I read a book about 5 years ago, Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. It touts itself as a "novel on the history of philosophy" and is really one of the most interesting and mind-boggling books I have ever read. It's basically a series of philosophy lessons on some of the most well known philosophers in history, disguised as a 'young adult' semi-fictional mystery novel. Aristotle is included in the story, and his views are well-explained and simplified as a great introduction to his ideas. I don't have a copy with me, but I did find a summary of the section on Aristotle pertaining to our class discussion today. It reads as follows:
Aristotle believed in different types of 'causality' one of which was "final" cause, the purpose that he assigned to everything in nature. For example, it rains "because plants and animals need rainwater in order to grow." He attempted to categorize nature and also founded logic. Aristotle sees man at the top of nature followed by animals and then plants, and God to him is the force that set the stars in motion. I particularly liked the rainwater example, as it is completely understandable, if maybe a bit skewed. We've been having so much trouble in class recently understanding how different examples, especially concerning individuals, fit into the idea of 'A,B,C', final cause vs. source, change/motion/rest, etc. It was refreshing to see such a clear-cut analogy pertaining to Aristotle's ideas. Also, viewing the 'Prime Mover' (the unmoved mover) from Aristotle's perspective of that as 'God' greatly helped me understand the misunderstandings we had in class on Tuesday. It was much easier for me to grasp something that could cause change without changing and to move without moving when considering it an almighty power that controls everything. Although I don't believe in any God, the A,B,C concept is much clearer to me using these constructs.
As an aside, I highly recommend this book to anyone in this class, whether they understand our recent readings or not. Although marked as 'young adult' it was a relatively in-depth philosophical history, and one that I think anyone with an interest in the subject would find fascinating.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that it is easier to understand the concept when "A" is viewed as a higher power. It makes it easier to see "A" as a fixed constant that doesn't move, because there is nothing to move.
ReplyDeleteThe simpler methodology used but Aristotle seems to breathe a fresh air into the minds of people trying to decipher his texts. This example of rain water is quite intriguing in that Aristotle proposes that a higher authority is governing the world. While science shows that a lot of these phenomena , it can not explain a bunch of others. I have to agree with Aristotle that there is indeed a Greater Being, that assists the world. Great perspective and way to simplify some of Aristotle's mind set.
ReplyDeleteI agree with God being described as the force that set the stars in motion. The idea that there must be a higher power that started it all appeals to me and is one of the few reasons I believe in God, or at least a force that many call God. In addition, I do not agree with the thought that it rains because plants and animals need it to grow. It rained long before many of these plants and animals existed. Plants and animals developed and evolved to work in conjunction with the hydrologic cycle.
ReplyDelete