ARISTOTLE (384 – 322 )

p. Mario Neva Grand Philosophât de Djimé, Février, 2013

‘The Philosopher’, as Medieval thinkers like St. Albert

the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas called him, or ‘master of

those who know’, as Dante Alighieri calls him in his Divine

Comedy: Aristotle is the first and the greatest systematic

thinker in Western philosophy. Through his perspective it is

possible to build a whole knowledge system, centred on a

correspondence between THINGS and THOUGHT, LOGOS and

WORLD. The Medieval tradition expressed this relationship

with the phrase ADEQUATIO REI ET INTELLECTUS. Aristotle

then celebrates the worth and scope of human reason, which

is ordered to know the truth in everything, starting TAMQUAM

TABULA RASA and potentially following through to the

contemplation of the ARKE. That is not a naïf vision, like in

some dogmatic rationalist thinkers, or that of New Age

visionaries, but rather the consequence of the notion that

each man naturally desires to know …. Knowing truth is

therefore natural. Philosophical life transforms this universal

natural attitude into an art and a technique, and the result can

be WISDOM. This is the reason why Aristotle states that to

know the truth is at the same time easy and difficult.

One of the tasks of the wise man is to put order in what he

understands. We ought to clarify that, while Aristotle gives us

sufficient elements to build his system, he himself did not fully

achieve it. We can think of many reasons: did he not have

enough time or will-power to follow through with his work? Or

was he conscious of the precariousness of philosophical

statements and their necessary intricacies and APORIAS? Or

even, have we lost his further philosophical production? It

must be observed that Aristotle’s system, like a fortress, does

not have one entrance only … the great creator of Western

theoretical grammar seems bent on finding different gateways

towards a full and satisfactory result in his research. If we let

go of this hermeneutical premise, Aristotle becomes a

problem and his thought appears to invite rejection...

Sometimes this door is Being as Being, sometimes it is

Substance and accidents and the related ten categories,

sometimes it is the four principles or causes, efficient,

material, formal, and final, sometimes it is the vision of a

correct dynamism of each nature with its tendencies, man as

a man and stone as a stone, all starting from the senses and

reaching theoretical contemplation through abstraction;

sometimes it is the relationship between being and

movement, act and potency, matter and form, soul and body,

definition and syllogism. When at the beginning of our

journey we focused on the great theme of the relationship

between language and thought, we set out the premise for the

understanding of the Philosopher’s ties to Greek grammar as

well as his ability to transcend its limitations in the realm of

universal logic.

Induction is the beginning of philosophical inquiry, its

necessary point of departure. In Aristotle’s system there is no

place for innate ideas; but then truthful thinking is such a

spontaneous and quick process as to be close to innate.

Aristotle argues that there are many degrees of being,

interconnected through the principle of analogy, so we have

many degrees of truth. This doctrine presents itself as a

convincing conciliation of Parmenides with Heraclitus: all real

experiences are at the same time individual and composite,

only the first principle is simple. Total simplicity is Pure Act,

the perfection of being and thought. Those who find

Aristotle’s system plausible, dogmatic, univocal and static

(partly Descartes, Hegel and Heidegger) have not understood

the living soul and the radical dynamism of his views. To

project a dynamic style of thinking is to reflect the natural

dynamism of world, as finalism is for the Philosopher the true

universal rule of nature. Aristotle’s analysis and investigation

run on the plan of the real world and that of logic at the same

time… doubting also plays a role in his philosophy, but it does

not take pride of place as in some more recent systems and

mentality. Subjectivism too, which characterizes the

postmodern outlook, is spontaneously overcome in the very

act of thinking and its natural aim. In this living dynamism, as

the golden point of contact between sense-experience and

speculative thought, stands the principle of non-contradiction,

simply evident, belonging both in the realm of experience and

in that of logic. The world is wide, full of conflicts, mysterious,

but not at all chaotic: all things are made to be known. This

leading persuasion dominates Greek Philosophy and above all

Aristotle’s philosophy. In Aristotle it becomes an

achievement: the radical denial of confusion and chaos.

Nietzsche was the philosopher who was most in contrast with

this spirit; naturally, according to Greek mentality, we must

say that he was simply foolish.

In comparison with Plato’s idealism, Aristotle’s doctrine is

universally defined as realism, but we find that this dichotomy

idealism-realism is incapable of mapping out the deep

metaphysical relationship that binds, despite real differences,

the two great leader of Western philosophy. Certainly so far

Aristotle has ruled the structure of scientific thought

worldwide, even in those fields where modern sciences have

gone a long distance from his scientific assertions. Like Plato,

Aristotle gives Philosophy the top position in the hierarchy of

human knowledge; he distinguishes between physical, ethical

and dianoetic (purely theoretic) sciences. Reason rules actions,

but the highest source of happiness is the highest

contemplation of truth, free from the necessity to do things

and to own things. Many corollaries arise from this

philosophical vision: the first is that philosophy is generated in

personal life when the natural inclination to think is freed from

physical needs; for example, when a group allows somebody

to be free from needs … In Aristotle’s view that is a

predicament that allows men to be similar to God. We see it as

achievable in the context of an aristocratic society where

slavery is very common and where women are removed from

public life. God is the only entity who thinks the complete

truth… He is the one who thinks of thinking, as Aristotle

defines him. The contemplation of truth like in Plato is then

the apex of the human possibility of earthly happiness.

Aristotle’s tendency is to consider death as natural corruption,

opposed to generation, both springing from constant change.

This means that like in Plato, metaphysical contemplation is

the prime goal of Philosophy. Everybody knows the fascinating

history of the word metaphysics; this word is not in Aristotle’s

vocabulary and perhaps much misunderstanding arises from

the different uses of it. In Aristotle’s philosophy we find that

all, natural observations, laws and constitutions, poetry,

rhetoric, physic, logic, ethic, politics,.. all must and derive from

and tend towards first philosophy, through inductive and

deductive processes. In modern culture physics and other

sciences rightly claim their autonomy and many scientists and

technicians do not understand the importance of philosophy;

this prejudice sometimes is reinforced by many faults of

philosophers, and so a generalized prejudice against

philosophy has spread worldwide; the modern mentality

regards with suspicion and distrust all metaphysics, forgetting

that in Aristotle a solid contemplation is impossible without a

full, conscious immersion in the living world.

Without doubt the scientific love of observation in the natural

sciences which informed the Academy deeply influenced

Aristotle, but the outlook was different. We have already

looked at critiques of Plato’s ideas: form in Aristotle is the

inner order of each thing … but now we need to overcome

that critique by entering Aristotle’s vision.

We start from a (certainly due) criticism of Aristotle’

cosmology. Aristotle’s cosmology was born in the encounter of

observation with imagination and leads very far from the

results of modern telescopic observations of the skies, which

reached its pinnacle in 1927 with the proof that the solar

system is a little part of a galaxy and there are many others

galaxies outside our system. Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s

cosmology is a synthesis of Greek observations of the sky, free

from theogonies and myths. After Galileo and the Copernican

revolution the notion of humanity seems to lose its primacy in

the world, in contrast with its central position within

Aristotle’s and the Bible’s Universe. We witness the

progressive forming of a new paradox. Each intelligence seems

to be the centre of the world inside a Cosmos which does not

have a centre. That is the reason why we assist in modern

times to a new oscillation between subjectivism and absolute

absence of horizons, very far from a classical perspective …

Philosophy and Theology today must assume this topic as a

fundamental one, it is impossible to ignore it; indeed very

possibly their destiny would be death if they did ignore it.

Theology and Philosophy are compelled to justify their

presence, their importance cannot be accepted

spontaneously. Nature preserves its prerogatives but each

man plunged into nature is placed within an infinite, wholly

Centre-less perspective. Cosmology is also the reason why

modern thinkers have rejected Aristotle, whose thought had

been handed down through the centuries wholesale like a

dogmatic truth … the modern observation of the sky starting

from Kepler, Galileo, Bacon, Descartes and Pascal defined a

new scientific approach. Modern science seems to be very far

from Ancient and Medieval science. In addition, the

development of mathematical methods and applications has

been extraordinary, to the point that we consider it the

greatest revolution of modern times. The unconditional

success of science and technology in the Western civilization

has progressively become a worldwide reality and the principal

agent of globalization. We cannot understand modern

philosophy if we do not ponder this fundamental topic. Finding

an alternative to Aristotle was the great task of Descartes,

Bacon, Galileo, Kant, Pascal, Leibniz, Husserl, Wittgenstein and

Heidegger. But there is more, to complicate things and maybe

to open up a new great philosophical arena. We want to

address the tendency to consider human visions temporary

constructions, and the attempts to build an alternative logic,

alternative physics, alternative mathematics, alternative

philosophy and theology. While traditional faith and religions

become more radical, many atheist thinkers are describing the

whole of reality as relative: holding on to a non-relative

principle of reason appears to be the new form of total heresy.

It is within this paradox that we see favourable conditions for a

renewal and regeneration of philosophy. We reasonably

reject postmodern dissolution and we consciously consider

ancient thought to be able to assimilate the open mentality of

modern times; or, better, to undertake a dialogue with human

cultures. Principles are principles. It is true that Neo-Scholastic

and classical thinkers have worked hard in this field, but it is

not possible, in a changing world, to live only of recollections,

without new creative energy.

Aristotle sees the unity of soul and body as a natural fact, like

man’s political dimension. We can then define man as an

animal by genus, and as rational by his specific properties.

This process of definition is possible with all things; it is purely

a process of the mind; therefore our main intellectual activity

is to ‘put together’ and ‘discern’ notions (medieval author

describe this as ‘componere et dividere’).

Human happiness resides in doing as well and fully as possible

what God does always, that is thinking of himself. If we look at

this sentence from a Christian and Enlightenment perspective

we find it -at the very least- disagreeable, but here we must

try to consider it from the viewpoint of a world that did not

know Christianity or critical thought: that sentence appears to

us simply genial. If we read Aristotle directly we find other

paths, normally overlooked in philosophy handbooks which

usually are content to present Aristotle as a very good

companion and a precursor to future thinkers. Plato’s and

Aristotle’s persuasion that astonishment is the starting point

of philosophy is well-known; less well-known is the detailed

exposition of this concept. Certainly the contemplation of the

skies brings about the peak of astonishment, like in Kant, but

Aristotle, in his realism, finds the same astonishment in

doubting too, and in imagination and myth. In fact Aristotle is

very close to the real mechanisms of knowledge and creative

art.

When people insist (it is an especially European habit), on the

twilight of Western civilization, they forget that both Plato and

Aristotle had a clear insight into the spectacle of the decline of

civilizations … what is distinctive is that they thought about the

civilization of the Greek polis, Athens’ age of splendor, and did

not witness the diffusion of Alexander’s Hellenization.

Consequently, Aristotle’s notion of a close relationship, an

ontological one, between ethics and politics, is a notion

specific to the context of a powerful and free polis; but that

did not turn out to be the course of history for the following

centuries. Foreign dominion, like political corruption,

ultimately engenders a separation between external behavior

and inner persuasion.

In his realism Aristotle allows ethical irrationalism its own

space, and acknowledges the presence of evil in the

world…not so well-known is the passage where he says that

there are more bad things than good in the world. The

consequence is not that he repudiates the worth of reason.

This realism allows him to reflect deeply on the value of the

true Philosophy.

We can say with Masnovo, a great Italian commentator of

Saint Thomas and Aristotle, that all men are in the truth but

not all man think the truth… so that all Aristotle’s philosophy is

both a full immersion in the world and a continuous opening

of the eyes of the mind to the truth of Being, Thought as

LOGOS. Opening up does not mean completely to grasp or

perfectly to achieve, as we have already said before.

Thomas Aquinas achieved this insight when, as he perfected

the first demonstration of the existence of God, he maintained

that the principle of the explanation of change is what we call

GOD. Aristotle’s way to GOD is rich and very significant, as he

considers that in the world many things are GOOD and

BEAUTIFUL; both dimensions require a superior Intelligence.

The superb page of St John in the prologue of his Gospel finds

in Aristotle’s doctrine of first principle its ground of

confrontation.

Aristotle was the preceptor of Alexander the Great. Both are

sometimes believed to have been homosexual … we find this

assumption more than a little suspicious, perhaps the

interesting stance of a noisy minority. Philosophy and love of

truth do not need gossip; on the contrary what is certain is

that Alexander’s adventure changed the world, but not

definitively: philosophy must accept that the only one reality

to discover is the discreet and eternal power of human reason.