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 is not the abstract form, but rather the concrete individual thing. In
Metaphysics, it frequently inclines towards realism. We are also struck by the
apparent contradiction that claims science deals with universal concepts, and
substance is declared to be an individual. In any case, substance is a merging
of matter into form. Aristotle uses the term matter 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 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: 1. Material cause, or the elements
out of which an object is created; 2. Efficient cause, or the means by which it
is created; 3. Formal cause, or the expression of what it is; 4.
Final cause, or
the end for which it is. Take, for example a gold statue. Its material cause is
the gold itself. Its efficient cause is the sculptor, insofar has he or she
forces the gold 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 gold. 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 or purpose 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. Aristotle had many ideas that brought good and bad
results. We appreciate his life, writing, and teachings and strive to become
such a great thinker as he was. He was not concerned with how others viewed him
as a person. Aristotle has influenced many philosophers way of thinking today.
Also he did not let other ideas stop him from achieving his thirst for his code
of ethics.
Words: 2119
