Aristotle Part Two

Sometime used it as though it referred to some diety directing the world of coming to be and passing away.

What he definitely believes in are things which "exist by nature" - which he defines as things which have "within themselves" a principle of change or resistance to change - that principle is their nature, and each thing has its own.

Identify it with the basic constituents of the thing.

Identify it with the "form" of the thing.

X

Required for change. Acts as a subject first (in the case of coming to be) for the lack of certain features or organization and at the end for those features and organization which turn the substratum into a definite type of substance.

In a statue:

Form: Shape

Matter: Clay or bronze.

Composite/Synolon: The combination of form and matter. All the world is full of such composites. Their composite nature is what allows them to undergo processes of development and decay.

We would not say we had an artistic creation until the materials has been given form. So we should not say we have natural substance until form is present.

Things exist more when they are completely realized than when they are only potential.

Form is what natural things tend to reproduce, not matter.

First phil. treats forms (minds) that exist independently and separately from matter.

Math treats forms that can be defined and thought of in separation from any kind of material realization.

Physics treats things where the material realization has to be part of the account of the thing. It deals with the composite. E.g. Full definition of a natural substance must mention the material and not just the form - like 'snub' (concave and nose)

Artefacts: the reason they exist is some feature which has been given to some material subject. Aristotle thinks natural substances are analogous.

The forms are equated with the essences of composite substances - they are what primarily makes the things be the sort of thing it is.

Each individual concrete substance has its own form, so there are many individual forms within the same species.

The individual forms within the same species differ from each other by belonging to different batches of material constituents.

Minds, and divine in the sense of being beyond any process of coming to be or passing away.

The underlying subject that persists through the process of change. It is required for coming to be and passing away.

What constitutes the matter will vary with what is coming to be: in a human, it may be coming to be learned, in the case of a house, timbers and bricks.
Unqualified coming to be also requires a persistent subject. If it is materials (in the case of a house) then those materials can also be worked back to basic elements.

What, then, is the persistent subject in each case?

X

What is responsible for something (broader meaning than cause). Think of it as an explanation, not in some written or spoken discourse but in the sense of the reality which explains something.

Similar to the word arche, meaning source or origin.

The 'that out of which' or 'material cause'": constituents out of which something comes to be and which persist in it. (Explain some features)

The 'shape' or 'essence' and commonly called 'formal cause': the form and pattern of a thing; what we describe when we give the definition of it.

The "from which" or commonly called "efficient cause": the principle that starts and directs some process of change. What brings something about. (Sculptor: Sculpture)

The ;that for the sake of which' or commonly called 'final cause': that for the sake of which something comes about. This leads to teleological explanations.

Absolute: sort exhibited by mathematics and the movements of the heavenly bodies.

Hypothetical: x has to exist if we are to have y.

Hypothetical.

Function.

No. Things happen regularly, and chance does not result in regular combinations.

Thinks most plausible approach is to posit the existence of something in the process of reproduction which is working toward the definitive features of the species toward an end.

Thinks nature proceeds as an artist would. Encourages him to think there is something analogous here between nature and art.

No. Animals act for the sake of some end but do not deliberate.

Art acts for an end and it does not deliberate (refers to the way an artist acts intuitively).