Aristotle Thesis Defense Paper
The topic I have chosen as the basis of my essay is that of how humans fit into the scale of nature according to Aristotle. To answer this question, we must first ask ourselves several other questions in order to better understand Aristotle’s thinking. First we must ask, “What is nature according to Aristotle?” then we must ask, “What is the scale of nature?” and finally, we answer the main question at hand and that is how humans fit into the scale of nature according to Aristotle. We will also touch base on several other principles of Aristotelian thinking that pertain to this subject matter.
Nature, according to Aristotle, is an internal principle of change and being at rest (Physics 2.1, 192b20–23). What this means is that when a being moves or is at rest according to its nature, orientation to its nature may serve as a justification of the event. Natures as internal principles of change and rest are contrasted with active powers or potentialities (dunameis), which are external principles of change and being at rest, operative on the corresponding internal passive capacities or potentialities. The active and passive potentiality need to be specified when a change, or a state of rest, is not natural. So in a way, Natures do double duty: once it becomes operative, a further active, or further passive capacity no longer needs to be entreated.
For the next section of this essay, I came across a work by the scholars E. M. W. Tillyard and A. O. Lovejoy who claimed that ancient and medieval thought were both shaped by a certain ideological framework known as the "The Chain of Being." Occasionally called the Scala Natura (scale of nature), this view perceived that all of creation existe...
... middle of paper ...
...n and to defend Aristotle’s theory I have made many connections. Several of which completely agree with Aristotle’s idea of man in nature. Aristotelian theory shows that man was and is superior to all lesser beings such as animals, plants, and minerals. Throughout history, man has served as conqueror and king of the world around him. Man is also guilty of disrupting the Chain of Being, by trying to become more than he is. Man was and never is supposed to play the role of God. Man’s sole purpose according to Aristotle is to use what the earth has to offer in a way that isn’t damaging to it or that makes humanity rise above their place in the grand scheme of things. Doing the research for this piece opened my eyes to several other topics that I wish to look into at a later date. It really amazes me how so many aspects of life can be so interconnected to one another.
In what follows, I shall consider Aristotle's’ argument of the polis, or the city-state, as presented in his Politics I.2, and expound on the philosophical implications of this particular thesis; namely, a thesis which claims that the city-state exists by nature, and correspondingly, that a human being is ‘by nature a political animal’. Along the way, I shall present two objections leveled against each claim. The first pertains to the invalidity of the argument on ends; specifically, I shall protest that when a thing’s process of coming to be is completed, even if we regard this as an end, this does not necessarily confer that such an end is a natural end, for artificial processes too, like natural processes, share the potential to arrive at ends. The second pertains to the ‘part-whole’ argument, which in a sense takes from the argument of function. Here, I shall discuss that it is not quite clear whether the claim that human beings - as parts of the whole - are necessarily political animals, and so the view that the state is ‘prior by nature’ is uncertain. After that, I will present two Aristotelian responses against these objections; and judge whether or not these appear succeed. I conclude that he is correct in asserting that the city-state exists by nature, and correspondingly, that a human being is a political animal.
In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Aristotle’s argument from Physics Book 2, chapter 8, 199a9. Aristotle in this chapter tries to make an analogy between nature and action to establish that both, nature and action, have an end.
The human life on earth on present time is yet to be “vast and harmonious.” Curiosity and sociability are not ceased to exist; but they are with sense of contradictions and social conflicts. It would not be fair to diminish the idea Aristotelian epoch when some parts of it are viable. The ability of understanding on how things work is one of the things that humans are trying to achieve, and is getting better at it every day, but without conflicts, there would not be anything to solve. Before every single problem in this earth is solved, the harmony that Aristotle desire for human kind would not be as near as it could be.
While his two premises seem to be sound, Aristotle suddenly pushes his logic to an unfavorable ground as he concludes the discussion of what the human function is. Aristotle seems to be deriving this conclusion from the assumption that human are the only beings that are capable of rational thinking. Something else a human being can do that an animal cannot, however, is have sexual intercourse without reproduction in mind. If Aristotle means to make conclusions based on what distinguishes a human from an animal, then the function of a human might as well be to pollute the world with atomic
In conclusion, Plato and Aristotle present two different conceptions of the soul. By examination of their formulations, and the structure and genre they used, Aristotle's perception of the soul is more convincing. I am more convinced by facts than I am ideals. But his views should not be thrown away, for Aristotle's focus upon the organism as a whole as the proper object of study is a successful approach to the question of the nature of and relationship between mind, body, and soul.
Of Aristotle’s three modes of rhetoric, Audre Lorde’s essay is comprised largely by logos complemented by pathos and the least by ethos. Ethos is obvious when she describes herself in terms of social groups, giving credibility to herself to justify her assertions. In her words, Lorde is a “forty-nine-year-old Black lesbian feminist socialist mother of two, including one boy, and a member of an interracial couple.” She explains at the beginning of her essay that she has been identified as an active member of these socially taboo groups and thus has the right to demand attention to her claims. Logos is seen throughout her essay, often following a bold statement. Her arguments not only consist of reasoning but also personal experiences and real-life occurrences, such as Lorde’s question of the lacking representation of poetry by Back women and the horrifying female circumcision supported by Jomo Kenyatta in Africa. Lorde’s use of logos is very effective because it gives the reader a relatable narrative to better understand her bold conclusions. The third mode of Aristotle’s rhetoric is pathos, which Lorde uses to a slightly lesser degree than logos but just as effectively. Examples of Lorde’s use of pathos are her descriptive language, metaphors and lists.
Throughout the other chapters, Emerson explores the idea of nature as instructor to man and how man can learn from nature. He repeatedly says that nature is a divine creation of God and through it man can learn to be closer to god. However, despite the reverence, awe, and prerequisite mental status, he also presents the concept of nature being 'below' and man on a 'Scala Natura ' of sorts. Although man seen as connected to and part of nature, for he questions if we can "separate the man from the living picture" of nature (26), he finds that nature is nothing without human interpretation because "All facts in natural history taken by themselves have not value . . .. but marry it to human history, and it is full of life," (33). However, there appears to be some more complicated interactions between nature and humans because human language, arguably one of the most important inventions/discoveries in our history is immediately dependent on nature (35). In a chapter titled Discipline, Emerson states that 'nature is thoroughly mediate. It is made to serve," (45). Emerson believes that the human form is superior to all other organizations which appear to be degradations of it (50).
Gakuran, Michael. "Aristotle’s Moral Philosophy | Gakuranman • Adventure First." Gakuranman Adventure First RSS. N.p., 21 May 2008. Web.
Reality as a whole, and the nature of it, continues to be a puzzling point in most areas of study. This quest began after men sought to find the “One” (underlying principle) amidst the “Many” variations of life as a way to explain the world around them. Once can simply categorize “One” and “Many” as “Being” continuity, and “Becoming” change, respectively. There is a natural divide among men on this subject due to their subjective understanding of the world. In this paper, I will propose my theory of “Being”, which is in response to Heraclitus’ opinions of the unity of opposites, and the universe, grounded on the concept of innate potential. The goal of this essay is to present the idea that “Being” and “Becoming” can, and does, occur simultaneously,
The. The "Aristotle". Home Page English 112 VCCS Litonline. Web. The Web.
Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings.
Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.
It is only natural for humans to question why we have been put on this wonderful earth of ours. What does it mean to be these lucky ones called humans? Do we really have a human nature that is all our own? Are there really living beings that kind find something within this world to call our life purpose? And if there are, how do may we achieve it? It is happiness or simple the drive to survive that propel us forward? These are just some of the types of questions that philosophers have been wrestling with for centuries. Some argue that human nature is very much a real thing and that it is essential to living a happy fulfilled life, while others reject that idea completely. However, despite the completely opposite stances that philosophers can take when it comes to human nature, it’s not uncommon to see some surprising similarities between those who support it, and those who do not. One of the biggest examples of this, would be in regards to the Aristotle and his books on Nicomachean Ethics and Sartre with his writing of Existentialism Is a Humanism. When it comes to these two philosophers in particular it would appear on the surface that they are nothing alike. Aristotle being quite the supporter of human nature and it’s ability to give humans fulfilling lives, and Sartre who rejects the human nature completely for the idea that we as humans are essentially just going through life and making choices. Having said this, I would now like to discuss the individual views and arguments that both men have in regards to their views on human nature, it’s relationship to purpose, free will, and politics, and show that within these both Aristotle and Sartre give us the ability to see, that maybe to a certain that we are in fact responsible fo...
Throughout history, many individuals wish to discover and explain the relationship between nature and society, however, there are many complexities relating to this relationship. The struggle to understand how nature and society are viewed and connected derives from the idea that there are many definitions of what nature is. The Oxford dictionary of Human Geography (2003), explains how nature is difficult to define because it can be used in various contexts as well as throughout different time and spaces. As a result of this, the different understandings of what nature is contributes to how the nature society relationship is shaped by different processes. In order to better understand this relation there are many theorists and philosophers
Thomas Aquinas for example, used this view to rebuke the criticisms of anthropocentrism, “We refute the error of those who claim that it is a sin for a man to kill brute animals. For animals are ordered to man’s use in the natural course of things, according to divine providence. Consequently, man uses them without any injustice, either by killing them or employing them in any other way” (Desjardins, 99). Not only has Aquinas claimed that animals are subject to man as a “natural course”, but also that anyway in which they are used is justified because of this. Aristotle takes this idea one step further, and claims that the sole basis for plants and animals’ existence is to serve humans. He later goes on to say that if nature makes nothing without purpose, then nature has made everything specifically for the sake of humankind. Both Aristotle and Aquinas based these beliefs upon the idea that only human beings are worthy of moral standing. This is due to the belief that humans alone have a “soul” capable of thinking and choosing. Since they thought animals not to have such a soul, animals must be morally irrelevant (Desjardins, 99). In this first example, the basis for environmental responsibility comes entirely from the belief that said the environment is meant to serve humans. Meaning that any obligations man has towards nature is entirely