Tag Archives: Aristotle

Goes On Forever, Then Stops With Aristotle

Posted on by

After these things, [one must observe] that neither matter nor form comes to be, I mean the ultimate ones.  For everything undergoes change as something and by something and into something.  The by something is the initiating mover, the something is the matter, and the into which is the form.  Therefore they continue into an infinite regress, if not only bronze comes to be round but also the round comes to be and the bronze comes to be.  Indeed, there must be a stopping point. (My translation, Metaphysics 1069b35-1070a4) (1) (2).

In an attempt to explain the “infinite regress” mentioned above, I have made two previous posts (1st post, 2nd post).

There are at least two errors in the explanation of change, considered as opposite extremes.  One is to claim that something comes from nothing.  This is no explanation, however, for we simply have two incidentally contiguous events, the state of non-being and then the state of being, which are erroneously construed as having a causal connection.  The other error is to become “cause happy” and multiply explanations, destroying any causal cogency which an account of change might have had otherwise.  It is this second notion which I think Aristotle is trying to neutralize.  When he claims that having to give an explanation for both the “round” and the “bronze” apart from the bronze becoming a round, leads to an “infinite regress,” the point he is pressing is that, unless we accept the termini of a change “from a this, to a that” we are stuck with the philosophically inert task of endless explanation.  In this erroneous method, from Aristotle’s point of view, what is being proposed is simply an ever increasing succession of events, with nothing tying it together.  A subject of change would provide this unity of account.  Without this subject of change, a substratum, there is a chain of succession both receding and similarly reaching out into the future without limit.  There is likewise nothing that could be imposed on this succession to prevent it from applying to the cosmos as a whole.  Thus the “infinite regress” is perhaps better understood as an infinite succession, intended primarily to single out for criticism a futile explanatory chain.   The explanatory role of change cannot be pawned off, the buck must stop somewhere.     

_____________________________________________________________________________

NOTES:

1)
Μετὰ ταῦτα ὅτι οὐ γίγνεται οὔτε ἡ ὕλη οὔτε τὸ εἶδος,   (35)
λέγω δὲ τὰ ἔσχατα. πᾶν γὰρ μεταβάλλει τὶ καὶ ὑπό
(1070a) τινος καὶ εἴς τι· ὑφ’ οὗ μέν, τοῦ πρώτου κινοῦντος· ὃ δέ, ἡ
ὕλη· εἰς ὃ δέ, τὸ εἶδος. εἰς ἄπειρον οὖν εἶσιν, εἰ μὴ μόνον
ὁ χαλκὸς γίγνεται στρογγύλος ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ στρογγύλον
ἢ ὁ χαλκός· ἀνάγκη δὴ στῆναι.

2)
Note that I have flip flopped (again!) on the translation of the last sentence, owing to considerations laid out above.

Another Infinite Regress in Aristotle

Posted on by

After these things, [one must observe] that neither matter nor form comes to be, I mean the ultimate ones.  For everything undergoes change as something and by something and into something.  The by something is the initiating mover, the something is the matter, and the into which is the form.  Therefore they continue into an infinite regress, if not only bronze comes to be round but also the round comes to be and the bronze comes to be.  Indeed, there must be a stopping point (My translation, Metaphysics 1069b35-1070a4) (1).

This is how Lamda 3 begins.  Focus for a moment on the infinite regress which Aristotle offers as a consequence of this first paragraph. What line of reasoning is Aristotle following here?  Certainly if bronze has to come to be before it even serves as the subject of a transition into a bronze statue, then the process is pushed back one step.  But why should this be an infinite regress.  In other contexts, Aristotle uses eis apeiron to mean infinite regress, so I think it is solid to interpret it as such here.  

I believe that Aristotle is here already assuming a substratum or hypokeimenon. The idea of a substratum, or underlying thing, would seem to serve at least two purposes.  The first would be to explain the persistence of a thing through change and over time.  Secondly to avoid having to explain the antecedent coming to be of something in order to serve as the subject of a change.  It is perhaps this second idea that is motivating Aristotle’s infinite regress.  I will try to develop this idea in a second post.

———————————————————————————————————

Notes:

(1) Μετὰ ταῦτα ὅτι οὐ γίγνεται οὔτε ἡ ὕλη οὔτε τὸ εἶδος,   (35)
λέγω δὲ τὰ ἔσχατα. πᾶν γὰρ μεταβάλλει τὶ καὶ ὑπό
(1070a) τινος καὶ εἴς τι· ὑφ’ οὗ μέν, τοῦ πρώτου κινοῦντος· ὃ δέ, ἡ
ὕλη· εἰς ὃ δέ, τὸ εἶδος. εἰς ἄπειρον οὖν εἶσιν, εἰ μὴ μόνον
ὁ χαλκὸς γίγνεται στρογγύλος ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ στρογγύλον
ἢ ὁ χαλκός· ἀνάγκη δὴ στῆναι.

Misreading Aristotle’s “Leisurely Philosophy” in Cicero

Posted on by

In the fifth book of the Tusculan Disputations (concerning the self sufficiency of virtue) there are, it seems, several parallels or echoes of Aristotelian philosophy.  It is commonly accepted that Cicero read Aristotle, so this is not surprising.  Further, it is likewise not so shocking that Cicero might have misread Aristotle as well.  Aristotle famously says in the first book of Metaphysics that,

It is therefore probable that at first the inventor of any art which went further than the ordinary sensations was admired by his fellow-men, not merely because some of his inventions were useful, but as being a wise and superior person.  And as more and more arts were discovered, some relating to the necessities and some to the pastimes of life, the inventors of the latter were always considered wiser than those of the former, because their branches of knowledge did not aim at utility. Hence when all the discoveries of this kind were fully developed, the sciences which relate neither to pleasure nor yet to the necessities of life were invented, and first in those places where men had leisure (Metaphysics A.1, trans. Rackham) (1).

Cicero takes this as meaning that the first philosophers willingly put aside the distractions of a pragmatic life in order to give total devotion to philosophy:

Those who first directed themselves to the study of philosophy, so that, with all things being put aside, they were positioning themselves to whole-heartedly inquire into the best state of life (my translation) (2).  

This interpretation suggests the image of a retiring gentlemen leaning back in his recliner to focus his attention on the finer, and more pleasing, aspects of the intellect.  Although this may, in fact, have some of the intent of Aristotle’s account, and perhaps in no small part may explain his exaltation of the contemplative life, it strikes me as an oddly individualistic account. 

I have always read the account in the Metaphysics as at least a partial attempt at explaining a historical phenomenon.  When mankind had reached only so far in the ascent of science, it did not yet reach to the non-productive realm of the theoretical science, philosophy.  When it did, it philosophy was born, not of necessity, but of leisure. This is not an account of a single man, but of mankind,or at least the Greeks.

———————————————————————————————————————

Notes:

  1.  Τὸ μὲν οὖν πρῶτον εἰκὸς τὸν ὁποιανοῦν εὑρόντα τέχνην παρὰ τὰς κοινὰς αἰσθήσεις θαυμάζεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, μὴ μόνον διὰ τὸ χρήσιμον εἶναί τι τῶν εὑρεθέντων, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς σοφὸν καὶ διαφέροντα τῶν ἄλλων· πλειόνων δ᾿ εὑρισκομένων τεχνῶν, καὶ τῶν μὲν πρὸς τἀναγκαῖα, τῶν δὲ πρὸς διαγωγὴν οὐσῶν, ἀεὶ σοφωτέρους τοὺς τοιούτους ἐκείνων ὑπολαμβάνεσθαι,1 διὰ τὸ μὴ πρὸς χρῆσιν εἶναι τὰς ἐπιστήμας αὐτῶν. ὅθεν ἤδη πάντων τῶν τοιούτων κατεσκευασμένων αἱ μὴ πρὸς ἡδονὴν μηδὲ πρὸς τἀναγκαῖα τῶν ἐπιστημῶν εὑρέθησαν, καὶ πρῶτον ἐν τούτοις τοῖς τόποις οὗπερ ἐσχόλασαν (~981b13 ff). 
  2. …qui primi se ad philosophiae studium contulerunt, ut omnibus rebus posthabitis totos se in optimo vitae statu exquirendo collocarent… (Tusculan Disputations 5.1).