Jean Aristotle’s Empiricism, Essay Example

Aristotle

Aristotle was philosopher from Stagira, a town in Macedonia who lived from the year 384 to 322 BCE.  Macedonia was a large Greek country in the north of the city states that included Athens and Sparta.  During his early life at the age of 20s and 30s, Aristotle was a student Plato in Athens during.  However, in his 40s Aristotle went back to Stagira where he became the tutor of Alexander the Great while Alexander was a boy (Gendlin, 2012).Aristotle returned to Athens when Alexander took over the thrown, and started his own school, The Lyceum, which competed with Plato’s Academy. Aristotle and his teacher Plato shared a common agreement that a good life was comprised of wisdom and virtue that is commonly perceived as the life of a philosopher according to the opinions that they held. Although they shared a common path of thought with regard to their philosophical understanding of good life, they had very different interpretations of what constituted wisdom and virtue. On one hand, Plato identified that wisdom was based on a collection of universal, eternal, unchanging forms and associated reality to other forms of worldly metaphysical. On the other hand, Aristotle associated wisdom with an observation of daily occurrences in the world with regard to specific temporal and rapidly changing objects. For example, Aristotle presented the notion of substance as the concept that served as the basis for much of his philosophical system. According to Aristotle, substance was not perceived as universal but as a particular. According to the arguments of Aristotle, substance is neither in nor is it said of a subject as is the case with qualities. Rather it is that which makes the subject numerically one as well as what makes the subject the individual.

Main philosophical ideas of Aristotle

So Aristotle was firm in objection the other-worldliness that was associated with Plato and constructed his theories based on his experiences in the material world. He approached his theories from the biological perspective.  The foundation of the theories that were postulated by Aristotle involved carefully calculated observations and the reasonable truths that were associated with the theories.

Aristotle was persistent on the classification of the universals as substances; for they attempted to offer a definition what comprised of the substance (De Groot, 2014).Aristotle argued that, in the absence of such universals, a substance would not be what is. Aristotle documented four characteristics that are associated with substances. The first one is that, a substance is a ‘this’ and not a qualification or a ‘such’ which is applicable in stressing individuality. The second feature of a substance according to Aristotle is that a substance has no contraries to it that means that, there exist no opposites of a substance. The third feature that Aristotle attributed to a substance it does not admit more or less. This consequently infer that there lacks substantial degrees of a substance. Finally, Aristotle postulated that, a substance can admit contraries while remaining numerically one (De Groot, 2014). Aristotle also uses physics in his explanation of his philosophy where he addresses that which constitutes natural objects as substances. In this regard, Aristotle suggests that all natural substances are made up of both matter and form. Aristotle argues that, matter implies the source of the substance while form is taken to imply to that into which the matter develops. The perception of Aristotle in regard to the everyday commonsense world was a reality and the deeper structure of this world was the cause of his greatest interest. According to Aristotle, the deeper structures of the world “could not be observed in a direct manner, but instead, it was anticipated to be inferred” from the common observation that man makes. Aristotle also argued that people are associated with an extremely sturdy, deep desire to acquire know as well as an understanding of the world and the place of humans in the world just like a primal drive.

Aristotle attributed this to a practical and scientific knowledge but continued to argue that, man has currently valued practical knowledge over wisdom was called scientific knowledge by Aristotle. Based on the viewpoint of Aristotle, “it is exclusively through wisdom that the deepest desire can be satiated and only its possession can make man truly happy.”

According to Aristotle therefore the efforts of human involve trying to be happy. The good life therefore implies to a life of happiness. Aristotle suggested that, such a life can be achieved by excellence in two areas of virtue, that is, the intellectual as well as the moral. First, it is prudent to analyze the concept of moral virtue in order to gain a deeper understanding of the notion of that is associated with intellectual virtue. According to Aristotle, the life that entails moral virtue is not perceived as an exact science but a life that is marked by moderation. This theme was a common feature among majority of the ancient philosophers together with authors and more so the playwrights. It is practical wisdom which is not was not considered as a priority but rather it is a learned trade which varies from situation to situation. Aristotle further argued that it can hardly be taught but rather its knowledge can only be derived from experience. Consequently, Aristotle attributed moral virtue with acting in harmony with nature and our striving towards the achievement of good and by means of moderate actions in the daily life.

Having clearly understood this practical orientation of reason, it is prudent to analyze the theoretical type of reason that involves intellectual virtue. Happiness involves an activity but not a passive state according to Aristotle. The potential of mankind allows facilitates achievement of motivation by virtue of Unmoved Mover in the direction of perfection or perfect happiness. According to Aristotle, the achievement of this state by the humans requires active involvement in an activity which is both sought for intrinsic purposes and is in itself perfect. Aristotle attributes intellectual virtue to such an activity.

According to Aristotle, wisdom is not found in sense experience, nor in practical knowledge. Aristotle argued that, wisdom can only be achieved through understanding the mind that grasps a deeper reality than what is available to common experience. Aristotle therefore argues that the person who is wise person must be able to comprehend the deeper pattern of nature and of life”   Aristotle argued that, there exists a variety of sciences that forms the basis of wisdom, but the most important one is metaphysics since Aristotle perceived it as the most basic science. Metaphysics is able to ask questions like “what is real?” Aristotle called it the study of “being qua being” – the study of “the universal properties and causes possessed by all things that exist.” (De Groot, 2014).

Aristotle argues that scientific knowledge involves abstract because it addresses the general properties that all objects have in common with others. Aristotle calls it abstract since it accounts for the general properties.  “For example, an idea of shapes like the rectangles involves an abstractly form of thinking. This observation is made in disregard of the differences that exist between the rectangular material objects including their color and texture and focuses exclusively on their shared property of being rectangular.

Aristotle also argues that, scientific knowledge is universal. The implication of this is that “scientific knowledge involves realistic accounts of ‘all’ individuals of the category in question”.  A person who is in possession of abstract universal knowledge for example of what constitutes a house in general is much more likely to understand what is indispensable not only to particular houses but houses universally. That is there is a clear understanding of the essence of what is supposed to be a house (Gendlin, 2012).

Aristotle also attributes scientific knowledge to knowledge of causes by breaking the causes down into types. In the first place, the instance that an individual understands the essence of something, Aristotle argues that, such an individual has gained the knowledge of the formal cause.  “That is, an idea or a concept of what it means to be a certain kind of thing has already been gained.” (Gendlin, 2012). Additionally, Aristotle argues that, an understanding of how something came to be translates to an efficient cause. “This is the conventional scientific understanding of the cause of something. We refer to the antecedent conditions that made the thing or event occur.” (Gendlin, 2012). Aristotle also postulates that, gaining an understanding of the goal or purpose behind something implies that an understanding of the final cause has been attained. According to Aristotle, there is a definite purpose behind why things behave the way that they do. For example, the purpose of rain is to support the growth of plants which grow for the purpose of feeding animals and the chain continues.

However, Aristotle elaborates that majority of the things are not actually aware of their purposes. Human beings are the only beings that have been empowered with the capabilities to gain consciousness of the purposes or goals behind their actions. Aristotle talked about these purposes as teleology. Our purpose is our reason for doing something.  This is attributed to the fact that, the human mind is able to understand the surrounding. Just as the case of giving birth, the mind has the capacity of conceiving an idea that leads to an emergence of a new thing. However, Aristotle is against the idea that human mind has the capacity of creating a concept. The mind is only able to make an impression on the basis of past experience thus displaying receptivity of concept formation in the mind that consequently facilitates an understanding of things.

Works cited

De Groot, Jean Aristotle’s Empiricism: Experience and Mechanics in the 4th Century BC, Parmenides Publishing, 2014.

Gendlin, Eugene T. Line by Line Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima, Volume 1: Books I & II; Volume 2: Book III. Spring Valley, New York: The Focusing Institute, 2012.