Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:59 am Post subject: Aristotle.
What is Aristotle’s view of reality, and how does it differ from Plato’s?
Aristotle viewed realities as primarily "individual, sensible objects." He went into depth about properties, form and matter.
Form: consisting of the properties that make the thing what it is.
Matter: the subject for the form.
and i think that properties belong to the subject of the form or matter.
i'm not 100% sure on what properties directly apply to, but i know that they directly apply to SOMETHING, which makes them...important.
on the other hand, plato thought that reality "in it's perfect fullness" is possessed only by the eternal forms, and that objects exist only independantly.
i thnk i agree with Ari's definition more though, which was that to be real, something had to have "autonomous existance" which i take to mean that it's made of atoms, or molocules or something small, and that things are made of a respective amounts of those.
*Q*can anyone tell me what "eternal forms" are supposed to be? does that mean that they go on forever?
• What is the role of experience and logic in acquiring knowledge?
Aristotle described learning as a process of first experiencing something through one of the senses, and from there learning through experiance, sooo if you see a stove top and then you touch it and it burns you, in the future you stay away from stove-tops. I think something that isn't in the reading but i thought was pretty freakin cool was that
(context) the paper talks about analytical thinking and that after a while you recognize stuff and so you get comfortable with it. the other part of that is that the reason people may fear/be hesitant to deal with something may come from an inability to identify it? if you see something everyday then it's normal to you, but at one point in your life it wasn't so normal, and you had to learn it as being normal. at what point do people start recognizing something as normal?
I think Rachel put up these questions as more of 'guidelines' and that we can go off and talk about something else that isn't a qusetion already, so i'd like to talk/ask about Aristotle's whole view on order, and how he thought that everything was goal oriented. i think this is a load of crap, no offence to aristotle- and maybe i'm not interpereting it as he was intending to have it be interpreted. BUT! i've always heard that the world is a chaotic place, and that circumstances are unpredictable. does anyone else disagree with the "order" arguement?
Something i thought was really cool was the wet, dry, hot, cold concepts, which were demonstrated in the diagram on page 7, i like those 'elements' better than the ones we have now.
cool. so, if something doesn't make sense about what i just wrote, or you'd like some clarification...let me know. edeangelis@csw.org
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:27 am Post subject: Responses to questions; Aristotle and Darwinian Evolution
While I’m writing this, no doubt, someone else will post- For the record, I’m starting this at 7:55, when no one else has posted. So, if anyone gets questions up before I post this- I’m not responding because I’ve already written most of my post.
Aristotle rejected the idea that reality was a system of things derived from and dependant on others. It seems that Plato had argued that a world of eternal and perfect forms exists, which determines reality. Aristotle, in contrast, made physical objects and forces primary realities, breaking them up into form and matter. I wonder if this was in fact a novel idea at the time. It seems like common sense that reality is based on real objects. Plato’s idea of objective ideals seems highfalutin and conceptual, but believable; Aristotle’s idea (of independent objects relating to each other rather than the eternal) feels like a natural, intuitive way of viewing the world and not especially new or worth articulating. Am I missing the point? What was the historical context behind Aristotle- was he breaking new ground?
According to Aristotle, knowledge at its root was based on induction, but only made “real” by deduction. Still, knowledge could only be based on empirical facts. Even the most complex metaphysical thought was in fact a conclusion based on a series of empirical, inherently real observations. To build knowledge, one first had to perceive or observe, then remember information or “know” it. Finally, one had to analyze raw observational knowledge and draw conclusions, resulting in the ability to discern and define. So, nothing is actually “known” until it is translated from observation into synthesis- until we move from general truths to specific conclusions.
I was a little confused here. What did Aristotle use to prove or articulate these ideas? On what was he basing them? To use Aristotle’s language, the text we read seems to be all deduction and no induction- it tells us the conclusions the author has drawn from Aristotle’s work, and provides little of his core proofs, quotes, or thought processes.
The idea that knowledge is formed when we draw specific conclusions from general truths transitions nicely into Aristotle’s ideas about change. Apparently, Aristotle believed that a thing’s form changes as its matter remains. Change occurs as a potential being is affected into an actual being. The idea that because change is “confined to the narrow corridor connecting pairs of contrary qualities, order is thus discernable even in the midst of change” is a compelling one. It’s nice to think that we could, if we accounted for every single possible cause and effect, predict the future. It doesn’t, however, seem realistic at all. Even if it’s theoretically possible, its impractical to the point of impossibility. I bet the “art of prediction” will figure strongly in the course later on…. Hmm….
Sorry I’m rambling here. One last thing I want to mention that really surprised me was how close Aristotle came to theorizing about Evolution (i.e. Darwinian Evolution). The text established that Aristotle knew about documented adaptation in individual organisms. He even recognized that mammals had lungs and fish had gills because that is what their environment demanded. He established that “everything that comes into being must be made out of something, by something, and must become something. Why then did Aristotle not go on to conjecture that animals could change over generations according to their environment? It seems like a natural enough connection. Surely the idea that all things exist and change to fulfill a potential supports this. An emotion is a state of mind modified by stimuli; a baby is a modified egg and sperm cell- it seems that adaptation, natural selection, etcetera, were just around the corner for Aristotle. What do folks think about this?
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:48 am Post subject: Change
What stuck out to me the most was Aristotle's views on change. He had 3 different categories, nonbeing, potential being, and being. Perhaps a not so wonderful example would be moving from seed to sprout to vegetable. However, on page 6 the write stated "the change thus involves passage from potentiality to actuality-not from nonbeing to being, but one kind of being to another kind of being." This basically eliminated nonbeing from the picture. But later in the reading, on page 12 the writer also mentions that Aristotle believed "that the soul (including the human soul) is not immortal; at death the organism disintegrates, and its form evaporates into nothing." I think this is an inconsistency in his thinking. Take a tree, for example. It begins as a seed, becomes a sprout, and grows into a tree, but it doesn't stop there. It begins to disintegrate, decomposes and becomes fertilizer, food, or something of that sort. Although it's not in the same form, it very much continues to be.
Now to respond to the question posted about change...
Change is moving from one state to another, for example, hot to cold. The four different causes are formal (the action/ what will be changed), material (what is receiving that change), efficient (who or what is making that change happen) , and final (the purpose). They all play a role in what change is going to be made, why, and how the change is going to benefit the subject or something/someone else.
So I, like Will, began writing this when Liza’s post was the only one up. I know some of this is repetitive, but I’m really curious about it! So here goes…
I was particularly intrigued by Aristotle’s theories of being. He categorizes the ‘stages of being’ into three categories: nonbeing, potential being and actual being. At first I couldn’t see how something could be ‘potential being’ because if anything has potential, it must exist. So why isn’t it actual being?
A seed is used as an example for potential being, and a tree is the actual being that the seed could become. But then the definition of the seed is modified; it says that the seed is a form of being that could change into a different kind of being (tree). This leaves me with the same questions. It was even stated that the seed is a form of being. Is it classified as potential being because it is not as 'full of life' or 'in its full form'? Even so it still exists in a real way (in my opinion) I’m not sure whether I’m missing something completely or just don’t agree with this guy…if anyone has any ideas about this I’d love to hear them.
ALSO I’ve also never been able to understand the concept of nothing or non-existence. This is actually been something I have been trying to understand since the third grade and its overwhelmingly huge. To me, the theory of non-existence is just as strange and the theory of potential existence. How can you reason that something doesn’t exist if its not there to reason about? How can you put something in a category of non-existence if its not there to categorize?
I definitely think this packet is beginning to make my brain explode, but again, if anyone understands these concepts/think they make sense, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Liza- the properties are reffering to the traits of subjects that can not exist on their own but are necessary in order to define a subject. The properties need matter in order to make them real.
I'm also confused by the term 'eternal forms', i think it's referring to a being in its complete, final, and unchanging state
Focusing on the idea of order .. I don't believe that it is possible to define every natural object to have order. There is definitely a repetition of events, both naturally and historically that we interpret through studies and experimentation. The more we knowledge we attain about why something occurred in the particular way that it did, the more confident we become in predicting the outcomes of the next event. Aristotle believed that natural events repeat themselves through our knowledge of why they have occurred in the the past scientifically or historically. We don't have complete knowledge and reasoning about every single thing that occurs so it is impossible for us to assume that everything has order. Just because certain events and outcomes can be predicted and determined and reproduced through facts and knowledge, doesn't mean that everything is always and completely orderly.
Will- On the evolution point. Aristotle probably didn't have nearly the amount of factual evidence we have today on species.. like fossils and skeletons, or really any a clear collection of a species through its different stages of evolution that Darwin had to help him back up his theory. Even if Aristotle's idea that all things are made of/by something and become something connects to Darwin's evolution theory, he didn't have anywhere near the modernized scientific capabilities that Darwin was able to use. Aristotle did come surprisingly close to the basis of this theory, but would have needed far more information to make those kinds of connections.
I'd like to bring up a point in the Motion, Terrestrial and Celestial section.. when Aristotle claims that their is no motion without a mover.. What moves the mover? What would the source of movement that started everything in motion if nothing can move without a force that moves it.
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 7:52 am Post subject: My response
For the record, I started writing this at 9:23.
What is the role of experience and logic in acquiring knowledge?
I decided to focus on this because I was interested on how Aristotle defined knowledge. My personal belief on knowledge is that its acquired both through experience and by what our elders teach us throughout time.
As said on page 5, "It must suffice here to indicate that the process of acquiring knowledge begins with sense experience; from repeated sense experience follows memory; and from memory, by a process of 'intuition' or insight, the experienced investigator is able to discern the universal features of things." According to Aristotle, knowledge is first gained by something called "sense experience." What I wish to know is what he exactly means by "sense experience." My assumption is that he refers to experiences in which the five senses (touch, taste, sound, smell, and sight) are active. Correct me if I'm wrong. But based on that single assumption, it appears to me that knowledge is gained when the individual is active and using all of his/her instincts.
Again, on page 5, it says "But what we learn by this 'inductive' process does not acquire the status of true knowledge until put into deductive form; the end product is a deductive demonstration beginning from universal definitions as premises." This part I don't understand and would love the get a better idea of. If anyone could elaborate what he means by that, please share your opinions.
By looking at my definition of knowledge and comparing it with Aristotle's, I both agree and disagree with what he says. I agree that knowledge comes by experience, "sense experience" or anything of that form. To me, without the proper experience, one doesn't have any such insight or knowledge of a particular subject. For example, no one understands what it's like to be persecuted by another group of people without living through it. Yet I disagree with Aristotle because I also believe knowledge is also acquired from our elders. Our elders could be our parents, grandparents, teachers, relatives, etc. Aristotle doesn't say anything along the lines of acquiring knowledge from those older than us. However, I'm unaware of what Aristotle meant by the "deductive form." Potentially, he may have implied that. It is still unclear to me.
I would love to hear other people's opinions on this subject. If anyones wants to respond to my post, you can email me at hamee92@hotmail.com.
First off, I have a question about the three categories associated with being. With a potential being, does that mean that it is something that has the potential to become a being (a seed has potential to become a tree, a sperm and egg have potential to become a person, etc), or a being that could potentially exist (such as god, santa claus, bigfoot, etc), or is it just completely open ended and open to anyone's interpretation? Also with the concept of a "nonbeing" how can something be a nonbeing. Wouldn't the fact that something is something (a nonbeing) make it a being therefore making it impossible to be a nonbeing? Like Tasha, I have always been utterly confused by the concept of nothingness. Whenever I have tried to think about it in the past I have just made myself even more confused than when I started.
Aristotle's Orderly World, and the basic concept of change seemed sort of contradictory to me. For something to be following a known order, it seems like we (as philosophers/students/whatever) would need to know what the order was an order to identify it as an order. Before humans knew that a seed would change into a tree, or that anything would change into anything else, how would it have been possible to identify that and say "HA! Cause and Effect! that's following an Order" instead of just saying "that is a tree, that is a seed, there is no correlation between the two"
(I am sorry if this is confusing, after reading it over again, it makes it seem like I didn't know where I was going)
I found when writing this it was hard not to use circular language and repeat certain words, which in a way just seems to be the nature of the subject in general.
I don't think that plato's objective truths are as different from aristotle's matter as this reading and popular perception would have us believe. Fundamentally, distant objectivity and axiomatic inherent subjectivity are the same. The only real difference is that plato externalizes this duality whereas aristotle takes the cave metaphor and internalizes it. On a certain plane of interpretation this is a rudimentary alteration but it needs be identified as such and, at least from my point of view shouldn't be mistaken as a deep philosophical shift.
on a separate note, the part about the potentiality of change reminded me of the graviton, a theoretical point particle which represents the force of gravity or the change of an object from one place to another in actual elementary matter. In this way the change which gravity induces is represented in a more substantive form rather than just the relationship between two objects or the same object in two different phases. I made a corollary to the aristotle's potentiality defense, in that instead of the potentiality of an object being an internal attribute it could actually physically be represented externally. This is to say that aristotle might argue the earth in its orbit around the sun at any given time has the potentiality of gravity, that the change in its location from one day to the next is a manifestation of its potential, but an alternative contingency might state that the change in its location from one day to the next is a manifestation of an external entity. Not only would gravity be the cause of this change but the graviton would actually be a separate physical entity which was the very process of this change. A better example might be the quantum paradox that an electron moves from one orbit to another without ever being at any point in between. aristotle might defend this phenomenon with potentiality but theoretical science again postulates that there may be a separate physical entity which constitutes this transition, dark matter. This might make very little sense, but in essence im just comparing some of the paradoxes that aristotle encountered to current scientific paradoxes, and citing some of the theoretical solutions being discussed today.
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:54 am Post subject: Reality and change
Its funny how Aristotle was taught by Plato for twenty odd years, quite clearly the apprentice in the master-apprentice relationship, and then later in his life he goes against all these famous things his master said, a la Anakin Skywalker. Just a slight analogy. But anyway, trying to decipher what this genius said thousands of years ago left me like this for about an hour: , but i managed to grasp, at least a tiny bit, onto two important subjects for this forum discussion: reality and change.
reality:
Plato's theory about reality is a grounded one. These "external forms" the Plato mentions are, at least i think they are, either human beings or all living things, these forms that depend on nothing else to exist. The rest of the objects in the world are the opposite, they depend on the external forms to exist. So for Plato, theres no middle ground. its either exist through yourself, or exist through something else. However, plato also says that these external forms are the only perfect form of reality, which to me is simply wrong. Aristotle seems to agree with me on that, because he uses an external form (a dog) as something he cannot find the perfect form of. therefore, if an external form is not a perfect form of reality, then Plato's theory is null and void.
change:
Heres where i became genuinely interested, because ive never really thought deeply about change, ive sort of just accepted it. Plato said that the world is a changeless being that simply represents itself in a series of differentiating ways, like the world was putting on a series of masks, each one different than the last. if the world cannot be perfect, then the imperfection is what remains unchanged. Aristotle again disagrees with his master, saying that change is genuine and that every object can be subjected to change. He said that one form of an object could replace another one. immediately i thought of computer updates. i think we're on version 7 or 8 of itunes already! it made perfect sense to me. his schtick about dry or cold to hot or wet also made sense. to me, he was saying that theres always a drive, a reason, a purpose for change. when i wet my hands, its because i intended to change the form because i want my hands to become cleaner.
so all in all, one of the toughest readings ive ever tackled. reading everyone else's replies, i realize how ridiculously smart you all are. kudos. i look forward to expressing my confusions tomorrow, and to get back more questions than answers. i guess my quest to know WHAT IS TRUTH didnt get off to the greatest start.
DONE!!! AND ITS 10:54. 6 MINUTES TO SPARE MWAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:57 am Post subject: Aye! So late!
So... I'm about three pages away from finishing, and am feeling quite a bit confused with the earth/heavens stuff, but the first couple of questions I think I have a bit of a handle on:
What is Aristotle’s view of reality, and how does it differ from Plato’s?
So, from what I've gathered, Plato says that theres this dichotomy of the sensible vs. the realistic. The realisitc is made up of things that are "eternal"*, things, things that are totally independent in their existence. And everything in the sensible is just an artificial copy of forms taken from the realistic. The sensible, according to Plato, can't exist independently from their derivatives, and are all based off of "perfect molds" taken from the realistic.
ARISTOTLE, on the other hand, says that the traits that belong to things in the sensible realm are actually individual, and not based off of anything else. Consequently, these sensible, individual things become "the primary realities".
.... Now this is just me making connections so I might be wrong, but I think Aristotle claims this because in looking at the context of corporeal, sensible objects within a culture, you see their significance and individual traits.
(ring any bells from class? history being about context?!.. I don't know)
• What is change? What role do the 4 “causes” play?
So, in a similar vein, Plato said that change only occured when one artificial replica failed to do its job in the "changeless world of forms" that is the sensible world, but Aristotle took a less hostile position.
For me, two things were made clear about his beliefs on change.
1) Change came only from "privation". Which (cool word, right) basically means they only change when they really have to, and only to their opposites. Things change when their environment needs them to. This is in order to maintain a balance and a method within what seems purposeless change.
2)Although things change on occasion to accomodate their surroundings, their real substances do not. pg. 5 "Aristotle could make room for both change and stability by arguing that when an object undergoes change, its form changes (by a process of replacement, the new form replacing the old one) while its matter remains."
If you think about that in terms of human beings and other eternal things, it makes a lot of sense to me. We grow old and our bodies change in different ways, but that doesn't ever change our essence. Okay its 10:55 I have to post.
*OH, and to you guys confused about 'eternal forms', from the little I know about Socrates, Plato's mentor, I THINK eternal forms are things that cannot be artificially created or destroyed.. so.. things found in nature. i believe.
[/list]
a very quick add on here before the deadline about the 3 types of being, which again, make a lot of sense:
if i am, in my childhood, potentially a man, yet actually a child, am i potential being and actual being at the same time? ah well, questions, questions.
as for the "nature" of objects, it seems like....well....kind of a cop out of an answer really. why did the acorn grow into a tree? because thats it nature. it felt like he was just saying "go little acorn, it is your destiny to become a tree, so do it!". but here i am rambling again. goodnight everyone.
Posted: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:00 am Post subject: tis a response of my making
Alright so I have not read all of the other peoples posts, but I read some and I think that at least a few people were confused on the same things I was confused on. For instance, I am very confused on what Plato's take on reality was and what his philosophy was like in general. Someone may have answered this, but what exactly does eternal forms actually mean and what does Plato mean when he says that "Reality in its perfect fullness, is possessed only by the eternal forms" Overall Aristotle was a lot easier to understand than Plato, because as the book said many of his theory's and explanations were based on common sense. That leads pretty nicely into the first question:
What is Aristotle's view of reality and how does it differ from Plato's?
Aristotle seemed to have a much orderly and sensible way of thinking of reality than Plato did. Plato saw reality through his theory of forms which appeared to believe that all sensible things were dependant and that things that were actually "reality in it's perfect fullness" were eternal forms (which I thought at first to mean things that were like the original copies of the things that came from them, but that started to confuse me when I tried to thing of something that didn't originate from some other subject). At any rate Aristotle simplified reality in a way by saying that sensible objects have an autonomous existence. Each sensible object has matter and form, where all matter has form; or you could say all subjects have properties. However, these are not really separate they are actually one in the same. While Plato’s reality was that of the eternal forms, Aristotle’s reality was that of individuals. I really liked how Aristotle described the world because it is something that you know but you never really think about, like how ever thing is basically a noun (or subject) which some adjectives attatched to it (the form). I think it just got even more interesting when he started talking about change, but I also think I got a little mixed up when he started talking about the nature of things. This leads happily into another question.
What is change? What role do the 4 "causes" play?
There were two sections that I found especially interesting in the change section. First the discussion on being on nonbeing and how change was thought to be more than just this. Aristotle breaks the stages of being into just three parts that make a lot of sense. nonbeing, potential being, and actual being. I thought this interesting mainly because I could connect back physics and how potential energy is still actually called just that: potential energy. It also still has the same meaning as potential being has: potential energy is just that energy that has the potential to be used, or acted upon but has not been yet. The second part that was really interesting to me was the cause part. Like the nonbeing, potential being, and actual being bit these causes break down change into orderly parts and put things into a certain place that fits pretty naturally to any situation (at least that's what the reading says). In general I find the world to be pretty random and chaotic when I try to sort it out in my mind (like liza said earlier), but I always am able to find some sort of order to the world in little bits of my life and these points that Aristotle make just continue to point out how orderly the world can be. It may not order out coincidences and luck, but it gives a structure to things that at first glance don't seem to have any structure at all. This whole reading was all about how aristotle used his "art of prediction" to put the world into an order that worked, but still didn't totally stop it (which I think Plato does when the packet mentions he thinks the world is changeless, which it so is not; I may be misinterpreting his words, but I do not like Plato so far).
Holy moly that was mildly dense.
@ Isaac--I think he was talking about potential being like the seed/tree thang
The fact that it began by talking about how Aristotle/Plato’s views differed threw me off for the rest of the reading:
I think Plato believed that everything only exists as a sort of amalgamation/collage of previous things, that nothing is original, because it’s impossible for something to be created out of nothing. Everything, in terms of material things, ideas and life forms only exist as a product of something else. This is all fine and good, and makes enough sense, if I’m interpreting it correctly. But then the text was like “oh Aristotle disagreed because he thought everything just existed as its own independently functioning, independently-created thing”. I’m confused because a. this contradicts everything Aristotle says about events and knowledge being dependent and intent-oriented. B. the text decided to provide little commentary being like “Aristotle makes more sense to people now a-days than Plato’s whole co-dependent thing” because it resonates with me really well that I, like this moment in history, am an amalgamation that’s never been made before, but I’m also made up of my mom and dad’s genes and they were made up of theirs and so on and so forth. Though I guess nowadays we do have the periodic elements, which do exist in themselves. (In addition, I mean nothing without my comparative surroundings…I’m stopping before this becomes an incoherent tangent. Sorry if it’s too late)
On that note I thought it was interesting that Aristotle held essentially the same beliefs in his scientific realm and sort of conceptual/historical realm. For example , the belief that “motion is never spontaneous—there is no motion without a mower”, which was [the text’s metaphor for] Aristotle’s theory of motion/physics-y things, was soo similar to {the text’s metaphor for] his theory of intent/nature being goal oriented“it is is not possible to grasp why a saw is made as it is without knowing the function the saw is meant to serve…the purpose of the saw determines the material of which it must be made” (pg 7)
I think most of Aristotle’s ideas in this thing were generally stated enough that the reader could have applied them to matter or people/history. I found it easier to plug the conceptual language into the example of history. For example, the thing about how there’s no such thing as empty space. You could have interpreted that as “there’s no such thing as lack of matter because even holes in the loaf of bread are occupied with air”. But it’s also interesting to think about in terms of history and how there’s never a time period where literally nothing happens. There’s never an action that doesn’t affect something else.
@Tasha/Sasha—I actually do think intent/goal oriented action plays a huge part of most of everyday life. My post is too long already, but I’ll expand in class
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
, but i managed to grasp, at least a tiny bit, onto two important subjects for this forum discussion: reality and change.
