Metaphysics Book by Aristotle - Essay Example

Question In Metaphysics Book Aristotle suggested that the followers of Pythagoras and the followers of Plato came up with very similar accountsof the causes of things, and that their accounts had many problems in common. He explained the Pythagorean school of though by elaborating, "they regarded number as both a material and formal principle". On the other hand, he elucidates the Platonian version by stating, "They employed two causes, that of essence and of material; for the forms are the cause of the essence in everything else, and the One is the cause of it in the forms". Basically, where he drew a comparison between the two, was by equating their attempt to explain concepts and constructs therein, by the use of numbers (Pythagoras) and ideas (Plato). Aristotle believed that these were comparable in the sense, that these were arrangements of convenience, wherein additions or subtractions in the notions could be contrived at a theoretical convenience, just so that a link could be established amongst the theoretical construct originally proposed by them. Aristotle believed that Plato advocated the notion that forms (ideas) cause both existence and generation. On the other hand, Aristotle felt that Pythagoras supported the idea that numbers try to explain the connation of the universe and reality. Both these are significant in the view of Aristotle, since the give way to many theoretical norms that are of practical purpose. Hence, understanding their existence as a whole was deemed crucial by Aristotle. It was on the same notion of viewing their theories as a 'whole' did Aristotle compare them and criticized that both were actually trying to achieve the same goal. While these criticisms may seem noteworthy, they are not all-encompassing of the specific theories in question. Pythagoreans set put to prove things in a numerical basis, while Platonians contrived the use of ideas to explain concept formation. Both systems have their own strengths and weaknesses, but cannot necessarily be equated along the same line for usages and construct. In so far as the individual weaknesses in the systems are pointed put by Aristotle are concerned, they make sense and can be taken into account for various reasons. However, it is when they are paired together for comparison that Aristotle's arguments seem frail. These are essentially two different systems believing and advocating in values that are quite different. They are not absolute systems, and hence might have their share of problems. Yet, Aristotle insists on comparing the voids between both theories as the same, by exemplifying that "all existing things do not have the same elements", thereby propagating the fact, that these two theorists may not have explained the concept in entirety. Precisely this last criticism by Aristotle also ironically becomes a criticism for his own critique. He questions in the book, "If forms are numbers, in what sense will they be causes. If ideas are numbers, how are they composed." This is precisely the point. The two theories are not compatible with each other, and hence their criticism on parallel grounds is also uncalled for. There is much more to their concept when taken individually, when taken both in forms of theory and practice even today. However, making a critical comparison of two notions, one of whom represents a numerical construct, while other propagates the concept of ideas as forms, seems harsh. The possible reason why this might have been done by Aristotle in the first place, is because he may be looking for 'voids' which have not been explained by these two great thinkers, so that when he would explain his own notions, they would be an 'addition' to the bank of knowledge, and not just a concurrence. Question 2 Both Aristotle (in Metaphysics Book I) and Lucretius (in On the Nature of the Universe), stress upon the usages of the sensory means for the processes and possibilities of gaining knowledge. They believe, that it is through the senses, that knowledge is gained, or simply, information about the outside world comes inside. The importance and value of every sense is unique in its own right, as elaborated by both, in that the domain of the eye cannot be overtaken by the ear. Aristotle puts forth the point that "all men naturally desire knowledge. [However there exist] degrees of intelligence, sense-perception, memory, experience, art and experience". These variation in processes of acquiring knowledge, actually points out to the ability to gain, assimilate and reproduce knowledge. He went on to describe four kinds of 'cause', namely: formal, material, efficient and final. On the other hand, Lucretius also explains the nature of "vision, hearing, taste and smell", and the way things enter the mind and how the mind works. He explains at length the processes through which he believes information goes into the mental system, and also how each sense is performing their task in an exclusive way. However, there are certain variations between both schools of thought when it comes to the connotation of the truthfulness of the knowledge gained. Aristotle believed, that "wisdom is the knowledge of certain causes and principles". He tried to present a rationale for the wise man, in that there would be an innate ability to reason better than the rest. He went on to advocate that the wise man must have universal knowledge, and knowledge of difficult subjects. He felt that for a man to be wiser than the rest, he must have the ability to grasp a concept and explain it with more clarity than the common person without such a mental capacity. Conversely, according to Lucretius, knowing something drew a clear benchmark away from ignorance. He explained, "If someone thinks that nothing is known, he does not even know, he does not even know whether that can be known, since he declares that he knows nothing". This went on to purport his ideation of 'knowing' that one knows. He felt, that when, through the senses a man knows, his mind should be able to register that some information has been acquired. This only comes in when a person starts to appreciate the new gained knowledge. So he concluded that one's "reasoning about things must be false and wrapped, whenever it is based upon false senses". He thus explained that it is only through flawed or less-than-adequate usage of sense, that a person is unable to acquire the real truth, which then creates a flawed version of truth and reality for him. Aristotle explicated that "knowledge is more nearly wisdom in proportion as it is more desirable in itself, superior to other forms of knowledge". Thus this gave the person having knowledge, additional responsibilities. He believed that "the acquisition of knowledge changes our while outlook" and a person starts to feel and think differently. A similar notion is presented by Lucretius when he mentions that "unless you apply your mind [to the knowledge gained], they might just as well be far removed from you". Thus he went onto explain the moral responsibility that comes on the shoulders of a person who knows more than the rest. This is also advocated in his notion of explaining death and mortality, when he supports the idea that death is 'nothing'. For Lucretius, this is a reciprocal admittance that there is death, and that everything is mortal. Yet, he advocates courage and optimism by stating that death is nothing by saying that it is the fear of death that should not be there, since everyone and everything has to die and end. Question 3 Lucretius attempts at refuting the essence of three main myths in his book. The first one being, that "gods did not create the world". The second refers to the notion that "the spirit is mortal", and the final one purports that "the universe is finite (without an extreme)". His argument for the first one rested in the notion of atoms, and that there was a collision of a vast number of atoms, that resulted in the current world. He thus argues the fact that there were/are no gods (though he does mention them a number of times to generate poetic impact!). Secondly, he believed that the spirit, like every thing else, is mortal, and comes to an end. He believed that the universe is down on a collision course, and ultimately, it will perish given the track it is going on now. Finally, he elucidated that the lack of extreme and premise for the universe also supports the fact that it is also finite, and will come to an end. He believed that "nothing can originate from nothing"; hence the universe was created through a collision of atoms, and will end in the same way. Lucretius presents credible accounts of awareness of individuals, brought about by the sensory processes. In this regard, he collaborated the notion of mind, senses and the spirit, while explaining the notion of knowledgeable existence. He believed that the mind primarily consisted of numerous atoms, who when joined together resulted in the performance of specific tasks. He elaborated that "the mind which we often call the intelligence, in which is situated the understanding and government of lifeis not placed in a definite part, but is a sort of a vital essence of the body". Thus he gave the notion of mind immense importance, and gave it a superlative degree of significant in comparison with other body organs and functions. Subsequently, while explaining the concept of senses, he gave emphasis on how they were the window through which the world became a notion of understanding for the individual. He advocated the idea that "unless you dare to trust in your sensesall that array of words is in vain, that has been massed and deployed against the senses". He thus not only gave value to the information that was brought in through the senses, but also laid stress on the subsequent and relevant understanding of the information brought in. he threw light on the importance of giving weight to whatever was brought in through the sense - something that ultimately created a difference between the knowledge level of two different individuals. Furthermore, he elaborated upon how thought and memories were created, from which the individuals actually made sense of the world around them. He stated, "Now I tell you what things move in the mindimages of things, many in many modes wander aboutthe mind fancies something, thinks of it, and an image remains". What he was referring to, can be translated in contemporary terms as translation of symbols, numbers and words into images and ideas - something that forms the crux of cognitive the understanding of an individual. Again, he attributed the process to the service of numerous atoms, who were performing their duties diligently. Finally, while commenting upon life after death, and the process of emotions and feelings therein, he commented "No place is left for life. The spirit flees dispersed through the channels of the bodyonce the feeling has left, the body lacks feeling in every part". Hence, as stated earlier, he was an advocate of mortality, for everything including the mid, body and the spirit. Thus, while he was cognizant of the differing roles of mind and spirit, both for him were mortally interdependent. Read More