Aristotles Concept of Nature - Term Paper Example

When considering Aristotle’s concept of “Nature” (Physics) and “nature” (phusei), I will examine in this essay the co-relations between metaphysics and form (eidos) in order to understand the dualities inherent in Aristotle’s view of cosmology. Aristotle is not a pure materialist. He posits a philosophy where the world of forms (eidos) and ideas are mirrored in the physical world through the objects of existence, the transitional portion of this duality being Matter and substance (ouisa). Subsequently, I will also contrast Aristotle’s theory of four causes in Metaphysics with Plato’s philosophy of forms in order to illustrate the difference between the philosophies of the two, showing the important evolutionary link between the ideals. Where the fundamental rules and laws of Nature (“Physics”) operate through a logic and reason that is pre-determined in the metaphysical, we can trace this concept in Western thought to the teachings of Aristotle, viewing their reflection in the scientific method and democratic system of government as foundational to our lives, realities, and understanding. The first question I will address is ‘the conception of nature as a kind of cause in Physics 2.1’ which can be illustrated in the following quote by Aristotle: “Some of the things-that-are are by nature (phusei), but others are due to other causes [diallas aitias] [e.g. artifacts].” In Aristotle’s philosophy, which forms the basis of Greek humanism, there is a fundamental duality between “Physics,” the material world and the logic of its operation, and “Metaphysics,” what is beyond the material world and exists only in the mind- the world of ideas, concepts, and mental events- also containing a logic of operation. Aristotle treats these subjects in different works, so to focus on Physics without attending to his ideas in Metaphysics would not give us a complete view of his overall philosophy. The critical point here is to focus on how the terms are being translated from the ancient Greek, for in this case Aristotle is not introducing “Nature” as we understand it, meaning the natural world, the environment, creation, etc. as a kind of cause, he is introducing a type of “essence” or essential identity as cause through phusei. When we consider “nature” as cause in the sense it is posited by Aristotle, we should perhaps translate it as “natural essence” or “original essence” to come closer to the meaning the philosopher intended, which is also related to characteristic identity. With this statement Aristotle is positing that some of the “things” that exist in the world exist simply due to their own nature. What brings them into being is their self-essence, nature, or phusei. What is interesting here is that he contrasts this with “causes,” i.e. some objects or existent beings in the phenomenal world are brought into existence from “cause,” meaning that they were created rather than being self-originated. By establishing this fundamental duality between “nature” (phusei) and “cause” we can conclude that the reason Aristotle established this division was to posit that some nouns – persons, places, things - may come into existence uncreated, self-arisen, by their own essence or nature. If we apply this to the study of existent “things,” we can quickly see the importance of this distinction, because existent nouns contain both living beings, constructed objects, and places within the same category of what exists in the physical world. For Aristotle, form is but one cause of four, but by Plato the causes have been elevated to a universal determination. With this quote from Physics, I would like to begin my analysis of how Aristotle posited substance (ouisa) as deriving from nature, and nature deriving from form. [T4] "Having a Nature": Substances Have Natures A. (x)(x Has such a starting point (arche) --> x Has a Nature). B. Everything which Has a Nature is a substance [ousia]. [Note this leaves open the possibility of there being substances, ousiai, which do not have Natures, e.g. Aristotles god].” In this passage, we can detect two directions of the continuum of what Aristotle posits as “nature” (phusei). As Gérard Naddaf writes in The Greek Concept of Nature: “According to this theory, nature (phusis) is originally nothing other than the primordial matter (the four elements) – in sum, the temporal or chronological arche.” (Naddaf, 2005) In this way Aristotle explains nature as “Matter” by stating that anything formed by the combination of the four elements, and existing on that plane, is “Physics”, and has a nature or essence (phusei). Again, remember in the previous section Aristotle establishes that some existent things come into being from their own nature and here everything formed by the four elements also has the same structure of form, matter, and essence. He goes on to further state that everything that has a natural essence is also a substance, or essentially a part of the material world, and thus Aristotle is describing the characteristics of the larger “Nature” (Physics) through the smaller “nature” (phusei) and through that arriving at “substance” (ousia). If we are not concise in the translation of Greek philosophical terms into English, we can lose the subtlety of their connotation and even misinterpret the meaning. As Kelly Ross writes, “Aristotles terminology in these matters now looks a little confusing. The Greek word for ‘substance’ was ousía, from oûsa, the feminine participle of ‘to be’ (infinite, eînai). Thus, the word looks more like Latin essentia, ‘essence,’ which is from the infinite of ‘to be,’ esse.” (Ross, 2006) From this, we can see that substance (ousia) is the mirror of nature (phusei) in Matter, the way in which the metaphysical (as represented by the forms) build order and organization in the physical world through laws of existence and patterns of creation on earth and in Nature. It is through this then that Aristotle arrives at the characteristics and classification of the physical world. Yet, he also writes a separate treatise on Metaphysics, what goes beyond the material world or Nature. When Aristotle posits the primacy or priority of nature as form, we have to enter the world of metaphysics with its own logic of operations to understand this. “Just as [A] that which is in accordance with art [to kata technen) and/i.e. the arty [to technikon] is said art, so also [B] that which is in accordance with nature [to kata phusin] and/i.e. the natural [to phusikon] .” Aristotle writes in Physics, also: “Form is nature rather than matter is. For we call a thing something when it is that thing in actuality, rather than just possibility.” With this he is clearly uniting natural essence (phusei) with form (eidos) within the duality of the physical and metaphysical. At this point, I would like to compare how Plato and Aristotle differed on the philosophy of forms starting with the notes on Metaphysics published by Professor Van Hollebeke: “Plato’s Metaphysics Ultimate Reality is made up of eidos (Forms). The Forms are real and intelligible essences that are eternal, immutable, and perfect. The physical objects of the visible realm are ‘illusory’ because they only have a limited temporal existence. They can only be perceived by our senses. In themselves, they cannot be known intelligibly. ‘Things’ in the visible world only exists insofar as they ‘participate’ in the eternal forms. The visible realm is temporal, changing, imperfect, and composite or compound.” (Van Hollebeke, 2010) With Plato’s philosophy of forms, we have as a consequence a theory of existence where highest reality is given to the idea as a cause and not as a derivative of the diversity of forms in the material world. This represents the deification of the idea in late Greek philosophy and needs to be differentiated from Aristotle’s thought and teaching on the subject. While mainstream Western thought has accepted Plato’s view of Forms to a greater degree than Aristotle’s, we have to return to Metaphysics to see Aristotle’s original view and how it differs. Known as the ‘Theory of Four Causes,’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes this theory as relating to both of the works we have under discussion: “In Physics II 3 and Metaphysics V 2 Aristotle offers his general account of the four causes. This account is general in the sense that it applies to everything that requires an explanation, including artistic production and human action. Here Aristotle recognizes four types of things that can be given in answer to a why-question: The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue. The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue. The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child. The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools. All the four (types of) causes may enter in the explanation of something.” (Falcon, 2008) In Metaphysics, Aristotle discusses forms (eidos) as mediating reflections of the archetypes in the creation of physical reality. Fundamentally, because Aristotle valued rationality and archetype as primaries in his cosmology, he sees forms as more important than Matter in determining what nature (phusei) is in the world, for the logic of the psyche is always paramount. Matter itself is undifferentiated before the forms create the subjects and objects of nature. It is through mind that we perceive the forms, and thus mind is also the mediator between the metaphysical and physical worlds through understanding. In the question of pure Materialism vs, Aristotle’s duality of the physical and metaphysical, I would stand with Aristotle in valuing the exploration of the thought-forms, ideas, and archetypes in the metaphysical. I am not convinced of pure Materialism, for example the reduction of consciousness to an epiphenomenon of matter and a function of chemistry. I believe we must honor our oldest teachers like Aristotle and Plato by seriously studying their thoughts, ideas, and philosophy. The existence or appearance to exist of an idea is the strongest reason to consider the metaphysical, to value the world of ideas and the mind in the context of the long history of human culture. It seems too extreme to put one’s belief in a pure materialism, for without the metaphysical dimensions of mind we are limiting our own humanity and understanding. Sources: Falcon, Andrea. Aristotle on Causality. (First published Wed Jan 11, 2006; substantive revision Tue Apr 22, 2008), accessed Dec. 8th, 2010, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/. Naddaf, Gérard. The Greek concept of nature. (2005), accessed Dec. 8th, 2010, http://books.google.co.in/books?id=rGc32pRbj_gC&pg=PA33. Ross, Kelley L., Ph.D. Substance and Essence. (2006), accessed Dec. 8th, 2010, http://www.friesian.com/essence.htm. Van Hollebeke. Dr. Van Hollebekes Notes on Aristotle: Aristotle Metaphysics against the backdrop of Platos Metaphysics. (2010), accessed Dec. 8th, 2010, http://classes.seattleu.edu/philosophy/phil210/vanhollebeke/NotesOnAristotlesMetaphysics.htm. Read More