Change and Aristotle

During class on Tuesday, we discussed Aristotle’s views on nature and the “all is one” principle. Aristotle points out that this principle seems fundamentally problematic because the verb, to be, implies change. Change would not be possible since whatever we would be considering (the one) can only change into the one since everything is just one thing. By doing this, he explains the importance of needing to distinguish between things in existence and sets up his frameworks for analyzing nature. Later on, he talks about change and how change is an important aspect that can help us understand nature. I think he begins to expand these ideas in the later chapters of Book 1 when he considers his three elements of nature, although I only really understood it when he describes “shape” (see pages 41-42). I hope that Thursday’s class will clear up my confusion on the rest of his ideas.

Ultimately, what struck me was this idea of change. I don’t remember us ever considering change as a part of nature when we discussed what nature is during the first couple classes. I think that Aristotle’s idea is a good point to insert into the ongoing discussion. In particular, he says that humans and plants are natural because they change into what they are from their “seeds” (41-42). Furthermore, Aristotle talks about how materials could change into a statue or a house. Does this mean that he thinks that these objects and what they change from are also part of nature? How does this mindset factor into your own personal ideas concerning nature? Also, if I am making any huge errors in my interpretation of Aristotle, please point them out!