ARISTOTLE S METAPHYSICS February 5, 2016
METAPHYSICS IN GENERAL Aristotle s Metaphysics was given this title long after it was written. It may mean: (1) that it deals with what is beyond nature [i.e., natural things] in its subject matter, or it may mean (2) that it is what Aristotle taught after the Physics. One reason to think it may have the first meaning: Deals with Being qua being and the properties of being in its own right. We re still looking for highest/first principles, just like the Presocratics were with the elements. For Aristotle, the elements of being, and its causes, are not coincidental, but necessary, in the sense that they have to do with being itself, not with coincidental features of beings. What are the four causes Aristotle develops?
THE FOUR CAUSES, AGAIN The four types of causes developed in the Physics are also mentioned in the Metaphysics. Here, Aristotle tells us, they are: 1. Formal: One of these, we say, is the being and essence; for the reason why is traced back ultimately to the account, and the primary reason why is the cause and principle. 2. Material: Another is the matter and subject. 3. Efficient: A third is the source of the principle of motion. 4. Final: The fourth is what something is for, i.e. the good-the opposite to the third cause, since it is the end of all coming to be and motion. We have studied these causes adequately in our work on nature. Still, let us also enlist those who previously took up the investigation of beings and pursued philosophical study about the truth; for it is clear that they also mention causes and principles of some sort.
ARISTOTLE S INTERPRETATION / RECAP OF THE FIRST PHILOSOPHERS Most of the first philosophers, then, thought that the only principles of all things were material. (983b7) Why? But they do not all agree about the number or type of this material principle. Who are the philosophers Aristotle has in mind? Thales Anaximenes and Diogenes Hipassus and Heraclitus Anaxagoras Hesiod(!) Parmenides Leucippus and Democritus Plato
ARISTOTLE S INTERPRETATION / RECAP OF THE FIRST PHILOSOPHERS What does Aristotle say about Thales: The first cause/principle is water. Anaximenes and Diogenes Air is prior to water, and also the primary principle of all the simple bodies. Hipassus and Heraclitus Say the same as Anaximenes and Diogenes, but about fire. Empedocles The four bodies are principles. I.e., the three above plus earth. Anaxagoras Principles are unlimited (apeiron). Anaxagoras, for instance, uses mind as an ad hoc device for the production of the universe Aristotle stops here and notes that If one went by these views, one might judge that the material cause is the only sort of cause.
ARISTOTLE S INTERPRETATION / RECAP OF THE FIRST PHILOSOPHERS He says, But as people thus advanced, reality itself showed them the way and compelled them to search. For however true it might be that all coming to be and perishing is from one (or more than one) thing, still, why does this happen, and what is the cause? And to search for this is (in our view) to search for the second principle-the source of the principle of motion. What does Aristotle say about Parmenides none managed to notice this <second> cause, unless Parmenides did; he noticed it only in so far as he posited not only one cause, but also in a way two causes. Hesiod (!) He assumes that there must be some cause among beings to initiate motion in things and to bring them together. Leucippus and Democritus the elements are the full and the empty, and that, of these, the full and solid is what is, and the empty is what is not. That is why they also say that what is is no more of a being than what is not, because body is no more of a being than the empty is. They take these to be the material causes of beings. Leucippus and Democritus take the differentiae to be the causes of the other things. They say, however, that there are three of these differentiae-shape, order, and position. For they say that what is is differentiated only by rhythm, touching, and turning. Plato he was seeking the universal in ethics and was the first to turn his thought to definitions Since the Forms are the causes of other things, he thought that their elements are the elements of all beings. It is evident from what has been said that he used only two causes, the cause involving the what-it-is and the material cause; for the Forms are causes of the what-it-is of other things, and the one is the cause of the what-it-is of Forms.
ARISTOTLE S CRITIQUE OF PLATO S FORMS Further, none of the proofs we offer to show that there are Forms appears to succeed; for some of them are invalid, while some also yield Forms of things that we think have no Forms. And in general the arguments for Forms undermine the existence of things that matter more to us than the existence of the Ideas does. (990b) Further, it would seem impossible for a substance to be separate from what it is the substance of. How, then, if the Ideas are the substances of things, could they be separate from them? (991b) The mistake everyone before Aristotle has made: In general, it is impossible to find the elements of beings without distinguishing the ways they are spoken of, since in fact beings are spoken of in many ways. It is especially impossible to find them if we search in this way for the sorts of elements that compose beings. For what elements compose acting or being affected or the straight? Presumably these cannot be found; at most the elements of substances can be found. Hence it is incorrect either to seek the elements of all beings or to think one has found them. Is he right? Where does that leave us?
ARISTOTLE S METAPHYSICAL PLURALISM In every case the dominant concern of a science is with its primary object, the one on which the others depend and because of which they are spoken of as they are. If, then, this primary object is substance, the philosopher must grasp the principles and causes of substances. (1003b15) There are as many parts of philosophy as there are <types of> substances, and so there must be a first philosophy, and a second philosophy following it; for being is divided immediately into genera, which is why the sciences will also conform to these. (1004a2) It follows that there are as many species of being as of unity. Hence it is a task for a science that is the same in genus to study the what-it-is about these species-for instance, about same, similar and other such things. (1003b19) Aristotle s criticisms of previous philosophers and their attempts to offer single or dual first principles/causes of things have led him to develop a complicated view of science. How might we characterize Aristotle s philosophical method (as opposed to those who came before him)?
ARISTOTLE S SCIENTIFIC METHOD And so we should first distinguish how many ways each thing is spoken of, and then show how each of the things we have distinguished is spoken of with reference to the primary thing in each predication; for some things will be spoken of as they are because they have that primary thing, others because they produce it, others in other such ways. The mistake of those who currently consider these questions is not that they fail to practice philosophy but that, although substance is prior, they comprehend nothing about it. (1004b9) This also makes it evident, then, that it is the task of a single science to study being in so far as it is being; for all things are either contraries or composed of contraries, and unity and plurality are principles of the contraries. (1005a) Clearly, then, it is the task of a single science to study both being in so far as it is being and also the things that belong to it in so far as it is being. What might this mean, given Aristotle s view of substance?
PHILOSOPHY VS. OTHER SCIENCES What is the task, or the science, of the philosopher? Evidently it is also the task of one and the same science-the philosopher's-to examine [axioms and substance], since these belong to all beings and are not distinctive of one genus in separation from the others. (1005a25) In fact, however, there is someone still higher than the student of nature, since nature is only one kind of being; and so investigating these axioms will also be a task of this universal scientist, the one who studies primary substance. (1005a35) Clearly; then, study of the principles of deductions is also a task for the philosopher-i.e. for the one who studies the nature of all substance.
SO, HOW HAS PHILOSOPHY PROGRESSED? The firmest principle of all is one about which it is impossible to be mistaken. Let us next say what this principle is: that it is impossible for the same thing both to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect (1005b20) So we seem to have reached a conclusive end to the Ancient Greek search for principles, and the development of distinct methods of philosophy and science. We began with Thales and a desire to understand the natural world in a way that is available to everyone. This leads to a search for a foundational principle or principle which we already understand, and which could allow us to understand everything else. But each successive attempt to do this runs into issues. The earliest presocratics seem to offer absurdly reductive accounts of things in terms of one of the four elements. Heraclitus and Parmenides run into paradoxes. Plato s theory of Forms seems to make reality separate from our ordinary experience of things. Aristotle takes himself to have conclusively developed a solution to all of these. Does he succeed? Why / Why not?