, middle or end. At the same time, it's also hard to imagine what existed before the universe actually started. I think both ideas are so hard to grapple with that they're equally plausible in my book.
My question: Do you think Aristotle deserves the criticism he gets for his theories and science? Are we disregarding the time and ideas of when Aristotle lived when we judge his theories as "correct" or "incorrect"? Would you consider Aristotle a scientist?
• What is the role of experience and logic in acquiring knowledge?
Aristotle makes the point that one needs to experience different things to be able to relate them to each other and ultimately learn. The example in the reading was that Aristotle was a zoologist and had first hand experience with the growth of animals. I learn various things from being around different people and I tend to take those things I learn as fact, but every so often I will meet someone new or talk to someone I know about the same topic I have learned from another person on and my mind is changed. That's not articulated very well but here is an example of what I mean. If I see a movie with a friend of mine and we both hated it, I've experienced that movie with that person and my perception of the movie is only negative. At that point I only have a negative perception of the movie. Later I may talk to another friend about the movie and they ended up loving it. We talk about the movie and my perception has changed and I've added a new view into how I think of the movie. This experience gives me more food for thought on deciding how I feel about the movie.
In general experience=knowledge but sometimes it takes multiple experiences with the same thing, or experiencing different angles of that thing to gain valuable knowledge.
Question:
Are there any experiences that cannot be improved by experiencing them from different angles? Is there anything just so concrete that you wouldn't benefit from a new look?
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
