Aristotle’s (384-322 BC) was a polymath who studied at Plato’s Academy. He came to differ significantly from Plato in his approach and subject matter however, attributing much more importance to the empirical observation of the physical world than to an abstract, invisible, eternal world of ‘forms’. Forms for him did not exist in a realm apart, but are embedded in objects themselves. He is recognised for writings that spanned and made contributions to the natural sciences, linguistics, economics, politics and psychology as well as philosophy.
Interestingly Plato introduced a character called ‘Aristotle’ into his later dialogue, ‘Parmenides’, a dialogue that contains the most acute criticisms of the theory of ‘ideas’ or ‘forms’. Aristotle was himself already writing at this time and he too used the device of conveying his thoughts via dialogues. Moreover his initial excursions into philosophy took off from Plato’s analyses. His analysis of the soul for example echoed Plato’s notion that it is imprisoned in a body or ‘carcass’ and is capable of an altogether better life when disembodied. The dead are altogether happier than the living. Aristotle wrote: ‘it is best, for all men and women, not to be born; and next after that – the best option for humans – is, once born, to die as quickly as possible’. But as we shall see he moved on and away from Plato whilst always acknowledging a huge debt to his teacher.
In the compilation of his works known as the ‘Organon’, Aristotle is credited with the earliest systematic study of logic. Kant even claimed Aristotle had effectively wrapped up the study of logic, which was only to be enhanced further via advances in mathematical logic in the 19th century. Aristotle claimed there are three logical types of syllogism (or methods of argument). Perhaps the best known example of a syllogism is:
All men are mortal
Graham Scamber is a man
Therefore Graham Scambler is mortal.
Of course the mortal Aristotle was unaware of my future being. But much of what Aristotle saw as the province of logic we now see differently, for example as epistemology (involving the theory of knowledge) or metaphysics (involving the nature of reality or existence).
Aristotle wrote about ‘first philosophy’, an aspect of what we now call metaphysics. First philosophy involves the study of being qua being. This is opposed to studies of the likes of mathematics and the natural sciences. First philosophy involves the study of that which is eternal, unchanging, and immaterial. In his ‘Metaphysics’ he wrote:
‘if there were no other independent things besides the composite natural ones, the study of nature would be the primary kind of knowledge; but if there is some motionless independent thing, the knowledge of this precedes it and is first philosophy, and it is universal ‘in just this way’, because it is first. And it belongs to this sort of philosophy to study of being as being, both what it is and what belongs to it just be virtue of being.’
He refers to the concepts of ‘substance’ and ‘essence’. A particular substance is a combination of both matter and form (a theory known as ‘polymorphism’). Elaborating on this notion of substance, he argued that the matter of a house is the bricks, stones, timbers etc (or what constitutes the potential house), while the form of the substance is the actual house. Like Plato he was aiming at illuminating the ‘universal’. But while for Plato the universal is a real, separately existing form which particular things merely imitate, for Aristotle universals exist but are only encountered when ‘instantiated’ in a particular substance.
He also distinguished between ‘potentiality’ and ‘actuality’ in discussing the nature of change and its causes. His further distinguished between ‘coming-to-be’ (or genesis); (i) growth and diminution (involving changes in quantity); and (ii) locomotion (involving changes in space); and alteration (involving changes in quality). Back to potentiality and actuality. Potentiality is what a things is capable of doing or becoming in the absence of any impediments. Thus a seed has the potential to become a plant in the right circumstances. Potentially, beings can either act or be acted upon (which can be either innate or learned). For example, the eyes possess the potentiality of sight (innate – being acted upon), while the capability of playing the piano can be possessed by learning (practice – acting). Actuality is the fulfilment of the end of potentiality. Back to the house-building example for a moment. The matter used to construct a house has the potentiality to be a house and the form of the final house are actualities, which is also a ‘final cause’ or end. Aristotle concluded from this that actuality is prior to potentiality.
As far as science is concerned Aristotle All science, he argued, is either ‘practical’, ‘poetical’ or ‘theoretical’. Practical here covers ethics and politics; poetical covers the fine arts including poetry; and theoretical covers mathematics, physics etc. There is not space enough to do any kind of justice here to all of these, so I will restrict my comments to his theoretical analysis of causation and his ethics and politics.
Causation first. Aristotle delineated four types of causation or explanations as to why an object exists and changes. The first of these is the ‘material cause’. This refers to the material out of which an object is composed (eg the wood a table is made out of). The ‘formal cause’ is its form, or the arrangement of that matter (eg the design of a table, which is independent of the material it is made of). The ‘efficient cause’ is what he called the primary source, that is, the agent or agency behind particular events of states of affairs. And the ‘final cause’ is its purpose, the reason it exists or is done or the function it is supposed to serve. But Aristotle didn’t just develop a conceptual framework that influenced succeeding generations of scientists, he also conducted a large and influential body of observational research. This included comparisons of different animal species and there is just a hint of a neophyte theory of evolution.
Ethics for Aristotle was a practical matter aimed at becoming and doing good. It is not just about ‘knowing what is good’. In his ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ he argued that humans (must) have a function specific to them; and that this function (must) be an activity of the ‘soul’ in accordance with ‘reason’. He identified an optimum activity (the ‘virtuous mean’), lying between the vices of excess and deficiency of the soul. He called this ‘eudaimonia’, meaning happiness or wellbeing. A prerequisite of being happy in this sense is moral or ethical virtue or excellence. To achieve a state of virtue or excellence requires learning from teachers and experience, allowing over time for conscious choices to do the right things (becoming the ‘phronesis’ or virtuous person).
As for politics, Aristotle judged the city to be the natural or ‘basic’ type of community. It must be emphasised, however, that like Plato ‘he seemed to regard the division between master and slave as no less natural than that between men and women’ (see Kenny’s ‘Ancient Philosophy’). But he did dispensed with both Plato’s theory of ideas or forms, as we’ve seen, and the role Plato attributed to guardians or philosopher kings. He considered the city to be prior in importance to the family, which is in turn prior to the individual. ‘Man’ Aristotle famously wrote, ‘is by nature a political animal’; and humanity’s defining factor is its rationality. He thought in terms of the city, which he saw as functioning as a political community or partnership. The aim of the city is not merely to secure economic stability and avoid injustice, but to allow for some citizens at least to live a good life and to perform ‘beautiful acts’. The community is, or should be, oriented to noble actions, not simply about ‘living together’. Like Plato he was suspicious of democracy, but he differed significantly from his teacher in favouring a ‘mixed state’:
It is … constitutional to take … from oligarchy that offices are to be elected, and from democracy that this is not to be on a property-qualification. This then is the mode of the mixture; and the mark of a good mixture of democracy and oligarchy is when it is possible to speak of the same constitution as a democracy and as an oligarchy.’
It has only been possible in this abbreviated note to capture elements of Aristotle’s contributions to philosophy and to many other fields. I hope sufficient has been said to underline the remarkable reach of his interests and the originality and lasting impact of his writings. He has been considered a pioneer in a whole range of natural and biological sciences as well as in ethics and politics. He developed the ideas of his mentor Plato in different and novel ways. It has become customary to characterise these two as follows: Plato as idealistic, utopian and other-worldly, and Aristotle as realistic, utilitarian and commonsensical. But Kenny suggests that the doctrines these two had in common were more important than those that divided them. It is probably fair to maintain that Aristotle’s thoughts were originally mingled with those of his teacher and that a residue long remained, but that his contributions became more original and more clearly differentiated over time. The debate is ongoing.