Dr. Darren Staloff, Aristotle's Metaphysical Views

Plato argued that numbers are not found in nature, therefore they exist in the intelligible realm; Aristotle countered that numbers are not essences but abstractions from the magnitude property of things—we abstract magnitude from all other properties and study it independently, without positing transcendent numerical essences.

“plato pointed something out he said look numbers are not actually found in nature therefore they exist in the realm of the intelligible... aristotle took great umbrage at that suggestion his point was that look what we really have in mathematics are not essences that are out there pie in the sky or something it's a much simpler process than that do things have magnitudes or not they do have magnitude don't they we can measure the height of this we can measure my height we can measure the distance between things that's one of the properties of things so what we have in mathematics is we simply abstract from all of the other properties of the thing its magnitude and speak about it in abstraction”

Forms are not subsistent things existing independently but abstractions from particular things; the essence or form is in the thing itself, not separate in a transcendent realm.

“they may be the essence of things but they're of things they're in things so there are no numbers somewhere that you know when we die we'll go up and find them”

Beyond the rational soul present in humans, Aristotle posits a fourth intellective soul (intellect) that could exist without the other parts—such a being would be God, the unmoved first mover.

“imagine if you will as if you could take that soul right that intellective soul and imagine it without the other parts could there be such a being if there were what would such a being be and as you can imagine such a being would be god”

Aristotle was profoundly affected by Plato's notion of the forms and ideal essences, despite his scientific predilections, and sought to defend and preserve that intuition by grounding forms in sensible particulars rather than separating them into a transcendent realm.

“i want to however argue that for all of his scientific predilections... he wasn't as concerned with number as he was with biology... i want to argue that in a way he's a defender of plato i think aristotle was profoundly affected by the notion of the forms of ideal essences”

The concept of final cause is foundational to all subsequent Western moral theory, particularly intentionalism, which judges an action morally based on its purposes and intentions rather than consequences alone (e.g., getting an 'A for effort').

“this is an essential notion for all of subsequent western moral theory because one of the moral theories that you're going to find is called intentionalism you judge an action on the basis of the purposes right so if you try to do something good and noble and just it doesn't work out we still give you sort of moral credit don't we so you get an a for effort and it's because we stop the final next the causal nexus of consequences at the previous state the end the purpose to which word towards which you acted and that is the final cause”

Teleology—the doctrine that the universe has purpose and that things have natural end-states toward which they tend—became fundamental to Christian worldview; Christian thinkers saw Aristotle's teleology as pointing to a divine creator with purposes, though Aristotle himself conceived purpose differently.

“this doctrine is literally what's called teleology the universe has a purpose right food exists to save me right the the acorn exists to become the oak tree there's a sort of intelligence throughout the universe a sort of structure of purpose of end state of something moving towards its finality now you can see it's not a very far-reach reach for say christian thinkers to realize that or followers of of christ what i call the christ movement to look at that and say you know aristotle's right but you know what the real purpose is there's purposes and things but you know who has purposes people do so there's obviously some big person who created everything and there's a purpose to the world”

Aristotle's scale of being was used during the medieval period to politically legitimate hierarchical social structures: just as there is a natural hierarchy in the cosmos (God above angels, nobles above commoners), so political hierarchy (princes above nobles above burghers above peasants above serfs) reflects and is justified by this natural order.

“if you've got that that scale of being which incidentally professor ecutie is mentioning gets tied up and used to politically legitimate the structures of of church i should point out it was also used in the medieval period to legitimate the structures of state right i mean think of the scale of being below god who's going to show up if you're a secular prince me the secular prince and below me come my nobles below them come this citizen burgers below them come the peasants the serfs and just below surfs are things like cattle horses so you don't treat serves quite like you know horses but you don't treat them quite like kings and princes either and again a hierarchical scale of being legitimating the political structure”

Aristotle introduces the concept of potentiality (potencia)—a middle state between non-existence and full being—to solve the logical problem of change: a boy is not a non-man, nor is he yet a man, but is potentially a man; under correct conditions, he will naturally develop toward that end-state.

“he said there is actually a middle ground between non-existence and being full existence and we'll call that middle ground or he called it potentia potency potentiality so it's not that i'm not a man and then i become a man which would be absurd because you can't make something out of nothing but rather a boy is potentially a man an acorn is potentially a tree that is under certain common initial conditions that thing will move towards its final state its end state its final cause its full development”

Final causality avoids infinite regress in explanation because once you understand the purpose of an action, you need not ask 'what caused the purpose?'—the purpose is the end-state and requires no further explanation.

“the deep point of calling such a cause final is to say there's no infinite regress once you know the purpose of an action don't say well what caused the purpose there's no point to it that's the end state”

Final cause is the end or purpose towards which a process naturally moves (e.g., health is the final cause of exercise; the acorn's final cause is to become an oak tree; a chicken crosses the road to get to the other side).

“the last fourth part of the causal nexus is in many ways the most intriguing and the most unique development in aristotelian metaphysics and that is the doctrine of final causality the final cause is the end towards which a change occurs... what is the final cause of exercise health what's the final cause of uh consumption of food safety... think of the old joke why did the chicken cross the road what's the answer right to get to the other side to get to the other side is a purpose”

Aristotle criticizes Plato's doctrine of the forms on the principle of simplicity (Occam's Razor): Plato's theory multiplies entities unnecessarily—for every particular thing there is also a separate form, and potentially a form of that form—creating an 'ontological slum' that impedes scientific explanation.

“aristotle also criticized plato's doctrine of the forms on what i would call the principle of simplicity tidiness... let's return now to plato's notion of the forms he's saying for each sort of thing we find out there there's not only the things right the sensible particulars but there's a form somewhere that corresponds to them... there's a certain point in which aristotle said you know you're creating a real metaphysical slum... but i've got to be careful not only not to bump into the lectern but then there's the form of the lectern to avoid there may be a form of a form of a lectern”

The form of things is often defined in functional terms—a lectern has the shape and structure it does because it serves the purpose of providing a place to lean and speak from; a chair has a bottom and back because its function is to allow sitting.

“this lecture lectern again is made of a particular material elements substance maybe wood chipboard whatever and there's a particular form the structure or form of a lectern and that form in turn is is very often defined in functional terms lecterns have the shape the form they do the structure they do because they serve a purpose they're there for me to lean on and hide behind or whatever need i might have of them um similarly chairs right what's the essence of a chair well the form of chairness or the essence of chairness its structure has a lot to do with its function it has a bottom and a back so that you can sit on it”

According to Aristotelian realism, the nine categories are not merely linguistic or mental constructs but are absolutely essential or real properties of things in themselves; this doctrine of realism about categories became one of the major bones of contention in subsequent philosophical tradition.

“he not only said that those were things you could say about things but they were things in the world themselves they were absolutely essential properties or not quite essential but nonetheless real properties of things in and of themselves and that doctrine of realism will become one of the major bones of contention in the subsequent philosophic tradition”

The idea that logical categories are properties of things themselves—that the structure of our logical analysis mirrors the structure of the universe—becomes one of the fundamental themes that will be attacked by Immanuel Kant, who argued that perhaps categories are merely up here in the mind and not out there in the world.

“that idea that there's a structure in the universe structure that is identical to it in our logical analysis becomes one of the fundamental themes that will be resolved uh or at least attacked by emmanuel kant khan's also believed there were categories but came up with the rather unique idea that you know what maybe those categories are just up here maybe they're not out there but until khan that remains an extremely problematic assertion”

Knowledge of matter is obtained through the senses (which apprehend physical substance), while knowledge of form is obtained through the intellect (which grasps the essential structure).

“how do you understand the matter of the world it through the senses interacts with your matter that's what apprehends the matter how do you apprehend the form well you've got the identical form structure up here so i look at you and i see the form of a man and that that sort of form jumps out goes through my eyes and connects to the form of man concept in my brain and i've got knowledge”

In Aristotle's critique of Platonic number theory, if the form of oneness and the form of oneness are added, they cannot produce the form of twoness (which is a totally distinct essence), yet in real arithmetic one plus one equals two; this logical contradiction shows the absurdity of Plato's doctrine of forms for mathematics.

“when we count platonic number theory we have the one which is totally distinct from the one in and of itself the form of oneness and now one plus one equals two but the form of oneness plus the form of oneness can't equal the form of twoness because it's a distinct essence so we count one two three in real arithmetic but in plato arithmetic we've got the form of oneness succeeded by something totally distinct and undivisible called the form of tunis”

The forms are the only thing we can have knowledge of because they are universal and eternal—unchanging and therefore stable subjects for knowledge—whereas particular sensible things are in constant flux.

“the reason they're the only thing we can have knowledge of is because they're universal and eternal they're unchanging therefore they're a stable subject matter”

All physical causation requires an external efficient cause, creating an infinite regress problem; therefore, there must be a prime mover—a first cause that initiates all motion without itself being moved.

“all cause must be induced by an outside agency unless it's teleological from within and clearly there is much physical efficient causation in the world...the problem is how did the first thing get started an infinite regress aristotle dismissed as completely illogical...it must have started something somewhere...if there's motion there must be a first mover a prime mover”

Inorganic matter like water lacks unity and primary being because it is scattered throughout the universe and only appears as particular chunks; true primary being requires the unified form of organic entities.

“this glass of water it's a chunk of an object the the object scattered throughout the universe called water right this is just a little piece of it in that sense it doesn't have a unity it has a plurality it's not primary being it's sort of secondary but in organic matter things which are congealed into particular sensibles they have primary being”

Aristotle first developed systematic biological taxonomy, placing animals and plants into genera and species—an innovation that remains important to modern biology.

“he was the first to taxonomize to place into genera and species the various sorts of uh animals and plants that we find but i want to argue that...he was far more interested in what we would call natural science than plato...his breakthroughs in biology remains to this day germane and important”

In biology, the form of an organism is defined by its function in life—the form of a heart is defined by what the heart does (pump blood throughout the body), not by any transcendent essence.

“we still believe in final causes in biology we define your heart for instance in terms of its purpose the end towards which it works it pumps blood throughout your body”

Aristotle rejects the Platonic doctrine that the sensible world is illusory—the sensible world is genuinely real, not a pale copy of eternal forms; banging your head into the podium produces a real headache, not the form of a headache.

“aristotle just repressed that intuition he was a scientific practical man he said no of course that's not true this is real what do we experience now every minute every day this isn't just some small piece of less than real being that participates in the eternal form of the being it's here you can't argue with it you bang your head into it you're not going to get the form of a headache you'll get a real headache”

The formal cause explains something by reference to its definition and essence—what makes a watch a watch is its form or essence, defined in terms of its structure and function.

“the first is what he calls formal explanation or formal cause and that's clearly a reference to plato one of the ways you explain something like say my watch is to say you define it what makes a watch right what's the essence of a watch”

Being is fundamentally characterized by unity—every actual entity exhibits the property of being a unified whole rather than a scattered plurality.

“aristotle claimed that the essential property of being was unity seems bizarre at first but if you think about it he's saying look everything you find in a way is a unity isn't it the human body has a particular shape and form it describes a unity if you cut off a hand or an arm there's something missing it's less unified”

Murray Gell-Mann, a physicist working on grand unified theory, stated that you will know when you have achieved the grand unified theory because the explanation will be incredibly beautiful and simple with almost no moving parts—an intuition reflecting Aristotle's view that simplicity and elegance indicate correct scientific explanation.

“a wonderful example of this i heard recently was listening to murray gelman about years or so ago gelman i think is actually pronounced who's a physicist he was talking about grand unified theory they're going to try and take all four of the fundamental forces in nature and reduce them to one and i asked him how will you know when you've got the grand unified theory because there's some people who believe super string theory is that and he said it's simple the explanation will be incredibly beautiful and simple there'll be almost no moving parts”

Aristotle's four causes—formal cause (essence/definition), material cause (physical substratum), efficient cause (agent of change), and final cause (purpose or end-state)—constitute the complete framework for explaining how things exist and change in the universe.

“the traditional place to begin in the discussion of aristotle's metaphysics is with what he calls the four principles of explanation... aristotle argues for a what we might call quadrapartite causal nexus basically says there's four ways you explain something the first is what he calls formal explanation or formal cause... then there's something he called the material cause... the third sort of cause is... the efficient cause... the last fourth part of the causal nexus is... the doctrine of final causality”

Things exist in different modes or categories—some exist as primary beings (complete, unified substances like myself or this lectern), while others (like the color of my clothing, the sound of my voice) exist only as accidents dependent on primary beings and lack self-subsistence.

“being of course refers to existence and aristotle was aware that we could talk about existence in a lot of different ways right i exist i'm a substance a primary being but uh by the same token there are other things that you could say exist about me for instance the color of my clothing the sound of my voice texture of my hair he says well now look which are primary beings and which are accidental to that primary being i'm the primary being the color of my clothing texture of my hair sound of my voice these are all accidents of my primary being”

Scientific explanation attempts to create simplicity by using the smallest number of moving parts to explain a phenomenon; the principle of parsimony (later articulated by William of Ockham as Occam's Razor) states that if two explanations equally account for phenomena, the one with fewer entities is better.

“think about scientific explanation it attempts to create simplicity to use the smallest number of moving parts to explain a phenomenon and the principle argues that and it will be articulate in the late medieval period by william of auckland something called occam's razor if we are both explaining a phenomena and you do it with five entities and i can explain it just as well before mine is the better explanation the less moving parts you need the better”

Aristotle distinguishes between inanimate objects (which change only through external efficient causation or gravitational teleology) and animate objects (which possess soul and can induce motion from within themselves without external winding or pushes).

“let's then begin with inanimate objects primary beings rockstones lecterns any change that they have can come in one or maybe two forms efficient change like locomotion right what is the cause of this thing's motion i throw it... and again we find this throughout our common lines right what causes the blender to go on you push the button what caused the light to go on you flick the switch it causes the car to accelerate you hit the gas pedal and that always requires an outside agency to induce the change right... but when we talk about animate objects things which are capable of self-induced motion right no one is winding me up back i'm going to show you i got no no wind up no one winds me up so i walk here like a little machine no efficient cause i do this on my own”

Plants possess only the nutritive soul, enabling growth and nutrition; animals possess both nutritive and sensitive souls, enabling growth, nutrition, movement, and sensation; humans possess all four types of soul—nutritive, sensitive, desiderative, and rational—placing us at the top of the scale of being.

“if you think about it plants only have the first soul but animals have both of the first two sorts of souls they both nutrient and move we have all four right we're the top part of being”

If forms exist in a transcendent realm separate from sensible particulars, as Plato claims, then it is impossible to explain change, because forms are eternal and unchanging while change is inherently transient, creating a logical contradiction.

“consider this as plato talks about things participating in the forms but things change is there a form of change forms must be eternal but change is transient so it is literally a priori from purely logical grounds impossible for there to be any change in the world in reality if the forms are separate from matter”

God, in Aristotelian thought, is not the active creator or causal agent like in Judeo-Christian tradition; rather, God causes motion by being the final cause—the object of desire toward which everything naturally moves and strives to emulate perfect being.

“aristotle thought that god because he's perfect doesn't create things or motion by pushing things around but rather teleologically everything desires perfect being god so he's the final cause of all activity everything occurs because he's trying to get in touch with god in some way that's the cause of motion in the universe that's slightly different than a christian notion”

Aristotle argues that God must be perfect in actuality and unchanging; if God were to think about anything external to himself, his mental state would change, and change implies imperfection; therefore, God can only think about himself—he is eternally self-contemplative and self-sufficient.

“now if you're perfect in selection what would you think about would you think about something like mud why waste your time thinking about mud you must be in the perfect state if you're perfect so you must be thinking about that which is perfect so then what really is god thinking about all the time well it turns out god's real narcissistic he spends all day sitting around thinking about himself right because he's the only thing worth thinking about... if he were to think of something else think about it as a soul what would he be doing he'd be changing mental states but if he's changing then he's not perfect because to be perfect is to be self-substance but change comes from outside so he can't think about anything else because if he did he would be self-subsistent and he wouldn't be god right so he has to just sit around all day and think about himself”