Aristotle

How is Aristotle different to Plato?

He emphasises the value of empirical study and what we can learn from observation. He rejects Plato's Theory of Forms, he didn't believe in another Realm beyond this world, because of a lack of empirical evidence.  He argued that Forms can only exist as a part of things in this world, as nothing can exist outside of this world. He rejects dualism and Plato's understanding of the soul, and wrote from a perspective of materialism. Dualism - belief in the separation of the mind/soul and body and that the soul lives on after the physical body diesMaterialism - belief that the mind/soul is an extension of the body, and thus cannot live without it 

f87060b4-9de7-4226-8a50-84341d755b0a (image/jpg)

Caption: : In Raphael's painting, 'The School of Athens', Plato and Aristotle are depicted in discussion. Plato has his feet facing forward, and his hand is pointing upwards, which represents his rationalist perspective that the real world is an imperfect imitation of the Forms. Aristotle has his feet flat on the ground, indicating all around. This represents the value he places on empirical knowledge, as he believes the senses are the key to knowledge.

The Theory of Forms

As a materialist, Aristotle believed there could not be a world outside of the physical world we can actively experience.  He believed that whilst the Forms do exist, they exist as a part of the objects themselves. He believed existence is comprised of two elements, Form and matter. The Form of an object is its specific characteristics, whilst the matter is the substance something is made out of. The matter can come together to make a variety of different objects without changing, but the Form does change. e.g.) A chicken is made out of a variety of different matter - different cell types. Its characteristics (e.g. clucking, laying eggs, etc.) make it a chicken. When it dies, it becomes a dead chicken - the matter is maintained, but the Form has changed. 

5155f3de-54b1-4a44-ad82-66ef582a51d1 (image/jpg)

Change

Aristotle was interested in the way that things change. Some things undergo irreversible change (e.g. wood being burnt to ash). In these cases, the formal cause describes a new type of being. Other changes concerning quantity, decay or place can be reversed but the formal cause remains the same.  Things which achieve their full potential are said to be fully actualised and to have achieved their telos (purpose). This is called flourishing or eudaimonia. Aristotle believed that humans flourish when they lead virtuous lives because this leads to happiness. 

Aristotle categorised different substances, many of which are brought about or changed by the four causes.  He believed there were three types of substances; Substances which are evident but will decay/die (e.g. plant or animal) Substances which are evident, but will not decay/die or change (e.g. time) Substances which are immune to change (e.g. the number 7 will always be the number 7 and never anything else) Aristotle believed that all things were caused to exist and some things will be caused to change (potentially to actuality) by the four causes.

Potentiality and Actuality

Aristotle argued that everything had to be caused by something else. But he argued that this couldn't be an infinite chain of cause and effect. Everything that exists is in a permanent state of motion or change. If something can change, it exists in one actual state and has the potential to become another state. e.g) an actual child is a potential adult Artistotle found out; The physical world is constantly in motion. The planets seem to be moving eternally. Change or motion is always caused by something. Objects in the world are in a state of potentiality and actuality. He concluded from these observations that there must be something that causes change without being moved and the thing is eternal. To start the processes of motion off, Aristotle theorised that there must be a being that has no potential, but is fully actualised. 

15f18750-f731-446b-b967-3ac3d8d803e0 (image/jpg)

Caption: : "Everything that exists has a cause and effect." - Aristotle

The Prime Mover

This is something that causes the motion and change of the universe without being moved and is eternal. The PM is linked with some of the qualities we would expect God to have. Aristotle reasoned that the Prime Mover can only think about itself. If the Prime Mover was able to think about something else, it would cease to be perfect as it would be taking on human characteristics, which are flawed. The Prime Mover is the horizontal and vertical cause of the universe. The horizontal or linear cause is what started the chain of cause and effect. What caused the first change in the universe must be separate from the thing being effected by the change. This has to be the Prime Mover. The vertical or ultimate cause is an explanation of why things exist. This is similar to the final cause of the universe. The vertical cause is necessary, or nothing in the universe would exist. This is also the Prime Mover, as the PM is the horizontal cause that existed before the universe began. Aristotle stated that all matter must have form, with the exception of the Prime Mover. Aristotle concluded that the Prime Mover must be a 'supreme object of desire' or the greatest thing that could possibly be. It is similar to the God of classical theism, in that it has the best possible characteristics. 

FPING ILIFE (Properties of the Prime Mover)Final cause - PM made the first cause of everything, and is the end to which all matter is moving and aspiring. Perfect - doesn't change, no need for improvementImmutable - must be constant to be goodNecessity - PM must existGood - something that is eternal must be good, limitation or change is bad, because there was room for improvementImmaterial - doesn't have a physical body, otherwise PM could potentially change, PM cannot change, so PM cannot have a physical body.Leader of the universe - causes order in the universeIntelligence - only role is to think about itself, can only do intellectual and non-physical activities (impersonal)Full actuality - if PM had potentiality, that would mean it was capable of change, and therefore no longer the PM. The PM therefore has no efficient cause or telos. Eternal - unlimited - links to goodness of PM

What's the difference between God and the PM?

God is... A Christian and Jewish deity. Perfect. Eternal. Transcendent. Spiritual being. Creator. Immanent. Omnibenevolent. Omniscient. Prepared in having a plan for our lives.

The Prime Mover is... A cause of the universe not associated with any religion. Perfect. Eternal. Transcendent. Immaterial. Cause of the universe. (affected pre-existing matter) Impersonal. Unaware of the universe. Intelligence itself. Unable to know the world or have a plan for the lives of believers.

Why is the Prime Mover necessary?

There must be a common source of all things. There must be something that is not subject to change, decay and death or the entire world would be subject to these three things. Time is not subject to change or decay and cannot die, so there must be something that is constant within the universe. If there is a potential eternal substance, then an eternal world is necessary. Aristotle reasoned that the world is both eternal and actually necessary. For an eternal world to be necessary, the eternal substance (PM) must be actual, not potential, otherwise the universe would cease to be. In this case, the eternal substance acts as the efficient cause of a necessary world.

0c21f712-db98-4108-9654-82c398659167 (image/jpg)

Caption: : "There is in fact something that moves, without itself being moved, existing in activation, and this does not admit of being in any way in another state." - Aristotle

Four Causes

He thought that every single thing that is actualised has four causes of existence. Aristotle's Four Causes are used to explain why things exist they way they do.Material Cause - the matter or substance something is made ofEfficient Cause - the cause of an object or thing existing (How did it come about or happen?)Formal Cause - the form, structure and characteristics of somethingFinal Cause - the reason why something is the way it is - what is its purpose?Material = matterEfficient = sourceFormal = formFinal = purpose

Example: Michelangelo's DavidMaterial: marbleEfficient: Michelangelo sculpted itFormal: in the shape of DavidFinal: to depict the figure of David in marble (perhaps for money) Example: houseMaterial: bricks, mortar, roof tiles, glass windows, wooden doorEfficient: someone building it: bricklaying, tiling roof, etc.Formal: four walls, roof or the architect's plan for the design of the houseFinal: people living in it, providing shelter 

Strengths of Aristotle

His theories appeal to or experience of cause and effect in the universe. Aristotle relies on the study of the natural world which we are able to experience. This is strong in comparison to Plato's forms which cannot be observed. The four causes can readily be applied to things that exist within the world as a way of explaining them. The Prime Mover idea influenced the early thinking about the nature of God. Aristotle conquers the problem of infinite regression, which some find to be logically incomprehensible. 

Criticisms of Aristotle

If the PM is unable to do physical activities because of a lack of a physical body, then surely this is a limitation, so the PM cannot be unlimited. If human's purpose is to be like the PM, and the PM's only role is to think about itself, then is it right to selfish? This contrasts with the idea of Eudaimonia, (virtue leading to happiness). The relationship between the PM and the universe is unclear, as is the idea that the PM causes things to happen by 'thinking.' The PM is transcendent, and thus unable to interact with the world in the way believers often talk about God's activity in the world.  The PM is also perfect, so it is only able to think about itself and can have no part in our lives. As such, the PM seems very unloving and distant - would the cause of the universe really be like that? What moved the Prime Mover? RESPONSE - The PM is unique, because it is the one thing that does not require something to act on it. Richard Dawkins would also dispute the purpose of the universe, as there is no clear thing that the universe is supposed to do. Where did the matter in the universe come from? Aristotle disregards 'spiritual or intuitive knowledge' as unreliable, and confines us to the scientifically demonstrable. Aristotle's writings are difficult to read and follow, whereas Plato's dialogues are clear. What about the things in the universe that have no purpose? Or a negative purpose? e.g. what purpose does cancer serve? to replicate as quickly as possible?

e639abb3-4bc6-42a1-b0be-eb966658d06f (image/jpg)

Caption: : "Existence of the universe is a 'brute fact' requiring no final cause." - Bertrand Russell argued that the universe could just exist and that having a purpose for existence was not necessary.

Influence on Christianity

His ideas on the PM influenced the development of Christian philosophy and the arguments for the existence of God. There are many similarities between the PM and God, and some even believe it is God. The PM theory influence medieval thinking about God, as an immortal and eternal being.  Aristotle's philosophy is used to explain Roman Catholic beliefs about the presence of Jesus in the bread and wine in the Eucharist service.  The idea of life after death supports Christian beliefs about the afterlife.