It is an old adage that form follows function. In class when finishing up discussing Aristotle’s Book 1 and starting on Book 2 we came across the principle ideas of form, function, material and shape. For the purpose of form as we are using in class I believe we settled on the idea that form and shape were not equals. In fact, in the hupokeimenon of material, shape and form can be understood as opposite sides of the triangle. With that said what relationships can be seen between form and function? Are they the same in this case? According to Aristotle, form (morphe or eidos) is the being-at-work. “It is often said that Aristotle imports the form/material distinction from the realm of art and imposes it upon nature. Yet material (hule) “is that which underlies the form of any particular thing. Unlike what we mean by “matter,” material has no properties of its own, but is only a potency straining toward some form.” These definitions seem hard to follow because they reuse and repeat the same terms. However, it is clear that there is a relationship between form and material and can often be seen in the realm of art.
Back to my original idea, do form and function have a relationship? If talking about art I would say ‘yes’ because form does in fact follow function (can be seen in architecture, sculpture, etc.) How about in nature? How about in the philosophy of nature and creation?
(The idea of hupokeimenon as I understand it is something that is being scrutinized in terms of degree of intensity, opposites, composition, or as we explain it in class, the “underlying thing.” The example used in class pretty often has been that of human beings being the hupokeimenon and educated and non-educated being opposed and therefore being on opposite sides of the triangle.)
*Definitions of form and material were taken from the readings of Book 2 chapters 1-3 and glossary (pages 248 and 249) of Aristotle’s Physics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have a quick question on definitions/synonym for the word 'form'. Would the word structure be used interchangeably with the word form in this case? In Chem. 110 the main question that we were striving to understand was how structure affected function. Going back to Aristotle idea that all things were constructed with elements is nature so therefore could we consider the form of an object from nature to be consider to have a form/function relationship?
ReplyDeleteI believe that form follows function in terms of art and nature. But to have this view, i feel that form and shape are similar. For example, the shape of a flower is designed by nature to fit the function of its life. Delicate petals are able to bloom, opening and closing, while the green stem perfoms photosynthesis. Humans are also a functional design by nature. We have evolved with four fingers and one thumb convenient for performing tasks such as holding things. The form of the human body is obviously natural and yet it designed for our everyday functions.
ReplyDelete