The Theory of Origin in Aristotle's Metaphysics
In Aristotle’s Metaphysics, he discusses what he believes to be the theory of origin. One must differentiate Aristotle’s theory with that of creation. The word “creation” implies a biblical idea. Aristotle was not familiar with the biblical text and therefore did not understand the concept of “creation” in the biblical sense. Rather he was more interested in the “origin” of the world.
Aristotle believes that before the concept of time there were three kinds of substances, two of them being physical and one being the unmovable. The three substances can be described as one being the “sensible eternal”, the second being the “sensible perishable” and the third substance being the immovable. To further this theory the sensible perishable can be seen as matter, the sensible eternal as potential, and the immovable can be seen as that which is Metaphysical and belongs to another science. According to Aristotle, the immovable is God. It is the immovable that sets the sensible perishable into motion and therefore turns the potential into the actual.
This theory is Aristotle’s belief that something can not come out of nothing. Aristotle says, “How will there be movement, if there is no actually existing cause?…The seeds must act on the earth and the semen on the menstrual blood”. What he is saying is that something must be set into motion by something else. There is always a cause to an effect. One relies on the other. Therefore, before origin there must have been an “immovable mover”, that being God.
Aristotle believes that there are four kinds of changes: What, Place, Quality and Quantity. For example, a pen is by definition the object, it has a position and takes up space, it exists for a period of time and has shape and size. These external characteristics can and will change. According to Aristotle, everything changes. Therefore the pen has potential to move, to change color and size. When it changes from a state of how it is perceived, otherwise known as potential, to a state of what it can be, it has reached a state of actuality.
According to Aristotle, this theory can be applied to the origin of the world. Once the world was set in motion, it was given potential for that which moves is constantly changing and therefore has potential. Aristotle says that change is eternal. Since the world is constantly changing, it is eternal, meaning it had a beginning but has no end.
Thomas Aquinas, a leading scholar of the Middle Ages, argued that “Everything in the universe has a cause. Trace those causes back and there must have been a First Cause that triggered everything else. God is that First Cause.” This was known as his “First Cause” argument.
A great example of Heraclitus’ view would be one of his most famous quotes which is “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.” This quote demonstrates his views on change because in this quote he clearly shares his idea of what change really is. He believes that everything is constantly changing for instance the water in the river is flowing and thus it is always changing and as for the person standing in the river, they too have changed because since time passes they are not the same person that stepped into the river. Heraclitus also stated that there is a flux in the universe for everything there is an opposite and that is mentioned in (B88), “the same thing is both living and dead, and the waking and the sleeping, and young and old; for these things transformed are those, and those those transformed back again are these.” These contradictions give us a precise idea of how they are connected to each other; old-young, alive-dead, and asleep-waking up.This quote is an example of how one thing can be changed into
Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating []. The cosmological argument states at some point, the cause and effect sequence must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is god. According to the argument, god is the initial start of the universe as we know it. Though nothing is self-creating cosmological believers say god is the only being the is self –created. Aquinas, an Italian philosopher, defended the argument and developed the five philosophical proofs for the existence of god knows as, the “Five Ways”.[]. In each “way” he describes his proof how god fills in the blanks of the unexplainable. The first way simply states that, things in motion must be put in motion by something. The second was is efficient because, nothing brings its self into existence. The third is, possibility and necessity [!]. Aqunhias’ has two more ‘ways’ but for the purpose of this essay I won’t be focusing on them heavily. These ways have started philosophers to debate and question his arguments ultimately made the cosmological argument debatable. The cosmological argument is however not a valid argument in explaining the existence of god because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises.
This paper is an initial attempt to develop a dynamic conception of being which is not anarchic. It does this by returning to Aristotle in order to begin the process of reinterpreting the meaning of ousia, the concept according to which western ontology has been determined. Such a reinterpretation opens up the possibility of understanding the dynamic nature of ontological identity and the principles according to which this identity is established. The development of the notions of energeia, dynamis and entelecheia in the middle books of Aristotle’s Metaphysics will be discussed in order to suggest that there is a dynamic ontological framework at work in Aristotle’s later writing. This framework lends insight into the dynamic structure of being itself, a structure which does justice as much to the concern for continuity through change as it does to the moment of difference. The name for this conception of identity which affirms both continuity and novelty is "legacy." This paper attempts to apprehend the meaning of being as legacy.
He then go on to giving us the theory of flux by Heraclitus. The theory of flux is based on the claim that all things are constantly changing. The view is that no objects is stably consistent with stably existing properties. The explanation for this is that everything in which any basis can be functional, according to one perception, can also have the cancelation of that basis applied to it, according to an opposite perception. Socrates gives us a few statements that Heraclitus implies with his theory. The first is that all qualities do not exist in time or space independently. The second is that qualities do not exist except in perception of the...
There cannot have been a first change, because something would have to have happened just before that change which set it off, and this itself would have been a change, and so on and so forth. Aristotle believed that if the universe ever completely ceased movement there would never be a force that possessed the ability to begin the moving again without the presence of the Prime Mover. In chapter 6 of Metaphysics Lambda, Aristotle concluded that the world and time are not perishable. He vouched for the idea that there must be at least one eternal and imperishable substance; otherwise all substances, therefore everything in the world, would be perishable. Aristotle calls this source of all movement the Prime Mover. The Prime Mover to Aristotle is the first of all substances, the necessary first source of movement, which is itself unmoved. It is a being with everlasting life, and in Metaphysics Aristotle also calls this being
Yet, probably one of the most simplistic yet profound statements in the Bible is the one found at the beginning of the Bible, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The psalmist, the prophets, and the apostle have affirmed this simple yet magnificent verse. Although, it is the subject of much debate. The Bible assumes and never argues the existence of God. Although everything made, at one time had a beginning, God has always been. The vastness and enormity of this one statement is equaled by no other for it assumes and states many things concerning the greatness and truth of God.
from Motion, tries to prove the existence of God as the first mover which is unmoved.
When we say God, what comes into our minds? Is God, a person or some other substance? According to Descartes, God is a substance that us infinite, independent, supremely intelligent, powerful, and the creator of everything else. This definition seems the most accurate of what we think when we think of God. Descartes says that we as humans do not come close to God, in that we are not as perfect and can never have as much intelligence as God no matter how much knowledge we gain. God knows...
Kirby, Jeremy. Aristotle's Metaphysics: Form, Matter, and Identity. London: Continuum, 2008. Web. 10 Dec 2013.
Many accounts support the possibility for objects genuinely to persist yet change their intrinsic, natural properties. Intuitively we think that it would be possible: the assumption that this claim is true, Loux argues, ‘underlies some of our most fundamental beliefs about ourselves and the world around us’ (1998: 203). In this essay I shall focus solely on the account of David Lewis’s ‘Doctrine of Temporal Parts’ that it is possible for objects to persist through change by having different temporal parts. By briefly examining intrinsics and extrinsics and the problem of change you will be able to see how successful Lewis’s solution is to this problem, before viewing some weaknesses of the account and then ultimately concluding that Lewis solution successfully achieves the possibility that objects genuinely persist yet change their intrinsic, natural properties.
Aristotle, a name well known even now like the gods of ancient Greece such as Zeus and Poseidon, his name is well known because of the questions he asked and the way he viewed the world that would make those of a simple mind scratch their heads. People whom do not question anything think he is insane and by right he may have been a little mad, but we as humans are all a little off kilt. As this you can look at the views of Aristotle and if you are not one of a simple mind and can look at it in a critical thinking way, you can analyze his views to see if you agree or disagree that in fact he thinks that all things in this world are physical, and that everything has a purpose. Aristotle is correct in the case that all things are physical, because are matter, he also does not bring religion into his statement, yet does not discredit an artisan; he also states that all things do in fact have a purpose, and are something believable.
Rather, Aristotle attempts to tackle some of the most fundamental questions of human experience, and at the crux of this inquiry is his argument for the existence of an unmoved mover. For Aristotle, all things are caused to move by other things, but the unreasonableness of this going on ad infinitum means that there must eventually be an ultimate mover who is himself unmoved. Not only does he put forth this argument successfully, but he also implies why it must hold true for anyone who believes in the ability to find truth through philosophy. Book XII of the Metaphysics opens with a clear statement of its goal in the first line of Chapter One: to explore substances as well as their causes and principles. With this idea in mind, Chapter One delineates the three different kinds of substances: eternal, sensible substances; perishable, sensible substances; and immovable substances.
According to Aristotle, things are seen as taking course and will eventually come to a stop when potential is reached. The entire process of potential to actuality is call causation. Aristotle sees human life as the search for happiness and term happiness as the fulfillment of all potential. We are molded through the decisions we make. I see this as a cycle and the cycle is as follows, causation is from potential to actuality, happiness is a fulfillment of potential and education is to develop, cultivate and exercise each child potential up to adulthood. While reading Aristotle principal of potentiality and the principle of actuality, I am reminded of the time I was looking for a house; a real estate agent took me to a house with the inside burnt out. Nothing was left standing in the house but the four walls. The structure of the house was beautiful. The broker turned to me and said “This house has potential” After examining Aristotle philosophy of reality; I see the prospect or potential of the house as the principle of potentiality and the finish product, if I had chosen to buy and fix up this house, the principle of actuality.
Aristotle’s discussions on free will came from his theory of the prime mover. In his book Physics, Aristotle theorized that everything is always in a constant state of change, or movement. When a pen falls of a table, it is changed because it is in a different location than it was previously and also possibly scuffed up from falling to the floor. If something is moved, or changed in its composition, there has to be an ultimate higher power, or mover, responsible. This is what Aristotle called the Prime Mover, referring to God. Aristotle believed the Prime Mover to be unchanging and infinite. He exists because in order for something to be changed, there must also be a master, unchangeable thing. There needs to be a start to the chain of events that is caused by the primary, unmoved mover, or God. Therefore, God is necessary for ...