Fundamental Aristotle: A Practical Guide to the Physics

By M. James Ziccardi

Aristotle's "Physics" remains one of the most influential works in all of Western Philosophy. For more than a thousand years it had stood as a pillar to all philosophical and scientific thought.

In "Fundamental Aristotle: A Practical Guide to the Physics", M. James Ziccardi presents all of the essential ideas presented in the work in an easy to follow format.

• Language: English
• Publisher: M. James Ziccardi
• Release date: Mar 1, 2013
• ISBN: 9781301577569

M. James Ziccardi

M. James Ziccardi lives in Southern California with his wife and daughter and has been a software analyst for over twenty-five years. Reading and writing about philosophy is his passion.

Book preview

Fundamental Aristotle: A Practical Guide to the Physics

M. James Ziccardi

Copyright 2012 by M. James Ziccardi

Smashwords Edition

Section 1 - Notes on the Text

With regard to quotations, content found within square brackets [] is mine; content found within parentheses () is Aristotle’s.

Sections in bold type or that are underlined are intended by me to highlight critical points.

Section 2 - Introduction

There are few works that have had as great an impact on Western thought as those of the Ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC). Unfortunately, only about one-fifth of his writings have survived to this day. Most of his prose and dialogs, which are said to have rivaled those of Plato in their elegance, have been lost forever to antiquity. Consequently, most of what remains of his work survives in the form of treatises and compiled lecture notes; and Aristotle’s work, Physics, is one such treatise. Specifically, the Physics is a compilation of what we would consider to be instructional or academic preparation notes on a wide range of issues relating to what was then known as natural philosophy, or what today would be called science. (It is believed that the material that would later become the Physics was written around the year 350 BC.) The Physics, it should be said, is not a work on science per se, but rather a treatise on the fundamental principles and concepts of which both science and philosophy are founded. As such, the Physics has come to be regarded as one of the most important and influential works for both disciplines in all of Western thought.

The line between science and philosophy has never been clear-cut and it was even less so during the time of Aristotle. Aside from the Medieval philosopher Roger Bacon, who was an early advocate of the scientific method, it wasn’t until the Age of Reason in seventeenth century Europe – a time which brought us the likes of Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, and Gottfried Leibniz and a host of other great scientific thinkers – that science was established as we recognize it today. It is worth mentioning that it was also during this time that the European world was introduced to the Eastern mathematical discipline of algebra, a discipline which, when combined with geometry, forever changed our approach to both science and mathematics. Prior to this time, however, it was the ideas of Aristotle that held sway in all issues relating to science and nature. Thus, for over a thousand years Aristotle was regarded as the foremost authority on all such matters.

Although Aristotle’s writings have always been, and continue to be, of great influence to virtually all of the Western world’s greatest minds – and not just in philosophy and science, but in ethics and politics as well – it is perhaps in the scholastic philosophers of the Middle Ages that we see the greatest degree of Aristotle’s influence. Aristotle’s Physics, along with its complimentary work, the Metaphysics – which derives its name from coming literally after (i.e. meta) the work on Physics – formed the basis of the scholastics’ arguments in their attempt to show the existence of God, for it was the goal of these philosophers and theologians, which includes the likes of Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus, to reconcile the Christian theology with early classical philosophy, particularly that of Aristotle. It is also worth mentioning that Aristotle’s ideas on these matters had a significant impact on the early Islamic philosophers, particularly Averroes and Avicenna. (The Physics and Metaphysics, which by the Middles Ages had already been translated into Arabic were first introduced to the West in the mid-twelfth century after they were re-translated from Arabic to Latin. However, both books were banned shortly thereafter by the Papacy on charges that they tended to promote the heretical notion of pantheism – the belief that God exists as all things. The ban was eventually lifted during the first half of the thirteen century.)

In the Physics, Aristotle addresses many of the issues which go to the core of our understanding of the world around us. Some of the questions he attempts to answer include:

What does it mean to undergo change or alteration and how does such a process occur? Or in other words, what are the causes of change?

What does it mean for something to happen by chance?

What is infinity and does it actually exist?

What does it mean to come into existence; and likewise, what does it mean to perish from existence?

What is time? Does it actually exist? If so, is it infinite?

And above all, what is motion? If everything that is in motion is put into motion by something (either by itself or something else), does this mean that there must be an infinite series of movements? Or can there be a first mover that is itself not moved by anything?

With that, we will now begin a thorough examination of the critical points presented in the Physics. While it is not my intension to put forward a word-for-word recital of the work, I have frequently made use of Aristotle’s own words in an effort to avoid any misinterpretations on my part.

Section 3 - Book 1

In this book Aristotle discusses what he refers to as the first principles with respect to substance. (For a more complete picture of Aristotle’s view on substance, see his Metaphysics.)

Part 1 (of Book 1)

Aristotle begins the work with the assertion that before we can attain any scientific knowledge of any object, we must first become acquainted with its principles, conditions, or elements – provided it has any. To gain this acquaintance we must "start from the things which are more knowable and obvious to us and proceed towards those which are clearer and more knowable by nature." By using the phrase by nature, Aristotle is saying that although things may be knowable in and of themselves, without qualification they remain obscure to us.

Although the objects before us seem plain and obvious, upon reflection it becomes apparent that their elements and principles are not, and that it is only through our analysis that we can arrive at any true knowledge of them. Thus, Aristotle states that "we must advance from generalities to particulars; for it is a whole that is best known to sense – perception, and a generality is a kind of whole, comprehending many things within it, like parts."

Part 2 (of Book 1)

With regard to the principles of objects – and by extension, all objects, and thus all of existence – Aristotle says that they must be one or many in number. If there is only one principle for objects, then it must be either that which might best be called motionless (as Parmenides and Melissus of Samos assert), or that which is referred to as of motion. If objects have more than one principle, then these principles must either be finite or infinite in number. If they are infinite in number, then they must either be of the same kind, differing only in shape or form, or they must be different in kind and even contrary to each other.

Aristotle points out that the above reasoning applies not only to the principles of objects, but to the objects themselves; for the same inquiry is made regarding the ultimate constituent of things – is it one, many, or infinite in nature?

In rejecting the assertions of Parmenides and Melissus, Aristotle claims that "to investigate whether Being [i.e. existence] is one and motionless is not a contribution to the science of Nature… For if Being is just one, there is a principle no longer, since a principle must be a principle of some thing or things. He continues: We physicists, on the other hand, must take for granted that the things that exist by nature are, either all or some of them, in motion, which is indeed made plain by induction."

In an aside, Aristotle points out that no man of science is bound to solve every kind of difficulty that may be raised, but only as many as are drawn falsely from the principles of science – it is not our business to refute those that do not arise in this way. Nevertheless, since the present inquiry deals at least incidentally with the issues of physics, Aristotle defends his assertion that the principle of things cannot be one and motionless. To begin, he asks, what is meant by one? Are we to take from this that all things are one in substance, quantity, quality, or all of these? And furthermore, do these three things exist independently from one another? "For if both substance and quantity and quality are [one], then whether these exist independently of each other or not, Being will be many. If, on the other hand, it is asserted that all things are quality or quantity, then, whether substance exists or not, an absurdity results, if the impossible can properly be called absurd. For none of the others can exist independently [of substance]: substance alone is independent: for everything is predicated of substance as subject."

If Being is infinite, i.e. one, it must be a quantity. "For the infinite is in the category of quantity, whereas substance or quality…cannot be infinite except through a concomitant attribute, that is, if at the same time they are also quantities; for to define the infinite you must use quantity in your formula, but not substance or quality. If, then, Being is both substance and quantity, it is