Metaphysics

“It is clear, then, that wisdom is knowledge having to do with certain principles and causes.”

This quote encapsulates Aristotle’s view of wisdom as a form of knowledge that transcends mere factual understanding, digging into the underlying principles and causes of things. Through the use of clear and direct language, Aristotle emphasizes the importance of comprehending the “why” behind phenomena, not just the “what.” This statement underscores a central theme in his work: the pursuit of wisdom through the understanding of fundamental truths, setting the stage for his deeper philosophical inquiries.

“The investigation of the truth is in a way difficult and in a way easy. An indication is that no one can worthily reach it nor does everyone completely miss it, but each thinker says something about nature, and individually they make small contributions to it, and from them all together a certain volume arises.”

This quote captures Aristotle’s nuanced view of the pursuit of truth. He acknowledges the inherent complexity in understanding truth while suggesting that it is accessible to an extent, as evidenced by the collective contributions of thinkers. This reflects a key theme in Aristotle’s philosophy: the incremental progress of human knowledge, where each thinker builds upon the work of predecessors. It emphasizes the collaborative nature of philosophical inquiry and the gradual unfolding of understanding across generations.

“And it is also right that the study of the truth is called philosophy. For truth is the aim of theoretical thought as action is of practical thought; and if we consider how things are, the cause is not in itself, but the practical thinkers consider what is relevant to a context. But we do not know the truth without the cause.”

Aristotle defines philosophy as the study aimed at uncovering truth, aligning it with the pursuit of theoretical thought. He draws a distinction between theoretical and practical thought, suggesting that while theoretical thought aims at truth, practical thought is more context-driven, focusing on action. This quote highlights the idea that understanding the cause of things is integral to knowing the truth, thereby linking knowledge with causality. This connection between truth, knowledge, and causality is central to Aristotle’s metaphysical inquiries.

“Concerned with these matters there is great uncertainty as to which positions are likely to be conducive to truth, and in connection with the principles whether it is right to suppose that the kinds are the elements and principles or rather the primary things from which each thing is.”

Aristotle here is pondering the nature of “principles” and “elements,” questioning whether they are the ultimate constituents of things or just the initial conditions from which things arise. This inquiry explores the heart of metaphysical exploration, challenging the reader to consider the fundamental building blocks of existence. The quote highlights a key aspect of Aristotle’s philosophical approach: his willingness to confront uncertainty and explore various possibilities in the pursuit of deeper understanding.

“But if there is nothing eternal, then there cannot be generation. For there must be something that is generated and something from which it is generated and the last of this series must be ungenerated, if it comes to an end and it is impossible that there should be generation from what is not.”

Aristotle addresses the concept of “generation,” or the process of coming into being. He argues for the necessity of an eternal principle or un-generated source, underscoring his belief in the interdependence of existence and causation. The quote highlights the relationship between the temporal and the eternal, and the logical necessity of an uncaused cause in Aristotle’s metaphysical framework. This argument not only provides insight into Aristotle’s views on causality but also hints at his broader philosophical perspective on the nature of the universe.

“Being is also very closely associated with unity and the one. So it also comes within the remit of the philosopher to study unity and its various related items, such as number, identity, similarity, etc.”

This quote highlights the intricate relationship Aristotle perceives between the concept of being and unity. In his view, understanding the nature of existence (being) necessitates an exploration of unity, number, identity, and similarity. The quote underlines a central theme in Aristotle’s Metaphysics: the quest to comprehend the fundamental nature of reality. Aristotle’s approach here bridges the metaphysical with the mathematical and logical, suggesting that these disciplines are deeply interconnected in their pursuit of understanding the essence of existence.

“The conclusion of all this is very clear. There must be some one science that gives an account of all these items and that also gives an account of substance.”

Aristotle, in this quote, argues for the existence of a unified science capable of explaining the essence of all things and their substance. This assertion is pivotal in understanding Aristotle’s philosophy, where he seeks a comprehensive understanding that transcends specialized sciences. He emphasizes the need for a holistic approach to knowledge, one that can account for the principles of various entities and their intrinsic nature. This reflects Aristotle’s belief in an underlying order and structure to reality, which can be comprehensively understood through a singular, all-encompassing scientific approach.

“The common feature, then, of all principles/ starts is to be the primary origin (of being, production or cognition). And some principles/ starts are intrinsic, others external. So both a nature and an element are a principle, as also thinking and choice, substance and the final cause—there are many cases where the principle both of cognition and of process is the good or beautiful.”

This quote encapsulates Aristotle’s exploration of the nature of principles or starts. He delineates the dual nature of principles as both intrinsic and external, suggesting a complex interplay between internal characteristics and external forces in the genesis of anything. The mention of nature, element, thinking, choice, and substance as principles highlights the multifaceted aspects that contribute to the existence or cognition of anything.

“Causes in this way are also all things which lie on the way to the end, when some other agent has initiated the process. For instance, to reach health you may have to go through dieting, purgation, medication or surgery, all of which are for the end of health (though they differ from one another in involving in some cases instruments, in other procedures).”

Aristotle’s discussion of causes here reveals his nuanced understanding of the causal chain leading to an end result. He illustrates how different agents or processes, such as dieting, purgation, medication, or surgery, serve as causes toward the ultimate goal of health. Each of these steps, while distinct in their nature (some being instruments, others procedures), contributes cumulatively to the final outcome.

“It is, however, vital not to overlook the question of what it is to be a thing and the definitional account of how it is what it is. If we leave these out, scientific inquiry is mere shadow boxing.”

This quote underlines the importance Aristotle places on understanding the essence of things, beyond their mere existence. He argues that without comprehending the nature and definition of things, scientific inquiry loses its depth, becoming superficial and “shadow boxing.” This metaphor illustrates the futility of research that lacks a profound understanding of its subjects.

“All the causes must be eternal, of course, but eternity must pertain more specially still to the causes of First Science, operating, as they do, to produce those effects of Divinity that are manifest even to us.”

In this quote, Aristotle looks into the concept of causality and its relation to the notion of eternity, particularly in the context of “First Science” or theology. He posits that the causes underlying the phenomena studied by this highest form of science must not only be eternal but also have a special relationship with the concept of eternity, as they are responsible for the divine effects observable in the world. This idea reflects Aristotle’s intricate understanding of causation, where causes are not transient but eternally linked to their effects, especially in the realm of the divine or metaphysical.

“That which is is spoken of in many ways, as we have previously expounded in our discussion of the ways in which things are spoken of.”

Aristotle here reflects on the diverse ways in which “being” or existence can be interpreted, highlighting his exploration of the complexity of existence. This quote underscores the multifaceted nature of being, which Aristotle meticulously dissected throughout his work. It is a testament to his philosophical rigor in attempting to categorize and understand the different dimensions and contexts in which “being” is realized and expressed.

“Well, the what-it-was-to-be-that-thing is in any case a substance, and, since the account of a what-it-was-to-be-that-thing is a definition, an account has been offered of definition and of per se being. But of course the definition is an account and an account has parts. So it behoved us to consider in re the parts what kind were parts of the substance and what kind were not and whether they were also the same as the parts of the definition.”

This quote reflects Aristotle’s exploration of substance, definition, and the essence of being. Aristotle posits that the essence or the “what-it-was-to-be-that-thing” is intrinsically a substance. This introduces a complex interplay between an entity’s definition and its existential substance. The phrase implies a critical examination of the components that constitute the essence of a thing, suggesting that not all parts of a definition are necessarily parts of its substance. This distinction invites a deeper reflection on the nature of things, challenging the reader to discern between the superficial and the fundamental elements that define existence.

“So if you want to define building, you have three choices. Either (i) you can list the stones, bricks and beams, giving what is potentially a building, viz. the matter of a building. Or (ii) your account can be enclosed space for the housing of objects or persons (or something to that sort of effect). In this case what you are giving is the actuality of the building. Alternatively (iii) you can put them both together and give the third, composite substance.”

Aristotle presents a compelling examination of the concept of defining a complex entity such as a building. He offers three distinct approaches: listing the material components (potentiality), describing its functional purpose (actuality), or combining both to form a composite understanding. This quote encapsulates Aristotle’s nuanced view of substance, where he distinguishes between the material and the immaterial (or formal) aspects of entities.

“For it is not the case that potentiality and actuality are confined to those cases the account of which is in terms of process.”

This quote captures the essence of Aristotle’s exploration of potentiality and actuality. Aristotle argues that these concepts extend beyond mere processes or changes, suggesting a broader application in the realm of existence and being. This reflects his philosophical quest to understand the underlying principles of reality, where potentiality represents the capacity for change or existence while actuality is the fulfillment or realization of this capacity.

“The actuality of an object is its obtaining. And by this I do not have in mind its obtaining in that manner which we have accounted for in terms of potentiality.”

This quote examines the distinction between actuality and potentiality. Aristotle clarifies that actuality should not be conflated with the mere possibility (potentiality) of a state or condition. Instead, actuality is the realized state of an object or being, where its inherent properties or capabilities are fully manifested. This distinction is important for understanding Aristotle’s metaphysical framework, where the transition from potentiality to actuality is not just a change but a fulfillment of purpose or nature.

“The one, then, is indivisible either simpliciter or qua one.”

This quote encapsulates Aristotle’s understanding of unity or “the one.” Aristotle argues that unity, in its essence, is characterized by its indivisibility, whether considered in an absolute sense (“simpliciter”) or in terms of its nature as “one” (“qua one”). This reflects Aristotle’s exploration of the fundamental principles underlying reality, where unity is seen not just as a numerical or quantifiable aspect but as an intrinsic property of entities.

“So for anything perishable perishability must either be its substance or be present in its substance.”

Aristotle explores the nature of perishability, a concept central to his understanding of change and substance. He suggests that for any perishable entity, its perishability is an inherent aspect of its substance. This reflects Aristotle’s broader metaphysical framework, where the properties of entities (like perishability) are not merely accidental or external attributes but are instead deeply entwined with their very essence.

“Philosophy is not concerned with the final cause (for this is the good, which pertains to questions of action and to things subject to process – and it is also the primary source of process, being as it is the end, whereas with things not subject to process there is no primary source of process).”

This quote reflects Aristotle’s distinction between different types of causes, particularly emphasizing the exclusion of the final cause from philosophy. The final cause, according to Aristotle, is associated with the “good” and pertains to actions and processes. In this context, Aristotle delineates the scope of philosophical inquiry, suggesting that it deals with entities and principles that are not subject to processes or actions.

“Every science is on the hunt for certain principles and causes for each of the items that fall in its domain. Consider medicine and P.E. Consider, in fact, any of the other sciences, whether productive or mathematical.”

This quote underscores Aristotle’s view of science as a pursuit of understanding principles and causes. He illustrates this by referring to various fields like medicine, physical education, and even mathematical sciences, each aiming to uncover underlying principles within their respective domains. Aristotle’s perspective here highlights the universality of scientific inquiry, regardless of the specific discipline.

“Now since there were three substances, two of them natural and the third unmoved, we should say about this last that there must be a kind of eternal unmoved substance.”

This quote encapsulates Aristotle’s conceptualization of substance, which is a central aspect of his Metaphysics. Aristotle distinguishes between three types of substance: two natural (one eternal and one destructible) and one unmoved. The eternal unmoved substance is pivotal as it introduces the concept of an unchanging reality, which underpins his later theological arguments. The idea of an eternal unmoved substance is a foundational element in Aristotle’s argument for the existence of a Prime Mover or a divine being.

“This absurdity occurs in the position of Empedocles. His Love is what corresponds to the good. But this is a principle both as the source of movement (it produces the contraction) and as matter (it is a part of the mixture).”

Here, Aristotle critiques the philosophical position of Empedocles, specifically his conception of “Love” as a fundamental principle. Aristotle points out the logical inconsistency in Empedocles’s theory, where “Love” is ambiguously identified as both the source of movement and as a material component. This critique highlights Aristotle’s method of engaging with and dissecting the theories of his predecessors.

“Now there are two opinions here: some claim that the objects of mathematics, such as numbers and lines and their cognates, are substances while others hold that Forms are.”

This quote illustrates a central debate in ancient philosophy: the nature of mathematical objects and Platonic Forms. Aristotle presents two prevailing views: one that mathematical objects are substances and another that Platonic Forms hold this distinction. This passage is significant for its exploration of abstract entities and their role in the physical world.