Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy in Terms of Platonic Natural Philosophy Adoption and Refinement

Aristotle’s Definition of Nature

Aristotle defined nature as having a fixed state and an interior law of change. This suggests that a body’s original reference may be used to define the situation whether it is in motion or at rest. In this sense, Aristotle aimed to explore the systematic explanations and explorations of natural events across various sorts of natural phenomenon, as well as generic natural phenomena like motion, time, cause, and place. Perhaps Aristotle’s work in the realm of physics, which he divided into two parts - the treatment of motion and an inquiry into nature - to aid in deeper exploration, is his most essential work (Aristotle 9). Aristotle stresses in his work that physics contains almost all that is needed to know in the world. That is why he provided explanations for fundamental concepts by developing an apparatus for his analyses. Further, he developed this idea by noting that if the world had no separate forms that do not have matter and are neither part of its literal form, then the subject physics would have been what he termed as first philosophy. Since such entities exist, physics became the second philosophy because it depends on them. Nonetheless, physics and Aristotle’s metaphysics employ the same ideals when dealing with a conceptual context, thus applying the same rules.

Plato’s View on Physical Entities

Whereas Aristotle developed his philosophy on natural objects, Plato, on the other hand, quipped that only philosopher authorities or kings had the know-how to comprehend the true physical entities as opposed to events or natural phenomena that are readily understandable by all. For instance, he noted, only these philosophical kings could understand the shape of God and realize that it is the great fountainhead from which flows all beauty, knowledge, actual forms and truth. This is what became known as the Platonic Utopia which is a rather communistic fantasy that has never been accomplished.

Aristotle’s Refined Natural Law Theory

Basing arguments and thoughts on Plato’s natural law theory, Aristotle adopted and refined it to include the physical entities that humans interact with either knowingly or unknowingly. Both philosophers not only believed but also proved that thoughts superseded human senses. Whereas Plato emphasized that the senses could easily fool a person, Aristotle, however, noted that to gauge and determine reality properly, the senses are indispensable. To corroborate his theory, Plato allegorized the world to a cave where an individual sees only the shadow cast as a result of the outside light; so thoughts would only be the real things to a person. Aristotle developed this allegory by asserting that the most direct solution would be to get out of the cave to behold and directly experience the source of light which is casting the shadow. He likened the shadow to internal or indirect experiences of a person.

Aristotle’s Four Categories of Responsible Causes

The state of affairs must be supported by an explanation which specifies the object or the fact that causes it. According to Aristotle, the phenomenon responsible is the reason, which he termed as aition or aiitia. He developed these types of responsible causes into four categories. These classes he developed based on his hylomorphic analysis. The first two are matter and form, responsible for the demeanor and characteristics of the phenomenon they form. The hylomorphic analysis states that if it is possible to delineate something concerning its form and matter, then the delineations given in terms of matter will be different in feature from those given with respect to form. To make these causes cohesive, Aristotle depicted that the two causes must always collaborate. However, that kind of collaboration does not provide for any overlap by the two causes. Instead, each entity births out its unique delineation structure. In other words, for one to be realized, the other must be present. For instance, in order to realize form, the matter must have an appropriate case.

The Relationship Between Matter and Form

The relationship between matter and form led Aristotle to label then as instances of hypothetical necessities. To corroborate his philosophy, he likened the ideas of matter and form to the building of a house. To do so, one needs to have a mortar, stones, bricks, etc. Every material requirement brings with it certain properties for the house to be realized. That means it is not possible to put up a house from liquid water since it will provide features not suitable to put up the house (Russell 13).

The Connection Between Partaking and Being

It is worth noting that Aristotle based his argument on Plato’s ideals of partaking and being. Comprehending how the two tied together became very crucial in developing his (Aristotle’s) metaphysical philosophy. Put into perspective, Plato’s theory simply focused on forms and the specifics of the material. To reinforce his opinion, he used the instance of Helen of Troy’s change from being non-comely to being beautiful, and there is embedded the form beauty itself. Here, Plato emphasizes the fact that it is not the form beauty itself. Instead, it is the material specifics which is ‘linked’ or ‘knotted to’ beauty in a process he coined as ‘partaking’. He argues that beauty as a form, and not being anything else, cannot partake of beauty simply because it is beautiful. By extrapolation, it can then be said that beauty is beautiful, equal gives birth to equality and just results in justice. This argument formed Plato’s central pillar in his Theory of Forms to self-predication. According to him, form is correlated to the characteristic of being. Consequently, in the example that he cited, partaking in beauty made Helen beautiful on a virtue that beauty itself is beautiful.

Idealism vs Empiricism

In man’s quest to gain knowledge, there arise conflicts between his empiricism and idealism about the extent to which he depends on the same. Idealism proposes that there are certain ways in which humans gain knowledge and concepts independent of their sense, experience and that ideas are the only truth and worthy to be known. On the other hand, empiricism avers that the meaning of experience is the epitome with regards to the source of acquisition of knowledge and concepts. Whereas Plato championed idealism, Aristotle, on the other hand, advocated for empiricism. Nonetheless, Aristotle developed his idea from Plato’s theory.

Plato’s Theory of Dualism

In espousing the view of idealism, Plato believed in the existence of two worlds – the first being the mental or spiritual world, while the other is the world of appearance which is contacted by the five senses of the human body. The difference in the two worlds, Plato notes, is called the dualism of the body and mind. The theory aimed to develop and discover every person’s abilities and entire excellence in morality for the betterment of the society.

Aristotle’s Theory of Empiricism

The theory of empiricism was developed by Aristotle to further the idea that knowledge depends upon the sense of experience. The theory avers that knowledge can be gained entirely by experience. Nonetheless, the culture espoused in metaphysics depicts that the sources of the subject cannot be empirical. This assertion, according to Plato, implies that the core tenets of knowledge cannot be acquired from experience alone since it is a metaphysical knowledge. Thus, it must surpass the experience and senses of the person. This claim lucidly shows how Aristotle refined and developed Plato’s idealism theory.

Works Cited

Aristotle. “Fundamentals of Philosophy.”

Russell, John E. “Objective Idealism and Revised Empiricism. The Philosophical Review, vol. 15, no. 6, 1906, p. 627.