Aristotle is a towering figure in ancient Greek philosophy, making contributions to logic, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre. He was a student of Plato
who in turn studied under Socrates. He was more empirically-minded than
Plato or Socrates and is famous for rejecting Plato's theory of forms.
As a prolific writer and polymath, Aristotle radically transformed
most, if not all, areas of knowledge he touched. It is no wonder that Aquinas
referred to him simply as "The Philosopher." In his lifetime, Aristotle
wrote as many as 200 treatises, of which only 31 survive. Unfortunately
for us, these works are in the form of lecture notes and draft
manuscripts never intended for general readership, so they do not
demonstrate his reputed polished prose style which attracted many great
followers, including the Roman Cicero.
Aristotle was the first to classify areas of human knowledge into
distinct disciplines such as mathematics, biology, and ethics. Some of
these classifications are still used today.
As the father of the field of logic, he was the first to develop a
formalized system for reasoning. Aristotle observed that the validity
of any argument can be determined by its structure rather than its
content. A classic example of a valid argument is his syllogism: All men
are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal. Given the
structure of this argument, as long as the premises are true, then the
conclusion is also guaranteed to be true. Aristotle’s brand of logic
dominated this area of thought until the rise of modern propositional logic and predicate logic 2000 years later.
Aristotle’s emphasis on good reasoning combined with his belief in
the scientific method forms the backdrop for most of his work. For
example, in his work in ethics and politics, Aristotle identifies the
highest good with intellectual virtue; that is, a moral person is one
who cultivates certain virtues based on reasoning. And in his work on
psychology and the soul, Aristotle distinguishes sense perception from
reason, which unifies and interprets the sense perceptions and is the
source of all knowledge.
Aristotle famously rejected Plato’s theory of forms, which states
that properties such as beauty are abstract universal entities that
exist independent of the objects themselves. Instead, he argued that
forms are intrinsic to the objects and cannot exist apart from
them, and so must be studied in relation to them. However, in discussing
art, Aristotle seems to reject this, and instead argues for idealized
universal form which artists attempt to capture in their work.
Aristotle was the founder of the Lyceum, a school of learning based in Athens, Greece; and he was an inspiration for the Peripatetics, his followers from the Lyceum.
1. Life
Aristotle was born in 384 BCE at Stagirus, a now extinct Greek colony
and seaport on the coast of Thrace. His father Nichomachus was court
physician to King Amyntas of Macedonia, and from this began Aristotle's
long association with the Macedonian Court, which considerably
influenced his life. While he was still a boy his father died. At age 17
his guardian, Proxenus, sent him to Athens, the intellectual center of
the world, to complete his education. He joined the Academy and studied
under Plato, attending his
lectures for a period of twenty years. In the later years of his
association with Plato and the Academy he began to lecture on his own
account, especially on the subject of rhetoric. At the death of Plato in
347, the pre-eminent ability of Aristotle would seem to have designated
him to succeed to the leadership of the Academy. But his divergence
from Plato's teaching was too great to make this possible, and Plato's
nephew Speusippus was chosen instead. At the invitation of his friend
Hermeas, ruler of Atarneus and Assos in Mysia, Aristotle left for his
court. He stayed three year and, while there, married Pythias, the niece
of the King. In later life he was married a second time to a woman
named Herpyllis, who bore him a son, Nichomachus. At the end of three
years Hermeas was overtaken by the Persians, and Aristotle went to
Mytilene. At the invitation of Philip of Macedonia he became the tutor
of his 13 year old son Alexander (later world conqueror); he did this
for the next five years. Both Philip and Alexander appear to have paid
Aristotle high honor, and there were stories that Aristotle was supplied
by the Macedonian court, not only with funds for teaching, but also
with thousands of slaves to collect specimens for his studies in natural
science. These stories are probably false and certainly exaggerated.
Upon the death of Philip, Alexander succeeded to the kingship and
prepared for his subsequent conquests. Aristotle's work being finished,
he returned to Athens, which he had not visited since the death of
Plato. He found the Platonic school flourishing under Xenocrates, and
Platonism the dominant philosophy of Athens. He thus set up his own
school at a place called the Lyceum.
When teaching at the Lyceum, Aristotle had a habit of walking about as
he discoursed. It was in connection with this that his followers became
known in later years as the peripatetics, meaning "to walk
about." For the next thirteen years he devoted his energies to his
teaching and composing his philosophical treatises. He is said to have
given two kinds of lectures: the more detailed discussions in the
morning for an inner circle of advanced students, and the popular
discourses in the evening for the general body of lovers of knowledge.
At the sudden death of Alexander in 323 BCE., the pro-Macedonian
government in Athens was overthrown, and a general reaction occurred
against anything Macedonian. A charge of impiety was trumped up against
him. To escape prosecution he fled to Chalcis in Euboea so that
(Aristotle says) "The Athenians might not have another opportunity of
sinning against philosophy as they had already done in the person of
Socrates." In the first year of his residence at Chalcis he complained
of a stomach illness and died in 322 BCE.
2. Writings
It is reported that Aristotle's writings were held by his student
Theophrastus, who had succeeded Aristotle in leadership of the
Peripatetic School. Theophrastus's library passed to his pupil Neleus.
To protect the books from theft, Neleus's heirs concealed them in a
vault, where they were damaged somewhat by dampness, moths and worms. In
this hiding place they were discovered about 100 BCE by Apellicon, a
rich book lover, and brought to Athens. They were later taken to Rome
after the capture of Athens by Sulla in 86 BCE. In Rome they soon
attracted the attention of scholars, and the new edition of them gave
fresh impetus to the study of Aristotle and of philosophy in general.
This collection is the basis of the works of Aristotle that we have
today. Strangely, the list of Aristotle's works given by Diogenes Laertius
does not contain any of these treatises. It is possible that Diogenes'
list is that of forgeries compiled at a time when the real works were
lost to sight.
The works of Aristotle fall under three headings: (1) dialogues and
other works of a popular character; (2) collections of facts and
material from scientific treatment; and (3) systematic works. Among his
writings of a popular nature the only one which we possess of any
consequence is the interesting tract On the Polity of the Athenians.
The works on the second group include 200 titles, most in fragments,
collected by Aristotle's school and used as research. Some may have been
done at the time of Aristotle's successor Theophrastus. Included in
this group are constitutions of 158 Greek states. The systematic
treatises of the third group are marked by a plainness of style, with
none of the golden flow of language which the ancients praised in
Aristotle. This may be due to the fact that these works were not, in
most cases, published by Aristotle himself or during his lifetime, but
were edited after his death from unfinished manuscripts. Until Werner
Jaeger (1912) it was assumed that Aristotle's writings presented a
systematic account of his views. Jaeger argues for an early, middle and
late period (genetic approach), where the early period follows Plato's
theory of forms and soul, the middle rejects Plato, and the later period
(which includes most of his treatises) is more empirically oriented.
Aristotle's systematic treatises may be grouped in several divisions:
3. Logic
Aristotle's writings on the general subject of logic were grouped by the later Peripatetics under the name Organon,
or instrument. From their perspective, logic and reasoning was the
chief preparatory instrument of scientific investigation. Aristotle
himself, however, uses the term "logic" as equivalent to verbal
reasoning. The Categories of Aristotle are classifications of individual words (as opposed to sentences or propositions),
and include the following ten: substance, quantity, quality, relation,
place, time, situation, condition, action, passion. They seem to be
arranged according to the order of the questions we would ask in gaining
knowledge of an object. For example, we ask, first, what a thing is,
then how great it is, next of what kind it is. Substance is always
regarded as the most important of these. Substances are further divided
into first and second: first substances are individual objects; second substances are the species in which first substances or individuals inhere.
Notions when isolated do not in themselves express either truth or
falsehood: it is only with the combination of ideas in a proposition
that truth and falsity are
possible. The elements of such a proposition are the noun substantive
and the verb. The combination of words gives rise to rational speech and
thought, conveys a meaning both in its parts and as a whole. Such
thought may take many forms, but logic considers only demonstrative
forms which express truth and falsehood. The truth or falsity of
propositions is determined by their agreement or disagreement with the
facts they represent. Thus propositions are either affirmative or
negative, each of which again may be either universal or particular or
undesignated. A definition, for Aristotle is a statement of the
essential character of a subject, and involves both the genus and the
difference. To get at a true definition we must find out those qualities
within the genus which taken separately are wider than the subject to
be defined, but taken together are precisely equal to it. For example,
"prime," "odd," and "number" are each wider than "triplet" (that is, a
collection of any three items, such as three rocks); but taken together
they are just equal to it. The genus definition must be formed so that
no species is left out. Having determined the genus and species, we must
next find the points of similarity in the species separately and then
consider the common characteristics of different species. Definitions
may be imperfect by (1) being obscure, (2) by being too wide, or (3) by
not stating the essential and fundamental attributes. Obscurity may
arise from the use of equivocal expressions, of metaphorical phrases, or
of eccentric words. The heart of Aristotle's logic is the syllogism,
the classic example of which is as follows: All men are mortal; Socrates
is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal. The syllogistic form of
logical argumentation dominated logic for 2,000 years until the rise of
modern propositional and predicate logic thanks to Frege, Russell, and
others.
4. Metaphysics
Aristotle's editors gave the name "Metaphysics" to his works on first philosophy, either because they went beyond or followed after
his physical investigations. Aristotle begins by sketching the history
of philosophy. For Aristotle, philosophy arose historically after basic
necessities were secured. It grew out of a feeling of curiosity and
wonder, to which religious myth gave only provisional satisfaction. The
earliest speculators (i.e. Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximander) were
philosophers of nature. The Pythagoreans succeeded these with
mathematical abstractions. The level of pure thought was reached partly
in the Eleatic philosophers (such as Parmenides) and Anaxagoras, but
more completely in the work of Socrates. Socrates' contribution was the
expression of general conceptions in the form of definitions, which he
arrived at by induction and analogy. For Aristotle, the subject of
metaphysics deals with the first principles of scientific knowledge and
the ultimate conditions of all existence. More specifically, it deals
with existence in its most fundamental state (i.e. being as
being), and the essential attributes of existence. This can be
contrasted with mathematics which deals with existence in terms of lines
or angles, and not existence as it is in itself. In its universal
character, metaphysics superficially resembles dialectics and sophistry.
However, it differs from dialectics which is tentative, and it differs
from sophistry which is a pretence of knowledge without the reality.
The axioms of science fall under the consideration of the metaphysician insofar as they are properties ofall
existence. Aristotle argues that there are a handful of universal
truths. Against the followers of Heraclitus and Protagoras, Aristotle
defends both the laws of contradiction, and that of excluded middle. He
does this by showing that their denial is suicidal. Carried out to its
logical consequences, the denial of these laws would lead to the
sameness of all facts and all assertions. It would also result in an
indifference in conduct. As the science of being as being, the
leading question of Aristotle's metaphysics is, What is meant by the
real or true substance? Plato tried to solve the same question by
positing a universal and invariable element of knowledge and existence
-- the forms -- as the only real permanent besides the changing
phenomena of the senses. Aristotle attacks Plato's theory of the forms
on three different grounds.
First, Aristotle argues, forms are powerless to explain changes
of things and a thing's ultimate extinction. Forms are not causes of
movement and alteration in the physical objects of sensation. Second, forms are equally incompetent to explain how we arrive at knowledge of particular things. For, to have knowledge of a particular object, it must be knowledge of the substance which is in
that things. However, the forms place knowledge outside of particular
things. Further, to suppose that we know particular things better by
adding on their general conceptions of their forms, is about as absurd
as to imagine that we can count numbers better by multiplying them.
Finally, if forms were needed to explain our knowledge of particular
objects, then forms must be used to explain our knowledge of objects of
art; however, Platonists do not recognize such forms. The third ground of attack is that the forms simply cannot explain the existence of particular objects. Plato contends that forms do not exist in
the particular objects which partake in the forms. However, that
substance of a particular thing cannot be separated from the thing
itself. Further, aside from the jargon of "participation," Plato does
not explain the relation between forms and particular things. In
reality, it is merely metaphorical to describe the forms as patterns of
things; for, what is a genus to one object is a species to a higher
class, the same idea will have to be both a form and a particular thing
at the same time. Finally, on Plato's account of the forms, we must
imagine an intermediate link between the form and the particular object,
and so on ad infinitum: there must always be a "third man" between the individual man and the form of man.
For Aristotle, the form is not something outside the object, but rather in the varied phenomena of sense. Real substance, or true being, is not the abstract form, but rather the concrete individual thing. Unfortunately, Aristotle's theory of substance is not altogether consistent with itself. In the Categories the notion of substance tends to be nominalistic (that is, substance is a concept we apply to things). In theMetaphysics,
though, it frequently inclines towards realism (that is, substance has a
real existence in itself). We are also struck by the apparent
contradiction in his claims that science deals with universal concepts,
and substance is declared to be an individual. In any case, substance is
for him a merging of matter into form. The term "matter" is used by
Aristotle in four overlapping senses. First, it is the underlying structure of changes, particularly changes of growth and of decay. Secondly, it is the potential which has implicitly the capacity to develop into reality. Thirdly, it is a kind of stuff without specific qualities and so is indeterminate and contingent. Fourthly, it is identical with form when it takes on a form in its actualized and final phase.
The development of potentiality to actuality is one of the most
important aspects of Aristotle's philosophy. It was intended to solve
the difficulties which earlier thinkers had raised with reference to the
beginnings of existence and the relations of the one and many. The
actual vs. potential state of things is explained in terms of the causes
which act on things. There are four causes:
- Material cause, or the elements out of which an object is created;
- Efficient cause, or the means by which it is created;
- Formal cause, or the expression of what it is;
- Final cause, or the end for which it is.
Take, for example, a bronze statue. Its material cause is the bronze
itself. Its efficient cause is the sculptor, insofar has he forces the
bronze into shape. The formal cause is the idea of the completed statue.
The final cause is the idea of the statue as it prompts the
sculptor to act on the bronze. The final cause tends to be the same as
the formal cause, and both of these can be subsumed by the efficient
cause. Of the four, it is the formal and final which is the most
important, and which most truly gives the explanation of an object. The
final end (purpose, or teleology) of a thing is realized in the full
perfection of the object itself, not in our conception of it. Final
cause is thus internal to the nature of the object itself, and not
something we subjectively impose on it.
To Aristotle, God is
the first of all substances, the necessary first source of movement who
is himself unmoved. God is a being with everlasting life, and perfect
blessedness, engaged in never-ending contemplation.
For a fuller discussion, see the article Aristotle's Metaphysics and Western Concepts of God.
5. Philosophy of Nature
Aristotle sees the universe as a scale lying between the two
extremes: form without matter is on one end, and matter without form is
on the other end. The passage of matter into form must be shown in its
various stages in the world of nature. To do this is the object of
Aristotle's physics, or philosophy of nature. It is important to keep in
mind that the passage from form to matter within nature is a movement
towards ends or purposes. Everything in nature has its end and function,
and nothing is without its purpose. Everywhere we find evidences of
design and rational plan. No doctrine of physics can ignore the
fundamental notions of motion, space, and time. Motion is the passage of
matter into form, and it is of four kinds: (1) motion which affects the
substance of a thing, particularly its beginning and its ending; (2)
motion which brings about changes in quality; (3) motion which brings
about changes in quantity, by increasing it and decreasing it; and (4)
motion which brings about locomotion, or change of place. Of these the
last is the most fundamental and important.
Aristotle rejects the definition of space as the void. Empty space is
an impossibility. Hence, too, he disagrees with the view of Plato and
the Pythagoreans that the elements are composed of geometrical figures.
Space is defined as the limit of the surrounding body towards what is
surrounded. Time is defined
as the measure of motion in regard to what is earlier and later. It thus
depends for its existence upon motion. If there where no change in the
universe, there would be no time. Since it is the measuring or counting
of motion, it also depends for its existence on a counting mind. If
there were no mind to count, there could be no time. As to the infinite
divisibility of space and time, and the paradoxes proposed byZeno, Aristotle argues that space and time are potentially divisible ad infinitum, but are not actually so divided.
After these preliminaries, Aristotle passes to the main subject of
physics, the scale of being. The first thing to notice about this scale
is that it is a scale of values. What is higher on the scale of being is
of more worth, because the principle of form is more advanced in it.
Species on this scale are eternally fixed in their place, and cannot
evolve over time. The higher items on the scale are also more organized.
Further, the lower items are inorganic and the higher are organic. The
principle which gives internal organization to the higher or organic
items on the scale of being is life, or what he calls the soul of the
organism. Even the human soul is nothing but the organization of the
body. Plants are the lowest forms of life on the scale, and their souls
contain a nutritive element by which it preserves itself. Animals are
above plants on the scale, and their souls contain an appetitive feature
which allows them to have sensations, desires, and thus gives them the
ability to move. The scale of being proceeds from animals to humans. The
human soul shares the nutritive element with plants, and the appetitive
element with animals, but also has a rational element which is
distinctively our own. The details of the appetitive and rational
aspects of the soul are described in the following two sections.
For a fuller discussion of these topics, see the article Aristotle: Motion and its Place in Nature.
6. The Soul and Psychology
Soul is defined by Aristotle as the perfect expression or
realization of a natural body. From this definition it follows that
there is a close connection between psychological states, and
physiological processes. Body and soul are unified in the same way that
wax and an impression stamped on it are unified. Metaphysicians before
Aristotle discussed the soul abstractly without any regard to the bodily
environment; this, Aristotle believes, was a mistake. At the same time,
Aristotle regards the soul or mind not as the product of the
physiological conditions of the body, but as the truth of the body -- the substance in which only the bodily conditions gain their real meaning.
The soul manifests its activity in certain "faculties" or "parts"
which correspond with the stages of biological development, and are the
faculties of nutrition (peculiar to plants), that of movement (peculiar
to animals), and that of reason (peculiar to humans). These faculties
resemble mathematical figures in which the higher includes the lower,
and must be understood not as like actual physical parts, but like suchaspects
as convex and concave which we distinguish in the same line. The mind
remains throughout a unity: and it is absurd to speak of it, as Plato
did, as desiring with one part and feeling anger with another. Sense
perception is a faculty of receiving the forms of outward objects
independently of the matter of which they are composed, just as the wax
takes on the figure of the seal without the gold or other metal of which
the seal is composed. As the subject of impression, perception involves
a movement and a kind of qualitative change; but perception is not
merely a passive or receptive affection. It in turn acts, and,distinguishing between the qualities of outward things, becomes "a movement of the soul through the medium of the body."
The objects of the senses may be either (1) special, (such as color
is the special object of sight, and sound of hearing), (2) common, or
apprehended by several senses in combination (such as motion or figure),
or (3) incidental or inferential (such as when from the immediate
sensation of white we come to know a person or object which is
white). There are five special senses. Of these, touch is the must
rudimentary, hearing the most instructive, and sight the most ennobling.
The organ in these senses never acts directly , but is affected by some
medium such as air. Even touch, which seems to act by actual contact,
probably involves some vehicle of communication. For Aristotle, the
heart is the common or central sense organ. It recognizes the common
qualities which are involved in all particular objects of sensation. It
is, first, the sense which brings us a consciousness of sensation.
Secondly, in one act before the mind, it holds up the objects of our
knowledge and enables us to distinguish between the reports of different
senses.
Aristotle defines the imagination as "the movement which results upon
an actual sensation." In other words, it is the process by which an
impression of the senses is pictured and retained before the mind, and
is accordingly the basis of memory. The representative pictures which it
provides form the materials of reason. Illusions and dreams are both
alike due to an excitement in the organ of sense similar to that which
would be caused by the actual presence of the sensible phenomenon.
Memory is defined as the permanent possession of the sensuous picture as
a copy which represents the object of which it is a picture.
Recollection, or the calling back to mind the residue of memory, depends
on the laws which regulate the association of our ideas. We trace the
associations by starting with the thought of the object present to us,
then considering what is similar, contrary or contiguous.
Reason is the source of the first principles of knowledge. Reason is
opposed to the sense insofar as sensations are restricted and
individual, and thought is free and universal. Also, while the senses
deals with the concrete and material aspect of phenomena, reason deals
with the abstract and ideal aspects. But while reason is in itself the
source of general ideas, it is so only potentially. For, it arrives at
them only by a process of development in which it gradually clothes
sense in thought, and unifies and interprets sense-presentations. This
work of reason in thinking beings suggests the question: How can
immaterial thought come to receive material things? It is only possible
in virtue of some community between thought and things. Aristotle recognizes an active reason which makes
objects of thought. This is distinguished from passive reason which
receives, combines and compares the objects of thought. Active reason
makes the world intelligible, and bestows on the materials of knowledge
those ideas or categories which make them accessible to thought. This is
just as the sun communicates to material objects that light, without
which color would be invisible, and sight would have no object. Hence
reason is the constant support of an intelligible world. While assigning
reason to the soul of humans, Aristotle describes it as coming from
without, and almost seems to identify it with God as the eternal and
omnipresent thinker. Even in humans, in short, reason realizes something
of the essential characteristic of absolute thought -- the unity of
thought as subject with thought as object.
7. Ethics
Ethics, as viewed by Aristotle, is an attempt to find out our chief
end or highest good: an end which he maintains is really final. Though
many ends of life are only means to further ends, our aspirations and
desires must have some final object or pursuit. Such a chief end is
universally called happiness. But people mean such different things by
the expression that he finds it necessary to discuss the nature of it
for himself. For starters, happiness must be based on human nature, and
must begin from the facts of personal experience. Thus, happiness cannot
be found in any abstract or ideal notion, like Plato's self-existing
good. It must be something practical and human. It must then be found in
the work and life which is unique to humans. But this is neither the
vegetative life we share with plants nor the sensitive existence which
we share with animals. It follows therefore that true happiness lies in
the active life of a rational being or in a perfect realization and
outworking of the true soul and self, continued throughout a lifetime.
Aristotle expands his notion of happiness through an analysis of the
human soul which structures and animates a living human organism. The
parts of the soul are divided as follows:
| Calculative -- Intellectual Virtue | |
| Rational | |
| Appetitive -- Moral Virtue | |
| Irrational | |
| Vegetative -- Nutritional Virtue |
The human soul has an irrational element which is shared with the
animals, and a rational element which is distinctly human. The most
primitive irrational element is the vegetative faculty which is
responsible for nutrition and growth. An organism which does this well
may be said to have a nutritional virtue. The second tier of the soul is
the appetitive faculty which is responsible for our emotions and
desires (such as joy, grief, hope and fear). This faculty is both
rational and irrational. It is irrational since even animals experience
desires. However, it is also rational since humans have the distinct
ability to control these desires with the help of reason. The human
ability to properly control these desires is called moral virtue, and is
the focus of morality. Aristotle notes that there is a purely rational
part of the soul, the calculative, which is responsible for the human
ability to contemplate, reason logically, and formulate scientific
principles. The mastery of these abilities is called intellectual
virtue.
Aristotle continues by making several general points about the nature
of moral virtues (i.e. desire-regulating virtues). First, he argues
that the ability to regulate our desires is not instinctive, but learned
and is the outcome of both teaching and practice. Second, he notes that
if we regulate our desires either too much or too little, then we
create problems. As an analogy, Aristotle comments that, either "excess
or deficiency of gymnastic exercise is fatal to strength." Third, he
argues that desire-regulating virtues are character traits, and are not
to be understood as either emotions or mental faculties.
The core of Aristotle's account of moral virtue is his doctrine of
the mean. According to this doctrine, moral virtues are
desire-regulating character traits which are at a mean between more
extreme character traits (or vices). For example, in response to the
natural emotion of fear, we should develop the virtuous character trait
of courage. If we develop an excessive character trait by curbing fear
too much, then we are said to be rash, which is a vice. If, on the other
extreme, we develop a deficient character trait by curbing fear too
little, then we are said to be cowardly, which is also a vice. The
virtue of courage, then, lies at the mean between the excessive extreme
of rashness, and the deficient extreme of cowardice. Aristotle is quick
to point out that the virtuous mean is not a strict mathematical mean
between two extremes. For example, if eating 100 apples is too many, and
eating zero apples is too little, this does not imply that we should
eat 50 apples, which is the mathematical mean. Instead, the mean is
rationally determined, based on the relative merits of the situation.
That is, it is "as a prudent man would determine it." He concludes that
it is difficult to live the virtuous life primarily because it is often
difficult to find the mean between the extremes.
Most moral virtues, and not just courage, are to be understood as
falling at the mean between two accompanying vices. His list may be
represented by the following table:
| Vice of Deficiency | Virtuous Mean | Vice of Excess |
|---|---|---|
| Cowardice | Courage | Rashness |
| Insensibility | Temperance | Intemperance |
| Illiberality | Liberality | Prodigality |
| Pettiness | Munificence | Vulgarity |
| Humble-mindedness | High-mindedness | Vaingloriness |
| Want of Ambition | Right Ambition | Over-ambition |
| Spiritlessness | Good Temper | Irascibility |
| Surliness | Friendly Civility | Obsequiousness |
| Ironical Depreciation | Sincerity | Boastfulness |
| Boorishness | Wittiness | Buffoonery |
| Shamelessness | Modesty | Bashfulness |
| Callousness | Just Resentment | Spitefulness |
The prominent virtue of this list is high-mindedness, which, as being
a kind of ideal self-respect, is regarded as the crown of all the other
virtues, depending on them for its existence, and itself in turn
tending to intensify their force. The list seems to be more a deduction
from the formula than a statement of the facts on which the formula
itself depends, and Aristotle accordingly finds language frequently
inadequate to express the states of excess or defect which his theory
involves (for example in dealing with the virtue of ambition).
Throughout the list he insists on the "autonomy of will" as
indispensable to virtue: courage for instance is only really worthy of
the name when done from a love of honor and duty: munificence again
becomes vulgarity when it is not exercised from a love of what is right
and beautiful, but for displaying wealth.
Justice is used both in a general and in a special sense. In its
general sense it is equivalent to the observance of law. As such it is
the same thing as virtue, differing only insofar as virtue exercises the
disposition simply in the abstract, and justice applies it in dealings
with people. Particular justice displays itself in two forms. First, distributive justice hands out honors and rewards according to the merits of the recipients. Second, corrective justice
takes no account of the position of the parties concerned, but simply
secures equality between the two by taking away from the advantage of
the one and adding it to the disadvantage of the other. Strictly
speaking, distributive and corrective justice are more than mere
retaliation and reciprocity. However, in concrete situations of civil
life, retaliation and reciprocity is an adequate formula since such
circumstances involve money, depending on a relation between producer
and consumer. Since absolute justice is abstract in nature, in the real
world it must be supplemented with equity, which corrects and modifies
the laws of justice where it falls short. Thus, morality requires a
standard which will not only regulate the inadequacies of absolute
justice but be also an idea of moral progress.
This idea of morality is given by the faculty of moral insight. The
truly good person is at the same time a person of perfect insight, and a
person of perfect insight is also perfectly good. Our idea of the
ultimate end of moral action is developed through habitual experience,
and this gradually frames itself out of particular perceptions. It is
the job of reason to apprehend and organize these particular
perceptions. However, moral action is never the result of a mere act of
the understanding, nor is it the result of a simple desire which views
objects merely as things which produce pain or pleasure. We start with a
rational conception of what is advantageous, but this conception is in
itself powerless without the natural impulse which will give it
strength. The will or purpose implied by morality is thus either reason
stimulated to act by desire, or desire guided and controlled by
understanding. These factors then motivate the willful action. Freedom
of the will is a factor with both virtuous choices and vicious choices.
Actions are involuntary only when another person forces our action, or
if we are ignorant of important details in actions. Actions are
voluntary when the originating cause of action (either virtuous or
vicious) lies in ourselves.
Moral weakness of the will results in someone does what is wrong,
knowing that it is right, and yet follows his desire against reason. For
Aristotle, this condition is not a myth, as Socrates supposed it was.
The problem is a matter of conflicting moral principles. Moral action
may be represented as a syllogism in which a general principle of
morality forms the first (i.e. major) premise, while the particular
application is the second (i.e. minor) premise. The conclusion, though,
which is arrived at through speculation, is not always carried out in
practice. The moral syllogism is not simply a matter of logic, but
involves psychological drives and desires. Desires can lead to a minor
premise being applied to one rather than another of two major premises
existing in the agent's mind. Animals, on the other hand, cannot be
called weak willed or incontinent since such a conflict of principles is
not possible with them.
Pleasure is not to be identified with Good. Pleasure is found in the
consciousness of free spontaneous action. It is an invisible experience,
like vision, and is always present when a perfect organ acts upon a
perfect object. Pleasures accordingly differ in kind, varying along with
the different value of the functions of which they are the expression.
They are determined ultimately by the judgment of "the good person." Our
chief end is the perfect development of our true nature; it thus must
be particularly found in the realization of our highest faculty, that
is, reason. It is this in fact which constitutes our personality, and we
would not be pursuing our own life, but the life of some lower being,
if we followed any other aim. Self-love accordingly may be said to be
the highest law of morals, because while such self-love may be
understood as the selfishness which gratifies a person's lower nature,
it may also be, and is rightly, the love of that higher and rational
nature which constitutes each person's true self. Such a life of thought
is further recommended as that which is most pleasant, most
self-sufficient, most continuous, and most consonant with our purpose.
It is also that which is most akin to the life of God: for God cannot be
conceived as practising the ordinary moral virtues and must therefore
find his happiness in contemplation.
Friendship is an indispensable aid in framing for ourselves the
higher moral life; if not itself a virtue, it is at least associated
with virtue, and it proves itself of service in almost all conditions of
our existence. Such results, however, are to be derived not from the
worldly friendships of utility or pleasure, but only from those which
are founded on virtue. The true friend is in fact a second self, and the
true moral value of friendship lies in the fact that the friend
presents to us a mirror of good actions, and so intensifies our
consciousness and our appreciation of life.
For a fuller discussion of these topics, see the article Aristotle's Ethics.
8. Politics
Aristotle does not regard politics as a separate science from ethics,
but as the completion, and almost a verification of it. The moral ideal
in political administration is only a different aspect of that which
also applies to individual happiness. Humans are by nature social
beings, and the possession of rational speech (logos) in itself leads us
to social union. The state is a development from the family through the
village community, an offshoot of the family. Formed originally for the
satisfaction of natural wants, it exists afterwards for moral ends and
for the promotion of the higher life. The state in fact is no mere local
union for the prevention of wrong doing, and the convenience of
exchange. It is also no mere institution for the protection of goods and
property. It is a genuine moral organization for advancing the
development of humans.
The family, which is chronologically prior to the state, involves a
series of relations between husband and wife, parent and child, master
and slave. Aristotle regards the slave as a piece of live property
having no existence except in relation to his master. Slavery is a
natural institution because there is a ruling and a subject class among
people related to each other as soul to body; however, we must
distinguish between those who are slaves by nature, and those who have
become slaves merely by war and conquest. Household management involves
the acquisition of riches, but must be distinguished from money-making
for its own sake. Wealth is everything whose value can be measured by
money; but it is the use rather than the possession of commodities which
constitutes riches.
Financial exchange first involved bartering. However, with the
difficulties of transmission between countries widely separated from
each other, money as a currency arose. At first it was merely a specific
amount of weighted or measured metal. Afterwards it received a stamp to
mark the amount. Demand is the real standard of value. Currency,
therefore, is merely a convention which represents the demand; it stands
between the producer and the recipient and secures fairness. Usury is
an unnatural and reprehensible use of money.
The communal ownership of wives and property as sketched by Plato in the Republic
rests on a false conception of political society. For, the state is not
a homogeneous unity, as Plato believed, but rather is made up of
dissimilar elements. The classification of constitutions is based on the
fact that government may be exercised either for the good of the
governed or of the governing, and may be either concentrated in one
person or shared by a few or by the many. There are thus three true
forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and constitutional republic.
The perverted forms of these are tyranny, oligarchy and democracy. The
difference between the last two is not that democracy is a government of
the many, and oligarchy of the few; instead, democracy is the state of
the poor, and oligarchy of the rich. Considered in the abstract, these
six states stand in the following order of preference: monarchy,
aristocracy, constitutional republic, democracy, oligarchy, tyranny. But
though with a perfect person monarchy would be the highest form of
government, the absence of such people puts it practically out of
consideration. Similarly, true aristocracy is hardly ever found in its
uncorrupted form. It is in the constitution that the good person and the
good citizen coincide. Ideal preferences aside, then, the
constitutional republic is regarded as the best attainable form
of government, especially as it secures that predominance of a large
middle class, which is the chief basis of permanence in any state. With
the spread of population, democracy is likely to become the general form
of government.
Which is the best state is a question that cannot be directly
answered. Different races are suited for different forms of government,
and the question which meets the politician is not so much what is
abstractly the best state, but what is the best state under existing
circumstances. Generally, however, the best state will enable anyone to
act in the best and live in the happiest manner. To serve this end the
ideal state should be neither too great nor too small, but simply
self-sufficient. It should occupy a favorable position towards land and
sea and consist of citizens gifted with the spirit of the northern
nations, and the intelligence of the Asiatic nations. It should further
take particular care to exclude from government all those engaged in
trade and commerce; "the best state will not make the "working man" a
citizen; it should provide support religious worship; it should secure
morality through the educational influences of law and early training.
Law, for Aristotle, is the outward expression of the moral ideal without
the bias of human feeling. It is thus no mere agreement or convention,
but a moral force coextensive with all virtue. Since it is universal in
its character, it requires modification and adaptation to particular
circumstances through equity.
Education should be guided by legislation to make it correspond with
the results of psychological analysis, and follow the gradual
development of the bodily and mental faculties. Children should during
their earliest years be carefully protected from all injurious
associations, and be introduced to such amusements as will prepare them
for the serious duties of life. Their literary education should begin in
their seventh year, and continue to their twenty-first year. This
period is divided into two courses of training, one from age seven to
puberty, and the other from puberty to age twenty-one. Such education
should not be left to private enterprise, but should be undertaken by
the state. There are four main branches of education: reading and
writing, Gymnastics, music, and painting. They should not be studied to
achieve a specific aim, but in the liberal spirit which creates true
freemen. Thus, for example, gymnastics should not be pursued by itself
exclusively, or it will result in a harsh savage type of character.
Painting must not be studied merely to prevent people from being cheated
in pictures, but to make them attend to physical beauty. Music must not
be studied merely for amusement, but for the moral influence which it
exerts on the feelings. Indeed all true education is, as Plato saw, a
training of our sympathies so that we may love and hate in a right
manner.
For a fuller discussion of these topics, see the article Aristotle's Politics.
9. Art and Poetics
Art is defined by Aristotle as the realization in external form of a
true idea, and is traced back to that natural love of imitation which
characterizes humans, and to the pleasure which we feel in recognizing
likenesses. Art however is not limited to mere copying. It idealizes
nature and completes its deficiencies: it seeks to grasp the universal
type in the individual phenomenon. The distinction therefore between
poetic art and history is not that the one uses meter, and the other
does not. The distinction is that while history is limited to what has
actually happened, poetry depicts things in their universal character.
And, therefore, "poetry is more philosophical and more elevated than
history." Such imitation may represent people either as better or as
worse than people usually are, or it may neither go beyond nor fall
below the average standard. Comedy is the imitation of the worse
examples of humanity, understood however not in the sense of absolute
badness, but only in so far as what is low and ignoble enters into what
is laughable and comic.
Tragedy, on the other hand, is the representation of a serious or
meaningful, rounded or finished, and more or less extended or
far-reaching action -- a representation which is effected by action and
not mere narration. It is fitted by portraying events which excite fear
and pity in the mind of the observer to purify or purge these feelings
and extend and regulate their sympathy. It is thus a homeopathic curing
of the passions. Insofar as art in general universalizes particular
events, tragedy, in depicting passionate and critical situations, takes
the observer outside the selfish and individual standpoint, and views
them in connection with the general lot of human beings. This is similar
to Aristotle's explanation of the use of orgiastic music in the worship
of Bacchas and other deities: it affords an outlet for religious fervor
and thus steadies one's religious sentiments.
