Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:52 am Post subject: Aristotle Readings and Discussion
Read Aristotle’s Philosophy of Nature pp. 3-14.
Please post your thoughts on, and answers to the following:
* What is Aristotle’s view of reality, and how does it differ from Plato’s?
* What is the role of experience and logic in acquiring knowledge?
* What is change? What role do the 4 “causes” play?
* 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
*What are the important features/characteristics of his biological system?
The forum is a place for collaborative work and discussion - you can stray from the original questions in order to answer new questions that are raised or to explore new ideas that others put forth.
Plato interpreted reality (at least, of the material world) as a whole whereas Aristotle preferred to understand it through its parts. As the reading states:
..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.
Instead of a single glorified archetype---hell the very concept OF an archetype, Aristotle dismisses. Instead, the respective and cumulative traits of things that so tenuously allow them definition and grouping can be understood individually. Not like atoms (a point the author tirelessly drives home) bouncing around without context and with disregard for the directions of others---but that studying a single part (ONE dog, plant, person) will reveal much about both the thing itself but also its designation as a whole.
In reading and interpreting Aristotle's delineation of reality from Plato's, I can't help but connect Aristotle's understanding to be that of the prevailing, and contemporary Western consciousness. We're all about the individual here. Looking out for number one, pursuit of happiness all that. Already with my limited knowledge of Aristotle's work I can see one of his contributions to our philosophy (without qualifying it, of course.)
Yet in the same way I can confidently assert the relevancy in modern Western culture of Aristotle's "common sense," (as they phrase it,) as an adhered-to philosophy, this reading poses the question--
"..If it makes good common sense, can it also be good philosophy?"
The author of course, goes on further to address specific philosophical problems Aristotle's definition of reality does or does not circumvent (the nature of fundamental reality, epistemological conflicts, etc) Yet I choose to read the aforementioned question as a modern-day citizen.
That is, is this so called common sense a good philosophy, defining philosophy as a belief system? When we choose to understand our reality on an essentially case by case basis, how does it effect our interactions with and reactions to others? How would/does this philosophy dictate our actions and furthermore, how and why did Western culture embrace it so emphatically?
perhaps these questions are totally invaluable. I know Rachel and Marilyn posed other questions beyond the one I addressed that are far more relevant to the reading but I
a) didn't want to answer them all because there was a lot and could have prevented someone else addressing and
b) I wanted to see if my musings would/could provoke a different vein of conversation. thats all
I want to address Rachel’s point of how philosophy affects everyday interactions. On page 6, it is mentioned that Aristotle, although a staunch empiricist, never performed any kind of controlled experimentation, especially in pursuit of nature and causation. The reading goes on to explain that it would be irrelevant to try and execute an experiment on the topic of causation, as it would tell us nothing. I assume, then, that Aristotle derived his theories based on what he saw during his daily interactions with the world. He alludes to this in his discussion of form and matter as well. By looking at the individual, he is able to abstract some kind of baseline pattern that applies to all things. His interactions are, arguably, daily experiments in which he forms a hypothesis, makes observations, and reaches conclusions.
We can distinguish Plato and Aristotle through their perception of the theoretical versus the tangible. Plato’s concepts rely on the transition of perfect to imperfect. He understands the sensible world as a derivative of a more perfect world, reflected in his concept of perfect shapes. Aristotle looks at it from the other way around. Both would address the importance of observing the world around us, but from there, the two go off in different directions.
This leads me to another question…
What is the purpose of understanding something in its theoretical state? Plato obviously found purpose in this topic. But why would someone like Aristotle care about the “theoretical world” that we do not live in?
Also, how is Aristotle relevant to both science and history? I think it's a bit more obvious how his perspective relates to science, but is there any way that his theories, observations, etc. are "historical" in nature?
I also briefly want to address the nature of spheres in classical studies. Aristotle considers the universe a perfect sphere, Dante Alighieri depicts Paradise (Heaven) as beautiful concentric spheres, the Bible describes the sky as a dome. Why are spheres so prevalent? (Not totally relevant, but still interesting).
For Aristotle, understanding something in its theoretical state (i.e., what it might become) allows him to predict the movement of the object from potentiality into actuality, and thus to zero in on its nature. Because Aristotle's philosophy is built off of experiencing an object through sensory perception, he must have some theoretical system that allows him to take experiential knowledge and use it to make a conclusion. Since it is the logical of a philosophical theory that lets him make these conclusions, his theory is both logical and experiential. I also wanted to clarify the difference between an archetype and a pattern in the context of Aristotle's theory. Rachel wrote that (paraphrased) "Aristotle dismisses the very concept of an archetype," but then Jen said that, "By looking at an individual, he is able to abstract some kind of baseline pattern that applies to all things." So while Aristotle has a system that deals with all objects in terms of formal, material, efficient, and final causes, he also treats them very individually. Thus, Aristotle's philosophy embraces a certain conflict between the methods of generalizing and specifying. To answer Rachel's question, treating objects on a case-by-case basis allows "us" (broadly, the west) to account for the many "exceptions to the rule" that would have undermined a more rigidly-structured theory. There are many arguments in this article that explain how Aristotle's philosophy holds up against the "what-if's" that the readers are likely to pose.
On page 6, the author defines final cause as "the purpose served by the change." I understood this statement to mean that Aristotle thinks of all changes as having a purpose...do we agree with this? Given the complexities of matter, must we assume that all changes have a purpose? If Aristotle is arguing this idea, then how can we prove or disprove it?
Jenn, to adress your question about is Aristotle relevant to both science and history, I think very much yes. I think the science part is obvious, as you said. The theories he creates calculate the world in a concrete manner, which was one of the characteristics of science we talked about today. However he also discusses his theories as they relate to people. In addition his theories follow cause and effect, one of the other traits of history that was on the board today.
The major difference between Aristotle’s views to Plato’s is Aristotle believed that things were individual, and did not depend on each other to exist. Plato believed that being began externally, and while Aristotle thought the opposite; “Reality in its perfect fullness, Plato argued, is possessed only by the external forces”. In Aristotle’s opinion however, “the traits that give an individual object its character do not have a prior and separate existence in a world or forms but belong to the object itself.” In other words, warmth cannot exist without something warm. This makes sense in that context, but does this mean if you can’t find something of a given trait then it doesn’t exist? For example the word or idea of “perfect”. I don’t think anyone has ever truly found something that was entirely perfect, but does that mean the word should be removed from the English language? Do we ever have a concept of what that property is since we have no object that it belongs to? The same ideas go for other unattainable properties.
According to Aristotle, sensing comes before experience, which comes before knowledge. “knowledge is thus gained by a process that begins with experience…nothing can be known apart from such experience.” Do you guys think this means that no knowledge can be gained second hand, by hearing from others experience? Or is the act of listening to the other person an experience in itself?
When Aristotle talked about the heavens, they were seen as perfect, with no contraries, and therefore no change. It was seen as a “eternally unvarying circular motion”. What I thought was interesting is that at no point did Aristotle inquire about the presence of a heaven itself. He looked further about the root of almost everything else but heaven existing and why was never questioned. This made me think, is there things in science today similar to that, that are never questioned because they’re seen as such no brainers? Should we question them?
Addressing Emily's question, I think that, in order for any theory to hold up, there needs to be some assumption that scientists hold as beyond reproof. When we get to the level where we can't explain the universe any further, we chalk it up to the intuitive: "it makes sense that something like heaven just exists the way that is does, because here the fire, air, water, earth, four causes, etc., etc., make sense." I guess that in order to make a conclusion, it's necessary to forgo concrete justification and blindly rationalize what we can't figure out.
AHH!! Everyone thus far has posted incredible questions but I think Emily had two of my favorites: One was about perfection as an unattainable property and the other about a science "no-brainer." I'll address the perfection one first.
I think Aristotle would agree that the property of perfection is non-existent and therefore, useless as an idea (at least in the terrestrial region) because perfect can only apply to a whole. Because always slightly variant individuals compose an over-arching definition and Aristotle chooses to emphasize the individual, perfection can't exist without an archetype to model after. I suppose Aristotle, after designating what traits, characteristics and indicators are most valued in any given thing (e.g. in the perfect dog one finds sharp teeth and curved tail) could find an INDIVIDUAL example that fit all the criterion, this is still understood in a flawed manner. Because, for many complex things (like a dog) it can be difficult to understand their true nature, its hard to know if you have assembled the correct criteria, rendering an image of perfection utterly subjective and therefore entirely useless.
As for the no-brainer, I wouldn't say that WITHIN the realm of science there is a no-brainer theory (evolution, big-bang, etc) but instead the no-brainer of SCIENCE itself.
Today in class demonstrated that we ascribe adjectives such as "fact" "objective," "un-manipulatable" and therefore elevate science to the highest truth status. In this sense, I believe our Western, modern, and for many SECULAR society makes science as a practice (be it in experimentation or observation) ultimate truth. To BELIEVE IN science is the no-brainer for us. I disagree with this for many reasons, but that is a discussion for another time.
In this sense I think its also interesting that you (emily) pointed out Aristotle's absolute faith in the existence of heaven--only investigating specifics as opposed to origin. I think this theme of some inescapable absolutism be it in science, philosophy, religion and society inescapable. Perhaps its peoples' nature.
As Jenn mentioned, Plato believes our world being some sort of “derivation of a more perfect world.” Thus Aristotle is perhaps the more “scientific” of the two, using his senses and understanding objects/things as individuals. Plato excludes this “matter” to find a theme, though often it seems flawed. Aristotle tries to look at things for what they are, but also looks for the substratum. This complex way of seeing the world leads me to a similar conclusion as Jenn. Aristotle set the framework for western philosophy because he valued science and history in such an integrated way.
It also troubled me when the author mentions that Aristotle didn’t actually follow through with his own scientific method and preferred to observe natural progressions/patterns. While the author elaborates latter on, I can’t help but believe some of his work must be flawed.
Another question: These theoretical groupings (such as dogs) are social constructs, so does that indicate that this “perfect world” is merely defined by our societal norms? This forces me to question Plato’s legitimacy because he was leaving out so many potentially important points of influence.
Also, I’m not sure if this is the appropriate place to bring this up, but it feels a bit overwhelming entering the conversation several posts in and it makes it difficult to address a theme or carry on a cohesive conversation. In particular, it becomes more complex once several people have responded differently to someone’s post and unclear who to respond to.
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 9:15 pm Post subject: Aristotle!
Hey all!! First off it took me forever to figure out how to get an account to this darn forum thing. Anyway on to the main topic of the night Aristotle. I am gonna try and answer some of Rachel Hirsch's questions along with some from other peoples. Anyway.
1. Aristotle and plato differed on very basic levels in that, Aristotle believed in the individual and Plato did not. For example on page 4, the text states that Aristotle believed that, "there were just individual dogs." The text went onto further state that while all dogs share similar characteristics that make them dogs each one is individually its own. Plato stated that forms are dependent and can only exist derivatively
2. Very simply, In order to learn and understand something, you first have to have experience it (hence why experience is essential in acquiring knowledge i.e. you would not how to avoid tripping and falling unless you had done so first) Logic plays in, in how our mind analyzes the situation and then comes to a conclusion (deduction) on what we have learned (i.e. do not skip down a mountain you will fall). Experience and Logic work in tandem to provide us with Knowledge
I also found Emily's question truly fascinating, and I think that is very interesting that even though Aristotle defied his teacher and struck it out on his own, he still couldn't get over the conventions and the idea of Heaven. i believe today there are things that are believed to be so true that no one could question. For example, we live in a planet that exists in the universe. That is pretty stock material, however maybe someones should question that. Maybe we are an infinitely compressing universe instead of expanding? or maybe there is no such thing as a universe, who know?
Addressing Jen K, I believe that Aristotle cared about the theoretical world because in order to understand things (forms) that exist in the real world you have to use the Theoretical World as your sandbox in order to understand the real world. Aristotle used the theoretical world to test theories he hoped to apply in the real world.
A question for you: Aristotle rebelled and broke away from Plato's way of thinking. Is rebellion necessary for advancement of ideas? Why or why not?
It's interesting to note that Aristotle's theories are used a lot in Catholic apologetics (that is, the process of defending the Catholic faith). I think Aristotle really brings into question how religion and science relate to one another, as Emily and Rachel were alluding to by mentioning the "inescapable absolutism".
Everyone has brought up good points for now, what I would like to focus on is how Aristotle fits into our ideas of science and history.
Our modern definition, based on our in class discussion, focuses on fact and repetition. We must show something to be numerically valid through detailed observation and repetition. Aristotle did not use these methods in his work.
As the reading said
the abscence from his work of anything resembling controlled experimentation
Where Aristotle addressed the world through common sense and observation. He traveled and studied and discussed his ideas; polishing them until they were cohesive enough to convince 23 centuries of challenge. The ideas he put forward are still common and reasonable.
Despite the cohesion and power behind his ideas, Aristotle did little science as we have defined it.
Despite this lack of modern science, we seem to be in agreement that he was more of a scientist than a historian.
It seems to me that the concept of science we have defined is not the applied usage of science we are working with.
What are your ideas on what science is? I propose that science is a train of thought. Science is when the goal and methods are intended to address the larger world through investigation of smaller pieces of the world.
Oh boy. Lots more people have posted since my comment was relevant but I’ll do my best to tie it into the discussion right now.
I’ve always found it interesting to note how philosophers have created different hierarchies to separate or isolate the human race from other parts of the natural world. Aristotle explains that we cannot understand ourselves before understanding the world at large. He sees change as a continuum. Almost as if everything is connected and fluid (that hot and cold are not polar opposites but different states of the same thing), but if that is true, it’s interesting to me that he continues to create these very specific categories. As a biologist, Aristotle separates matter and form but he does not allow idea that these could co-exist. “If, as Aristotle maintained, soul is but the form of the organism, then it is clear that soul (including the human soul) is not immortal; at death the organism disintegrates, and its form evaporates into nonbeing.”
Another interesting difference between Plato and Aristotle is their way of approaching ideas. I have not read that much by Plato, but it seems to me like Plato’s approach to philosophy is to deconstruct what he understands and then explain what he does not. For example Plato thought that math could be used to explain everything (I’m simplifying Plato a little bit here…) but Aristotle remained a little more theoretical. His explanation of the planets and stars in orbit and how our world is constructed (whatever is heaviest is at it’s center which is why the water surrounds it) is an incredibly abstract way to think about the world, but it is based on less concrete evidence.
To me, science rationalizes our experiences through logic and reasoning, but history rationalizes them through sociocultural interpretation. That is, history explains events from the perspective of an individual being influenced by social constructs like race, class, ethnicity, and privilege. Science, however, explains events from the collective dictates of conscious reasoning. Because groups of people often employ a similar analytical process, scientific conclusions are more easily agreed upon than historical conclusions, which derive as much from common cognitive properties as they do from individual social experiences. People deal with different social constructs in their day-to-day lives; thus, people have more difficulty agreeing on historical events than they do on scientific theories/principles.
Last edited by hrossen on Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
To discuss on Jen’s question about Aristotle being involved in history as well as science:
It was really interesting reading about Aristotle’s conflicting views with Plato’s on perfection and reality. Plato stated that,
“Reality in its perfect fullness is possessed only by the eternal forms…”
On page 4, Aristotle argued against the eternal forms that Plato believed in and referred to. Plato was less grounded into reality than Aristotle. Based on the list we made in class today, Plato would be more of the historian where Aristotle would be more of the scientist. And Aristotle be came a part of history by being more grounded in reality than most were back then. Aristotle really set the stage for the scientific method.
------
Similar to what Rachel mentioned earlier, I really found it interesting on how Aristotle tried to stress the importance of the individual in a Westerner fashion. On page 5:
“Aristotle, no less than Plato, was determined to grasp the universal; but unlike his teacher, Aristotle argued that one must do so by starting with the individual.”
Perhaps the western way of thinking has its roots in Aristotle.
-----
My question for you guys:
What do you think influenced Aristotle and his beliefs?
To address Nate’s question about whether rebellion is needed for advancement of ideas, I think definitely yes. Also, I think this idea tie in with Aristotle’s theory that knowledge comes after experience. This philosophy lends itself to questioning what you’re being taught, and in a way rebelling against what your told or taught. The way he presents knowledge encourages individual thought.
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
