ARISTOTLE'S METAPHYSICSA CONT..
Act and potency
But in a literal sense of dunamis — and it is the one in which Aristotle is mainly interested —A dunamis in this sense is not a thing's power to produce a change but rather its capacity to be in a different and more completed state.[2] Actuality on the other hand is that to which potency is directed towards. A being in potency is always moving towards act. Every material being is composed of this two principle matter and form; act and potency. Since matter limits the essence or form of a material being, matter is therefore the always in a state of potency an ability to change to something else.
But there is one being which accord to Aristotle, is perfect because it does not contain any potentiality in HIS essence. This being is always in act nothing changes its essence because it contains no imperfection and therefore not liable to change. This being Aristotle maintains is responsible for change in the world but is not in itself moveable. Aristotle identifies it as the unmoved mover.
THE FOUR CAUSES OF ARISTOTLE
There are four kinds of cause according to Aristotle; (1) the material cause, which explains what a thing is made of; (2) the formal cause, which explains the form a thing assumes; (3) the efficient cause, which explains the process by which it came into being; and (4) the final cause, which explains the end or purpose it serves. The explanations of earlier philosophers have conformed to these four causes but not as coherently and systematically as Aristotle’s formulation. Aristotle acknowledges that Plato’s Theory of Forms gives a strong account of the formal cause, but it fails to prove that Forms exist and to explain how objects in the physical world participate in Forms. Regarding this, he criticizes Plato arguing that the forms of Plato are separate entities existing independently in the world of form from the particular individual things of which they are their essence. Thus, the forms of Plato cannot help us understand the things in this world.
Evaluation/conclusion
The contributions of Aristotle to metaphysics are enormous. Like his predecessor Plato, he gave a new way of understanding reality as a whole and being in particular. Where Plato emphasized the reality of the intelligible over the sensible, Aristotle did nearly the opposite emphasizing the need to gain information from the senses properly instructed over the contents of the mind.
Both Plato and Aristotle stressed the importance of the difference between matter and form. However, Plato taught that the realm of forms was the true reality and that the outer world of the senses was merely a set of copies, of the real reality in the world of form, Aristotle saw form as nonexistent outside of its manifestation in the world. And thus gave a whole new understanding to the study of the nature of things and its essence.
A lot of scholars have criticized Aristotle’s god contending that the unmoved mover does not love and therefore has no plan for your life on earth. This is because to love would be to have an emotional life, to have needs and weaknesses. Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover has no place of relationship with creatures less creature mar his very being. It cannot think about particulars of the changing world. So it must be thinking about thinking (rational thought).
One must however applaud Aristotle in the sense that he was able to lay down a thesis that will later help medieval and scholastics authors in defining and explaining the origin of life and thus prove the existence of God which is now studied in theodicy.
Bibliography
Aristotle. "Metaphysica," translated by W.D. Ross, in The Basic Works of Aristotle. Edited by Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, 1941.
Cohen, S. Marc, "Aristotle's Metaphysics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/aristotle-metaphysics
Omoregbe, Joseph. A Simplified History of Western Philosophy Vol. 1, Lagos: Ikeja, Joja Educational Press, 2007.
Post a Comment