Aristotale Metaphysics

Posted by Ali Reda | Posted in | Posted on 7/04/2012

Heraclitus argued that things that appear to be permanent are in fact always gradually changing. Therefore, though we believe we are surrounded by a world of things that remain identical through time, this world is really in flux, with no underlying structure or identity. By contrast, Parmenides argued that we can reach certain conclusions by means of reason alone, making no use of the senses. What we acquire through the process of reason is fixed, unchanging and eternal. The world is not made up of a variety of things in constant flux, but of one single Truth or reality. Plato’s theory of forms is a synthesis of these two views. Given, any object that changes is in an imperfect state. Then, the form of each object we see in this world is an imperfect reflection of the perfect form of the object. For example, Plato claimed a chair may take many forms, but in the perfect world there is only one perfect form of chair.

Aristotle encountered the theory of forms when he studied at the Academy, which he joined at the age of about 18 in the 360s B.C.[4] Aristotle soon expanded on the concept of forms in his Metaphysics. He believed that in every change there is something which persists through the change (for example, Socrates), and something else which did not exist before, but comes into existence as a result of the change (musical Socrates). To explain how Socrates comes to be born (since he did not exist before he was born) Aristotle says that it is ‘matter’ (hyle) that underlies the change. The matter has the ‘form’ of Socrates imposed on it to become Socrates himself. Thus all the things around us, all substances, are composites of two radically different things: form and matter. This doctrine is sometimes known as Hylomorphism (from the Greek words for matter and form).
Aristotle's sense of God was unacceptable to Christians, Muslims, and Jews. Although Plato's concept of a God who created from pre-existent matter was also unacceptable, it was far more palatable to monotheists than was Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, who did not create the world. Indeed, it could not have created the world because, argued Aristotle, the world is eternal, without beginning or end. Aristotle insisted that the material world could not have come into being from another material entity, say B. For if it did, one would have to ask from whence did B come? Such an argument would lead to the absurdity of an infinite regression, prompting Aristotle to argue that the world has always existed, an interpretation that posed further problems for Muslims and Christians. Consistent with his assumption of an eternal world, Aristotle regarded creation from nothing as impossible.

    one genus (Family): A plane figure.
    two differentiae(Set of conditions):
        the differentia for a triangle: that has 3 straight bounding sides.
        the differentia for a quadrilateral: that has 4 straight bounding sides.

Note that the genus-species relation is relative. One may define "dog" as a species of the genus "animal", while "puppy" is a species of the genus "dog". Thus, whether "dog" is a species or a genus depends on context

Change :
    growth and diminution, which is change in quantity;
    locomotion, which is change in space; and
    alteration, which is change in quality.
Objective Of any Change is to increase its Form until you reach God's Form, which is all Form and No Matter

Categories places every object of human apprehension under one of ten categories (known to medieval writers as the praedicamenta), Of things said without any combination, each signifies either of substance are man, horse; of quantity: four-foot, fivefoot; of qualification: white, grammatical; of a relative: double, half, larger; of where: in the Lyceum, in the market-place; of when: yesterday, last-year; of being-in-a-position: is-lying, is-sitting; of having: has-shoes-on, has-armour-on; of doing: cutting, burning; of being-affected: being-cut, being-burned.

Substance is a combination of both matter and form , Socrates is a primary substance (Particular), while man is a secondary substance (Universal) and cannot exist by themselves. Man is predicated of Socrates, and therefore all that is predicated of man is predicated of Socrates.

Matter (substratum) : "that out of which" X is made, matter is "potentiality":M is X's matter if and only if M has the potential to be X. If bronze is a bronze sphere’s matter,the matter used to make a house has potentiality to be a house

X can both have matter and also be matter. Clay is the matter of bricks, but bricks in turn are the matter of a house. So bricks both have matter (clay) and are matter (for a house). The house's proximate matter is the bricks, and its non-proximate matter is the clay, because the bricks are closer to being a house than is the clay

Form, the builder has in mind the plan or design for a house and he knows how to build; he then “enmatters” that plan or design by putting it into the materials out of which he builds the house.the senses perceive an object by receiving its form. The senses receive such things as colors and flavors. Thus, forms include such properties as colors and flavors, not just shapes.the form is the design of the house, that allows matter to serve its purpose showing its essence (Form is the Cause of Being) and properties so Form is actuality and It prexists and it is for particular.

Essence (substantial form) of substance S consists of S's essential properties, the properties that S's substance needs in order to be the kind of substance that S is and it is definable so it is universal because only universals are definable, roundness is its essence. A Substantial Form can't exist without the matter.Example A Human Soul can't exist without the body.So Aristotle Denies the soul's immortality.

Accidental forms are S's non-essential properties, properties that S can lose or gain without changing into a different kind of substance.

actuality is prior to potentiality, So potential being musical comes from actual being musical.

“What makes two human beings two humans rather than one?” And his answer is that what makes Socrates distinct from his friend Callias is not their substantial form, which is the same, nor their accidental forms, which may be the same or different, but their matter. Matter, not form, is the principle of individuation

Unmoved Movers

The bare existence of change requires the postulation of a first cause, an unmoved mover whose necessary existence underpins the ceaseless activity of the world of motion”.the unmoved mover that causes the motion in the first heaven, the sphere of the fixed stars, is the unmoved mover referred to in Metaphysics 12.7; however, since there are celestial movements other than the rotation of outer sphere of fixed stars, there must be other unmoved movers, substances eternal and without magnitude. He required an individual unmoved mover for each sphere. According to Aristotle, there are fifty-five movements that require unmoved movers,the planets seek to imitate the perfection of the unmoved mover by moving about the Earth in a circle, the most perfect of shapes. For this to be the case, of course, the heavenly bodies must have souls capable of feeling love for the unmoved mover. “On such a principle,” Aristotle says, “depend the heavens and the world of nature.” In Book 12 (Greek "Λ") of hisMetaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. He equates this concept also with the Active Intellect.
Later Islamic scholars like aviciena by adding Neo-platonic emission idea, where able to show a relation between each of the unmoved movers, but limited them to 10 only.

First cause (Prime Mover)

 The Cosmological argument, later attributed to Aristotle, thereby draws the conclusion that God exists. However, if the cosmos had a beginning, Aristotle argued, it would require an efficient first cause, The purpose of Aristotle's cosmological argument, that at least one eternal unmoved mover must exist, is to support everyday change.[26]
Of things that exist, substances are the first. But if substances can, then all things can perish... and yet, time and change cannot. Now, the only continuous change is that of place, and the only continuous change of place is circular motion. Therefore, there must be an eternal circular motion and this confirmed by the fixed stars which are moved by the eternal actual substance substance that's purely actual.[27]
In Aristotle's estimation, an explanation without the temporal actuality and potentiality of an infinite locomotive chain is required for an eternal cosmos with neither beginning nor end: an unmoved eternal substance for whom the Primum Mobile[28] turns diurnally and whereby all terrestrial cycles are driven: day and night, the seasons of the year, the transformation of the elements, and the nature of plants and animals.


Is Eternal , All Form , All Perfect So he can't think about something Less Perfect and He Always Thinks about himself so He Doesn't know about Us (A Silent God) ,  Our World is imperfect but all substances work and Produce Change as a result of their love to God , so as time passes the world is going at a All Form World like God but which is Impossible because Matter won't disappear from our world.He is the first cause.


the soul must be the first actuality of a naturally organised body. This is its Substantial form or essence.According to Aristotle, a living thing's (proximate) matter is its body, which needs a soul in order to be alive. Similarly, a bronze sphere's (proximate) matter is bronze, which needs roundness in order to be a sphere.


the passive intellect is a property of the body (Responsible for Desires), while the agent intellect is a substance distinct from the body (Responsible for any common correct thinking like in Mathematics). we can interpret the agent intellect as a single divine being, Aristotle's God ,Because all (rational) human beings are considered by Aristotelians to possess or have access to a fixed and stable set of concepts, a unified correct knowledge of the universe. The only way that all human minds could possess the same correct knowledge is if they all had access to some central knowledge store.

Book III discusses the mind or rational soul, which belongs to humans alone. He argues that thinking is different from both sense-perception and imagination because the senses can never lie and imagination is a power to make something sensed appear again, while thinking can sometimes be false. And since the mind is able to think when it wishes, it must be divided into two faculties: one which contains all the mind's ideas which are able to be considered, and another which brings them into act, i.e. to be actually thinking about them. These are called the possible and agent intellect. The possible intellect is the store-house of all concepts, i.e. universal ideas like "triangle", "tree", "man", "red", etc. When the mind wishes to think, the agent intellect recalls these ideas from the possible intellect and combines them to form thoughts. The agent intellect is also the faculty which abstracts the "whatness" or intelligibility of all sensed objects and stores them in the possible intellect. For example, when a student learns a proof for the Pythagorean theorem, his agent intellect abstracts the intelligibility of all the images his eye senses (and that are a result of the translation by imagination of sense perceptions into immaterial phantasmata), i.e. the triangles and squares in the diagrams, and stores the concepts that make up the proof in his possible intellect. When he wishes to recall the proof, say, for demonstration in class the next day, his agent intellect recalls the concepts and their relations from the possible intellect and formulates the statements that make up the arguments in the proof.
The argument for the existence of the agent intellect in Chapter V perhaps due to its concision has been interpreted in a variety of ways. One standard scholasticinterpretation is given in the Commentary on De anima begun by Thomas Aquinas when he was regent at the studium provinciale at Santa Sabina in Rome, the forerunner of the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelicum. Aquinas' commentary is based on the new translation of the text from the Greek completed by Aquinas' Dominican associate at Viterbo William of Moerbeke in 1267.[4] The argument, as interpreted by St Thomas Aquinas, runs something like this: in every nature which is sometimes in potency and act, it is necessary to posit an agent or cause within that genus that, just like art in relation to its suffering matter, brings the object into act. But the soul is sometimes in potency and act. Therefore the soul must have this difference. In other words, since the mind can move from not understanding to understanding and from knowing to thinking, there must be something to cause the mind to go from knowing nothing to knowing something, and from knowing something but not thinking about it to actually thinking about it.
Aristotle also argues that the mind (only the agent intellect) is immaterial, able to exist without the body, and immortal. His arguments are notoriously concise. This has caused much confusion over the centuries, causing a rivalry between different schools of interpretation, most notably, between the Arabian commentatorAverroes and St Thomas Aquinas[citation needed]. One argument for its immaterial existence runs like this: if the mind were material, then it would have to possess a corresponding thinking-organ. And since all the senses have their corresponding sense-organs, thinking would then be like sensing. But sensing can never be false, and therefore thinking could never be false. And this is of course untrue. Therefore, Aristotle concludes, the mind is immaterial.
Perhaps the most important but obscure argument in the whole book is Aristotle's demonstration of the immortality of the thinking part of the human soul, also in Chapter V. Taking a premise from his Physics, that as a thing acts, so it is, he argues that since the mind acts with no bodily organ, it exists without the body. And if it exists apart from matter, it therefore cannot be corrupted. And therefore the human mind is immortal.