Aristotle for Everybody: Difficult Thought Made Easy 0025031007

Citation preview

STOILE

EVEFSkw DiFHClJIT

THOUOfT JW\DEE4SY Mortimer Adier I.

OTHER BOOKS

BY THE

AUTHOR

Dialectic

What Man Has Made

How

How

to

to

Read a Book

Think About

War and

Peace

O. Kelso)

(with Louis

The

of Man

Capitalist Manifesto

The Idea of Freedom The Conditions of Philosophy The Difference of Man and

the Difference It

The Time of Our Lives

The

Common

Sense of Politics

(with William Gorman) The American Testament

Some Questions About Language Philosopher at Large

Reforming Education (with Charles

Van Doren)

Creat Treasury of Western Thought

Makes

7IRIST0TLE

FOR EVERYBODY DIFFICULT

THOUGHT

MADE EASY BY

Mortimer J. Adler Macmillan Publishing Co.,

Inc.

NEW YORK Collier

Macmillan Publishers

LONDON

Copyright All nghts merved.

© 1978 by Mortimer

No

part of thu book

/

may

Adler be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any mearu, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage retrieval system, without permission in writing

Macmillan Publishing Co. 866 ThinI Avenue.

New

York.

,

from the Publisher.

Inc.

NY

Canada.

Collier hAacmillan

and

10022

Ltd.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Adler, Mortimer }erome. 1902Aristotle for everybody.

Includes bibliographical references.

I.

Aristoteles

B481 A3

185

I

Title.

78-853

ISBN 0-02-503100-7

Printed in the United States of AmerKa

I

CONTENTS

PREFACE Vll INTRODUCTION :

Part

Man

I

2. 3.

4.

The Great Divide

11

Man

Aristotle's

the

7.

10

:

The Four Causes

Productive Ideas and

to

16

:

Maker

Crusoe

To Be and Not

Animal

3

:

:

23

Change and Permanence 6.

8.

Games

Man's Three Dimensions

Part

5.

the Philosophical

Philosophical

1.

ix

:

:

Be

:

30

39 :

49

Know-How

:

57

VI

;

Contents

Man

Part HI

Living and Living Well

10.

Good,

11. 12.

What

How

Good

13.

Better, Best

Habits and

What

We

Have

What Goes

into the 17.

Man

IV

Part

Part

69

:

76

83

to Pursue Happiness

92

:

Good Luck

100

:

109

:

a Right to Expect

from Others and from the

18.

:

:

Others Have a Right to Expect from Us

15.

16.

Doer

Thinking about Ends and Means

9.

14.

the

State

118

:

Knower

the

Mind and What Comes Words

Logic's Little

out of

It

Telling the Truth and Thinking

It

Reasonable Doubt

Beyond

V

Difficult Philosophical Questions

22.

The

20.

Infinity

21.

Eternity

God

:

:

160

171

:

:

175

Immateriality of 23.

129

151

:

19.

a

:

139

:

Mind

:

179

185

EPILOGUE For Those

Who

Have Read totle

:

or

191

Who

Wish

to

Read

Aris-

^

PREFACE

When

the idea for this book

entithng those

it

titles

whom

The Children's

occurred to me,

I

thought of

But

Aristotle or Aristotle for Children.

would not have accurately conveyed the audience

this simple,

easy-to-read exposition of Aristotle's

mon-sense philosophy everybody

first

is

intended.

The

audience,

I

for

com-

felt,

was

—

of any age, from twelve or fourteen years old up-

Hence the title chosen, and the subtitle "Difficult Thought Made Easy," together with the statement that this book is an introduction to common sense.

ward.

When

I

say "everybody,"

I

mean everybody

except profes-

sional philosophers; in other words, everybody of ordinary expe-

rience and intelligence unspoiled by the sophistication cialization of

academic thought. Nevertheless,

have added an

who come upon

this

find useful as a guide to the reading of Aristotle's

own

Epilogue which students of philosophy

book may

I

and spe-

works on the subjects covered in

this

book.

i

via

Preface

:

My

two sons, Douglas and Philip

spectively), read portions of the

typewriter last

summer

in

Aspen.

I

and eleven,

(thirteen

manuscript

am

as

re-

came from my to them for their

it

grateful

enthusiasm and their suggestions. I

wish also to express

my

gratitude to

Rosemary Barnes, who

read and criticized the whole manuscript at that time, as well as to

my

colleagues at the Institute for Philosophical Research

gave

me

Bird,

and Charles Van Doren. At

the benefit of their advice

manuscript went into type, of

it

and made suggestions

my for

—

a later date, just before the

wife, Caroline, read the

its

who

John Van Doren, Otto

improvement,

for

whole

which

I

am

grateful.

As always, Marlys Allen,

I

am much

for

her

in

debt to

tireless efforts at

my

editorial

secretary,

every stage in the produc-

tion of this book.

Mortimer Chicago, December 28, 1977

/.

Adler

INTRODUCTION

Why Why

Aristotle? for

everybody?

And why troduction to

is

an exposition of Aristotle

common

evenbody an

for

can answer these three questions better

I

swered one other.

how

Why

in-

sense?

philosophy?

to think philosophically

— how

Why

after

have an-

I

should everyone learn

to ask the kind of searching

questions that children and philosophers ask and that philoso-

phers sometimes answer? I

have long been of the opinion that philosophy

business

—but not

in order to get

is

everybody's

more information about the it would be

world, our societ\% and ourselves. For that purpose, better to turn to the natural tory.

It is

in another

to understand things

way

we

and the

social sciences

that philosophy

is

useful

already know, understand

now understand them. That is why should learn how to think philosophically.

than we

I

and

to his-

—

to help us

them

better

think everyone

X

:

Introduction

For that purpose, there

do not hesitate

The only

to

is

other teacher that

my judgment

he

no

better teacher than Aristotle.

recommend him is

second

I

as the teacher to

might have chosen

best. Plato raised

in addition, gave us clearer answers to totle

how

to think philosophically,

son so well that he

we

Since

is

who he was

what

or

thought

when and how he

his life

and the I

how

to think the

way

more important than

is

lived appear strange to us;

do not make either the

will try to explain, they

les-

of us.

all

The centuries and the may make the conditions of

which he

society in

them too and,

lived.

changes that separate him from us

but, as

the ques-

but Aristotle learned the

the better teacher for

Aristotle

all

them. Plato taught Aris-

are concerned with learning

Aristotle did,

Plato, but in

is

almost

tions that everyone should face; Aristotle raised

I

begin with.

style or

the content of his thinking strange to us.

was born in 384 B.C. in the Macedonian town of Stagira on the north coast of the Aegean Sea. His father was a Aristotle

physician in the court of the King of Macedonia.

grandson became Alexander the Great,

became both

tutor

and

to

whom

The

King's

Aristotle later

friend.

At the age of eighteen, Aristotle took up residence in Athens

and enrolled

in Plato's

Academy

was not long before Plato found

who

as a student of philosophy.

Aristotle a

It

troublesome student

questioned what he taught and openly disagreed with him.

When

Plato died,

Aristotle

opened

and Alexander became the

own

his

school, the

ruler of Greece,

Lyceum. That was

in

335

B.C.

The Lyceum had maps, and a zoo

mal

life.

It

in

a fine library,

which

an extensive collection of

Aristotle collected

has been said that

specimens of ani-

some of these were

Alexander from the countries he conquered.

sent to

When

him by

Alexander

died in 323 B.C., Aristotle exiled himself from Athens to one

Introduction

of the Aegean islands.

He

Aristotle lived in a society in

in

which

women

and

to

which the

citizens

had

free

because they had slaves

do menial work.

It

was

time

to take

also a society

occupied an inferior position. Plato, in pro-

jecting the institutions of cal offices,

an ideal

state,

proposed that

all politi-

except that of military leader, should be open to

women, because he

regarded

men and women

essentially

as

equal; but Aristotle accepted the

more conventional view of

day concerning the

women.

I

shall

inferiority of

have more

to say in a later chapter

views with regard to slavery and to

once that

my

and not

just for the

no way an indication

On

that

about

women. Here

use of the words *'man,"

in their generic sense to stand for ders,

xi

died there a year later at the age of 63.

to enjoy the pursuits of leisure

care of their estates

:

I

Aristotle's

want

to say at

"men," and "mankind"

human

beings of both gen-

male portion of the population, I

his

share Aristotle's view about

the contrary, with regard to this point,

am

I

There may be some persons who regard

is

in

women.

a Platonist.

Aristotle's antiquity

They may feel that it would be much better to select as a teacher someone alive today someone acquainted with the world in which we live, someone who knows what modern science has discovered about that world. I do not agree as a disadvantage.

—

with them.

Though

was

Aristotle

a

Greek who

lived twenty-five centuries

ago, he was sufficiently acquainted with the

the world in which today. totle

As an aid

to

would not be

we

live to talk

about

main

as if

it

outlines of

he were

alive

our being able to think philosophically, Arisa better teacher

even

if

he were acquainted

with everything that modern scientists know. In an effort to understand nature, society,

began where everyone should begin

knew

in the light of his ordinary,

and man,

—with

Aristotle

what he already

commonplace

experience.

xii

Introduction

:

Beginning there, his thinking used notions that not because

we were taught them

common

are the

human

stock of

all

of us possess,

but because they

in school,

thought about anything and

everything.

We

sometimes

refer to these notions as

our

common

about things. They are notions that we have formed of the lives

common

we have

experience

we

part, experiences

as a result

in the course of

—experiences we have without any

sense

our daily

effort of inquiry

on our

have simply because we are awake and

all

common notions are common words we employ

we

conscious. In addition, these

notions

are able to express in the

in everyday

speech.

Forgive I

me

because what erything

is

word ''common"

for repeating the

cannot avoid doing

so,

means

it

and

are

but there are other things that ours.

We

them with

share

friends have read or a

or a house that live in

The

it

the

all

my

many on

times.

that

word

argument. Not ev-

many things we call our own, we recognize as not exclusively

others,

such

as a

book

that our

motion picture some of us have enjoyed,

members

of the family share

when

they

together.

things

we

share are

common. There

that different groups of people share.

we

all

all

human.

share and are It

common

are

many

that

notions, or

common

I

refer to

common

sense, as

Our common-sense

things

There are fewer things

that

simply because we are

to all of us,

in this last, all-embracing sense of the

is

"common"

''thing,"

so

to lay stress

the heart of

lies at

common. There

have

I

experiences and

word

common

common.

notions are expressed by such words as

"body," "mind," "change," "cause," "part," "whole,"

"one," "many," and so on. Most of us have been using these

words and notions

for a long

We

them

started to use

time

—

since

in order to talk

we were

quite young.

about experiences that

Introduction

of US have had

all

of things

moving or remaining

xiii

at rest,

of

of animals being born and dying, of sitting

plants growing,

down and

—

:

getting up, of aches

and

pains, of going to sleep,

dreaming, and waking up, of feeding and exercising our bodies,

and of making up our minds. I

could enlarge

this

could enlarge the

common

notions

could be made,

and notions

I

of the

list

we

it

common experiences, common words we use

of our

list

I

and the

have. But even without the additions that

should be clear that the words, experiences,

have mentioned are

yours, or mine, or

just as

anyone

all

common

—not

exclusively

else's.

In contrast, the things that scientists observe in their laboratories or that explorers observe

special experiences.

We

on

their expeditions are very

them from their we do not experience them ourselves.

ports, but, as a rule,

Human

may

learn about

re-

beings have learned a great deal since Aristotle's day,

mainly through the discoveries of modern science. Applied science has created a world and a his

world and his way of

life.

way of

He

life

very different from

did not have an automobile,

could not talk on the telephone, never saw what can be seen

through a microscope or a telescope, did not have a close view of the surface of the surface by

mon

men

moon, and never heard

a description of

its

Aristotle had the same comwe have in ours. The kind of about them enabled him to understand them

walking on

it.

But

experiences in his day that

thinking he did better than

That and stand these

most of us do. that alone

common

is

the reason he can help us to under-

experiences better and help us to under-

stand ourselves and our lives, as well as the world and the society in

which we

and our

live,

even though our way of

society are different

Aristotle's thinking

from

began with

life,

our world,

his.

common

sense, but

it

did not

XIV

:

end

Introduction

there.

common common

It

went much

further.

That try to

is

added

to

and surrounded

sense with insights and understandings that are not at all.

His understanding of things goes deeper than

ours and sometimes soars higher.

common

It

It

is,

in a word,

uncommon

sense. his great contribution to all of us.

do in

this

book

is

easier to understand. If

even become

less

it

What I am

going to

make his uncommon common sense becomes easier to understand, it might

to

uncommon.

t

PAR J

J

MAN THE PHILOSOPHICAL

ANIMAL

I

Philosophical

Many

Games

of us have played two games without reahzing

on the way

to

becoming philosophical. One

is

we were

called ''Animal,

Vegetable, Mineral"; the other, 'Twenty Questions."

Both games consist

in asking questions.

what makes them philosophical games; questions

—

a set of categories, a

sifying things, placing

process.

when

them

Everyone does

it

scheme of

lies

at

is

on

they

not

behind the

—

is

a familiar

shopkeepers

their shelves, librarians

when

is

classification. Clas-

one time or another

they catalogue books, secretaries

when

what

it is

in this or that category,

they take stock of what

ments. But

However, that

file letters

when

or docu-

the objects to be classified are the contents of

the physical world, or the even-larger universe that includes the physical world, then philosophy enters the picture.

The two games Questions"

—

are

—"Animal, Vegetable, Mineral" and "Twenty sometimes played

game. That occurs when the

^q

first

as

if

they were the

same

of the twenty questions to be

4

Aristotle for

:

asked

is

Everybody

"Animal, vegetable, or mineral?"

in order to find

out

whether the object being thought of falls into one of these three But only some of

large categories, or classes, of physical things.

the objects

we can

think about are physical things.

ample, the object decided on was a geometrical circle, or a it

number, such

happened

as the square root of

to be one of the Greek gods, such

If,

for ex-

such

figure,

as a

minus one, or as

if

Zeus, Apollo,

or Athena, asking whether the object in question was animal, vegetable, or mineral

—

would not

—

should not

or, at least,

get

an answer.

The game

of twenty questions,

when

''Animal, vegetable, or mineral?"

is

not begun by asking

it is

concerned with discovering

any object that can be thought about by anybody. ited to objects that are physical things.

the

more

likely to

Of

It is

not lim-

the two games,

it

is

engage us in philosophical thought without

our being aware of

To become aware

it.

of

it,

we need

Aris-

totle's help.

Classifying was one of the

Another was

skills in

which

Aristotle excelled.

his skill in asking questions. Philosophical

began with the asking of questions

—questions

that

thought

can be an-

swered on the basis of our ordinary, everyday experience and with some reflection about that experience that results in a

sharpening and refinement of our

Animal, vegetable, and mineral fold division of things

we

fall

is

when we

on one

gold or silver that

a rough-and-ready, three-

use

it

to stand for all the

— rosebushes

mice from

or

inanimate things are not minerals, such

we

dig from deposits in the earth.

rock formations found on the earth's surface or in

some

But we use

side of the line that divides liv-

ing organisms from inanimate things sticks or stones. All

sense.

find in the physical world.

the word "mineral" loosely physical things that

common

Some

its

as

are

interior;

are other forms of matter in liquid or gaseous state.

Man In

the Philosophical

loosely covered by the term "mineral," Aristotle

between elementary and

mentary body, according

—

single kind of matter contrast, a

more

gold, for

composite body

is

one

is

one that

What

ele-

that consists in a

composed of two

is

of copper and zinc. But, for Aristotle, the is

An

example, or copper or zinc. In

different kinds of matter, such as brass, which

tinction

is

would have us

composite bodies.

to Aristotle,

5

:

inanimate bodies that

the category of nonliving or

distinguish

Animal

a

is

or

mixture

more important

dis-

the one that divides living from nonliving things.

differentiates

all

organisms from inert bodies,

living

whether they are elementary or composite bodies? From our dinary experience of living organisms,

have certain

common

characteristics.

or-

we know that they all They take nourishment;

they grow; they reproduce.

Among

living organisms,

what

mals? Again, from our ordinary experience,

mals have certain

common

from ani-

differentiates plants

we know

that ani-

characteristics that plants lack.

They

are not rooted in the earth like plants; they have the ability to

move from place to place by their own means of locomotion. They do not draw their nourishment from the air and from the soil as plants do.

The

line

that

In addition,

divides

most animals have sense organs.

inert

bodies from

sometimes leaves us wondering on which ticular thing belongs.

This

is

living

organisms

side of the line a par-

also true of the line that divides

plants from animals. For example,

some

plants appear to have

sensitivity

even though they do not have sense organs

and

Some

ears.

like eyes

animals, such as shellfish, seem to lack the

power of locomotion;

like plants

they appear to be rooted in one

spot.

In classifying physical things as inanimate bodies, plants,

animals, Aristotle was aware that his division of

all

and

physical

6

Aristotle for

:

Everybody

things into these three large classes did not exclude borderline cases

—

things that in a certain respect appear to belong

side of the dividing line

belong on the other

and

He

side.

on one

another respect, appear

that, in

bodies, the transition from things lifeless to living things

from plant or-none

life is

Nevertheless,

gradual and not a clear-cut,

persisted

Aristotle

between

and animals separated them

we

in

did not, in the

thinking that the

first

was

as follows.

and understand the

place, recognize

and

mouse, we would

a

never find ourselves puzzled by whether something

was a

dif-

into quite different kinds of

clear-cut distinction between a stone

classify

all-

and nonliving bodies and between

living

things. His reason for holding this view If

and

affair.

ferences plants

animal

life to

to

recognized that in the world of

living or a nonliving thing.

difficult to

Similarly,

if

we

did

not recognize the clear-cut distinction between a rosebush and a horse,

we would never wonder whether

living

organism was a plant or an animal.

a given

Just as animals are a special kind of living

specimen of

organism because

they perform functions that plants do not, so for a similar reason are

human

beings a special kind of animal.

tain functions that

no other animals perform, such

general questions and seeking answers to

and by thought. That

—

is

why

engage

in philosophical thought.

questioning

There may be animals

zees,

it

engage

as asking

human

beings

and thinking animals,

animals

cer-

them by observation

Aristotle called

tional

that divides

They perform

able

ra-

to

that appear to straddle the borderline

humans from nonhumans.

Porpoises and chimpan-

has recently been learned, have enough intelligence to in

rudimentary forms of communication. But they do

not appear to ask themselves or one another questions about the nature of things, and they do not appear to

try,

by one means or

Man

the Philosophical

Animal

:

7

We may speak human, but we do not include them

another, to discover the answers for themselves. of such animals as almost as

members of Each

the

human

race.

distinct kind of thing, Aristotle thought, has a nature

that distinguishes class of things

it

from

all

What

the others.

from everything

differentiates

else defines the nature possessed

by every individual thing that belongs to that

human nature, human beings have

speak of all

characteristics

for

Aristotle's

differentiate

scheme of

is

and that these

them from other animals, from things.

arranged the

He

an ascending order.

mentary and composite bodies

istics

When we

example, we are simply saying that

classification

classes of physical things in

of the higher classes

class.

certain characteristics

and from inanimate

plants,

one

main

five

placed ele-

Each

the bottom of the scale.

at

higher because

it

possesses the character-

of the class below and, in addition, has certain distin-

guishing characteristics that the class below does not have. In the scale of natural things, the animate

is

a higher

form of

existence than the inanimate; animals are a higher form of

than plants; and

human

life is

All living organisms, like

and have weight, but

the highest form of

all

life

on

life

earth.

inanimate bodies, occupy space

in addition, as

we have

noted, they eat,

grow, and reproduce. Because they are living organisms, animals, like plants, perform these vital functions, but they also

perform certain functions that plants do not. At the top of the scale are

human

beings

who perform

formed by other animals and who, to seek

all

the vital functions per-

in addition,

have the

ability

knowledge by asking and answering questions and the

ability to think philosophically.

Of think,

course,

it

can be said that

many

of the higher animals

and even that computers think. Nor

is

it

true that only

8

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

humans have

intelligence. Intelligence in varying degrees

be found throughout the animal world, in varying degrees

in

members

just as

it

human

of the

special kind of thinking that gives rise to asking

philosophical questions distinguishes mals.

No

is

to

to

be found

race.

But the

is

and answering

humans from

other ani-

other animal plays philosophical games.

In the world of physical things that Aristotle divides into five large classes, the class.

There

subclass.

word "body" names the one, all-embracing

no more inclusive

is

Every thing

which bodies

class of

in the physical

world

is

a

are a

body of one kind

or another.

Can we go

to the opposite

bodies at which

we must

extreme and find a subclass of

stop because

any further into smaller subclasses?

we

are unable to divide

the

Is

human

it

species such

a subclass of animals?

Faced with that question, most of us probably think of different races or varieties of mankind color, by facial characteristics, by

do not such characteristics divide

—

head shape, and

human

at

once

differentiated by skin so on.

Why

beings into different

kinds or subclasses? In this connection, Aristotle

Not

all

made an important

distinction.

the characteristics of a thing, he said, define

or essence.

As we have already seen,

should be defined as a

Being able

rational

to ask questions

wherefore of things

is

—

or

its

nature

Aristotle thought

philosophical

man

—animal.

about the what, the why, and the

what makes anyone

a

human

being, not

the skin color, the snub nose, the straight hair, or the shape of the head.

We

can, of course, divide

ety of subclasses

—

tall

human

or short,

fat

beings into an endless varior thin,

white or black,

strong or weak, and so on. But although such differences

may

Man

the Philosophical

be used to distinguish one subgroup of

human

Animal

:

g

beings from

another, they cannot be used, according to Aristotle, to exclude

any of these subgroups from the

more important,

it

In

other words,

race.

What

is

even

cannot be said that the members of one

subgroup are more or

human

human

less

the

human

than the members of another.

differences

between one subclass of

beings and another are superficial or minor, as

pared with the basic or major differences that separate

com-

human

beings from other animals. Aristotle called the superficial or

minor differences accidental; the basic or major differences he regarded as essential.

Human human

beings and brute animals are essentially different;

beings and short ones,

are accidentally different.

being

differs

from another.

It is

fat

human

only in this way that one

We are all

tall

beings and thin- ones,

human

animals of the same kind,

may have more and another individual less human characteristic. Such individual differences are much less important than the one thing that unites all men and women their common humanity, which is the one respect in which all human beings are equal.

but one individual of this or that

—

The Great Divide

Aristotle's division of physical things into

living

and

organisms,

his

division

inanimate bodies and

of living organisms

and human beings, do not exhaust

plants, animals,

his

into

scheme

of classification or his set of categories.

Think,

example, of Wellington's horse

for

at the Battle

of

Waterloo or of Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Think of Shakespeare's Hamlet, the Gabriel.

ripe tomato,

None

Loch Ness monster,

Think of the odor of

roses in full

isted in the past,

is

a physical thing that exists

but they

exist

Ness monster

is

now

as

animal,

and Julius Caesar

ex-

no longer. Shakespeare's Hamlet

a fictitious person, not a real one.

full

a

Newton's theory of gravitation, or God.

of these

vegetable, or mineral. Wellington's horse

is

or the angel

bloom, the color of

The

existence of the

Loch

highly questionable. As for the odor of roses in

bloom, the angel Gabriel, Newton's theory of

and God, none of these

fall

gravitation,

under any of the headings that

Man

the Philosophical

Animal

:

ii

cover bodies that either exist or have existed in the physical world.

The

universe of objects that can be thought of

than the physical world

—the world of

have existed in the

the world of bodies, but

also includes

it

from everything

we can

It

now

includes

else besides.

else

the great divide.

What is left when we put the whole What belongs to the other half of

verse of objects that

past.

much is

The

physical world to one

the all-embracing uni-

side?

give

larger

bodies, either those

in existence or those that

line that divides bodies

much

is

think about?

I

am

not going to

try to

an exhaustive enumeration of the kinds of objects that are

not bodies, but here

—mathematical — imaginary or or

some of the

at least are

objects,

such

and square

as triangles

fictitious characters,

possible kinds:

such

roots

as Shakespeare's

Hamlet

Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn

—disembodied

or

unembodied

spirits

of

all sorts,

including ghosts

and angels

—gods

God when

or

divine beings are thought of as not having

bodies

— mythological —minds

and mermaids

beings, such as centaurs

that are able to think

up the kind of questions we have

been asking

— I

ideas or theories that

am

thought

fully

aware that

raises

many

sense of that word?

minds think with

this

enumeration of possible objects of

questions. If

bilities?

bodies?

If

such objects

exist,

in

any

how does their existence differ What does it mean to call them

they do,

from the existence of bodies? possibilities?

Do

Are there any objects of thought that are impossi-

minds

are not bodies,

what

is

their relationship to

12

Aristotle for

Everybody

will try to

answer some of these questions

:

I

help

—

—with

sophical questions that the

Some

in later chapters of this book.

moment,

asking

will

I

them

to the larger universe of

Aristotle's

are difficult philo-

postpone until the very end. For

serves the purpose of calling attention

which the physical world

even though the world of bodies

may

is

but a part,

be the only one that really

exists.

we must

Staying with that world,

made by

Aristotle.

odor of roses in

and tomatoes

We

full

On

it

handle the question about the

to

or the color of a ripe tomato. Roses

Considering the physical world, Aristotle

a line that divides

its

constituents into two major kinds.

In our everyday speech,

We

do not speak of the

were a body. weight, for to feel

We

we

I

know

its

that

make

the

and weight of

size

hand me the

to

you must hand

me

same

distinc-

a stone as

if it

stone's size or

the stone in order for

size or weight.

can think of the stone's

the stone,

ordinarily

would not ask you

I

side,

such as their odors or colors.

their characteristics or attributes,

me

on the other

the one side of the line, he placed bodies;

tion.

and

are bodies, they are plants, but their odor

their color are not.

drew

need

bloom

consider another distinction

but

size or

we cannot change

without changing the stone.

If

weight without thinking of the stone's size or weight

the stone

is

lying in a pile of

we can take it from the pile and leave the other stones behind, but we cannot take the stone's size or weight away from stones,

it

and leave the stone behind.

What

belongs to a body in the way in which the stone's size

or weight belongs to

has

its

it is,

according to Aristotle, something that

existence in a thing (as the stone's weight exists in the

stone), but does not exist in

A

physical thing, a body,

from which

it

and of

may

can be removed

—

itself (as

the stone

exists).

belong to a collection of things as

one stone can be taken from

Man a pile of stones.

of

But each of the stones

e\en when

itself,

and of themselves. They are always the

physical things,

and they cease

they exist cease to

A A

and

is

sizes

when

:

13

and not exist

and weights of

the bodies in which

exist.

Another way of grasping cal things

to exist

That

and weights do not

true of the stone's size or weight. Sizes in

in the pile exists in

exists in a collection of stones.

it

Animal

the Philosophical

this basic distinction

between physi-

how

things change.

their attributes

is

to consider

made smooth. made perfectly attributes, we are deal-

stone w ith a rough surface can be polished and stone that

round. While

is

almost round in shape can be

we

same stone If

it

changing

are

ing with one and the

same

It is

not another stone, but the

altered.

same stone while becoming

did not remain the

in this or that respect,

being rough

to

it

could not be said

understand

this,

is

it

(this

have changed from

we understand

reason for saying that a physical thing

what

to

different

being smooth or from being larger to being

When we

smaller.

a stone's

stone.

that

is

individual stone) while at the

Aristotle's

which remains

same time being

subject to change in one respect or another (in size or weight,

shape, color, or texture).

The

attributes of bodies, unlike bodies themselves, are never

subject to change.

Roughness never becomes smoothness; green

never becomes red.

the green tomato that things,

in

short,

the rough stone that

It is

are

changeable; they are

becomes red when changeable. the

it

becomes smooth; ripens.

Physical

Physical attributes are not

respects

in

which physical things

change.

Aristotle attempted to

make

a

complete enumeration of the

attributes that physical things have.

questioned, but the attributes he

Its

completeness

names

are ones

we

may

be

are

all

Everybody

Aristotle for

14

common

acquainted with in

— — — A it

when

in quantity,

when

in quality,

experience, especially those that

which things change:

are the principal respects in

they increase or decrease in weight or size

they alter in shape, color, or texture

in place or position,

when

move from

they

here to there

thing has other attributes, such as the relationships in which stands to other things, the actions

being acted on, the time of tion of

its

Of all

existence,

its

it

performs, the results of

coming

and the time of

its

into existence, the dura-

ceasing to

its

exist.

the attributes that a physical thing has, the most impor-

tant are those that

spect to

which

manent

attributes

it

it

has throughout

its

existence and with re-

does not change as long as

make

the kind of thing

it

it

exists.

These per-

For example,

it is.

it

a permanent attribute of salt that it dissolves in water; a permanent attribute of certain metals that they are conductors of is

electricity;

a

permanent

birth to living offspring

Such thing

it

attribute of

and suckle

attributes not only is,

make

mammals

a thing the special kind of

they also differentiate one kind of thing from an-

other. Being able to ask questions of the sort

ing

a

is

tiates us

We call

permanent

beings persons.

sharks or birds persons. a

person,

we

to this point, the

We

When we

treat

human. Objects that we in the same manner.

Up

ask-

are, of course,

are physical things, but not only physical things.

recognize this fact in our use of the word "person."

human

were

we have been

attribute of rational animals that differen-

from other mammals. Rational animals

They

bodies.

that they give

their young.

it

as

do not treat

if

regard as

it

call

spiders,

our pet cat or dog

were

mere

human

things,

We

snakes, as if

it

—

or almost

we do

word "thing" has been used

not treat

to refer to

Man physical things

—

to

bodies.

Now

the Philosophical

Its

meaning

is

It is

sometimes so broad that

object of thought

—not only

to their attributes as well,

it

a

15

troublesome word.

refers to

any possible

to existent physical things,

and

:

word "thing" has been

the

used in contrast to the word "person."

Animal

to objects that

do not

but also

exist,

ob-

may

never have existed, and even objects that cannot

possibly exist.

Sometimes the word "thing" narrowly applies

jects that

now

only to bodies that

have existed there

exist in the physical world, bodies that

in the past, or bodies that

can

exist there in

the future.

Using the same word in a variety of senses able. In the case of the

words we use ble not to

do

word. also

most important words we

in ordinary everyday speech, so. Aristotle

ferent senses in

When we

often unavoid-

is

it

is

use, especially

almost impossi-

frequently called attention to the dif-

which he found

it

necessary to use the same

Human and not

we must we use.

think about our experience as he did,

pay attention to the different senses of the words

beings are physical things in one sense of that word

in another

when we

call

them

persons, not things. As

physical things, as bodies, they have the three dimensions with

which we

are

all

acquainted. As persons, they also have three

dimensions, which are quite different.

Mans Three Dimensions

Regarding ourselves simply things

—

would

I

as

bodies

—

merely

or

as

physical

say that our three dimensions, like the three

dimensions of any other body, are length, breadth, and height.

That

is

the way in which any body occupies space.

While,

we

as bodies,

we have

are, as

kind of thing

mensions

—

we

are physical things like

just seen,

that

is

my hand

down. Like

also directions

human

What

called a person.

In space, a dimension

to

—the only

are our three di-

as persons, not just as bodies?

can move

up

other bodies,

all

the special kind of thing

being.

— I

spatial

which our

is

a direction in

left to right,

which

from front

which

am

we have only

sure that I

as active activities

I

can move.

to back,

I

from

dimensions, personal dimensions are

directions in

physical bodies, but

dimensions

from

cannot be

human

can take

as a person,

— only

can act as a

three dimensions as

as sure that

beings us.

I,

we have only

three

three directions in

Man However,

I

think that the three dimensions

There may be

portant as these. In the

the

first

The

doubt

I

rep-

activity

can

there are any as im-

if

three are making, doing, and knowing.

we have man

of these three dimensions, making,

or artisan

artist

ships,

others, but

ly

:

name

shall

I

human

resent three very important directions that take.

Animal

the Philosophical

—the producer of

all sorts

of things: shoes,

and houses, books, music, and paintings.

It

not just

is

when human beings produce statues or paintings that we should call them artists. That is much too restricted a use of the word art.

a

Anything in the world that

work of

artificial rather

is

In the second of these dimensions, doing,

—

moral and social being

achieves happiness or

fails to

achieve

human

acquiring knowledge of

sorts

all

human

it,

someone who

the

wrong,

finds

it

beings in order to do

we have man

— not

beings are a part, not

nature, but also about knowledge

three of these dimensions,

kind of thinking he does in order to

as learner,

only about nature, not

human

only about the society of which only about

right or

being, he or she feels impelled to do.

In the third dimension, knowing,

all

is

or does not do, either

human

necessary to associate with other

what, as a

we have man

someone who can do

someone who, by what he or she does

In

than natural

—something man-made.

art

man make

is

itself.

a thinker, but the

things differs from the

kind of thinking he does in order to act morally and socially.

Both kinds of thinking being does in order

differ

just to

from the kind of thinking

—

know

to

know

a

human

just for the sake

of

knowing.

Aristotle

was very

much concerned

with the differences that

distinguish these three kinds of thinking.

He

used the term

''productive thinking" to describe the kind of thinking that

man

engages in as a maker; "practical thinking" to describe the kind

i8

:

Aristotle for

Everybody

and "speculative" or "theoretical

that he engages in as a doer;

thinking" to describe the kind he engages in as a knower.

This threefold division of the kinds of thinking can be found

Some

in Aristotle's books.

and

of them, such as his books on moral

concerned with practical thinking

political philosophy, are

and with man and trying

to

doer

as a

make

it

as

—

an individual living

as

good

as possible,

of society, associated with other

with them.

Some

human

and

his

also as a

own life member

beings and cooperating

of these books, such as the ones on natural

philosophy, are concerned with theoretical thinking about the

man

whole physical world, including

and man's mind and knowledge

He

wrote a treatise about

man

only with

man

entitled

Poetics because the

it

maker of

as a

the word "poetry"

as a part of that world,

as well. as a

maker, but that book deals

and paintings. He

poetry, music,

Greek word from which we

— making

means making

get

anything, not just

the kind of objects that entertain us and that give us pleasure

when we

enjoy them.

Men

women

and

produce an extraordi-

we use in our daily lives, such as the clothes we wear, the houses we live in, the furniture in those houses, and the implements needed to make such nary variety of useful things, things

things.

The more

man

as a

general treatment of

maker of

man

as a

useful physical things,

that Aristotle wrote about nature

—

phy. In his effort to understand the totle frequently resorted to

his

maker, particularly

we

find in the books

books of natural philoso-

phenomena

of nature, Aris-

comparisons between the way

men

produce things and the way nature works. His understanding of

what

is

help us

involved in

—

That

making

is

to

helped him

— and

it

will

understand the workings of nature.

why

as a

human making

I

am

going to begin, in Part

dimension of

human

II

of this book, with

activity. After that, in Part

III,

Man I

am

going to deal with the dimension of

which man I

will

come

is

to

a

the

man

as a

knower, postponing

we have

human mind and knowledge

The most words that

And

moral and social being.

difficult questions that

Animal

the Philosophical

human

activity in

—

questions about

itself.

name

the universal values that

elicit

respect

—

and

or the

good, and the beautiful. These three values pertain to

human

In the sphere of making,

we

activity.

are

concerned with beauty

say the least, with trying to produce things that are well

In the sphere of doing, as individuals

we

most

to the last the

to consider

challenging words in anyone's vocabulary are three

the three dimensions of

ety,

19

finally, in Part IV,

evoke wonder. They are truth, goodness, and beauty true, the

:

are

concerned with good and

the sphere of knowing,

we

are

and

as

members

evil, right

concerned with

or, to

made.

of soci-

and wrong. In

truth.

PJJIT

JJ

MAN THE MAKER

s

Aristotle's

If Aristotle

had written the

of the tale

would have been

The

story

storv'

Crusoe

of Robinson Crusoe, the moral

different.

most of us have read celebrates Crusoe's ingenuity

in solving the

problem of how

on the

island

where he found himself

wreck.

It

sight.

also celebrates his virtues

It is

a story of

control over

For

—

and comfortably

a castaway after a ship-

his

courage and his fore-

man's conquest of nature,

his

mastery and

it.

Aristotle, the island

ture with a capital

of nature

to live securely

would have represented Nature, na-

N, nature untouched by humans. The works

—the seeding of

trees

and bushes, the growth of plants,

the birth and death of animals, the shifting of sands, the wear-

ing away of rocks, the formation of caves

long before Crusoe's

arrival.

Aristotle

changes that Crusoe brought about

— had been going on

would have viewed the

as a

way of understanding

the changes that had taken place without him.

For him, the

24

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

would not have been

story

account of

man

When we

a stor>' of

man

against nature, but an

working with nature. understand something that

try to

derstand, a good

common-sense

rule

the difficulties. light

What

on what

that helps us over-

more understandable may throw

is

Human

understandable.

less

is

if

un-

out with some-

to start

is

thing easier to understand in order to see

come some

difficult to

is

beings

should be able to understand what goes on when they make

something or change something. That stand than what goes on in nature

when human

Understanding works of

in the picture.

less difficult to

is

art

under-

beings are not

may, therefore, help

us to understand the workings of nature. suggested,

I

the preceding chapter, that in

in

meaning the phrase "work of art" covers everything made.

Let's reconsider that.

beings

artificial,

Is

I

think you should, then

drawing the

rectly

is

man-

human

parents produce children,

are the children artificial? Are they works of art? If as

that

everything produced by

When

not natural?

broadest

its

we have not

you

say no,

yet succeeded in cor-

line that divides the artificial

from the natu-

ral.

Suppose that lightning tree

split in half;

is

them

sets

off a

changes that

branches are cut

forest

result

strikes a tree in a

fire.

The

off.

forest

dense

forest.

The burning fire

and

of

all

from the lightning's stroke are

The

some of

the other

all

natural,

are they not?

But

away

on

a person,

walking through the woods, carelessly throws

a lighted cigarette.

fire,

and the woods

was caused by lightning.

The

work of man

a

It

are

human

first

sets

consumed

in flames.

being, as the

one was

— something

the dry leaves of the underbrush

a

first

That

forest fire

one was caused by

work of nature. Was the second

artificial,

a

not natural?

Suppose, however, that the individual in the woods had not

Man dropped a lighted

cigarette.

mound

in a

that he surrounded

with small stones. Then, lighting a match, he

not, that

of

he had built

unlike the

art,

We

would

Would

a fire.

fire set

25

:

Suppose he had gathered dry twigs

and leaves and heaped them order to cook his lunch.

Maker

the

the

them

set fire to

in

would we

ordinarily say,

he built be a work

fire

dropping of a lighted

off by the careless

cigarette?

Before you answer that question too quickly, fire itself is

to

make

it

something natural. happen. In

what does he make to

happen

at

—the

fire itself

through the woods caused

it

to

does

or does

and place,

a certain time

human

does not need a

It

when man

fact,

remember

happen

make

that

being

happen,

it

he merely cause

man

as the

at the spot

it

walking

where he de-

cided to cook lunch?

One more example cut off

some of

to consider: lightning split the tree

branches.

its

Men

can do

that, too,

and

with axes

it when they engage in lumbering in wood they need to build houses, or to make You understand that the houses men build

and saws; and they do order to obtain the chairs

and

tables.

are products of art, not of nature

ing a house, then,

is

you cannot be quite tificial,

—

not natural. Build-

artificial,

not quite the same as building a so sure that the fire a

man

fire,

builds

is

for ar-

not natural.

—

What is the difference between the man-made house or the man-made chair or table and the man-made fire? Or between

—

the tree's branches that are cut off by lightning and the tree's

branches that are cut built

down by lumberjacks? Or between

the

fire

by the picnicker in order to cook his lunch and the

fire

caused by the

man

tramping through the woods

who

carelessly

fire

caused by

dropped a lighted cigarette? Let's start with the easiest question

first.

The

26

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

the lighted cigarette was accidental rather than intentional.

was not

for a

resulted

from

purpose that some

human

human

carelessness

being had in mind.

—even

than from careful planning and foresight.

human It

thing that a

human

as lightning

behavior

is

a

being did, but

human

Now, what

man

Not everything

is.

man-made

fire,

some-

a part of nature just as

from

human

art.

deliberately built for the

house, deliber-

purpose of providing shelter? Here neither

humanly-brought-about

result

is

accidental. Purpose

ning are certainly involved in both. So artificial side

artificial.

artificial.

that results

man-made

purpose of cooking lunch, and the

on the

is

of any

resulted from

production or a work of

of the

ately built for the

It

It

rather

on the natural

it

from the

was man-caused but not man-made.

much

The absence

purpose, planning, or foresight puts

side of the line that divides the natural

—

mindlessness

It

far, at least,

and plan-

both belong

of the line that divides the natural from the

What, then,

is

the difference between them?

One difference is clear immediately. Fires happen in nature when men are not present, but houses do not. Men can help nature produce

fires

by lighting matches and setting dry leaves

and twigs aflame. But when than

one

make

we

fires

said before,

happen

men do

at a certain

not

tools

built after

and place. Except

just

for his

but they

he had rescued

made happen

at a cer-

being on the island, no

houses would have ever happened, as

pened

fire itself,

from the shipwreck was something that he and he

alone produced, not something he tain time

make

time and place. In the other case,

men do make houses. The house that Robinson Crusoe some

beings build houses rather

they are not helping nature produce them. In the

fires,

case,

human

fires

might have hap-

as a result of bolts of lightning.

One more

question remains.

We

have so

far

decided that

Man

Maker

the

Crusoe's house, planned and produced for a purpose, of

not of nature, something

art,

entirely artificial

that before

God

—wholly

a

a

not natural. But

artificial,

human

is

creation?

The

Bible

:

27

work is

tells

it

us

created the world there was nothing, and that

God's creation of the world brought something out of nothing.

Did Crusoe bring something out of nothing when he

built his

house? Hardly.

He

built

chopping down

it

saw, and smoothing

out of the

wood he had obtained from

with his ax, cutting off branches with his

trees

them with

into the building of the

The wood

his plane.

house came from nature.

It

that

went

was there

to

begin with. So, too, was the iron out of which nails had been

formed, nails that Crusoe recovered along with tools in the carpenter's

house,

chest

that

made out

floated

of

soe, not by nature, but

That

is

ashore

wood and it

nails,

the

after

The made by Cru-

shipwreck.

was indeed

was made out of natural materials.

also true of all the tools that

Crusoe had the good luck

to be able to use. Let's not forget the children that parents produce.

already tificial

decided that children are

— not works of

art. Is

natural

products,

that because they are

We

have

not ar-

sometimes ac-

cidental products rather than intentional ones?

Sometimes, we know, children are the or thoughtlessness, for.

and are

as

unexpected

result of carelessness

as they are

unplanned

But even when children are wanted and planned

when some thought when, with some a certain time

is

for,

even

involved in begetting them, and even

luck, parents help nature

and place, they are not

like

produce children the

fire

at

that the pic-

nicker helped nature to produce or the house that Crusoe built

out of materials provided by nature.

Why

not? For the time being,

swer suggested above. Children,

let

us be satisfied with the an-

like the offspring

of other ani-

28

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

mals, can certainly happen without any thought, planning, or

purpose. That

not true of anything

is

we would

call a

work of

But just as human beings can make fires happen by knowing something about how fires happen in nature, so, too, can human beings make children happen by knowing something about how the procreation of offspring happens in

art or artificial.

nature.

When

they are totally ignorant of that, then their offspring

are entirely accidental.

the having of offspring

But when they have such knowledge, is,

partly at least, the result of planning

lot

of happenings and productions, and

and purpose.

We

have surveyed a

we have compared the differences between them in order to see if we can place each on one or the other side of the line that divides the natural and the artificial. Before we go on, it might be a good idea to summarize what we have learned. First, we decided that fire itself is something entirely natural. The particular fire a man purposely builds at a certain time and place

is

an

artificial

—something

happening

that

happened had not some human being caused and

would not have to

happen then

there.

Second, the to

it

artificiality

make lunch

Crusoe

differs

of the

fire

from the

the picnicker built in order

artificiality

human

both spring from occur in nature

purposes, houses, unlike

when human

refer to the picnicker's

Crusoe's house as an

fire

as

artificial

beings are not

an

artificial

artificial.

not out of nothing.

It

It is,

at

Though

fires,

never

work. Let us

happening and

to

product.

Third, Crusoe's house, though an

something wholly rials,

of the house that

built in order to provide himself with shelter.

artificial

product,

is

not

was made out of natural matetherefore, unlike the world itself

Man

the

Maker

:

29

God created out of nothing. Let us men make out of natural materials their

according to the Bible,

that,

call things that

always

productions rather than their creations.

we considered human children and the offspring of other animals. Do we ordinarily call them either productions or creations? No, the language we use for describing their coming Fourth,

to

be involves such words as ''reproduction" and "procreation."

The

Let us take that fact as significant.

results

reproduction or procreation are not like the

—

ning

a natural event;

tificial

happening; nor

artificial product;

nor

nor

house that

the world that

caused by

fire

light-

—an Crusoe erected — an

like the fire built

like the like

of biological

by

God

man

ar-

created out of

nothing.

However, understanding how to

understand

Understanding derstand

how

build houses will help us

how animals reproduce or procreate how men make fires happen will help

fires

happen

difference between will

men

as natural events.

making

fires

offspring.

us to un-

Understanding the

happen and building houses

help us to understand the difference between

fires

happen-

ing in nature and animals reproducing their kind.

Do

now whether understanding all this will also help how God created the world. That question until we see whether our understanding of the works

not ask

us to understand

must wait

of nature and of art leads us back to the Bible's story of creation

—

a story that Aristotle never read.

Change and Permanence

Aristotle took a sensible attitude

ceded him.

He

what they had

said he thought

toward the thinkers it

was wise

to say in order to discover

false,

Two

who

pre-

pay attention

to

which of their opinions

were correct and which were incorrect. By the

to

from

sifting the true

some advance might be made.

earlier thinkers

— Heraclitus and Parmenides —held

very

extreme views about the world. Heraclitus declared that everything, absolutely everything,

was constantly changing. Nothing,

absolutely nothing, ever remained the same. lowers, Cratylus, even

went so

possible to use language to stantly is

One

far as to say that this

communicate,

made

it

fol-

im-

words are con-

for

changing their meanings. The only way

of his

to

communicate

by wiggling your finger.

At the other extreme, Parmenides declared that permanence reigns supreme.

ever

comes

Whatever

is,

is;

whatever

is

not,

is

into existence or perishes; nothing at

nothing moves.

The appearance

nothing

not; all

changes,

of change and motion, which

Man

the

Maker

Parmenides acknowledged as part of our daily experience,

We

illusion.

31

:

an

is

are being deceived by our senses. In reality, every-

thing always remains the same.

You may wonder how Parmenides could persuade anyone

to

accept so extreme a view, and one so contrary to our everyday experience.

One

of his followers, a

man named Zeno,

ceived things

per-

moving about, we were being deceived.

We

were suffering an

One

illusion.

of these arguments ran somewhat

hit a ball

to get there, the ball first has to

on

it first

go through half the distance.

soning,

Aristotle

His

—

at least to the service box. In order

followed the direction of Zeno's reato the

—could never

conclusion that the ball could

leave your racket.

was acquainted with these opinions and arguments.

common

sense as well as his

they were wrong.

If

common

experience told

him

words are always changing their meanings,

how could

Heraclitus

erything

changing and suppose,

is

and

his followers repeatedly say that evas

they obviously did, that

they were saying the same thing each time, not the opposite? the motion of the heavenly bodies

change from day perishes,

It

has to go

has to go through half the distance; and so

From this, if we we would be led

never get started

first

it

by a continual halving of the distances that

indefinitely,

remain.

to

to another. In order

has to reach the net. In order to get there,

through half the distance

You want

like this:

from one end of the tennis court

to get there,

tried to

when we

invent arguments that would persuade us that

no one

to night.

dies,

If

is

an

illusion,

then so

is

If

the

nothing comes into existence or

but where are Parmenides and his friend

Zeno now? Heraclitus and Parmenides were wrong, but not fact,

each was partly

right,

and the whole

all

truth,

thought, consisted in combining two partial truths.

wrong. In Aristotle

32

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

On

the one hand, motion and change,

passing away, occur throughout the

human

occurring long before

from being grasps the

be

full

beings

of illusions, our

coming

wodd of nature and were came on the scene. Far

common

experience of nature

of change. Things are the

realit)'

be and

to

way they seem

to

— changing. On

the other hand,

not everything

always changing in

is

every respect. In every change, there must be something perma-

nent

—something

coming

that persists or remains the

different in

one respect or another. That tennis

example, which you

one place baseline,

when

but

was the same tennis

direction. If

it

had been

reached your opponent's

it

you propelled

ball that

a different tennis ball,

magician standing on the sidelines,

ball, for

move from

tried to hit across the court, did

another,

to

it

same while be-

conjured up by a

would have been

it

in that

called a

foul.

Motion from here tion or

(which Aristotle called local mo-

to there

change of place)

is

the most obvious of the changes in

which something remains the same. The moving thing

is

the

unchanging subject of the change that

it

was

when

''your tennis ball"

it

ball"

when your opponent

ball,

not another

While we

When

fell

is

hits

it

back

—

it

is

a tennis ball,

heavy (you and

another word for heavy).

naturally.

That was

You

a natural, not

hit the tennis ball

man-made motion,

me mention

makes between two kinds of

you accidentally drop

But when you

''your tennis

it is still

the selfsame, identical

are talking about local motion, let

ground because

which

local motion.

is

your racket,

ball.

distinction that Aristotle tion.

left

If

not a natural one.

it

on

mothe

say because of gravity,

did not throw

an

artificial,

it

down.

The it

is

a

force of your stroke

ball to fall

a path

It

motion.

with your racket, that

overcomes the natural tendency of the weight, and this force sends

I

local

falls to

it

a

because of

would not have

its

fol-

—

Man you had not propelled

lowed

if

stroke.

The same

thing

it

propel a rocket to the

moon. That is not a natural motion for rocket. Without the propelling force we naturally leave the

From there

is

a

heavy body

give

it

it,

like a

would not

of gravity.

earth's field

tennis balls to rockets, from elevators to cannonballs, a

wide variety of bodies

be moving as they do were ture.

33

:

by your

in that direction

when we

true

is

Maker

the

it

in local

motion

would not

not for man's interference with na-

we

call these

motions

for

they

motions

Since they are not natural, should

That word might be used,

artificial?

that

are

brought about by men. Aristotle called them violent motions violent in the sense that they violate the natural tendency of the

bodies in question.

What

changes that occur naturally also occur

other

or through man's having a

tificially,

the sun ripens a tomato and turns

it

hand

in

ar-

them? The heat of

from green

not a change in place, but a change in color.

to red.

It

is

That

is

not a local

motion, but the alteration of an attribute of the tomato.

From being

green at one time, the tomato has

become

red at

another, just as the tennis ball, from being here at one time, there at another.

not space.

No

What

is

common

to these

change of place occurred

two changes

is

in the ripening of the

tomato, only a change in quality; but neither change

change a

in place

change

and the change

in quality

—the

—took place without

in time.

People paint green things red, or red things green

The

tables, chairs,

and

ral alteration;

the painting of things

them. The house, did not

is

time,

become

so on.

ripening of the tomato

table, or chair,

is

an

—houses, is

a natu-

artificial alteration

which was

at

red at another time without

of

one time green,

human

interven-

tion.

In addition to local motion (or change in place) ation (or change in quality), there

is still

and

a third kind of

alter-

change

34

•

Everybody

Aristotle for

that

both natural and

is

the artificial form of

Take

This time

artificial.

it.

rubber balloon and blow

a

changes in

size as well as in shape.

tinue to do so as you blow air into

of

it,

it

table by

itself,

balloon will not decrease in

panied by a change in shape, artificial

changes

occur

to

its

size. is

and

gets larger,

And when you its

also

make

at the

same time

occur naturally

They

—

and

ing things.

many

—

more there

You

logs.

of course,

we do

build a If

build. If

you feed

in

For

in the

world of

liv-

but

among them

to

changes in

body

a living

in quantity,

it

is

cer-

has a peculiar

not find in the increase of inanimate

and you can make

fire

are

and weight.

more and more

would appear

but no matter

change

The action of waves may More familiar experiences of

—occur

an increase or a change

bodies.

a

size).

and animals grow. Their growth involves

increases in size

characteristic that

in

as they are continually

Although one aspect of the growth of tainly

change

as well as artificially.

and weight

in size

Plants

changes,

quantity

—

a

get smaller.

seacoast caves larger.

natural increase

in-

end twisted and bound, the

example, rocks on a seacoast wear away battered by waves.

out

The change in size, accomyour doing. You have caused

quantity (the increase or decrease in the balloon's in quantity

it

con-

will

let air

would not have

quality (the alteration of the balloon's shape)

Changes

so,

original shape.

the balloon

Blown up, with

creased in size.

two

It it.

As you do

up.

it

decreases in size and returns to

on the

Left

us begin with

let

it

larger

by adding

logs are available to pile

be no limit to the size of the

fire

on

it,

you can

carrots to a rabbit, the rabbit grows in size,

how many

carrots

you feed the

rabbit, there

is

a

limit to the rabbit's increase in size.

You can

and human

labor,

that has ever

been

stones

amid

build smaller or larger pyramids and, given

you can make one built.

larger

enough

than any pyr-

But no matter what you do

in the

Man

the

make them grow You cannot make a house cat

Maker

35

:

feeding of animals, you cannot

to

than a certain

the size of a

size.

be larger

lion or a tiger.

The

reverse

in size as

you

let

The

also true.

is

the air out of

the point where the balloon

animals cease

to

is

balloon you blew up decreases

and the decrease can go on

it,

completely collapsed. But

may

grow, they

to

when

cease to increase in size, but

they do not decrease in size to the vanishing point so long as

they remain alive.

But animals and plants cease to be balloons

This brings us tificial

—

separates

that it

is

So, too, do balloons burst and

die.

when you blow

to a fourth

kind of change

so different

sharply from the

much

them.

—both natural and

ar-

rest.

we have seen, move from here

shape, get larger or smaller.

take time to happen. to

there,

bursts,

it

That change would ap-

peai to take no time, certainly no appreciable

occurs in an instant; or perhaps

Time

in color or

alter

But when the balloon

ceases to be a balloon instantaneously.

It

air into

from the other three that Aristotle

All the others, as

elapses as bodies

too

we should

amount

say: at

the balloon exists, and at the very next instant

of time.

one instant

no longer

it

ex-

we have left are shreds or fragments of rubber, not balloon we can blow up. The same is true of the rabbit that dies. In one instant it ists.

All

alive; at the next,

it

is

no more.

All

we have

left is

a

is

the carcass,

which, in the course of further time, will progressively decay

and

disintegrate.

This special kind of change (which Aristotle ing to be and passing away)

instantaneous.

is

special in other

is

so special that

In every change,

we have been

It

it

refers to as

com-

ways than being problems

for

something

re-

raises serious

us.

saying so

far,

36

Everybody

Aristotle for

;

mains permanent and unchanging. The body or thing that changes in place, in color, or

when

moves from one place or another, when

it

when

color,

when

it

The

What remains

same when the

the

decaying, disintegrating carcass

fed carrots to.

The

in

alters

it

But what remains the same

increases in size.

the balloon bursts?

bit dies?

we

remains the same body

in size

rab-

not the rabbit

is

shreds of rubber are not the balloon

we

blew up. Nevertheless, there

kind of change.

It is

destruction of things by plants

something permanent

is

men

than

Pieces of wood, nails,

make

a chair.

in this special

in the production or

in the birth

and death of

and glue do not come together natu-

Men make

after that

istence as

You

happens,

at

chairs by putting these mate-

They

together in a certain way.

the instant

something you can

sit

when

materials

into a chair as they are

comes

the chair

into ex-

on.

find the chair uncomfortable or

and want

same

are the

and shaped

before they were put together

all

it is

it is

and animals.

rally to rials

what

easier to see

a table instead of this one.

You

you have other chairs probably cannot reuse

the nails or the glue, but you can take the chair apart and,

using the pieces of

wood and some

of the nails, you can build a

small table with most of the same materials. glue in the

first

place,

and

if

If

you had not used

you had been able

to extract all the

nails in usable form, the materials in the chair that has ceased

to be

and

tical.

They would

in the table that has differ

come

into being

only in respect to

would be iden-

how

they are put

together. It

would, therefore, appear

to

be the case that in

artificial

productions and destructions, what persists or remains the same

throughout the change

is

not the thing that was produced and

destroyed, but only the materials that a person used in putting

together and the materials that are

left

when

it

is

taken apart.

it

—

a

Man Something

like that

is

makeup. And

is

may

37

:

after all, a material thing, just

a material thing.

it

dies, decays, disintegrates.

a chair

is,

There

that matter remains, not in the

course, but nevertheless

Maker

also the case in the death of the rabbit.

Being a living body, the rabbit as the chair or table

the

remains,

And

when

is

matter in

its

same form, of

the rabbit breaks

up

just as the inorganic materials

of

enter into the composition of a table, so the organic

may

materials of a rabbit

enter into the composition of another

living thing.

may have been killed by a jackal and devoured for nourishment. To the extent that the jackal is able to assimilate The

what

rabbit

the organic materials of the rabbit enter into the

eats,

it

bone,

flesh,

and muscle of the

jackal.

—

Modern science has a name for what is going on here name that Aristotle did not use. We call it the conservation of matter. However it is referred to, the point is that something persists in the special kind of change that is coming to be and passing away. That something, in the case of artificial things

such

as tables

and

chairs, consists of the materials out of

which

they are made.

man-made

In

materials are nails.

It

is

—

productions,

what these

these particular pieces of wood, these particular

living things die.

stances of

usually identify

not always as easy to identify the particular unit or

units of matter that persist

when

we can

coming

when one animal

eats

another or

But there can be no doubt that

in all in-

be and passing away, both natural and

to

ar-

either matter itself or materials of a certain kind un-

tificial,

dergo transformation.

What

is

meant by "matter

of a certain kind"? tificial

rials

things, never

Human

itself" as

beings, in

work with matter

contrasted with "materials

making or destroying itself,

of a certain kind. Does nature, unlike

ter itself? If so,

then that which

ar-

but only with mate-

man, work with mat-

persists or

remains the subject

38

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

of change in

same

as that

natural

artificial

which

coming

production and destruction

persists or

to be

human

not the

remains the subject of change in

and passing away.

Similar, but not the same.

materials in

is

The

transformation of identifiable

production and destruction

is

only

like

but

not identical with the transformation of matter in natural coming to be and passing away. Nevertheless, the similarity or like-

may help us to understand what happens when, things come to be and pass away. We will look into ness

closely in the following chapters.

in nature, this

more

The Four Causes

The

"four causes" are the answers that Aristotle gives to four

questions that can and should be asked about the changes with

which we

are acquainted in our

common-sense

questions,

and

common

by considering them as they apply

human That

beings,

They

experience.

are

so are the answers. Let us begin to

changes brought about by

especially the things they produce or

make.

will help us to consider the four causes as they operate in

the workings of nature.

The

first

going to be at

question about any

made

of? If

human

you asked

this

production

What

is it

question of a shoemaker

work, the answer would be ''leather."

eler,

is:

If

you asked

it

of a jew-

fashioning bracelets or rings out of precious metals, the an-

swer might be ''gold" or "silver."

producing a steel."

The

rifle,

the answer

kind of material

If

you asked

it

of a gunsmith

would probably be "wood and

named

in

craftsman works and out of which he

each case, on which the is

producing a particular

— 40

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

product,

the material cause of the production.

is

four indispensable factors tion

—

It

one of

is

without which the produc-

factors

would not and could not occur.

The second

question

human

productions.

Who made

is:

be the easiest question of

may

It

That would appear

it?

to

when we are dealing with easy when we come to the

all, at least

not be so

changes that take place in nature and

produced by

to the things

human

nature rather than by men. So far as

productions are

concerned, the question has already been answered in what was said in

answer

shoemaker

to the first question: the

the

is

maker

of the shoe, the jeweler of the bracelets or rings, the gunsmith

The maker

of the gun.

each case

in

the efficient cause of the

is

production.

The

third question

face of

it,

tient to

have

is

is:

that question to consider

What

is

it.

It is

and so

that

is

is

being made?

that Aristotle called the answer

formal cause of the change or production,

as

you

will

''material," the

first

of the four causes.

it is,

the

a shoe, by the jeweler a ring,

you may be puzzled by the introduction of though

On

may make you impayou may say, that what

it

obvious,

made by the shoemaker on. But when I tell you

being

to this question the

it

so easy that

is

nation of "formal" after

soon

that

see, the precise I

word

word

''formal,"

to pair

with

will return to the expla-

we have considered

the

last

of the four

made

for?

What

causes.

The pose

fourth question

is

it

intended to

maker have the question

in is:

mind

Why

What

is:

fulfill?

as the is

quickly.

We

all

being

What

end

we have been

know what

And

its

simplest form,

the answer, with

talking about,

shoes and rings

and guns

what function they perform or what purpose they This fourth factor in

human

pur-

objective or use did the

to serve? In

being made?

it

regard to the productions

is it

comes

are for

serve.

productions Aristotle called the

Man final cause, calling

mind

in

had I

is

in

you or

I

make

we can put

before

it

41

:

it

last

or finally.

to use for the

is

we have

anything, the end

We

must

purpose we

mind.

said earlier that the four causes are indispensable factors that

must be present and operative whenever

To

Maker

that because the factor being referred to

something that we achieve

making

finish

it

When

an end in view.

the

men

produce anything.

them indispensable is to say that, taken together, they are that without which the production could not have taken place. Each of the four factors, taken by itself, is necessary, but none by itself is sufficient. call

All four

must be present together and operate

one another to

in a certain

way.

The workman must have

work on and must actually work on

transform

made to the

to

it

into

By doing

something that the materials

person making

In other words,

it.

it,

have expended the

effort to

You may

for

question the

wonder whether the for

it.

in

material

he must

so,

hand can be

become. And what has been made must be of some use

reason for making

thing

in relation to

final

—must always be

someone

to

he must have had

make

cause

it.

of these statements.

last

—the reason

for

You may

making some-

present and operating. Isn't

it

possible

produce something without having a reason

—without

doing so

a

without that, he would probably not

for

having in mind, in advance, a deliberate

purpose that he wishes to serve?

That question

you must admit

is

not easy to answer with certainty, though

that, for the

most

part,

human

beings do

the effort to produce things because they need or things they are engaged in producing. Yet they casion, fiddle

around with materials and,

something unexpected

When

this

—

aimlessly or, shall

may

also,

as a result,

we

make

want the

on oc-

produce

say, playfully.

happens, there would appear to be no final cause.

42

Aristotle for

:

no end

result

Everybody

being aimed

duced, a function for production

mind

in

to

perform,

purpose

may

for the object pro-

be thought up

completed, but the producer of

is

advance.

in

it

A

at.

It

it

after the

did not have

it

could, therefore, hardly have been an

indispensable factor, or a cause, of what occurred.

When we

turn from

human

productions to the workings of

nature, the question about the presence

and operation of

final

more insistent. We cannot avoid facing it we should certainly be uneasy about saying that nature has this or that in mind as the end result that it aims at. Perhaps, when I am able to explain why Aristotle calls the third

causes becomes squarely, for

of the four causes the formal cause,

will also

I

be able to answer

the question about the operation of final causes in the workings

of nature.

Before

them

ing

I

do

so, let

me summarize

in the simplest

the four causes by describ-

terms possible. Because these

state-

ments about the four causes are so very simple, they may be

difficult to

understand.

We

must pay close attention

also

to the

key words that are italicized in each statement.

is

made.

1.

Material cause: that out of which something

2.

Efficient cause: that by which

something

3.

Formal

something

4.

Final cause: that for the sake of which something

cause: that into which

is

is

is

made. made. is

made.

What do we mean when we say ''that into which something made"? The leather out of which the shoe was made by the

shoemaker was not

on

into

shoemaker went

to

work

became a shoe or got turned into a shoe by the work he which transformed it from being merely a piece of leather being a shoe made out of leather. That, which at an earlier

it.

did,

a shoe before the

It

time was leather not having the form of a shoe,

time leather formed into

a

shoe. That

is

is

why

now

at a later

Aristode says

Man that "shoeness"

The

the

Maker

:

43

the formal cause in the production of shoes.

is

introduction of that word ''shoeness" will help us to

we can make

avoid the worst error

We

causes.

form of

might be tempted, very naturally,

a thing as

its

shape

—something we come

a piece of paper. But shoes

well as colors and sizes.

dow with

dealing with formal

in

If

you

in a

would

common

is

wide variety of shapes,

on as

stood in front of a shoestore win-

sketch pad in hand, you

impossible to draw what

to think of the

are able to sketch

find

very difficult or

it

to the various shapes of the

shoes in the window.

You can draw

think of what

When

it.

is

common

shoes, of every shape, size,

and

a form, shoes could never be are

When

—

they are not

on

—

you

word

A

them

into

you have grasped

made; the raw materials out of

''transform."

leather into shoes,

them

a

to all

Without there being such into shoes.

contains the word

It

you transform raw materials

are giving

have.

common

is

made could never be transformed

Please notice that

"form."

them, but you cannot

color, then

the form that Aristotle calls shoeness.

which shoes

to

you do have an idea of what

into

something that

gold into bracelets, and so

form that they did not previously

shoemaker, by working on raw materials, transforms

something they can become but which, before he

worked on them, they were

We can get further away formal cause

is

not.

from the mistake of thinking that the

the shape a thing takes by considering other

we

kinds of change that

discussed before

—changes

other than

the production of things such as shoes, rings, and guns.

The

tennis ball

you

set in

motion moves from your racket

across the court to your opponent's baseline. ficient

your

You

are the ef-

cause of that motion, propelling the ball by the force of

stroke.

The

ball

acted on. But what

is

is

the material cause

the formal cause?

—

It

that

which

is

being

must be some place

44

Everybody

Aristotle for

'

when you

other than the place from which the ball started out hit

Let us suppose that the ball lands on the other side of the

it.

net,

missed by your opponent, and comes to

is

back fence. The place where

comes

it

to rest

on your

side of the net,

The size.

,

against the back fence.

green chair that you paint red

Redness

is

similarly transformed in

you blew up;

So, too, the balloon

color.

position or place has been

its

transformed into being over there

is

it

transformed in

the formal cause of the change

is

about by painting the chair,

the

rest against

the formal cause

From having been

of the particular motion that ended there. here,

is

just as overthereness

you brought is

the formal

cause of the change you brought about by hitting the tennis ball.

In each of these changes,

you are the

one of them, the green chair

is

you acted on

red.

balloon

you blew

The rally,

in painting

it

it

up.

man

without

occurrence,

natural

more

difficult,

will

be of some help to

said about

rays of the

red,

cause of redness

color, that final

sun are the

itself,

is

is

it.

person

it

from green

to red.

and

efficient cause of this alteration,

the subject undergoing the change,

is

the

ma-

Here, as in a person's painting a green chair

the formal cause.

From having been

green in

what the tomato becomes. But here there

cause distinct from the formal cause

The

arise.

humanly caused

us.

Sunshine ripens the tomato and turns the tomato

four

the

identifying

and some new problems

However, what has already been changes

When

entering the picture as efficient cause.

their

causes becomes

terial

you acted on when

three kinds of change just considered also occur natu-

we examine

The

which

In the other, the collapsed

the material cause, that which

is

efficient cause. In

the material cause, that

who

just

painted the green chair red

so for the sake of having

it

match

is

no

named.

may have done

a set of chairs in a certain

room. The purpose or end the individual had

in

mind was

dis-

Man from the redness that was the formal cause

tinct

mation of the

that

had

it

on the tomato, wished

at last

become

ripening, so far as

being red.

Its

its

edible.

is

to

45

:

in the transfor-

make

The end

surface color

being red

Maker

But we would hardly say that the

chair's color.

sun, in shining

the

is

it

red as a sign

result of the tomato's

concerned, consists in

both the formal and the

its

cause of

final

the change.

Much

the

same can be

about the rock that wears away

said

under the battering of the waves, becoming smaller in result of that process.

This process

moment,

but at any given

both the formal and the

The account

just

for a

size as a

long time,

the size of the rock at that time

final

occurred so

in size that has

may go on

cause of the change

—

is

the decrease

far.

given of a natural alteration in color and a

natural decrease in size applies as well to a natural change of

The

place.

tennis ball that

is

ground and eventually comes

comes

to

that place If,

an end is

at

accidentally dropped to rest there.

the place where the ball

force of gravity

fact

tween an

one were

to ask

upon

it

a

and

—an answer

that

would have puzzled

most

Aristotle.

does not affect our understanding of the difference beefficient cause,

is

on the one hand, and other.

However

it is

material, final,

named

or desig-

always that which, in any process of change, acts

changeable subject or exerts an influence upon

results in that

tain respect

been

motion

to rest,

about the efficient cause, the

would probably be named

and formal causes, on the nated,

local

comes

the

the formal as well as the final cause of the motion.

in this case,

of us learned in school, but that

That

That

falls to

—

it

that

changeable subject's becoming different in a cerred,

larger; there,

from having been green; smaller, from having from having been here.

Let us consider one other kind of change living thing that,

though

it

—

the growth of a

involves increase in size, involves

46

:

Aristotle for

much more acorn that

Everybody

than

uses the famihar example of the

this. Aristotle

falls to

the ground from an oak, takes root there,

nurtured by sunshine, rain, and nutrients in the

and even-

in the process of

becoming.

tually develops into another full-grown

The

What

acorn, he

it is

be oak

to

an oak

tells us, is is

both the

reaches

it

oak

tree.

and the formal cause of the

The form

acorn's turning into an oak.

when, through growth,

final

is

soil,

that the acorn

assumes

development

the end

its full

is

that the acorn was destined to reach simply by virtue of

its

being

an acorn. If,

instead of being an acorn, the seedling

taken from an ear of corn, our planting

would have

resulted in a different

with ears on

it.

According

achieved and the form that

is

that,

a kernel

and nurturing

end product

—

a stalk of

the end that

to Aristotle,

growth are somehow present

had been

it

is

it

corn

to

be

be developed in the process of

to

at the very

beginning

—

in the seed

with proper nurturing, grows into the fully developed

plant.

They

are not present actually,

he would acknowledge,

then the acorn would already be an oak, and the kernel a of corn. But they are present potentially, which opposite of their being present actually.

tween the

potentiality that

is

It

is

is

is

simply the

the difference be-

present in the acorn,

hand, and the potentiality that

for

stalk

on the one

on one way and

present in the corn kernel,

the other, which causes the one seed to develop in the other seed to develop in another.

Today we have

a different

way of saying the same

thing. Aris-

totle said that the ''entelechy"

of one seed differed from the

''entelechy" of the other. All he

meant by

that each seed

had

in

it

that

through growth and development, a different result.

We

say,

when we

that the genetic code in

Greek word was

a potentiality that destined

use the language of

one seed

gives

it

final

it

to reach,

form or end

modern

science,

a set of directions for

i

Man growth and development that

from the

different

Maker

set

:

47

of direc-

by the genetic code in the other seed.

tions given

We

is

the

think of the genetic code as programming a hving thing

moment when

growth and development from the very cess starts. Aristotle

thought of a living thing's inherent potenti-

guiding and controlling what

alities as

of growth and development. descriptions of

s

that pro-

what happens

Up

becomes

it

in

a certain point,

to

process

its

the two

The

are almost interchangeable.

observable facts to be accounted for remain the same. Acorns

never turn into cornstalks.

That

this

so

is

must be because there

is

something

different in the matter that constitutes the acorn,

hand, and

on the

in the

matter that constitutes the kernel of table corn,

other. Calling

what

is

there genes that program growth

and development or calling them control growth

potentialities that guide

and

much

dif-

and development does not make

ference to our understanding of what

of us know,

do

it

initially

on the one

does

make

is

a difference to

going on. But, as most

what human beings can

to interfere with natural processes.

Our

scientific

knowledge of

in biochemistry) enables us to

DNA

experiment with the genetic code

of an organism and, perhaps, to directions

it

(an abbreviation for a term

make

significant

gives. Aristotle's philosophical

understanding of the

enable him, nor does

role that potentialities play did not

able us, to interfere in the slightest

changes in the

it

en-

way with the workings of na-

ture.

I

ities

shall

have more

and

actualities,

damental tificial.

factors in

These four

to say in the next chapter

and

also about matter

changes of

factors,

all

sorts,

about potential-

and form,

as fun-

both natural and

ar-

although not identical with the four

causes, are closely related to them.

To whet

your appetite for what

is

coming

next, let

me

ask

48

:

you

Aristotle for

Everybody

one more change

to consider again

mentioned

coming

—

the special kind of change that Aristotle called

I

am

going

down to dinner and, in the course of it, we eat a piece The apple on our plate, when taken from the tree, had

finished growing. But

is

it

still

that can be planted to sprout

of decay or rotting.

has

We

eat

a living thing, with seeds in

more apple it,

all

it

shows no signs

trees. It

What

but the core.

has be-

of the apple?

We also

most

is

life.

sit

fruit.

come

an occurrence that

to take

familiar to us in our everyday

We

aheady been

be and passing away. As an example of that special

to

kind of change,

of

that has

have not only eaten

it,

chewed

up, digested

it

have drawn some nourishment from

somehow become

part of us. Before

but

it,

we

it,

which means

that

we

started eating

it,

it

the

organic matter of that piece of fruit had the form of an apple. After

we

from

it,

finished eating, digesting,

the matter,

and drawing nourishment

which once had the form of an apple, has

somehow become

fused or merged with our

has the form of a

human

The

apple has not

appear,

matter

form of an apple

itself

to

own

which

matter,

being.

become

a

human

being. Rather,

it

would

has been transformed, from having the

having the form of a

human

being.

It

ceased

be apple matter and became human matter. What is meant by ''matter itself" as opposed to ''apple matter" and "human matter"? Can we say that matter itself is that which to

remains the permanent underlying subject of change in

this re-

markable kind of change that happens every day when we eat the food that nourishes us? I

hope

chapter.

I

can throw some

light

on these "matters"

in the next

To Be and Not to Be

We

ordinarily think of the birth of a Hving organism as the

coming

we

into being of

something that did not

And

exist before.

often refer to the death of a person as his or her passing

away. In Aristotle's thought about the changes that occur in the

world of nature and the changes that by their to

effort,

human

beings bring about

the special kind of change that he calls

be and passing away

is

distinguished from

all

coming

other kinds of

change, such as change of place, alteration in quality, and increase or decrease in quantity.

This special kind of change in nature derstand than other kinds of change.

begin with what

is

When

people

human

move

more

Why? To

easier to understand

struction of things by

is

—

difficult to

un-

find out, let us

the production or de-

beings.

things fi:om

one place

to another,

when

they alter or enlarge them, the individual thing that they move.

so

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

or enlarge remains the selfsame thing.

alter,

with respect to

attributes

its

—

its

place,

color,

its

only remains the same kind of thing that

changed;

after

it

has been changed,

changes only

It

its

size.

It

not

was before

it

it

also persists as this one,

it

unique, individual thing.

The enduring sameness

or

permanence of the individual

thing that undergoes these changes that

its

identity

is

clear to us

from the

can be named in the same way before and

the change occurs: this ball, that chair.

another chair, but

When someone

this

after

not another ball or

one or that one.

takes

raw materials, such

and transforms those raw materials

—something

It is

fact

as pieces of

into a chair,

—

an

wood,

artificial

comes wood have now become this particular chair. Pieces of wood becoming a chair is certainly not the same as this green chair becoming red. The reason is that when the chair has come into being, the several separate pieces of wood no longer remain, at least not as several

thing

tence.

What

that did not exist before

into exis-

before were several pieces of

separate pieces of

wood, though

this chair

remains precisely

this

when it changes in color. Before we go from artificial production to natural generation (which is just another name for the process of coming to be), it will be helpful to us if we look a little more closely at what is

chair

happening duction.

in the easier-to-understand process of artificial pro-

The

help will

come from

getting

some

grasp of the

meaning of four words that were used in the preceding chapter. They are ''matter," "form," "potentiality," and "actuality." Though what they mean can be understood in the light of com-

mon

experience and in common-sense terms, the words them-

selves are not

Pieces of

words we use frequently

wood

that are a chair.

that are not a chair

When

the pieces of

in everyday speech.

become

wood

pieces of

wood

are not a chair, their

Man not being a chair lack

—they

are deprived of

word "privation" There

—the

form of

:

51

They

their part.

a chair. Let's use the

for this lack of a certain form.

more

is

on

lack of chairness

a

is

Maker

the

chairness. If that

wood than

in these pieces of

was

there was to

all

the privation of

wood

these pieces of

it,

could never be made into a chair. In addition to lacking chairness, these pieces of

wood must

quire chairness. Their capacity their privation, for

of a chair, they

wood

did not lack the form

acquiring that

for

they would already have

it,

for

it.

Only

wood, lack a certain

certain materials, such as pieces of

form can they have the capacity

to ac-

inseparably connected with

would not have the capacity

form, since not lacking

when

is

these pieces of

if

have the capacity

also

acquiring

it.

Let us call that capacity a potentiality of the materials in question. Another

word

for potentiality

chair or can be a chair. These pieces of

but they can be a chair. As

However,

it is

makes

wood

moment

is

a a

are not a chair,

ago,

if

they were a

a chair.

when

certain materials lack

have the potentiality

air lack the

form of

air are materials that

for acquiring

a chair,

it.

but unlike

do not have the potential-

acquiring the form of a chair. Although the potentiality

for acquiring a certain

unless that form

is

lack or privation of rials

said a

not true to say that

For example, water and

ity for

I

become

a certain form, they always

wood, water and

It

whether you say that something

great deal of difference

chair, they could not

''can be."

is

form

is

absent, the it

—does not

have the potentiality

never present in the materials

mere absence of the form necessarily

for acquiring

it.

mean

Men

—the

that the mate-

can make chairs

out of wood, but not out of air or water.

When also

form

the pieces of

wood

have the potentiality

for

that lack the

form of

a chair

and

acquiring that form take on that

as a result of a carpenter's skill

and

effort,

we

say that the

^2

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

pieces of

become

wood

pieces of

actually

Throughout the whole process of becoming,

a chair.

until the very

now

that were potentially a chair have

moment when

the chair

is

finally finished, the

wood, undergoing transformation, were

Not

tentially a chair.

only po-

still

been com-

until their transformation has

pleted do they actually have the form of a chair.

When

becoming

ity for it

the pieces of

wood have acquired

We

can

lack of that it

how

see

or lack a certain form. Lacking

it,

it

which

it,

form

in the

wood but

these four important words

—

form. But

the pieces of

is

matter

its

may

also

—

compared with wood.

we saw

When

it

matter,

may have

are related. Matter

have the ca-

potentiality for having that

does not always have such a potentiality

lacks a certain form, as

did not

in water or air.

form, potentiality, and actuality

pacity for acquiring

so, of course,

The form

the actuality that removes the potentiality

is

lack of

now

been actualized; and

as a potentiality.

accompanied the

accompany the

are actually a chair, their potential-

a chair has

no longer remains

that

wood

in the case of water

when

and

it

air as

acquires the form for which

it

has a potentiality, that potentiality has been actualized. Having the acquired form has transformed the matter fi-om being a potential chair into I

being an actual chair.

have been using the words "matter" and "materials"

terchangeably. But

when we

are referring to

in-

wood, on the one

hand, and water, on the other, we are speaking of different kinds of matter.

— matter

matter

Wood

is

not just matter;

it

is

a certain kind of

having the form of wood, which

is

different

from matter having the form of water.

One terials

kind of matter, wood, provides

human

beings with

ma-

out of which they can make chairs; another kind, water,

does not.

The form

the matter has, which makes

kind of matter (wood), also gives

it

it

a certain

a certain potentiality (for

Man becoming

Maker

the

53

.

Matter in the form of water does not have

a chair).

that potentiaht)-.

When we

understand

this

simple point, a simple step of rea-

soning enables us to grasp another important point.

Wood

can become a chair, but

can become

light bulb; water

it

cannot become an but

a fountain,

electric

cannot become

it

a chair.

Matter ha\ing a certain form has a limited quiring other forms. This

is

true of ever\' kind of matter, all the

different kinds of materials that people

things

—

Now ter.

But

it

lacking

form.

all

would

ut-

would not actually be any kind of mat-

forms,

it

would have the capacity

be quite right

if,

to

acquire any

potentiality for forms.

thinking about

this,

you were

to

"Hold on, matter without any form might have an unlim-

lacking

an unlimited

all

forms,

nothing does not

it

would be

exist.

capacit)-, for

to talk

about something that cannot

ask,

did

I

bother to mention

point in thinking about Aristotle

would

acquiring forms, but

actually nothing.

Hence

talk

it

What

Why,

exist."

in the

first

then, you

one way, you

formless matter,

other words,

is

You

it is

to

may

is

although formless matter

also potentially ever\'thing.

It is

are right

not actually

are, therefore, also

right in thinking that formless matter does not exist. that,

is

it?

say that, looked at in

nothing.

would add

actually

place? What's the

in thinking that pure matter, or, in

is

about formless matter

anything

ing,

—

also be potentially ever>- kind of matter; since,

ited potentialit)',

totle

produce

to

deprived of form

totally

would have an unlimited

It

You would say:

It

can work on

and fountains.

chairs, electric light bulbs,

suppose there was matter

terly formless matter.

potentialit\- for ac-

is

But Aris-

actually noth-

potentially ever>' possi-

ble kind of thing that can be. Still,

you

persist in asking, if formless

matter does not exist

S4

••

Aristotle for

and cannot about

it?

mention

Everybody

exist,

what

Aristotle's it

the point in mentioning

is

answer

or think about

understand

artificial

it

if

we confined

or thinking to

ourselves to trying to

productions and destructions

and unmaking of such things

it

would be no need

that there

is

—the making

But the birth and death

as chairs.

of animals are not so easy to understand.

an animal's death

Let's take

Our

first.

pet rabbit dies

and eventually disappears. The matter

disintegrates,

the form of a rabbit

no longer has

that form.

quired another form, as would happen

and devoured by a wolf.

When

this

if

—

decays,

now

It

had

that

has ac-

the rabbit were killed

happens, matter that was

the matter of one kind of thing (rabbit) has

now become

the

matter of another kind of thing (wolf). If

you think about

has occurred here

which

is

chair,

it

ter of a

is

this for a

different

moment, you becomes

does not cease to be wood.

throughout

this

change.

A It

what

from what occurred when wood,

a certain kind of matter,

certain kind.

will see that

It

a chair.

Becoming

a

does not cease to be mat-

certain kind of matter has persisted

can be identified

as,

the subject of the

change. These pieces of wood that at one time were not actually a chair

But

have

now become

actually a chair.

in the transformation that occurred

and devoured the

rabbit, a certain

when

the wolf killed

kind of matter did not persist

throughout the change. The matter of (matter having the form of a rabbit)

a certain

became

kind of thing

the matter of an-

other kind of thing (matter having the form of a wolf). identifiable subject of this

change

is

— not

matter

The

only

matter of a

certain kind, since matter of a particular kind does not persist

throughout the change.

Let us

came

now

turn from death to birth. That pet rabbit of yours

into being as a result of sexual reproduction. Aristotle

was

Man acquainted with the

as well

facts

of

life

process that results in the birth of a living rabbit

ovum

55

:

The began when an

you and

as

Maker

the

are.

I

of a female rabbit was fertilized by the sperm of a male

rabbit.

From

moment

the

of fertilization, a

though while

to develop,

it

is

new organism

has begun

being carried in the female

still

not a separate living thing.

The

birth of the

rabbit's uterus,

it

rabbit

phase in the rabbit's process of development.

just a

is

is

It

has been developing within the mother rabbit before being born, and full

it

goes on developing after

it

is

born until

it

reaches

growth.

Birth

is

another

—

aration

is

nothing but the separation of one living body from the baby rabbit from the a local

motion, a

mother

movement

being in one place to being in another

mother

rabbit.

that sep-

of the baby rabbit from

— from being

mother

rabbit to being outside the

And

inside the

rabbit.

—

now go back to the beginning of the baby rabbit the moment when it first came to be. Before that moment, there was the female rabbit's ovum and the male rabbit's sperm. Neither the ovum nor the sperm was actually a rabbit, though both together had the potentiality' for becoming a rabbit. The actualization of that potentialit}' took place at the moment of fertilization, when the matter of the sperm was merged or frised Let us

with the matter of ovum.

Do

the matter of the

ovum and

the matter of the sperm in

separation from each other stand in the

same

relation to the

matter of the baby rabbit after fertilization occurs, as the matter of the rabbit stands to the matter of the wolf after the rabbit has

and devoured by the wolf?

been

killed

what

Aristotle

formless matter

had is

in

then something

mind when he asked

enduring in

It is

this special

that

like

us to think about

coming to be and which we identify as

the subject of change in the

passing away of living organisms. persisting or

If so,

kind of change.

56

This

is

thought

it

for in the

me

near as

as

ask

far

—

same way you

is

that "nature proceeds

things in such a

way

living

it

by is

little

from things

He

said

lifeless to living

impossible to determine the exact

He was

quite capable of imagining the

be of the

to

identify the matter that as

so,

living being crossed

when

organisms on earth emerged from nonliving mat-

coming

In that

you do think

one more example.

little

that

demarcation."

first

ter.

can be accounted

that Aristotle himself considered.

between the nonliving and the

line

the

that natural generation

one

why Aristotle You may think

to explaining

as artificial production. If

to consider

The example

line of

can come

I

necessary to mention formless matter.

went too

that he

let

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

is

first

living organisms,

can we

the subject of this remarkable change

being matter of a certain kind? Does

of matter both before and after the

it

first

remain the same kind living

organisms came

into being?

You may But,

not want to go so

far as to call

on the other hand, you may

find

matter of a certain kind, which would tained a certain form.

derstand

why

to explain

Aristotle

than

why he thought

If this is

it

formless matter.

difficult to identify

mean

state of

that

it

it

had and

as re-

mind, then you un-

thought natural generation more

artificial it

your

it

difficult

production; and you also understand

necessary to mention and ask you to think

about pure or formless matter, which, of course, does not

exist.

8

Productive Ideas and

Know-How

The a

individual

bed or

a

who

house

first

wood and made it had some idea

took

— must have

into a chair

of

—

or

what he was

going to make or build before setting to work. Such an individual

had

have

to

to

understand the form that the pieces of

acquire in order to

that idea

become

a chair.

wood would

He could

isted before

he made

this one. Perhaps,

we may

guess, he got

from experiences with rock formations that provided with support for sitting down. tion of

not get

from an experience with chairs because no chairs ex-

something

its

The

first

his

it

body

chair was thus an imita-

inventor had found in nature, as the

first

house was, perhaps, an imitation of natural cave formations that provided shelter.

Wherever or however the chair, the idea itself lier

first

chairmaker got the idea of a

was not enough. As we observed in an

chapter, the form of a chair

chairs of every size, shape,

—chaimess—

and configuration of

is

ear-

common

to

parts. If all that

— 58

the

Everybody

Aristotle for

••

carpenter had in his

first

eral,

mind was an

idea of chairs in gen-

he could not have produced an individual chair, particular

in every respect in

which one individual chair can

wood

others. In order to transform the

from

differ

materials he worked on,

by giving those materials the form of a chair, he also had to

have some idea of the particular chair he was about Productive thinking involves having what

to

produce.

we may be tempted

Since no Greek equivalent of the word

to call creative ideas.

we should

"creative" was in Aristotle's vocabulary,

resist that

temptation, and speak instead of productive ideas. Productive ideas are based

can

take,

on some understanding of the forms

that matter

supplemented by imaginative thinking about such de-

tails as sizes,

Without

shapes, and configurations.

a productive

idea in this full sense, the craftsman cannot transform raw terials into this

or anything else that can be

—be

ma-

it

a chair, a bed, a house,

made out

of materials provided by

individual thing

nature.

There are two ways pressed.

draw up duce.

The

first

in

which

a productive idea

a plan or blueprint of the thing

With

mind, he

a productive idea in

materialization

of

that

idea

—

its

in

mind

before he

he was about to projust

produced

embodiment

expressed the productive idea he had.

what idea he had

can be ex-

chairmaker or housebuilder probably did not

If

made

house, he might not have been able to

in

it.

The

matter

you had asked him the chair or built the tell

you

many

in so

words. But once he had brought the chair or house into existence, he could have pointed to I

had

in

Much became became

it

and

said,

'There, that

is

what

mind." later in the history

able to draw

of mankind, craftsmen of

up plans

for the

making of

all sorts

things.

They

able to express their productive ideas before actually

materializing

them by transforming

matter.

But even

at later

Man stages in the history of

human

always proceed to work by

first

down on paper in some idea in their mind and

it

work

had

:

59

putting their productive ideas

They

sometimes hold the

still

guide them in every step of the

until the finished product

presses the idea they

Maker

productivity, craftsmen do not

fashion. let

the

comes

into existence

and ex-

in the first place.

This distinction between two ways in which productive ideas

can be expressed

calls

our attention to two phases in the making

of things, phases that can be separated.

One

the idea of a particular house to be built

plans for the building of that house.

individual can have

and can draw up the

Another individual, or

Nowadays to the mak-

other individuals, can execute or carry out that plan.

we

differentiate

between these different contributors

ing of a house by calling one an architect and the other a

builder

(or,

if

the builder employs other persons to engage in

we call the builder a contractor). The individual who draws up the plans in the first place one who has the productive idea. Those who execute the building the house,

must have know-how. In the making of anything, whether a chair or a house, productive ideas are not

them

out,

terials in

it is

necessary to

know how

to deal

such a way that their potentiality

or a house

is

actualized. Unless that

end

for

enough.

To

is

the

plans it

be

carry

with the raw ma-

becoming

result

productive idea will not be expressed in matter.

is

a chair

reached, the

It

will not be

materialized.

Of

course, one and the

same

indiviual

may have both

the

know-how needed for making a chair or The only thing we must remember is that productive and know-how are distinct factors in the making of things.

productive idea and the a house.

ideas

What

enters into the craftsman's

First of all,

he must know

know-how?

how

to

choose the appropriate raw

6o

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

materials for

making the kind of thing he has

whatever tools he has only his bare hands.

mer and

at his disposal, or

for

If,

And

house out of stones.

what

gardless of

mind, with at all,

but

example, his only tools are a ham-

make

saw, he cannot

in

with none

a chair out of iron or steel or a

should go without saying

it

tools are available, the artisan

that, re-

cannot make a

chair or a house out of air or water.

Beyond knowing how work on with the

know how by

to

choose the appropriate materials

tools at his disposal, the craftsman

to use those tools efficiently

step, in the construction

and how

must

to

also

to proceed, step

of the thing he wishes to make. In

the building of a house, laying the foundations precedes getting the frame up, as that precedes putting the roof on.

The mind, all

the hands,

and the

tools of the craftsman, taken

together, are the efficient cause of the thing that

They

act

upon

is

produced.

the raw materials to actualize the potentialities

that such materials have for being transformed into the product that the

Of

maker had

mind.

in

these three factors (which together constitute the efficient

cause), the

mind

is

the principal factor.

that has the productive idea

tools are

the maker's

mind

and the know-how, without which

neither hands nor tools could ever

hands and his

It is

make

anything.

merely the instruments his

The maker's mind uses to

put his productive idea and his know-how into the actions required to act on the raw materials and actualize their potentialities.

The human mind

is

Everything else

is

tion.

To know how

the principal factor in

human

produc-

instrumental.

make something is to have skill. Even in the simplest performances, which we sometimes call unskilled labor, there is some know-how and, therefore, some skill. From to

Man complex

the simplest to the most

beings engage

—from

are the levels of

who

person

has the

for ''skill"

which

know-how

The combining form

comes from the Greek English

An

art.

know-how

or

the levels of

know-

word ''technique."

required for making someit.

Aristotle used in talking

some men may have and

that

mention

I

because

this

about the acquired

may

others

not have for making

means

techno- which

techne. In Latin, this

art or skill,

becomes

ars

and

person

who

has the technique,

making

things.

We

would

if,

in addition to

tech-

ability

artist is a

for

creative artists

61

which human

word "technique" comes from the Greek word

the English

things.

—

the

is

thing has the technique for making

nikos,

:

skill.

Another English word

The

Maker

the building of toy models by children to

the building of bridges, dams, and schools

how

in

activities

the

in

skill,

such persons

call

having the know-how, they also

have the productive idea that

is

the

primary

indispensable

source from which comes the thing to be made.

We an

sometimes use the word

artist.

works of the

We

first

produced by

cannot be produced unless someone has acquired

art

know-how

must

"art" for the things

use that word as short for "works of art." But since

to

produce them,

exist in a

dent in a work of

human

art in the

being before

it

know-how can make itself evisense of

art.

Although you would readily

refer to cooks, dressmakers, car-

penters, or shoemakers as artists or craftsmen because

ognized that they had the that,

skill

you would probably not

teachers as

artists. Aristotle,

of a certain artists.

skill

or

or

know-how

for

refer to farmers,

you

making

rec-

this or

physicians, or

however, recognized their possession

know-how

But he also pointed out

that

would

how

justify calling

different their art

is

them from

the art of cooks, carpenters, and shoemakers.

The

latter

produce things

—

cakes,

chairs,

and shoes

—

that

62

:

Aristotle for

Everybody

would never come

They

things.

effort.

productive

Nature does not produce such

always works of

are

human

into existence without

know-how, and

ideas,

But nature, without

art.

human know-how and effort, does produce fruits and grains. Why, then, should we refer to farmers, who raise such things as apples or corn, as artists? What have they produced? By themselves, nothing. Farmers have merely helped nature to

produce the apples and the corn that nature would have

produced anyway. They have the

or

skill

know-how

to

cooper-

ate with nature in the production of fruit or grain; and, by so

doing, they

may be

able to obtain a better supply of nature's

products than would have fallen to their hands

if

they had not

cooperated with nature in producing them.

As farmers, having the know-how or cooperate with

culture, grains, skills

nature

in

that belong to agri-

skills

the

production of

fruits,

and vegetables, so physicians, having the know-how or

that belong to medicine, cooperate with nature in preserv-

ing or restoring the health of a living organism. Since health, like

apples and corn,

something that would

is

exist

even

if

there

were no physicians, physicians, as well as farmers, are merely cooperative

artists,

not productive ones

like

the shoemakers and

the carpenters. So, too, are teachers.

Human

without the aid of teachers,

beings can acquire knowledge

just as apples

the aid of farmers. But teachers can help

knowledge,

just as

desired qualities

healing,

The

is

human

beings acquire

farmers can help apples and corn to grow in

and

quantities.

Teaching,

like

farming and

a cooperative, not a productive art.

productive

arts

differ

in

many

turns out a wide variety of products

houses

and corn grow without

to paintings, statues,

ways.

—from

Human making

chairs, shoes,

and

poems, and songs. Paintings and

Man and chairs

statues are like shoes rials that

somehow

the maker

chairs, paintings

and

the

Maker

made

in that they are

of mate-

and

transforms. Also, like shoes

statues exist at a given place

and

63

:

given

at a

time.

On

the other hand, a piece of music

over and over again time.

—does not

can be sung

It

at

many

ferent times. In addition,

piece of music, as

The song and

it

different places

song that

and

poem

takes time to recite a

it

a

is

one place and at

sung

at

one

many

dif-

takes time to sing a song or play a

or

the story have a beginning, a middle,

sequence of times, which

in a

—

exist just at

is

tell

a story.

and an end

not true of a statue or a

painting.

There

is

one further difference between

a painting or a statue.

Stories

down

songs can be written

in

a

song or a story and

can be written down in words; musical notations.

The words

of

speech and the notations of music are symbols that can be read.

The

who

person

is

able to read

them can

get the story that

being told by them, sing the song or hear

and the

statue

must be seen

painter or sculptor,

To

directly.

you must go

it.

is

But the painting

enjoy the work of a

to the material

product that he

has made.

Though

the painting or the statue

is

a material product like

the shoe or the chair,

it is

story or the song, not

something to be used,

chair.

on the

Of

course,

wall, as

stead of sitting

it

it

is

is

also

something

to

be enjoyed, like the

like the

shoe or the

possible to use a painting to cover a spot

possible to enjoy a chair by looking at

down on

it

in-

it.

Nevertheless, using and enjoying are different ways that

men

art. They use them when they employ them some purpose. They enjoy them when they are satisfied

approach works of to serve

with the pleasure they get from perceiving them in one way or

another

—by

seeing, hearing, or reading.

64

Everybody

Aristotle for

•

The

we

pleasure

get

when we enjoy

that

not

is

there

all

to

is

It

it.

a

work of

we enjoy

thing to do with our calHng the thing

house beautiful simply because

being well

made

human we

one

is

it

it

is

make good

The

sense.

statue or the house,

somehow connected

well made.

is

it

The

a chair or a statue.

another

Aristotle's suggestion that these

to

We

all

much know

by a skilled or soups shirt

two

pleasure

pleasure

factors are related appears

we

get

from looking

with

its

being well made.

A

pleasure.

tailor,

made by

or a soup

made by

persons with very

—than poorly made

is

skilled

a skilled cook,

little skill.

and

well made.

We

—

give us

more

would expect

We

skilled

cooks or

would be very

shirt or

tailors to

surprised

if

one

cook thought a soup was well made and another, having skill,

thought

We would

to

shirts

The well-made

the art of cooking or tailoring

it

was poorly made.

not be so surprised

liked

it

and the other

we found

if

looking at a painting that skilled

one

made

ones.

who have

agree in their judgments.

equal

is

would not

the difference between a piece of clothing

In addition, those

soup

the

made

poorly

have the know-how by which they can judge whether a a

at

or listening to the story or the song,

and the well-made soup are more enjoyable

pleasure

Its

factor.

statue, a poorly constructed house, a poorly told story

give us as

But

beautiful.

factor that enters into the beauty of a

product, whether

from beholding

get

has some-

also possible to call a chair, a

is

table, or a

is

art

didn't.

artists

We

that,

of two persons

agreed was well made,

do not expect individuals

enjoy the same things or enjoy them to the same extent.

What

gives

one person pleasure may not give pleasure

to an-

other. Just as

one person may have more

another, so one person

may have

skill

or

know-how than

better taste than another.

It

Man would be wiser

Maker

not

know anything about how such

might be wiser

enjoyability of a taste to like a

person

to ask a

work of

art that

65

who

did

things should be made. So

who had

We would

work of art.

:

person whether a certain work of

was well made than to ask that question of a person

art

it

to ask a skilled

the

better taste about the

expect a person of better

— not only

was better

better

made

but more enjoyable.

The

whether we should a

work of

art

some reasons answering

it

be expected to agree, about the beauty of

all

anwering

for

in

We

well

to

to answer.

produce

made

Where

it

by saying no.

be easier

needed

its

by saying yes, and some reasons for there were to the beauty of a

If all

being well made, the question would

expect those

work of that

a

who have

sort to

the

know-how

be able to agree that

it

or poorly made.

does this

does the person of

all skill

important know-how acquire

come from? How

it?

There are two answers. In the duction, the

be able to agree, or

all

has never been satisfactorily answered. There are

work of art consisted

is

we should

question whether

earlier stages of

human

pro-

know-how needed was based on common-sense

knowledge of nature nature provided the

—knowledge about the

human

raw materials that

producer to work on and knowledge

about the use of the tools to be worked with. In later stages,

and

especially in

needed has been based on

now

consists of

scientific

name

modern

scientific

what we have come

knowledge gives

for scientific

us.

know-how

as

times, the

know-how

knowledge of nature, and to call the

'Technology"

it

technology that is

just

another

compared with common-sense

know-how.

Does

Aristotle's

uncommon common

know-how? Does philosophical thought

sense give us any useful

—the understanding of

66

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

we have been

natural processes that

ing chapters

No,

considering in the preced-

us to produce things?

does not. Scientific knowledge can be applied produc-

it

Scientific

tively. skill

— help

and power

knowledge, through technology, gives us the

to

produce things. But the philosophical

tion or understanding that improves our

the physical world in which

we

reflec-

common-sense grasp of

live gives us neither the skill

nor

the power to produce anything.

Remember, ter.

for

example, something said in an earlier chap-

Aristotle's philosophical

understanding of

why

acorns de-

velop into oaks and kernels of corn develop into stalks of corn

does not enable us to interfere with these natural processes in

any way. But our

scientific

knowledge about

DNA

and the

genetic code does enable us to alter the pattern of development

by splicing the genes. Is

Yes,

philosophy it is,

if

totally useless, then, as

we confine

compared with science?

ourselves to the use of knowledge or un-

derstanding for the sake of producing things. Philosophy bakes

no cakes and builds no But there the use

a use of

is

we put

it

when we engage

to

and manage our

worse

knowledge or understanding other than in

the production of

Knowledge and understanding can be used

things. lives

bridges.

lives

That

is

and

to direct

societies so that they are better rather

our

than

better rather than worse societies.

a practical rather than a productive use of

and understanding

—

knowledge

a use for the sake of doing rather than a

use for the sake of making. In useful

that

dimension

— more

of

human

useful than science.

life,

philosophy

is

highly

PAX J

m

MAN THE DOER

Thinking about Ends and Means

I

do not have an automobile and

want

me a

more money than

costs

money needed

to get the

number

of ways in which

tional

money;

In this

the

same

ting the is

I

number

How

or

I

—

can borrow

—

I

necessary for

it,

can

to

be

needed without

is

by not spending try to

earn addi-

it.

getting the automobile

buy the car which there

to

an end to

is is

the end in view. Geta

are,

means to that end; as we have seen,

it

a

of means.

do

I

others; going

choose

among them? One may be

one way may

going the other ways. tain the

can save else; or

I

there might have been countless others of

money needed

also itself

I

It is

There appear

car.

can get what

have on something

example sort

buy the

to I

want one. The automobile

have available.

For example,

violating the law.

what money

I

I

end

in view,

Of

get

me my

goal

easier than the

more quickly than

the several means, each serving to at-

one would normally choose the means

-JO

Aristotle for

:

Everybody

I seems better by virtue of being

that

easier, quicker,

When we

we

act this way,

act purposefully.

purpose in what we do

have

a

some

goal that

we have

Sometimes we

in

is

we

that guides our acting in

aimlessly requires no thinking part,

we

have

are

—

boat just drifting on the

like a

achieve

aiming

it.

We

at

have

When we

it.

We

act in

have nothing in

one direction or another. To

on our

act

part.

We

first.

—the end we

have

to

to think

about the

are trying to achieve.

means think about which

think about the various

to

we

however, we act purposefully, and then we

cannot act without thinking goal

say that

are acting for

mind.

act aimlessly

are also acting thoughtlessly.

For the most

To

we

to say that

current with no one at the wheel to steer

mind

likely

and so on.

to succeed,

that way,

more

that is

we can

We

use to

the better of alter-

means and why one is better than another. And if the particular means that we choose to employ is a means we cannative

not use without doing something else

hands on

it,

means

the

to

then

it

Thinking of the ing.

It

is

sort

itself

It

is

in order to lay

our

an end, and we must think about

it. I

have

just described

thinking about ends and

means

is

practical think-

—thinking about

the

reach and thinking about what must be done

goal you wish to get there.

is

achieving

first

the kind of thinking that

is

to

necessary for pur-

poseful action.

Productive thinking, as to

we have

seen,

is

thinking about things

be made. Practical thinking, in contrast,

what

is

thing,

to

be done.

you have

to

To

is

thinking about

think well for the sake of making some-

have what we called productive ideas and

know-how. To think well

for the sake of getting

what you do, you have

have an idea of a goal to be reached

to

somewhere by

Man and ideas about ways of reaching about the reasons

why one way

And you

it.

also

Doer

the

have

:

yi

to think

of pursuing your goal

is

better

than another. Productive thinking, or thinking in order to produce something, does not actually

produce

Such thinking may

it.

lead to

actual production, but production does not actually begin until

the producer goes to work and acts

form them

had

in

in a

way

on the raw materials

to trans-

that will materialize the productive idea

he

mind.

So, too, practical thinking, or thinking in order to act purposefully or to do falls is

what

necessary to achieve

is

short of actual doing.

Doing begins when

put into practice. Productive thinking

production

actually going on.

is

some end

or goal,

practical thinking

may continue while may con-

Practical thinking

tinue during the course of purposeful action. But until

making

and doing actually begin, productive thinking and practical thinking bear no

fruit.

Aristotle tells us that, except for the exceptional instances of

aimless behavior, view.

The

human

beings always act with

some end

thinking they do in order to act purposefully begins

with thinking about the goal to be achieved, but

when

begin to do anything to achieve that goal, they have to the

means

for

first

in

do

at

but the means

human

to

accomplish their purposes.

beings always

for

—

or usually

—

in view, Aristotle also says that they act for

with a good that

In his view,

it

with

in order to act purposefully,

they wish to obtain and possess.

aimed

start

in the thinking

it.

what they do

In saying that

some end

The end comes

they

first

achieving

that individuals

come

in

is

as

identifies

an end being

desired.

makes no sense

an end that we regard

He

act with

some good

bad

at all to say that

for us.

we

are acting

That amounts

to saying

72

;

that

Everybody

Aristotle for

what we

are

plain

common

thing

we

aiming

at

something we do not

is

we

sense that what

desire to avoid, not

desire.

regard as bad for us

something we desire

is

It is

some-

to possess.

What about the means we need to achieve the end we have in mind? To aim at an end is to seek a good that we desire. Are the

means we must and no.

desire? Yes

desire

them

for their

for the sake of

we The means are good, but not because we own sake, but only because we desire them

use to achieve the end also goods that

something

else.

Must we always regard means as good because they provide us with a way of getting the end we want to achieve? Certainly, means are good only if they do help us succeed in reaching our goal.

But

they have other consequences, too, then they

if

be undesirable

we have

would

we

I

would wish

seek

where we want

do not want

To sum

money

get the

that

I

need

buy an au-

me

into serious

use to attain

must not only be good because they

to go, but they

to be

up:

to avoid.

to

The means we

want, but stealing might also get

I

trouble that

the end

may

from achieving the end

mind.

in

Stealing

tomobile

for reasons quite apart

—

in

must

also not land us

get us

where we

jail.

means may be an end

other means, and an end

may

that

also be a

we have to achieve by means to some further

end. These two observations lead to two questions that Aristotle thinks

we cannot

avoid.

One

is:

Are there any means that are

purely or merely means, never ends?

The

other

—what

ends that are ends and never means

timate or final ends because they are not

is:

Are there any

Aristotle calls ul-

means

to

any ends

beyond themselves? Another way of asking the there are any things that

we

first

question

is

to ask

whether

desire only for the sake of

some-

Man

own

thing else, never for their the second question

we

own

desire only for their

something

sake.

73

:

another way of asking

sake

and never

for the sake of

else.

maintained that there are means that are merely or

Aristotle

means

purely means, ends that are also

and ends

selves,

And

Doer

whether there are any things that

to ask

is

the

we pursue

that

to goals

own

for their

beyond them-

sake

the sake of any further good to be obtained.

and not

for

His reasons for

thinking so are as follows. If

we

there were nothing that

something

for the sake of

We

begin.

desired for

its

own

sake

our practical thinking could not

else,

have already seen that practical thinking must begin

with thinking about an end to be sought or pursued.

we thought about were

every end

and self,

that further

if

and

We

so

on

end were

view.

means

start

achieving

for

poseful action, with

means other

So

that

is

means far

I

me

when

is.

means

To

it.

put into prac-

to

find

our doing, or pur-

we must

start

with a

it.

have told you only why there must be ends that are

why

there

what

If practical

I

must be means

have told you so

would not

how you have

knowing what your

something beyond

else,

far

that are not ends. surprise

ever done any

final or ultimate

thinking cannot begin with an end that

any end that you seek anything

start

doing,

start

consisted in wondering

to

is

an end that requires us

we cannot

then

it,

practical thinking without

end

to

practical thinking

itself

is

achieve

reaction to

if it

means

some further end, some end beyond it-

to

purely a means, and not also an end that requires to

not means and

Your

a

means

if

with some means to whatever end we have in

means

that

If

still

a

Now

endlessly, practical thinking could never begin.

have seen that

we must

tice,

and not

for

its

itself,

own

how could you

and sake

if

is

a

you do not know of

and not

for the sake of

ever begin to think practically?

Everybody

Aristotle for

74

Since you have undoubtedly done a the course of your

Aristotle

life,

lot

of practical thinking in

must be wrong when he

that practical thinking cannot begin until

end

or final

So

it

says

you have an ultimate

mind.

in

A

would certainly seem.

between two ways

distinction

in

which you can have an ultimate or a final end in mind will open the door to a solution of this problem. To get some understanding of the required distinction, learned in school about geometry

start

let's

we

with what

—the same kind of geometry

with which Aristotle was acquainted.

What

are called the

first

principles of geometry are the start-

ing points with which you must begin in order to demonstrate the geometrical propositions that have to be proved. In Euclid's

geometry, the

gles,

first

The

postulates.

principles consist of definitions, axioms,

and so on are needed, and so are such axioms

whole

greater than

is

same thing

and

definitions of points, lines, straight lines, trian-

any of

parts"

its

and

"the

as

''things equal to the

are equal to each other." In addition, there are

—assumptions

the postulates

that Euclid

makes

in order to prove

the propositions that need proof.

The

difference between the axioms and the postulates

is

that

you cannot deny the axioms. You cannot avoid affirming them. For example,

which

it

try to

think that a part

belongs. But

can draw

when Euclid

a straight line

is

greater than the

asks

from any point

you

to

whole

assume that you

any point, you may

to

be willing to make that assumption, but you do not have so.

There

is

nothing compelling about

axiom concerning wholes and

it

to

as there

is

to

do

about the

parts.

As axioms and postulates are

different kinds of starting points

in geometrical thinking, so are there different kinds of starting

points in practical thinking. Just as you can

assume what Euclid

— Man asks

you

your

a certain goal or it,

even

if

own

end

is

you can assume

practical thinking,

ultimate,

most of us get

is

view can be taken goal about

our practical thinking

we have

—

for the

time being

as if

at least

it

in

were a

which no further questions need be asked.

example we have been considering, we may take being

able to drive to school or to work as the

automobile, being able to buy

and

so on, are the

it,

you came

to that question

to

end

which having an

for

money neded

getting the

means. Of course, you

you could be asked why you want

and your answer until

that

absolutely our final or ul-

timate goal, but rather by assuming that the end

it,

75

and ask no further questions

started in

not by having in mind that which

buy

:

they can be asked.

In other words,

In the

Doer

to take for granted in order to get his geometrical proofs

started, "so in

about

the

realize that

to drive to school or to

might lead

to

work,

to a further

why

an answer about which no further why could

be asked.

That answer,

if

you ever reached

it,

the ultimate or final end, for the sake of a

means. But you do not have

to

would be your grasp of which evervthing

else

is

have such an end in view in

order to begin practical thinking or purposeful doing because

you can provisionally assume is,

for the

own

that

time being, ultimate

some end you have in mind you want for its

—something

sake.

When yourself

you do what needs

why you wanted

it,

to

be done to get

means

order to do what needs to be done to use

That question can be postponed

not forever, not, at purposeful

life.

least,

if

you may ask

but you do not ha\e to ask that

question in order to think about the

pose.

it,

—

you want

for getting

means

for the

it

or in

for that pur-

time being, but

to lead a well-planned,

10

Living and Living ^)^I1

The younger we

more

are, the

acting aimlessly

and acting

we do

things

aimlessly, then at least playfully.

There

playfully.

We

aimlessly. If not

a difference between

is

act aimlessly

when we

have no end in view, no purpose. But when we behave playfully,

game

—

we do have an aim pleasure, the fun we get out of the it is we are playing. The pleasure we get from

or whatever

the activity is

itself is

our goal.

We

have no ulterior purpose; that

purpose enough. Serious activity, as contrasted with playful activity, always has

some some

We

ulterior purpose.

goal, for

which doing

engage in the this or that

not having an ulterior purpose

and

play,

about which

ognize that work

is

I

will

is

one

is

a

activity to achieve

means. Having and

distinction

have more to say

a serious activity

and

between work

later.

that

it

is

We

all rec-

seldom

as

pleasant as play.

The younger we

are, the less likely

it

is

that

we

will

have a

r Man well-worked-out plan for are likely to be

When we

living.

—

immediate ones

are young, our goals

whole. One's

life

week

as a

whole

most.

at the

hardly a plan for living one's

is

77

:

things to do, things to get,

things to be enjoyed today, tomorrow, or next

Having such goals

Doer

the

life

as

a

a very difficult thing to think

is

when one is young. As we get older, we become more and more purposeful. We also become more serious and less playful. That is generally true, but not true of everyone. There are exceptions. Some older persons live only for pleasure and enjoyment, and when we say that about them, we are not complimenting them. On the contrary, we are criticizing them for devoting too much of about

their time

We

tivities.

way

and energies

to playing

are saying that the

and not enough

grown-up person who

not really grown-up but childish.

is

to serious ac-

is all

It

lives this

right for chil-

dren to play a large part of the time, but not for mature

men

and women. As we grow older and more purposeful,

we

serious,

try to

fit

all

herent scheme for living.

We

us.

should

less playful

and more

our various purposes together into a co-

we

If

don't,

we

should, Aristotle

develop a plan for living in order to

try to

tells

live as

well as possible. Socrates,

who was

that

an unexamined

ther

and

said that

an unplanned trying to

we is

Plato's teacher as Plato

one

in

are trying to get or

how

life is

not worth examining, for

which we do not know what we

do or why, and one

certainly not worth

in

to get there.

examining

not worth living because

one's

life is

to

it

are

which we do not know where It is

a jumble, a mess.

It

closely.

In addition to not being worth examining, an is

Aristotle's, said

not worth living. Aristotle went fur-

life is

an unplanned

life is

was

unplanned

cannot be lived well.

be thoughtful about

it,

and

that

To

life

plan

means thinking

y8

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

about ends

be pursued and the means for achieving them.

to

Living thoughtlessly

acting aimlessly.

like

is

It

you no-

gets

where.

But

Aristotle does not think

you must have

enough

it is

to

persuade you that

He

a plan for living in order to live well.

wishes to persuade you that you must have the right plan. plan

not as good as another. There are

is

but only one right plan.

you

will

end up,

If

a

good

One

of wrong plans,

you adopt one of the wrong plans, having had a good

Aristotle thinks, not

end up having had

lots

also

you must have

life,

lived

it

life.

To

according

to the right plan.

The right plan? It may be easy for that we ought to have a plan for living fully

and purposefully. That's

totle

to persuade us that there

we ought that,

it

adopt

to

just

common

sense. But for Aris-

only one right plan that

is

not so easy.

is

Aristotle to persuade us

in order to live thought-

he can succeed

If

will be another indication of his

in

doing

uncommon common

sense.

What can

make one plan

possibly

for living right

and

all

To that question, Aristotle thinks there can be only one answer. The right plan is the one that aims at the right ultimate end the end that all of us ought to aim at. That may others wrong?

—

be the answer to the question, but

unanswered.

What

us ought to

aim

end

is

try to

a part, so

one we ought achieve

it.

Granted, you

—the end

that all of

You can see at once that if there were a we ought to aim at it. Just as we find it im-

possible to think that part of a it is

leaves a further question

at?

right ultimate end,

which

it

the right ultimate end

is

we to

Only

may

find

aim if

it

say,

whole it

at. is

is

greater than the

whole of

impossible to think that a wrong If a

right,

goal

is

wrong, we ought not

ought we

but that

still

to try.

leaves the important

Man

What

question unanswered.

one goal that

the

You may

Aristotle doesn't. Perhaps is

79

:

What

the right ultimate end?

is

is

a hard question to answer, but

is

should say that one of his answers

I

him

very easy for

But

to give.

complete answer. The complete answer

and

Doer

of us ought to seek?

all

think that that

that question

the

is

much

to

not the

is

it

harder to

state

with the easier, though incomplete, an-

to grasp. Let's start

swer.

The

end

right

reasoning on this point

Aristotle's

me summarize

vincing. Let

There

are certain things

things as nourishing

money we need

There

to

we do for

we do

certainly

makes

and

we

We

make

alive,

life.

at least,

as

We

but having

which we have is

itself a

means

to find to liv-

impossible to live well without staying alive

is

long as possible or,

do

earn

to

think that knowing

keep

for

the means. But living, or keeping alive, It

work

better.

Both living and living well are ends

ing well.

to

in order to live well.

in order to

richer

life

—such

shelter.

necessary just to keep alive enriches our

is

life.

think, con-

in order just to live

which most of us have

do not need certain pleasures

them

I

good

our bodies and keeping them

buy food, clothing, and

are other things

a

is

simple and,

is

the effort to get an education because

more than

pursue

to

it.

and caring

healthy, for the sake of

the

ought

that all of us

long as

it

—

seems desirable

as

to

so.

Living,

I

have

living well a

just said,

means

to?

tion, Aristotle tells us,

end we seek else or for

for

any

Anything

its

is

a

means

to living well.

There can be no answer

because living well

own

sake

and not

is

But what

is

to that ques-

an end in

for the sake of

itself,

an

anything

ulterior purpose.

else that

good or desirable,

is

we can think of, anything else a means either to living or to

that

we

call

living well.

8o

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

We

can think of living

means to living means to anything

as a

think of living well as a

should be obvious

Aristotle thinks that that

in fact, agree

common

our

also thinks that

about

The word he

well, but

we cannot

else.

to all of us.

experience shows that

all

He

of us do,

it.

uses for living well (or for a good

has

life)

usually been translated into English by the word "happiness."

Happiness, Aristotle says, if

that

is

which everyone

seeks.

No

asked whether he wants happiness, would say, "No,

I

one,

want

misery instead."

no one,

In addition,

would have

to

There

is

it.

be some more ultimate end,

of which happiness ists.

why he wants The only reason

asked

if

give a reason for wanting

is

a

is

I

good

achievement

life,

for

life."

What if

as

interchangeable with

has been said about happithe word

is

used with any

can avoid using the word "happiness" with

any other meaning, but

many

it

serve as a means.

not as plain and obvious

other meaning.

with

for the

wanting

means. But no more ultimate end ex-

have used the word "happiness"

"living well" or "a

ness

for

nothing beyond happiness, or a good

which happiness can I

happiness, can

different

I

cannot avoid using the word "happy"

meanings, meanings that are related

to hap-

piness in different ways.

We ask

ask

one another "Did you have

one another "Do you

feel

a

happy childhood?"

We

We

one

happy now?"

another "Have a happy vacation" or "Have a happy

When we

use the word "happy" in these ways,

we

say to

New

Year."

are talking

about the pleasure or satisfaction that we experience when we get

what we

People feel

desire.

who

happy.

A

feel

contented because they have what they want

happy time

is

one

filled

with pleasures rather than

Man pains, with satisfactions rather than dissatisfactions.

Doer

the

That being

We

we can be happy today and unhappy tomorrow.

so,

81

:

can

have a happy time on one occasion and an unhappy time on another. Different

human

beings want different things for themselves.

Their desires are not ahke.

may wish

to avoid.

What one

That amounts

person desires, another

to saying that

sons regard as good for themselves, others

We

differ in

regard as good for us.

do

may

our desires and, therefore, we

What makes one

what some

per-

regard as bad.

what we

differ in

person

feel

happy may

just the opposite for another.

Since different persons

happy

feel

as the result of

doing

dif-

ferent things or as the result of getting the different things they

how can

desire, life

—

is

ought

it

be said that happiness

—

living well or a

the one right goal or ultimate end that

to

all

human

good

beings

pursue?

may be able to persuade us that all of us want happiness. He may be able to persuade us that we all want happiness for its own sake and not for the sake of anything else. But how can he persuade us that all of us, wanting happiness for its own Aristotle

want exactly the same thing?

sake,

Human

beings, in seeking happiness, certainly appear to be

seeking different things. That

ence,

which

Aristotle

is

a matter of

common

acknowledged without

knew from common experience,

as

we

do, that

uals think that achieving happiness consists in great wealth; others, that

becoming famous or having If

hesitation.

some

lots

He

individ-

accumulating

consists in having great

it

experi-

power or

of fun.

happiness, like feeling happy, results from getting what you

want, and selves,

if

different persons

then the happiness

different persons.

to

want

different things for

them-

be achieved must be different for

82

Aristotle for

:

If that is so,

well?

How

Everybody

then

how can

there be one right plan for living

can there be one ultimate end that everyone ought

pursue? Happiness or living well all

of us seek, but Please

it is

I

to

the ultimate end that

not the same end for

remember something

said that there

may be

all

of us.

said earlier in this chapter.

was an easy, but incomplete, answer

I

to the ques-

What is the one right ultimate end that all of us should seek? The easy but incomplete answer is: happiness, living well, or a good life as a whole. To get at the complete answer, we must see if Aristotle can show us why living well, a good life, or

tion.

happiness

is

the

same

for all

of us.

11

Good,

Better, Best

We

know from common experience that individuals differ in We also know that in our everyday speech we use the word ''good" as a label for the things we regard as desirable. If we look upon one thing as more desirable than another, we regard it as better. And of several desirable things, the one we their desires.

most

desire

is

best in our eyes.

Reflection on these facts of

mon

common

experience and com-

speech led Aristotle to the common-sense conclusion that

the two notions

—

the good and the desirable

—

connected. As axiomatic as Euclid's "the part

whole" and desirable"

Let

me

''the

whole

is

is

less

than the

greater than the part" are "the

and "the desirable

is

remind you now of the problem we

is

We

saw

same end in view

left

unsolved

at

that differences in

difficult for Aristotle to

the

good

good."

the end of the preceding chapter.

human desires made it all human beings have

are inseparably

persuade us that

when

they aim at

84

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

living well, at a

good

or happiness.

life,

What one human

being

thinks will achieve happiness might be quite different from what

another thinks a good

uphold

Aristotle

his

life

That being

consists of.

view that there

is

so,

how can

only one right plan for

living well or for attaining happiness?

He cannot do human desires are

not

of one kind of desire

The

unless he can help us

so

of the same

all

is

sort,

understand that

and that what

is

true

not true of another kind.

kind of desires that

we have been

considering so

far are

individual desires, desires acquired in the course of an individ-

and experience. Since individuals

ual's life

differ

from one an-

other not only in their temperaments and dispositions but also in the lives they lead

and

their special experiences, they differ in

their acquired, individual desires.

While each human being unique

is

a

unique individual with

and unique experience,

life

all

members of the human species, share in The multitude and variety of individual

common

traits

For the most

human

human common

all

beings,

as

humanity.

differences overlie the

or attributes that are present in

because they are

All

a

a

all

human

beings

human.

part, these differences are differences in degree.

beings have eyes and ears, are able to see and hear,

but one individual's vision or hearing

may be more

acute than

human beings have the ability to reason, but that may be greater in one individual than in anhuman beings need food for sustenance and vitality,

another's. All

common

ability

other. All

but one individual, being of larger build than another,

may

need more nourishment than another.

That

last

example of

a

common

trait

underlying individual

differences calls attention to the other kind of desire desire that

is

natural, not acquired,

and

that

is

the

—

a kind of

same

in all

— Man

Doer

the

:

8s

human

beings, not different in different individuals, except in

degree.

When we

we need food, we are saying that we when we say that we want a new that we desire it. These two words

say that

desire food, just as

much

as

automobile, we are saying ''need"

same

and "want"

—both

indicate desires, but not desires of the

kind.

Needs

human

are inborn or innate desires

nature because

we have

have the same

all

human

common

Without

it,

do

not.

That

The

they die.

is

We

nature.

capacity for nourishment. All plants pacity; stones

desires inherent in

our

certain natural capacities or

tendencies, capacities or tendencies

we

—

why

all

to us all

have a biological

and animals have

all

because

living things

fulfillment of the capacity

that ca-

need food. is

necessary

to sustain life.

The

individual does not acquire the desire for food in the

course of his lifetime or as a result of his

He needs food whether he knows even when he does not feel the need,

ence. it

pangs of hunger. Hunger natural need that

is

is

it

as

have the same need

for

in different

and he needs

he does when he has

always present and present in

all.

and North America

food and drink, and

tain occasions, experience the pangs of

born

special experi-

merely the experience of feeling a

Individuals born in Asia, Africa, Europe, all

own

or not,

on

cer-

thirst.

But

all will,

hunger and

environments and growing up under different

circumstances, these different individuals will acquire desires for different kinds of food

(which

thirsty

want

is

and drink.

When

they feel hungry or

their awareness of a natural need), they will

different kinds of edibles

and drinkables

to satisfy their

desire.

They do not need They want them. If

different kinds of edibles

and drinkables.

the kind of food or drink they want were

not available, their need could be satisfied by food and drink

86

Aristotle for

:

Everybody

they do not want because they have not yet acquired a desire for it.

The example we have been need

common

not only to

ing things. Let us that

is

common

capacity that

is

now

considering

human

all

a biological need, a

beings but also to

consider a peculiarly

human

only to

human

beings becausje

it

all liv-

need, one

from

arises

human nature. suggested that human beings

a

a special attribute of

Earlier in this book,

I

from other animals by their capacity the

is

differ

for asking questions

with

aim of acquiring knowledge about themselves and about the

world in which they

Recognizing

live.

this fact, Aristotle begins

one of his most important books with the sentence: "Man by nature desires to desire for

know." He

knowledge

as

is

saying, in other words, that the

is

much

a natural

need

as the desire for

food.

However, there for

one

is

interesting difference

knowledge and the need

human

for food.

between the need

Deprived of food, most

beings are conscious of that deprivation

the pangs of hunger. But deprived of knowledge, the case that

human

Unfortunately,

we

feel the

we seldom experience

need

is

not true of

for food

are deprived of for

not always

the pangs of ignorance as

pangs of hunger.

have them. That

need

it is

they feel

beings are conscious of their deprivation.

All acquired desires are desires

like the

when

all

we

are conscious of

when we

Some

of them,

natural needs.

and drink, we are conscious of when we

what we need. But other natural needs,

may

may not of what we need.

knowledge, we

when we are deprived The fact that we are

or

be conscious

like the of,

even

not conscious of a natural need should

not lead us into the mistake of thinking that the need of which

we

are

unaware does not

aware of

it.

exist. It

is

there whether or not

we

are

Man have given a few examples of natural needs

I

them with acquired wants and

trast

here to

try to give

needs that

common

all

all

human

desires will help

To or

desire.

It is

common,

beings share in

human

not necessary

as they share in

him

My

nature.

persuade us that there

to

ought

present interest

between two kinds of

Aristotle's distinction

for living well that all of us

all

con-

the potentialities, capacities, and tendencies that

showing how

in

87

you an exhaustive enumeration of the natural

are inherent in their specific is

in order to

:

in order to illustrate Aris-

between two kinds of

totle's distinction

Doer

the

one

is

right plan

to adopt.

understand his argument, we must recognize what

—

most of us do recognize

we

that

often

I

think

want things we do

We even make the mistake of saying that we need them when we only want them. No one needs caviar, but many not need.

people, having acquired the taste for

even allow themselves

That

is

it,

need

to say they

not the only mistake you can

want

and they may

it;

it.

make about your

You can also want something that is not really good Some human beings want drugs or other substances harmful

to

them. They have acquired strong desires

and want them

things

They want something

them. But because they want

If

it

for

it,

it

them,

it

is

good.

When

appears good to

to

is

bad

them

at

for

the

would be

false to say that is

really

bad

nevertheless appears good to them. Their desire or

them was not

is

why

that

which appeared

really good.

In contrast to the things

time you want them but at a later

it

they desire that which

want was wrong or mistaken. That good

that

to gratify their desires.

did not appear good to them,

the desirable

that are for these

so strongly that they ignore the injury

they are doing themselves.

time they are seeking

wants.

for you.

you want, which appear good

may

at the

turn out to be the opposite of good

time, the things you need are always good for you.

88

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

Because they are

really

time and the opposite Yoij

only want

wrong

are never

is

in thinking that

—

caviar, for

at

one

you need something

example

—but your

needs

may be and often mistaken need. And anything

to

wrong or

a

something

merely appears

not good

or misdirected, as your wants

You cannot have

you need

it

for you, they are

another.

at

may be mistaken

when you are.

good

really

be good

good

for you, not

at a certain

something that

time because you desire

it.

We now

see that Aristotle's distinction

between natural and

acquired desires (or between needs and wants) to

another distinction he makes

—between

is

closely related

real

and apparent

goods.

The

satisfy

your natural needs. The things that only appear

good

things that are really good for

for you,

and may not be

really

good

you

are the things that to

be

for you, are the things

that satisfy your acquired wants.

Another way of making goods are the things we

them

sciously desire

real

is

to

say that apparent

good because we do

at the time.

want them, they appear good contrast,

point

this

call

We

con-

want them. Because we

and we

them good. In we need, whether we are con-

to us

goods are things

in fact

call

scious of the need or not. Their goodness consists in their satisfying a desire inherent in

There is

is still

human

worth considering because

Aristotle's

nature.

one other way of making the same point, and it

argument. The good

it

advances our understanding of is

the desirable and the desirable

may be desirable in two different senses of "desirable," just as it may be good in two senses of ''good." We can call something desirable because at a given time we do in fact desire it. Or we can call something desirable because we ought to desire it whether, at a given time, we actually desire it is

good. But a thing

or not.

— Man

What

desirable in

is

We

other.

may

ally

good

we need

for us

one sense may not be desirable

actually desire

in fact fail to desire

what we ought

for us to desire. it

is

to desire

is

re-

because

which

that

something that may be wrong

may be something we ought

It

will turn out to

in the

That which

to desire.

89

:

to desire, or

and we cannot have wrong needs. But

it,

only appears to be good for us

because

what we ought not

something we always ought

is

Doer

the

not to desire

be really bad for us even though,

at

we want it, it appears to be good because we want it. The one right plan for achieving happiness or a good life is,

the time

according to Aristotle, a plan that involves us in seeking and acquiring

They

the things that are really good for us to have.

all

we need not only in order to live but also in order we seek all the real goods that we ought to possess course of our lives, we will be pursuing happiness accordthe one right plan of life that we ought to adopt.

are the things

to live well. If

in the

ing to

Since natural needs, based on our

and tendencies, are the same good

any one person

for

why human sists

happiness

is

in all

common human

human

is

really

good

the

same

for all

beings,

for

capacities

what

really

is

any other. That

human

in the possession of all the things that are really

is

it

con-

good

for a

beings:

person to have, accumulated not at one time but in the course of a lifetime. is

the

same

No human on the

make

And

for all life

that

is

why

human

the one right plan for living well

beings.

can be completely deprived of

it

The

impossible to stay alive for long.

for food, drink, clothing, shelter, least to a

stay alive.

extent

real goods, for

biological level the total deprivation of basic needs

minimal

extent, in order for the living

and no more,

serves poorly as a

biological needs

and sleep must be

But when those needs are

Not only must these

satisfied, at

organism to

satisfied to that

just staying alive

means

would

minimal

—

or bare subsistence

to living well.

basic biological needs be satisfied

beyond

— go

:

Aristotle for

Everybody

minimum required to sustain life itself other human needs must be satisfied in fulfillment of all our human capacities

the level of the barest

many

but, in addition,

order to approach the

and tendencies.

If

happiness consists in such complete

ment, then one individual approaches more closely it

in proportion as

human

One that

good

aims

to achieving

able than another to satisfy his

into the possession of the things that

him.

for

plan for living well

is

better than another to the extent

more complete realization of more complete satisfaction of his needs.

guides the individual to a

it

his capacities

And

more

is

come

needs and

are really

he

fulfill-

and

to a

the best plan of at every real

we ought

the one

all,

good

addition, allows us to seek things

to adopt,

is

one

that

and measure and,

in the right order

we want but do

in

not need, so

long as getting them does not interfere with our being able to satisfy

our needs or

fulfill

Not all apparent goods

our capacities.

—

things that

turn out to be bad for us. selves;

impede or

frustrate

differ

good

from

its

our

in the sense that they

we need and

effort to get the things that

The

for us.

them-

are not injurious in

and some are not disadvantageous

that are really

may

Some

we want but do not need

man

pursuit of happiness by one

pursuit by another even

if

both are following

the one right plan for living well.

The

reason for such differences,

when

each individual may want different things above the things he needs. Though what

human

being

is

the

same

for all,

to

be good

may be

that

is

himself over and

really

good

to be

for

good

to

one

one

quite different from

another individual.

What each

indi-

may be an apparent good that is neither him nor an impediment to his pursuit of happiness.

vidual wants for himself injurious to

to

is

what appears

individual, according to his wants,

what appears

they occur, for

Man

You now have some and how

same

it

human

You and why

beings

see all

why he should

by adopting the one sound plan for doing

remain

to

What

:

gi

grasp of Aristotle's views about happiness

should be pursued.

for all

Doer

the

so.

thinks

try to

it

is

the

achieve

it

Other questions

be answered.

are the real goods that an individual should seek in

order to live well or

make

a

good

life

for himself or herself?

have mentioned some of them, but not

all.

Can

We

the enumera-

tion of real goods be completed? If

it

can be, then there

important of all

all:

in

our

the ultimate

still

should we

we

naturally need

lives?

What means

the things

have

How

is

end we have

in

a further question try to

—

all

come

happiness.

the most

into possession of

the real goods

we should

are indispensable to achieving

mind?

Only when these questions have been answered a full grasp of the plan of

—

life to

will

we have

be followed in order to achieve

12

How

to Pursue

Happiness

When Thomas

Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Indepen-

dence, did he understand Aristotle's view of happiness and

pursue

to

The

Declaration says that

happiness. Living, is

we have

we can

seen,

beings, being equal by

liberty,

means

itself a

is

and the pursuit of to living well.

—without

happiness. life is

If

we want choices we

exercise a free choice about the things

or need, and unless

our

life,

freedom.

Unless

make

human

all

nature, have an equal right to

So

how

it?

we can

freely carry

coercion or impediment

everything

is

imposed upon

about planning our

determined

cannot pursue

for us, if the pattern of

would be no sense

in talking

about adopting a plan

for living

us, there

lives or

out the

—we

well.

We

need

order to

to stay alive in order to live well.

make an

effort

—

a

planned

effort

—

We

need

to live well.

liberty in

Because

Man

we need right to to

these things in order to pursue happiness,

them. But do we need

hve well?

that

human

If not,

human

all

the

nature

The answer

what

is

to

pursue happiness?

to

93

:

we have

a

Do we need

the basis for saying, as Jefferson did,

beings have a right

—

Doer

—

a right inherent in their

pursue happiness?

number of

to that question lies in a

points that

were covered in the preceding chapters. Living well, or happi-

we

ness, life

—

saw,

that

further

is

the ultimate or final end of

which we seek

good beyond

certain things

for

its

We

it.

own

also

saw that we do

we ought

if

a

good

life

whole

as a

to

is

be so

one

—

live well is

sum

total

to achieve

really

good

happiness or a good

for us

of real goods

is

is

no

in fact desire to us.

There

at the time.

that involves having all

the things that are really good for us, then

that

this

because they are really good

to desire

whether or not they appear

Now

and

our doing in

for the sake of

and when we do, they appear good

are other things for us,

sake

all

we ought life.

Since anything

something we ought

certainly

to desire to

to desire, the

something we ought

to de-

sire.

The word "ought" tion.

do.

We

To

say that

goal of our

we ought

life is

to live well or to

To

expresses the notion of a duty or an obliga-

have a duty or an obligation to

to say that

make

a

do what we ought

to

pursue happiness as the ultimate

we have

good

to

life for

a duty or obligation to try

ourselves.

we need whatever is indispensable to making a good life for ourselves we need the real goods that, taken all together, constitute or make up happiness or a good life. That is why we have a right to them. If we did not have the obligation to try to live well and if we did not need certain things in order to do so, we would not have the right to them that Thomas Jefferson asserted all of us have. Thomas Jefferson thought that all human beings, having the fulfill

that duty or obligation,

—

94

Everybody

Aristotle for

••

same human nature, had the same natural to saying that they all

good

really

human

for

beings.

have adopted volves

same

human

being

is

Thomas

extent,

this

That amounts

—

that

what

good

really

for

is

all

Jefferson appears to

view that the pursuit of happiness

Aristotle's

human

all

set

have the same natural needs

any one

To

rights.

in-

beings in seeking and trying to obtain the

of real goods for themselves.

Before

attempt to enumerate the real goods that Aristode

I

all of us should seek, I would like to spend a moment on the difference between the question ''What should I do in

thought

order to pursue happiness?" and the

should

I

make

take in order to

"What

question

steps

a chair, a picture, or a piece of

music?" The difference between these two questions throws

on the difference between doing and making, and between

light

the kind of thinking that

is

involved in acting in order to live

well and the kind of thinking that

something that

is

involved in producing

well made.

you undertake

If

is

to

make

a chair, a picture, or a piece of

music, you must have a productive idea of the thing to be

and you must have the know-how produce

know-how

But you are under no obligation are determined to

make

Pursuing happiness ture, or piece of

no

about

it,

as there

the piece of music.

is

different

to

from producing

is

I

must do

to that end.

Only

if

you

produce

it.

a chair, pic-

You may

There

is

not wish to produce a particular

is

about

this or that."

in the case of the chair, the picture, or

why

if

means

means required

need you, but you ought

no

are the

to seek that end.

chair, nor

there

to

music because you do not begin by saying,

wish to pursue happiness,

if

made

required

skill

that particular chair, picture, or piece

of music must you employ the

I

the

well-made chair, picture, or piece of music. The

a

productive idea and the

"If

or

it.

to

pursue happiness. That

is

Man

You ought

doing so? This

is

answer consists

of us need

—

or a good

two related answers

The second answer consists all the real goods we need

whole.

as a

The

course of a lifetime. so let us start with

first

answer

in his

in the

easier than the second,

is

it.

mals. As animals,

As

we have

human

bodies that need to be cared for in

we have minds that need to Some of the real goods we need

animals,

be exercised in certain ways.

such

Aristotle calls bodily goods,

and

all

by nature, questioning, thinking, and knowing ani-

certain ways.

And

The

goods that

real

the goods that, taken together, constitute happiness

life

are,

95

go about

to that question.

enumeration of the

in his

prescription for obtaining

We

:

the question that remains to be answered.

Aristotle offers us first

how ought you

pursue happiness, but

to

Doer

the

as health, vitality',

and

vigor.

since our senses give us the experience of bodily pleasures pains, Aristotle also includes such pleasures

Few

goods.

of us,

observation that avoid,

if

we

I

think,

we ought

would challenge

his

among

the real

common-sense

to seek bodily pleasure

and ought

to

can, bodily pain.

are goods we share with other animals. They are goods for us because we are animals. It is only in the way that we seek them that we differ from other animals. For

These bodily goods

example, other animals instinctively always instinctively

try to

tv}'

to avoid bodily pain

and

enjoy bodily pleasure. By watching a

human

beings

sometimes give up bodily pleasure or endure bodily pain

for the

pet cat or dog,

sake of

you

will see that this

some other good

we may even

think

it

is

that they think

so.

is

But

more

desirable.

And

advisable for us to limit our enjoyment of

bodily pleasures in order to

make room

in

our

lives for other,

more important goods.

The

bodily goods that have been mentioned are

ultimate end of happiness or a good

life.

means

to the

But they are also them-

g6

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

selves ends for

which other goods

of our bodily health,

and

shelter, clothing,

Aristotle

which he Aristotle,

health,

lumps

these things together under one heading

goods or wealth. Wealth, according

good because

a real

vitality,

it is

and pleasure. Without

a

we cannot enjoy health, vitality, out these things we cannot live well. Individuals who are starving, who are individuals

or pleasure, and with-

of

life,

individuals

or

who

whose bodies

moment

cannot

who

live

well.

are forced to

work

of wealth

is

much an

as

are con-

moment, inthem the simple com-

lack the externals that give

They

are

as slaves,

are confined by prison walls.

amount

freezing or sweltering,

are deprived of sleep or

the effort to keep alive from

who

dividuals forts

who

to

means to bodily certain amount of

a necessary

wealth,

sumed by

drink,

sleep.

all

calls external is

serve as means. For the sake

and pleasure, we need food,

vitality,

to

badly

as

who

The

off

as

are in chains,

lack of a certain

obstacle to living well

achieving happiness as the deprivation of a certain

and

amount

of

freedom. In both cases

I

have

said, as Aristotle

amount." He does not say live well,

that unlimited

would

nor does he say that unlimited wealth

reason for the limitation

not unlimited, goods, good, of which

is

say, "a certain

freedom is

is

needed

needed.

to

The

not the same, but both are limited,

just as bodily pleasure

we can want

too

much

for

is

also a limited

our own ultimate

good.

To tioned

bodily goods and external goods, or wealth

adds a third. These goods he refer to

to the

men-

the two kinds of goods that have already been

—

them

calls

goods of the soul.

as psychological goods, as

goods of the body

—

Aristotle

We

might

we would probably

as physical goods.

refer

— Man

The most obvious

Among

skill.

We

thinking.

the

need

skills all

of us need

know-how

including

all sorts,

certainly the skill of

is

not only in order to produce well-made

it

and

things, but also in order to act well

live well.

Less obvious, perhaps, are the psychological goods that

need because we are

We

cannot

good is

we

—

sort

A is

life

of a slave or of a

human

love other

totally

loveless

life

a life deprived of a

—

a

among

chological

we

good

are as external to ourselves

a

good of the

not place

Aristotle does

He

the external goods.

—

natu-

much-needed good.

treats

it

rather as a psy-

Because

soul.

psychological need on our part, friendship

is

like

it

a

fulfills

knowledge and

rather than like the things that satisfy our bodily needs.

There body.

are pleasures of the

Among

them,

for

mind

example,

as well as pleasures of the is

the pleasure

we

making things and from our enjoyment of works of that are well feel

in chains

without friends of any

life

the various forms of wealth are,

friendship

skill

man

not a

is

beings and to be loved by

Even though other human beings as

solitary life

naturally desire to acquire knowledge, so

desire to

them.

A

complete solitude.

life.

Just as rally

we

animals as well as thinking animals.

social

live well in

any more than the

life,

good

a

97

:

of these psychological goods are goods of

the mind, such as knowledge of

and

Doer

the

made by

in acquiring

others.

There

is

get

art

from

—

things

also the satisfaction

knowledge, in having

we

of one sort or

skills

another, and in loving and being loved.

Human

beings desire to be loved.

spected for the

traits

good

life,

honored unless

we

is

also

wish to be

re-

they think admirable or lovable. Recogniz-

ing this, Aristotle includes, a

They

self-esteem

among

the goods that contribute to

and honor. But,

not a real good unless

really deserve the

it

honor we

is

in

his view,

being

for the right reason

receive.

Some

individuals

g8

Aristotle for

:

Everybody

seek fame instead of honor.

good reputation even

I

have

now

if

They

are satisfied with having a

they do not deserve

it.

almost completely enumerated the

real

goods that

make a good life as a whole. They are the component parts of that whole, and as such they are the means we must use to achieve that whole for ourselves. This is ArisAristotle thinks go to

totle's

answer

first

To

achieving happiness.

and possess well and

all

make

the extent that

these real goods, a

good

life for

second answer

Aristotle's

how to succeed in we manage to obtain

the question about

to

we succeed

in

our

effort to live

ourselves.

to the

same question involves

ferent kind of prescription for us to follow.

It

a dif-

directs us to act in

such a way that we develop a good moral character. Over and

above is

the real goods that have so far been mentioned, there

all

one more

cifically,

goods that we need

—good

habits;

more

spe-

good habits of choice.

Persons possess a

class of

who have developed good

well. Persons

one

habit,

who have

the

that enables

acquired the

of playing tennis well

skill

them

skill

regularly to play

of solving problems in

who

geometry or algebra have a good habit. So, too, have those regularly

and without

or drinking

much

more than

is

good

for

themselves from eating

them, or

fi-om indulging too

in the pleasures of sleep or play.

These

are

are different

all

good

is

a

habits, but the

from the others.

bodily habit, and ease

difficulty restrain

skill

good habits mentioned

Skill in

in solving

playing tennis

is

a

last

good

mathematical problems with

good habit of the mind. Good habits of

this

able us to perform certain actions with excellence,

kind ennot only

regularly but also without effort. Contrasted with these habits of

action are habits that enable us to larly,

make

certain choices regu-

with ease, and without having to go through the process of

Man making up our minds and deciding how

we do so. The person who

Doer

the

:

99

choose each time

to

that

has acquired the firm and settled disposition

to avoid eating or drinking too is

a

much

has a habit of this

good habit because the decision

tempted to overindulge in food and drink

Food and drink

are

real

amounts. There can be too of

all sorts.

We

often

goods,

much

more than we need. That

why

is

amount and

only

many

moderate

in

real goods, pleasures is

good

Aristotle tells us that

—

when

the right decision.

is

but

want more of them than

good habits of choice or decision the right

of

sort. It

to restrain oneself

in order to seek real

them

also in order to seek

for us,

we need goods in

in the right

order and in the right relation to one another.

The name word

that Aristotle gives to all

that can

best be

translated by

to us in

English by way of

more usual English word

Good

for

is

a

Greek

English word "ex-

word more frequently comes

cellence." However, that Greek

down

good habits the

its

Latin translation, and so the

good habits

is

the

word

habits of the kind exemplified by skills of

'Virtue."

one

sort or

another are virtues of the mind, or intellectual virtues.

Good

habits of the kind exemplified by a settled disposition to choose

or decide correctly constitute a person's character, totle calls

them moral

Both kinds of virtue are life.

But moral virtue plays

real

goods that

we need

a very special role in

happiness, so special that Aristotle that has

and

so Aris-

virtues.

tells

for a

good

our pursuit of

us that a good

life is

one

been lived by making morally virtuous choices or deci-

sions.

Why

Aristotle thinks that statement

explain in the next chapter.

sums

it

up

I

will try to

13

Good

Habits and

Good Luck

Some

of the real goods that are required for a good hfe are

means

are

shelter,

wealth to

we

means

live well

Similarly,

engage in If

External goods, such as food, clothing, and

to others.

to

health,

because

we need

health,

vitality,

did not have to do anything at vitality

and vigor

vigor.

We

need

health to live well.

activities that are necessary to

would not need

and

vitality,

we need

and vigor obtain

all in

still

order to

in

other goods.

order to live well,

we

in order to be active.

In the order of goods, the highest ranking belongs to those that

we

life.

Wealth,

desire for their for

own

example,

sake as well as for the sake of a good is

not desirable for

its

own

sake, but

only as a means to living well. But such real goods as friendship

and knowledge sake of a good

Some

real

are desirable for their

own

sake as well as for the

life.

goods are limited goods; others are unlimited

goods.

For example, wealth and bodily pleasure are limited

goods.

You can want more

of

them than you need, and more

Man than you need

is

not really good for you. Knowledge,

the pleasures of the

always better.

Doer

the

mind

They

are unlimited goods.

are goods of

More

skill,

of

loi

:

and

them

is

which you cannot have too

much. /f there were

than you need;

no limited goods of which you could want more goods were equally important, so that

if all real

none of them should be sought

for the sake of

wanting certain things that appear good

to

any other;

you did not come

into conflict with seeking other things that are really

you

no

—

could be lived

2/ life

difficulty

for

this

good

way, then there would be

about living a good

if

for

little

or

and there would be no need

life,

good habits of choice and decision

in order to

succeed in

one's pursuit of happiness.

But

that,

about your right. Just

Aristotle

own

life

knew, for a

is not the way it moment, you will

is.

If

you think

see that he

think about the regrets you have had.

Remember

was the

times you were sorry because you were too lazy to take the trou-

what was necessary

ble to do

remember when you allowed

something you needed. Or

to get

yourself the pleasure of oversleep-

ing or overeating and regretted

it

later.

Or

the time

when you

did not do something you ought to have done because you feared the pain If

you might

you had made the

suffer in

doing

right choice

it.

and decision every one of

those times, you would have no regrets. Choices and decisions that leave

you with no

regrets are choices

and decisions that

contribute to your pursuit of happiness by putting real goods in the right order, by limiting the ited,

amount when

and by putting aside things you want

if

it

should be lim-

they get in the

way

of obtaining things you need.

Moral choices.

virtue, Aristotle tells us,

Making one

is

the habit of making right

or two right choices

among many wrong

102

:

Aristotle for

Everybody

choices will not do. right choices,

tion is

you

If

wrong choices

the

will

greatly

—away from achieving happiness

instead of toward

why Aristotle stresses the notion of habit. You know how habits get formed. To form

on time

for

outnumber

appointments, you have to

That

it.

the habit of being

be punctual over

try to

and over again. Gradually, the habit of being punctual formed.

Once

tion to be

on time

where you promised

in getting

stronger the habit, the easier it is

it is

to act that

you have formed

take pleasure in doing

cause you do

it

and

a habit

what you

with ease

way and

to be.

The

the harder

an opposite fashion.

to break the habit or to act in

When

gets

formed, you have a firm and settled disposi-

is

it

the

be moving steadily in the wrong direc-

well developed,

it is

you

are in the habit of doing be-

—almost without

You

effort.

find act-

ing against your habits painful.

What

I

have

just said

is

true of both

good and bad

you have formed the habit of oversleeping,

is

it

easy and pleas-

ant to turn the alarm clock off and go on sleeping. painful to get

up on time. So,

too,

habits. If

It is

hard and

you have formed the habit

if

of allowing yourself to overindulge in certain pleasures or to

avoid taking certain pains,

Such

it

is

hard

to stop

doing

it.

habits are bad habits, in Aristotle's view, because they

interfere with

your doing what you ought

things you need.

The to

do

in order to get

opposite habits are good habits because

they enable you to obtain what

what only appears

to

is

really

be good for you

at

good

for

you instead of

may

turn

making the

right

the time and

out to be bad for you in the long run.

Good choices

habits, or

among

moral

virtues, are habits of

goods, real

and apparent. Bad

Aristotle calls "vices," are habits of

habits,

which

making the wrong choices.

Every time you make a right choice and act on

it,

you are doing

something that moves you toward your ultimate goal of

living a

Man good

the

Doer

103

:

Every time you make a wrong choice and act on

life.

you are moving

one who

in the opposite direction.

makes the

The

virtuous person

is

time and time

choices regularly,

right

it,

again, although not necessarily every single time.

That

why

is

role in the pursuit of happiness.

virtue as the principal

portant of

all

Moral

virtue

much

of

such

Aristotle thinks that virtue plays

means

to

That

why he

is

a special

regards moral

happiness and as the most im-

the things that are really good for us to have. is

also

You cannot have

an unlimited good.

too

Habits of making right choices and decisions can

it.

never be too firmly formed.

Aristotle calls sists

one aspect of moral virtue temperance.

con-

habitually resisting the temptation to overindulge in

in

pleasures of for us of

or the temptation to seek

all sorts

any limited good, such

bodily pleasures tempt us right away. to

It

is

that

more than

One

as wealth.

we can

Having temperance enables us Having temperance

us in the long run.

and not

for

its

own

sake as

—only

if it

reason

usually enjoy to resist

be good in the short run for the sake of what

wealth in the right amount

is

why them

what appears

really

is

good

good

for

also enables us to seek

means

as a

were an end

to other goods,

in itself

and an un-

limited good. Aristotle calls another aspect of

temperance

is

moral virtue courage. Just as

an habitual disposition to

resist

the lure of plea-

more important goods that overindulgence would prevent us from getting, so courage is an ha-

sures for the sake of in pleasure

bitual disposition to take whatever pains

may

be in\'olved in

doing what we ought to do for the sake of a good

life.

For example, we recognize that getting knowledge and developing certain have.

skills

are

intellectual

virtues that

But acquiring knowledge and

skills

we ought

may be

to

painful.

104

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

Studying

is

how

practicing that

is

The

how to play how to think

often hard to do; learning

strument well,

to write well, or

a musical in-

well involves

often irksome.

habit of avoiding

what

is

irksome because

difficult or

it is

painful can certainly interfere with your acquiring knowledge

and

skills

that are really

good

for

you

That bad habit

to have.

Aristotle calls the vice of cowardice.

The

person

who

habitually avoids taking pains and trouble for

the sake of obtaining real goods dier

who

who

is

as

much

a

coward

runs away in battle for fear of getting hurt.

risks his life

victory in a

as the sol-

The

soldier

or overcomes his fear of injury for the sake of

good cause has courage. So,

anyone who

too, has

habitually takes trouble, undergoes hardships, and suffers pain, in order to obtain things that are really

Temperance and courage

One

is

concerned with

good

for

him.

differ as aspects of

moral

virtue.

resisting the lure of bodily pleasures

with limiting our craving for limited goods.

The

other

is

and con-

cerned with suffering pains and hardships. But both are alike in

one very important

Both are habits of making the

respect.

right

choice between things that only appear to be good and things that are really good.

Both are habits of making the

between something that may be

good, but only in the

really

short run of today, tomorrow, or next week, is

really

good

for us in the long

Aristotle realized that

it

is

run or

for

on

and something

our

hard for those

years or experience to keep their eyes

right choice

life

who

are

immediately present pleasures and pains.

that that

difficult

reminded us that the

whole

is

for those

—

who

difficulty of looking

a difficulty all of us

moral virtue lasting

even

young

in

remote, future goods in

relation to is

that

as a whole.

He knew

are older. But he also

ahead

must overcome

to one's life as a

in trying to acquire

the habit of choosing rightly between goods of

importance and transient pleasures and pains.

Man

Doer

the

105

:

His pointing this out calls our attention to the fact that trying to live well

goal any less desirable to attain. obligation to

make

not easy for any of us. That does not

is

make

the effort.

Nor does

On

relieve us of the

it

the contrary, in Aristotle's

view the satisfaction that comes from having succeeded a

good

effort

or in trying to live one

life

not by

is

raw materials or

is

worth

all

in living

the trouble and

takes.

it

However, a willingness fort

the

itself

know-how

If

made, producing If

what

true of

it

is

individuals

her disposal and

if

he or she has the

skill

well

is

almost entirely within the individual's the fault

fail,

making

ef-

an individual has the appropriate

necessary for producing something that

power. is

enough.

at his or

and make the

to take the trouble

work of

a

art

is

is

Unfortunately,

theirs.

not true of living a good

life.

Success in that venture

can

without being

fail

is

not entirely within our power.

at fault.

We

can

fail

even

if

moral virtue that Aristotle thought was requisite

Good

we have

The

reason

why

the

for success.

habits of choice are requisite for success, but having

does not guarantee

We

them

it.

this

so

is

is

that all the real goods

we should

seek to possess in order to live well are not entirely within our

power

to obtain.

Some, such

acter (the intellectual

as

good habits of mind and char-

and the moral

virtues) are

much more

within our power to possess than others, such as wealth and health, or even freedom

edge and

skill

and friendship. Even acquiring knowl-

or forming

good habits of choice may depend on

having helpful parents and teachers, which

is

beyond our own

control.

We

are not able to control the conditions

born and brought up.

Much

that

happens

choice on our part.

We to us

under which we are

cannot make fortune smile upon

us.

happens by chance rather than by

io6

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

Effort

on our

does the care

we

part does not assure us that

we need

possession of the external goods

we

come

will

to live a

take of our bodies assure us that

good

we

into

Nor

life.

will retain

our health and vigor. Poverty and disabling disease and even the loss

of freedom and of friends can be our

on our

virtuous conduct

Moral

however important

virtue,

lot in spite

of the most

part.

it is

for living a

good

life,

is

ndt enough because chance as well as choice plays a role in the

Good luck goods we come

pursuit of happiness.

Some

of the real

fortune,

though making

a

makes mortal

as necessary as

good

habits.

to possess are largely the gift of

good use of them

depends on our having good still

is

after

we have them

habits. That, in Aristotle's view,

virtue the controlling factor in living a

good

life.

In addition, having good habits enables a person to bear up

under misfortunes. chance, we can fall

If

we cannot

at least take

Moral

for the things of

which we

virtue helps us in both

turns of fortune Aristotle

ing a good

—

sums life

other

is

ways

to deal

all this

up when he

One

make

right choices

that are not really

tune supplies us with to obtain

good

our success in

is

liv-

having the moral

from day

to day.

being blessed by good luck or good fortune. As

moral virtue prevents us from aiming

A

with the twists and

says that

depends on two things.

and choosing things power

try to

are deprived by misfortune.

good and bad.

virtue that enables us to

The

good fortune; and we can

into our lap as a result of

make up

control what happens to us by

advantage of the good things that

life, it

real

in the

good

wrong direction

for us, so

good

for-

goods that are not entirely within our

by choice. has been said,

is

one

in

which

a person has ev-

erything that he or she desires, provided that he or she desires

nothing amiss. In order to desire nothing amiss, one must have

Man

—

the goods bestowed

dition to the goods acquired by

Among

brought up, and

we

live

our

beyond the luck, in ad-

good habits of choice.

which we

society' in

never

lives. Aristotle

depend on the

in a

good society are

good climate and having good

ing in a

as

are born,

us forget that

lets

are social animals as well as physical organisms.

good family and living

loj

lie

these goods of fortune are things that

environment and on the

physical

:

on us by good

moral virtue. But one must also have goods that reach of choice

Doer

the

Having

important as

a

liv-

good water, and

air,

other physical resources available.

Up

to this point,

happiness as

if it

we have been

were a

considering the pursuit of

solitary affair

—

as if

it

were something

each of us could do by himself or herself alone, with no thought

That

of others.

do in order

to

is

hardly the

way

to live well

with others.

what others can and should do good

we cannot

to

We

must

also think of

help us in our effort to lead a

life.

The life it

things are. Since

complete solitude, we must think of what we have

live well in

pursuit of happiness

aims

anybody

at directly

else.

is

is

one's

selfish to the extent that the

own good

not the good

life,

good life

of

But when we realize that we cannot succeed in

the pursuit of happiness without considering the happiness of others,

our

self-interest

tirely selfish

That

is

virtue that

becomes enlightened.

cannot be en-

and succeed.

why, according

we have

to Aristotle, the

two aspects of moral

so far considered are not enough. In addition

temperance and courage, there

to

We

is

justice. Justice

is

concerned

with the good of others, not only of our friends or those

we

love, but of everyone else. Justice

good of the all-enveloping society

we

in

is

also

whom

concerned with the

which we

live

—the

society

call the state.

Living in a good society contributes greatly to the individual's

io8

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

pursuit of his

own

happiness because a good society

deals justly with the individuals

who

are

one

is

members.

that

It

also

requires the individual to deal justly with other individuals

and

to act for the

which

all

the

Persons selves

good of society

members of

who

as a whole.

its

That good

is

a

good

are not temperate

and courageous injure them-

by habitually making the wrong choices. Persons

habitually

make

wrong choices

the

jure others as well as the society in for this

is

that those

in

society participate.

who

firmly

will also

be unjust and in-

which they

aim

who

live.

at a really

The

good

reason life

for

themselves will regularly make choices that carry out that aim.

Choices so directed others

and

will also

aim

directly at a really

at the welfare of the society in

good

life for

which others share

as

well as themselves.

who wants more wealth than is really good for him; or the person who overindulges his appetite for bodily pleasures; or the person who craves someConsider, for example, the person

thing that

human

is

not really good for anyone

beings in order to dominate their

will certainly ruin their

own

lives.

It

that they will injure others as a result of rection.

But persons

who aim

their

own

tion cannot help benefitting others

they

live.

is

—power lives.

over other

Such persons

also highly probable

aiming

in the

wrong

di-

lives in the right direc-

and the

society in

which

14

What

Others Have

a

Right to Expect

from Us

Aristotle said

two things that seem

to

me uncommonly

wise

human being to another. Once undercommon sense. men were friends, justice would not be necthat justice is the bond of men in states.

about the relation of one stood, they are also

He

said that if all

essary.

He

also said

we are led to conclude that members of a state (which is the largest organized society to which we belong) are not all friends with one .another. If they were, they would not need to be bound together by justice to Putting the two remarks together,

the

form the society that we

Most of group.

We

us belong to are

dren or as both.

call a state.

more than one

members of

We may

society or organized

a family, either as parents or chil-

also

belong to other organized groups,

such as a school, a club, a business organization of one

who have combined pose.

with one another for

sort or

human beings some common pur-

another. All these are societies or associations of

110

Everybody

Aristotle for

;

The purpose

of the association distinguishes two of these

organized groups from

all

the

Associations such as schools,

rest.

universities, hospitals, business organizations,

some ample, aim at at serving

and clubs

all

aim

particular good. Educational institutions, for ex-

the dissemination and advancement of knowl-

edge; hospitals, at the care of health; business organizations, at

the production or distribution of things to be bought and sold;

and so on. In contrast, the family

of

ing

and improving

its

tages to be derived

human

a society that

is

members, and the

life

that

state

life.

from

is

aims

aims

at enrich-

no additional advan-

there were

If

at sustaining the

a society that

living in states, Aristotle thinks that

beings would have been content to continue living in

the smaller society of the family or in the slightly larger society

formed by a group of

What

tribe.

tribes into

led

men

something

families,

like

group families into

to

what we

tribes

call a

and group

larger societies was, in Aristotle's view, the ad-

still

vantages to be gained from the larger and

more

inclusive associ-

ations.

As we have seen, our aim merely alive,

tary

to stay alive

of course,

is

but to

as

human

live well

—

beings should be not

as well as possible. Staying

indispensable to living well.

but social animals,

human

Not being

soli-

beings must associate with one

another in order to sustain and preserve their

lives

and

to bring

into the world another generation that must be cared for and

protected during infancy.

The

family and the tribe, according to Aristotle, are the asso-

ciations or societies that originally

these purposes.

same

What first

They may

came

into being to serve

not do so any longer, or not to the

extent, but Aristotle asks us to think about their origin.

caused

place?

human

beings to form these associations in the

Man

One answer

that

may

suggest itself

the

Doer

"instinct."

is

iii

:

Instinct

causes bees to form beehives and ants to form ant colonies or ant

mounds. Perhaps, then, and

lies, tribes,

states. If so,

in contrast to

natural,

business organizations. stinct.

Men

it is

a

human

latter are

as schools,

clubs, or

hardly the products of in-

join together voluntarily to

for the particular

form fami-

would be completely

these societies

such associations

The

instinct to

form these associations

purposes they serve.

In Aristotle's view, families, tribes,

and

no more the

states are

products of instinct than are schools, clubs, and business organizations.

They

are not like beehives

and ant mounds, which

for

a given species of bee or ant are always organized in exactly the

same way, generation

after generation,

that particular species of bee or ant.

beings belong to the

species,

we

and organization

terns of association

and

same

in

and wherever you But though

human

all

find quite different pat-

human

families, tribes,

states.

That, according to Aristotle, were,

in

origin,

voluntarily

indicates

that these

involved thought schools, clubs,

up

for themselves.

tribes,

and

To

and thoughtfully

states are also

human

that

and

beings

they are like

this extent,

and business organizations

voluntarily, purposefully,

societies

and purposefully formed,

formed with some plan of organization that the

lies,

find

human

institute.

beings

But fami-

unlike schools, clubs, and busi-

ness organizations because they are natural as well as voluntary.

Does not tribes,

and

Aristotle contradict himself states are

both voluntary and natural?

contradicting himself states

by saying that families,

if

He would be

he thought that families,

tribes,

and

were natural in the same way that beehives and ant

mounds

are natural

Aristotle, there

is

—the product of

instinct. But,

according to

another way in which a society can be natu-

112

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

ral. It

can be natural in the sense that

some

natural need

—

it

must be formed

to serve

the need to stay alive or the need to live

well.

A

society can be natural in this sense

and thoughtfully formed

purposefully,

makes the

and

—

also be voluntarily,

to serve the

need that

society natural.

Families, according the Aristotle, originated from the need of

human

beings to stay alive and to protect and rear their young.

Groups of

families, or tribes, being a

little

and involving

larger

more human beings working together, came into being in order same need a little more effectively. The even-larger organization of the state, which originally grew out of combina-

to serve that

and

tions of families

more

effectively but also served the additional

abling

some

individuals,

secure, attention

and making

When he

is

it

and

more than There

ants, wolves that

men

But only

That animal.

is

is

man

is

life

by nature a political animal,

meant by the statement

in packs,

and

that

man

is

a

and

lions that live in families.

establish laws or

customs that

differ

from

society to another.

is

a

live well,

that

man

is

a political

custom-making and law-making animal. There

When

ture a political animal, he

selves,

improving

to

organize their societies voluntarily, purposefully,

another meaning.

not

purpose of en-

better.

one meaning of the statement

He

still

to live well. Life itself being

are other social animals, such as bees

hunt

and thoughtfully and one human

all,

could be turned

effort

and

richer

not

if

Aristotle says that

saying

social animal.

is

not only served that same need

tribes,

man is by nahuman beings can-

Aristotle declares that

is

also saying that

cannot achieve the best kind of

li\'es

by living together only in families and in

that, Aristotle thinks they

The Greek word

must

for

tribes.

them-

To do

live together in cities or states.

for a city or state

is

"polis,"

from which we

Man word "poHtical." The Latin word

get the English state

is

from which we

"civis,"

"civilized."

Being

let

The good

friends with

societies

—

justice

is

"civil"

and

in states to

civil or civilized life.

which

seldom

that

ever

if

them

necessary to bind in

this

would not be

justice

state are

and harmoniously

largest

of

all

the state.

moment, suppose

Let us, for the

are all friends with

ily

were friends,

one another,

together peacefully

human

men

If all

Since the members of a

necessary.

the

life is

113

:

for a city or

EngHsh words men must live

us retum to the two statements with

chapter began.

all

by nature,

political

live as well as possible.

Now

get the

Doer

the

one another

members

that the

—

of a fam-

friends in the highest sense

of that word.

When

two

human

beings are friends in this highest sense,

they love each other. Their love impels each of the good of the other

ever

may

—

to

Each, out of such friendship or love,

to injure the other

to

wish

for

wish to benefit the other, to do what-

be necessary to improve or enrich the

happiness or good

them

of the other.

life

will act to

promote the

of the other. Neither would do anything

life

by impeding or obstructing the other's pur-

suit of happiness.

That

is

why

justice

would be unnecessary

which the parents loved

their children, in

in a family

in

which the children

loved their parents, and in which husband and wife, brothers

and

sisters,

loved one another perfectly and at

all

times. But in

most families there are times when love or friendship falls

short of perfection.

say to another,

ask

is

'Tou

unjust," or

''I

Then one member

are not being fair to

have a right

fails

of the family

or

may

me," or "What you

to expect this or that

from

you."

At such moments, love ceases to be the thing that binds the

— 114

'

Everybody

Aristotle for

members

of the family together, and justice enters the picture

justice that tries to see that the individual obtains

has a right to expect, that the individual the others, and that he or she

is

is

being

what he or she fairly treated

by

harmed

or

protected from being

injured by them.

did not intervene

If justice

members of

perfection, the

when

love failed or

short of

fell

the family might not stay together,

or at least they would not live together peacefully and harmoniously, trying to share in the

them

What

all.

which the members ship or love.

men

enjoyment of goods

has just been said

Where

are, for the

love

is

most

is

common

even truer of

part,

absent, justice

states

not related by friend-

must

step in to bind

together in states, so that they can live peacefully and har-

moniously with one another, acting and working together

common Of

—

ship

for a

purpose.

Aristotle ship.

to

in

knew

these,

that there are several different kinds of friend-

he thought that only one was perfect friend-

the kind that exists between persons

who

love

one an-

other and wish only to benefit the other. Aristotle

frequently,

also

knew

we speak

that

such friendships are

rare.

More

of another person as being a friend because

we get some pleasure from him. Such friendships are selfish. The person we call a friend serves some interest of our own, and we regard him or her as a friend he

is

useful to us or because

only so long as that remains the case. In contrast, true friendship or love

is

unselfish.

It is

benevolent.

It

aims

at serving the

good of the other. Justice, like love,

is

concerned with the good of the other per-

between them. Anyone

son.

However, there

who

understands love knows that one individual should never

is

a clear difference

say to another, "I have a right to be loved.

me.

You ought

to love

Man

When we

the

we

them of

give to

:

115

someone, we do not give the person

truly love

loved what he or she has a right to claim from us. trary,

Doer

and

ourselves generously

without any regard to their

rights.

We

do

On

the con-

unselfishly,

them more than

for

they have any right to expect.

We

sometimes even love persons who do not love us

We

turn.

do not make

their returning

our loving them. But when we act

them what they have tent that

we want

our love a condition

justly

from them

for

toward others, giving

we

a right to expect,

justice

in re-

are selfish to the ex-

in return.

To

say that

we

should do unto others what we would have them do unto us

is

selfish in this sense.

What do

others have a right to expect

the promises

whenever

we make

telling a lie

from us? That we keep

them. That we

to

would hurt them

in

tell them the tenth some way. That we

we have borrowed and promised to return. That That we do not steal what belongs to them. That we do not injure their health, damage their bodies, or kill them. That we do not interfere with their freedom of action when their conduct in no way injures us. That we do not make false statements that would injure their reputation or give them a bad name. All these things, and more of the same sort, can be summed up by saying that others have a right to expect from us that we return anything

we pay our

debts to them.

do nothing that might impede or obstruct piness

— nothing

that

might

their pursuit of hap-

interfere with or prevent their ob-

taining or possessing the real goods they need to

need

for themselves.

It

them

them, and

a right to

obliged to respect

We

may

is

—

if

their

we

not always be

it

is

for these real

their right to

ourselves are just, at least

make good

lives

goods that gives

them

that

we

are

just.

not perfectly

just.

Some

ii6

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

persons are the very opposite of

just.

Instead of having the habit

of respecting the rights of others, they are habitually inclined in the opposite direction

even when

—

to get things they

want

for

themselves

do so they must run roughshod over the

to

rights of

others.

That

is

why

made

laws are

to prescribe

what the members of

should or should not do in order to deal

a state

another.

everyone had the habit of being

If

dealings with others, there would be for their

enforcement by the

perfectly just,

no need

with one

justly

in

just

for

all

his

such laws or

But since few individuals are

state.

and since some are habitually inclined

to

be un-

laws that prescribe just conduct must be enforced by the

just,

state to

prevent one individual from seriously injuring another

by violating his or her

Do them

rights.

others have a right to expect us to act positively to help in their pursuit of happiness?

Not

interfering with,

imped-

or obstructing their efforts to obtain or possess the real

ing,

one

goods they need

is

goods

Have they

is

another.

According

thing.

to Aristotle's

tween love and

justice, the

Helping them

to obtain

such

a right to claim our help?

understanding of the difference be-

answer

is

no.

It is

love, not the obligations of justice, that impels

the generosity of

one individual

to

help another to obtain or possess the real goods needed for a

good

life.

That

is

why

the laws that the state enforces do not

require individuals to help one another by taking positive action to

promote the pursuit of happiness by However, the

state

does

others.

make and enforce

laws that require

the individual to act positively for the welfare of the as a

whole.

The

happiness by the

common

its

welfare of the

members.

A

community good

good of the people

is

community

affects the pursuit of

society, a society in

which

served and advanced, con-

Man tributes to the

many words

good

life

that the

of

its

Doer

iij

:

individuals. Aristotle says in so

end that the good

happiness of the individuals

the

state

who compose

it.

should serve It

is

the

should promote

their pursuit of happiness.

to

When,

therefore, we, as individuals, obey laws that direct us

behave

for the welfare of the

indirectly helping to

fellow

human

beings.

of our love for them,

community

as a

What we do we do

directly for a few others out

indirectly for all the rest by obeying

laws that require us to act for the welfare of the

which

whole, we are

promote the pursuit of happiness by our

they, as well as we, live.

community

in

15

What We Have a

Right to

Expect from Others and

from the State

Love thy neighbor as

Do

unto others as you would have them do unto you!

Both of these familiar maxims pear to

thyself!

make

relate yourself to others.

Both ap-

yourself the pivot of your action toward others.

Love yourself and love your neighbor

in

the

same way and

even, perhaps, in the same measure as you love yourself. Think of

how you

wish others to behave toward you and behave in the

same way toward them.

We

seem

to

have reversed that order by considering

first,

in

the preceding chapter, what others have a right to expect from us and now, in this chapter,

from others.

It

what we have

would be more accurate

above an order that puts us Rights are rights.

If

first

any one

a right to expect

to say that

we have

risen

and others second.

human

being has them, based

Man upon needs

human

common

that he or she shares in

beings, then

the others have the

all

makes no difference whether you think or

own

and your action

choices,

under an obligation to obtain

and

other

rights

Justice, as

is

a

First

The

ul-

your practical thinking, your

all

good

for yourself.

life

to live as well as

is

it

humanly

You

are

possible to

possess, in the course of a lifetime, all the

things that are really

good

we have

positive action

first.

about what you should do.

in the order of thinking

for you.

seen, does not require

on your

you

to

promote, by

part, the

happiness of others, as you are

own by

the love you bear yourself. Jus-

required to pursue your tice

iig

rights, too. It

of your

which you do come

a sense in

is

timate goal that should control

—

all

:

of the rights of others.

first

However, there

do

with

same

first

Doer

the

only requires you not to impede or frustrate others in their

pursuit of happiness.

you do

pursuit,

Your

rights

you go beyond

If

so because

and the

that to help

you love them

as

them

you love

with which

rights of others,

in their

yourself. justice

is

concerned, are based on the things that are really good for any

human ture.

being because they

Thinking about what

really good,

fulfill is

that having a certain

ing a satisfactory degree of health,

as

really

amount

if

of wealth, hav-

and having freedom

not only as

a right to expect

what they have

means

to living

good

that

is

for

you

is

from others

a right to expect

same because everyone's

And

For example,

rights.

is

are really

but also as

to living well.

What you have same

na-

you, you would not be led to say that everyone has a

for

right to these things,

means

human

good, and especially about what

must precede thinking about

you did not think good

needs inherent in

rights are the

really

good

is,

from you. Rights are the

same and because what

for every other

so because all of us are

therefore, the

human,

all

human

is

being.

of us have the

120

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

k

same human nature, inherent damental needs calling

which

in

same fun-

the

are

for fulfillment.

Among those needs is the need to live in association with other human beings. We are not the kind of animal that can go alone. As we have seen, human societies families, tribes,

—

it

and

states

—have

vation of

which

life

arisen to

needs

to fulfill other

itself

Although society

life

fails to

of

it

good

if

way

the

organized or the way

is

in their efforts to acquire for

may

it

not

operates either

who

members

are

and possess things

that are really

them.

For example,

a family it

is

not a good family

if it

should. This does not

good because right to expect

it

It

that the family itself

means only

does not do for

from

if it

does not

does not help them to grow up as they

mean

young children cannot preserve

without families.

does not give

if it

the freedom they have a right to,

care for their health,

their

own

a

is

lives

bad thing,

and grow up

that a particular family its

is

not

children what they have a

it.

In his concern with

what

is

good and bad,

cerned with good and bad societies

human

to live in as-

beings, a particular society

help or positively hinders individuals

the children in

for

good because we need

human it

higher goods on

for

depends.

itself

is

sociation with other

be good

goods on which the preser-

for

depends and our need

good

living a

need. But they also help us

fulfill this

—our need

as well as

beings and with their good and bad

ready been said about society

itself

simple common-sense observation.

Aristotle

con-

with good and bad lives.

being good

We

is

What is,

for

has

al-

him, a

cannot get along

at all

without living in society.

Beginning there, Aristotle then goes on

makes

a particular society

other.

And

just as his

good or one

to

consider what

society better

ultimate question about

than an-

human

life

is

Man about the best

life

tion about society

can

that each of us

Doer

:

121

ultimate ques-

live, so his

about the best society in

is

the

which we can

live

and pursue happiness. Since Aristotle thinks that, of or political society,

good or

It

good

state

one that

that a

Human

and harmoniously

It

his answers to ques-

state

obvious as

it is

state

is

gov-

to say that a

cannot

exist

beings cannot live together peace-

if all

human

government.

beings were friends and

might not even be true

perfectly just, so that there

one that

is

For him, a

in the absence of

That might not be tme loved one another.

just

on

best state.

good as

is

lived well.

is

without govemment. fully

and the

him

to

well. That, for Aristotle, life is

societies, the state,

the one that most enables us to live the

is

seems obvious

emed

human

civilized life, let us concentrate

about the good

tions

all

was no need

humans were

if all

enforcement of

for the

laws to prevent one individual from injuring another. But

knew from common experience that bound together by love or friendship,

human

beings

most

human

Aristotle

all

are not

that

beings are not perfectly

just,

and

that

some

are quite unjust in

their selfishness.

That

ment

is

is

why

his

common-sense conclusion was

that govern-

necessary for the existence of a state or a political soci-

ety.

Being necessary, government self,

itself is

good, just as society

it-

is good. However, as we have seen, a parmay be bad or not as good as it should be. So, particular form of govemment may be bad or not as good

being necessary,

ticular society

too, a as

it

should be.

It

has been said, by

that

government

human were

is

—being

beings

—cannot

common

live

some who

lack Aristotle's

not necessary at

all.

as they are, not as

They

common fail

sense,

to see that

one might wish they

together peacefully and act together for a

purpose without living under a government having the

122

Aristotle for

:

power

Everybody

to enforce laws

and

to

make

decisions.

criminals must be restrained. In order that a uals

may

act together for a

some machinery

for

common

It is

not only that

number

of individ-

purpose, there must also be

making the decisions

that their concerted

actions require. It

has also been said that, although government

essary,

a necessary evil

it is

because

may be

it

and be-

cive force (the force used in the enforcement of laws)

cause

it

Those who Aristotle

say this

on the

According

understand very important points that

liberty of individuals in a society.

to Aristotle, the

—obeys

just

fears the

to

fail

the freedom of the individual.

makes about the enforcement of laws and about the

limitations

is

on

involves limitations

just laws

punishment

untarily, not

good

man

because he

it is

man who

virtuous, not because he

is

keeps the peace vol-

him government

is

not

is

not an

bad man.

the good

He

law

his breaking the

under the coercion of law enforcement. He

for the

government.

the virtuous

may follow from He obeys laws and

coerced by government, and so for

Nor does

—

that

or disturbing the peace.

evil as

nec-

involves the use of coer-

man

feel that his

freedom

is

limited by

does not want more freedom than he can use

without injuring others. Only the bad than that, and so only he

man

feels that his

pleases, without regard for others,

is

wants more freedom

freedom

to

do

as

he

limited by government.

The fact that government itself is necessary and good does not make all forms of government good, or as good as they should be.

For

Aristotle, the line that divides

government

is

good from bad forms of

determined by the answers to the following ques-

tions. First,

does the government serve the

who are governed, or who wield the power

common

does

those

of government?

it

good of the

serve the selfish interests of

people

Government

that

a

Man serves the self-interest of the rulers

ment

that

promotes the good

life

Second, does the government disposal of the rulers, or does in a

way

might or

whether

force,

disposed

is

than

rather

must have authority

Government

who

making of

on

man

or

more

benevolent or well-

is

To

tyrannical.

that those

that

ernment

is

is

be

government

good,

mled acknowledge and

are

fear

and submit

to

way

it is

the only form of

states or political societies.

to a third question.

It

applies to

government

neither tyrannical nor despotic, but constitutional

ruled by laws. constitution

—

—

laws, in

which even those who govern

About such government we have the fundamental law

a just constitution?

government

And

are

to ask: Is the

on which government are the laws

—

itself

made by

that

just laws?

Any government

that

is

not tyrannical

Among

nontyrannical govemments,

ment

better than a despotic one.

is

Aristotle called constitu-

government. By calling such gov-

to suggest that

proper for

government based on

based

in this

political

he meant

political,

This brings us

good

is

government or

government that

is

in the

that rests solely

be in the hands of one it

at the

have been made

fear.

tional

that

that

power or force that they

accept, not merely

from

it

even when

despotic,

good.

merely on the power

on laws

Government

a part?

is

12^

:

Only govern-

tyrannical.

which the ruled have agreed and

to

which they have had than one,

rest

rest

it

is

of the ruled

Doer

the

governments, the best

is

a

is

to that extent

good.

constitutional govern-

And, among constitutional

the one with a just constitution and

with just laws. In praising constitutional government, Aristotle speaks of

the government of free that

men and

equals.

He

also speaks of

it

as

it

as

form of government in which the citizens rule and are

ruled in turn.

Those who

are ruled by a despot are subjects, not citizens

— 124

•

Aristotle for

Everybody

with some voice in their

own government. Those who

by a tyrant are no better off than ruled as inferiors, not equals. are ruled by other citizens

are ruled

both cases, they are

slaves. In

Only those who, being

whom

citizens,

they have chosen to hold

public office for a time are ruled as equals, and as free

men

should be ruled.

At take.

this point in his thinking, Aristotle

Living

at a

made

a serious mis-

time and in a society in which some

human

beings were born into slavery and treated as slaves, as well as a

women

which

society in

were treated

He

he made the

many human beings had inferior nawho appeared to be inferior

mistake of thinking that tures.

as inferiors,

did not realize that those

appeared to be so as the result of the way in which they were treated, not as a result of inadequate native

Making groups.

the one hand, he placed those

ruled as citizens

—

as free

own government. On fit

human beings into two who were fit to be

he divided

mistake,

this

On

endowments.

and equal and with

a voice in their

the other hand, he placed those

who were

only to be ruled despotically, either as subjects or slaves

without a voice in their

own government and

so as neither free

nor equal.

We cused

live at a

for

time and in a society in which no one can be ex-

making

Aristotle's mistake.

Correcting his mistake,

human beings should be their own government and

are led to the conclusion that all

erned

as citizens

with a voice in

The

be ruled as free and equal. inclusive all are those

who

are

still

thus

only exceptions to that in their infancy or those

we

gov-

all-

who

are mentally disabled.

Reaching tutional

human

this

conclusion

government

is

just

just stated,

only

if

we

its

also see that consti-

constitution gives

all

beings the equal status of citizenship without regard to

Man doing

sex, race, creed, color, or wealth. In

so,

it

the

Doer

also gives

:

125

them

the freedom they have a right to, the freedom of being ruled as citizens,

not as slaves or subjects.

One human

being

is

another, even though one in

many

more nor

neither

may be

less

human

than

superior or inferior to another

other respects as a result of differences in native en-

dowments

or acquired

These

traits.

inequalities should certainly

human

be considered in the selection of some than others to hold public

beings rather

but they should be

office,

totally

disregarded in considering the qualifications for citizenship.

human

All

beings are equal as humans. Being equal as hu-

mans, they are equal in the in their

common human

rights that arise

nature.

A

does not treat equals equally.

Nor

nize the equal right of

freedom

all to

from needs inherent

constitution it

is

just if

—

to

it

is

not just

if it

does not recog-

human

be ruled as

beings should be ruled, as citizens, not as slaves or subjects.

We now have reached one answer to the question about what we have a right to expect from the state in which we live and the government under which we live. We have a right to be ruled as citizens under a government to which we have given our consent and which allows us to have a voice in that govern-

ment. Is

that all

we have

Even though he made some human beings had the

a right to expect?

the mistake of thinking that only

right to be ruled as citizens, Aristotle

beings had a right to expect lived. it

The

thought that those

more from the

best state, in his opinion,

state in

human

which they

was one that did everything

could do to promote the pursuit of happiness by

its

citizens.

That remains true whether only some human beings or

all

should be citizens.

What can

a state

do

to

promote the pursuit of happiness by

its

126

Aristotle for

:

citizens?

It

Everybody

can help them

and possess

to obtain

goods that they need and have a right

to.

To

the real

all

understand

this,

we must remember one point made in the preceding chapter. Of all the real goods we must have in order to live well, some are more and some are less within our individual power to acquire and possess. Some, like moral virtue and knowledge,

depend

largely

on the choices we ourselves make. Some,

like

wealth and health, depend to a considerable extent on our having good luck or

on our being blessed by good

The main ways can help

what

it

its

which

in

good

a

state

and

a

fortune.

good government

individuals in their pursuit of happiness

can to overcome deprivations they suffer

bad luck or misfortune, not

as a result of fault

on

that

The

do the most

The one thing how good it is, is

best state

and the

best

to

their part.

should do for them what they cannot, by choice and for themselves.

is

as a result

effort,

do of It

do

government are those

in this direction.

that to

no

make

state or its

or not they acquire moral virtue

the choices each of

government can do, no matter

Whether depends almost entirely upon

citizens morally virtuous.

them makes. The

government can,

therefore, only give

tions that enable

and encourage them

its

best state

and the

best

citizens external condi-

to try to live well.

not guarantee that, given these conditions, they will

all

It

can-

succeed.

Their success or failure ultimately depends on the use they

make

of the good conditions under which they live their

lives.

pjRj or

MAN THE KNOWER

»k

16

What Goes

into the

Mind and What Comes out of

It

Earlier chapters have dealt with thinking

and with knowing but

mind that thinks and knows. II, we considered productive thinking

not with the

—

In Part

thinking that

is

the kind of

involved in the making of things. There

we

also

—the kind

considered the kind of knowledge needed for making

we

called

In

or

skill

Part

knowledge

III,

know-how.

we examined

—thinking about

and knowledge of what

tion

or right

and wrong

Now,

in Part IV,

for us to

we

will

—with

itself

is

do

good and bad in the

And we

knowing, not

time we

thinks

will coiisider

and knows.

lives.

will

just for the sake

of

be concerned with knowledge

knowledge of the way things are

knowledge of what we ought or ought not first

for us to seek,

conduct of our

be concerned with theoretical think-

ing, thinking for the sake of

production or action.

thinking and practical means and ends of human ac-

practical

the

as well as with

to do.

Here

for the

what we know about the mind

that

i$o

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

Language plays a large part in human thinking and knowing. The words we use, according to Aristotle, express the ideas we think with. The declarative sentences we utter or the statements we make express opinions that we affirm or deny opinions that may be either true or false. When a statement we make happens to be true, it expresses knowledge. If it happens to be false, we have made an error.

—

We

cannot be

about

it

in error

about something and have knowledge

same time. Opinions may be

at the

either true or false,

correct or erroneous, but incorrect, erroneous, or false knowl-

edge

is

as impossible as a

Where do

seemed obvious our minds

—

ence. That turns

first

we somehow

to Aristotle that

that they are

is

round square.

the ideas with which

why

his

account of

to the senses

and

we

think

come

are not born with

fi-om?

It

them

in

the products of our experi-

human

thinking and knowing

to the experience that results

from

the functioning of our senses.

The

windows or doorways of the mind. Whatmind from the outside world comes into it through the senses. What comes into it may be words or sentences that other human beings utter. As everyone knows, we ever

senses are the

comes

into the

learn a great deal that way, certainly from the

moment

that our

schooling begins. But learning does not begin with schooling.

Nor does all our learning, even after schooling, involve statements made by others. Taking the human race as a whole, as well as

human

infants in every generation, learning begins with

sense experience before the learners use words to express what

they have learned. In Aristotle's day,

external senses

—

it

sight,

reason Aristotle called

was generally thought that we have hearing, touch, smell, and

them

external senses

is

taste.

five

The

that each involves

a

Man a sense organ

on the surface of our bodies, there

by the outside world: sight results things outside us, hearing from

touch from what outside

acts

on our nose, and

side acts

Knower

to

be acted on

:

131

from the action on our eyes of

what outside

on our

taste

the

acts

skin, smell

on our

ears,

from what out-

from what outside

acts

on our

tongue and mouth.

Modern than

and

five senses

sense organs; for example, the sense organs

by which we sense hunger and organs by which we

the sense

we have more

scientific research has discovered that

thirst

within our

the position of our bodies. But the exact

sense organs does not

own

bodies and

sense the motion of our limbs or

affect the

number

of senses and

account that Aristotle gives of

the contribution that the senses and sense experience

make

to

our thinking and knowing.

Each of the organ

The

is

senses produces sensations only

outside.

its

sense

acted on physically by something in the outside world.

senses are passive receivers that

ceiver.

when

Each of our sense organs

We

cannot

must be is

activated

a highly specialized re-

smell things with our eyes;

taste or

from the

hear or see them with our tongues and noses.

We

we cannot

are aware of

colors through our eyes, of sounds through our ears, of odors

through our nose, and so on.

we can be aware of and shape of bodies we can see

Certain aspects of the world around us

more than one way. The well as feel by touch.

from one place

motion

is

We

size

as

can see and hear the motion of bodies

to another,

slow or

in

and we can even

tell

whether that

fast.

Sensations of the various kinds just mentioned are the raw materials out of

which our sense experience

these raw materials

come

in separately

is

formed.

Though

from outside, through

the channels of different sense organs, they do not remain separate, or isolated

from one another,

in

our sense experience. The

132

;

Everybody

Aristotle for

world we experience through our senses

a

is

various sizes and shapes, in motion or at

world of bodies of

and

rest,

Our

another in space in a variety of ways.

related to

one

experience of this

—the

world of bodies also includes a wide variety of qualities colors bodies have, the sounds they

make, the roughness or the

smoothness of their surfaces, and so on. According

to Aristotle,

perception on our part.

our sense experience

The

sensations

we

is

the product of

receive passively

through our sense organs are merely the raw materials that we

somehow put

together to constitute the seamless fabric of our

sense experience. In that putting together,

we

are

more

active

than passive. Sensation that arises

is

input from the outside. But the sense experience

from our perception of that outside world involves

composed of many

memory and

imagination on our

elements,

having their origin in what our various senses take

all

part. It

is

but transformed by the way they are put together to make up

in,

the whole that

If

we

see at

is

the world

we

perceive.

describe any typical perceptual experience in words,

once that there

is

much more

to

it

we

than the raw materials

of sensation. For example, you perceive a big, black, barking

dog chasing a

tiger-striped,

cat runs in front of a blue halt. In that description

name ear

halt

the colors and the sounds.

a street, chasing, running, ^all

the street, and the

sudden

A dog and a cat, an automobile and suddenly slowing down to a more than

sen-

from outside.

you perceive an object

when you

to a

sensed by the eye and the

these things that you perceive involve

sations received

When

down

of a sense experience, only a few words

visible or audible qualities

— —

and

yellow cat

automobile that screeches

that

you

call a

dog or

a cat, or

perceive actions that you call chasing or running.

Man your

memory and your imagination

the dog you perceive miliar animal that

is

is

of the kind of animal that a cat

is,

You have some understanding cated by your

fast

things,

If

if

a fa-

from dogs.

different in kind

of what tigers are

like, as indi-

perception of the cat as tiger striped.

and slowing down.

is

understanding

You

stand the difference between walking and running,

going

133

before. In addition,

You have some

involved.

:

are involved, especially

a stranger to you, while the cat

you have seen around

your understanding

Knower

the

you did not understand

under-

between all

these

you could not have had the perceptual experience that

was described. According

to Aristotle, these various

have result from the of our senses.

activity

understandings that

we

of our mind, not from the activity

Our mind forms

ideas of cats

and dogs, of run-

ning and chasing. Ideas are based on the information that our senses receive from the outside world, but the ideas themselves

from the outside world. They

are not received Aristotle, the

product of the mind's activity in

stand the world Just as

we experience through our

we can

sensed, so

if

its

according to

effort to

under-

senses.

sense things because they are capable of being

we can understand

standable. If the barking dog visible

are,

things because they are under-

and the screeching car were not

and audible, we could not see and hear them. Similarly,

the dog and the cat were not understandable as different kinds

of things, tures.

In

we could not understand them Aristotle's view, we apprehend

as

having different na-

the natures of cats or

dogs by our idea or understanding of what a cat is,

just as

we apprehend

is

or

what

a

dog

the blackness of the dog or the blueness

of the automobile by the visual sensations received by our eyes.

When mind an

a carpenter sets out to

make

a chair, he

idea of the chair he wants to make.

must have

He must

in

not only

have an idea of chairs in general but also the more definite idea

134

•

Aristotle for

Everybody

of the particular chair he wishes to make. Working with these

and with pieces of wood

ideas

shapes those pieces of

wood and

become

them

puts

The

they take on the form of a chair.

productive worker has

raw material, the carpenter

as his

together so that

idea in the

mind of

the

the form of the material he works

on.

Living matter having a certain form

having a different form

When

a dog.

is

Living matter

a cat.

is

children learn to distin-

guish between cats and dogs and to recognize each see

when

they

and dogs involves some under-

their perception of cats

it,

standing of the special nature of each of these two kinds of

animals. That understanding consists in their having an idea of

what a

cat

is

and an idea of what

a

dog

is.

In Aristotle's view, having the idea of a cat in one's

mind

the form that

each cat the kind of animal as the

hand

is

to all cats

This leads him

mind

way of saying the same thing where the forms

is

having

and makes

which we use

the form of forms. Another

mind as the place become our ideas of them.

describes the

that are in things

The mind forms

to

to say that, just

the tool of tools (the instrument by

other instruments), so the

separating

common

is

it is.

amounts

ideas by taking the forms of things

them from the matter of

things.

and

Producing ideas

we

the very opposite of producing things. In producing things,

put the ideas that

forming matter ideas,

in

our minds into things by trans-

accordance with our

ideas.

In

producing

our minds take the forms out of things and turn them

into ideas

have

in

we have

is

whereby we understand the nature of the things

this or that

that

form.

Getting or producing ideas should also be contrasted with eating things.

When we

eat

matter into our bodies.

an apple, we take both

The form without

its

form and

the matter

its

would not

1

Man

the

Knower

:

135

The matter without the form would not be an apple. But when we get the idea of an apple, we take the form away from the matter of the apple. The action of our mind in nourish

us.

doing so turns the form of an apple into an idea of the kind of

an apple

fruit

The

is.

ideas or understandings so far

we

derstandings of objects that

mentioned are ideas or un-

They

perceive.

are the kind of

They are also we can remember when they are absent. They are even the kind of objects that we can imagine, as we might imagine a cat or dog that we have never perceived, or objects that are present in our sense experience.

the kind of objects

dream of one

that

is

strangely shaped or colored.

But when the mind sense experience,

it

producing ideas on the basis of

starts

does not stop with ideas that enable us to

understand objects we can perceive, remember, and imagine.

We

can understand

perceive, such as justice.

We

many

objects of thought that

good and bad,

right

we cannot

and wrong, freedom and

could not have discussed these objects in earlier

chapters of this book

if

we

did not understand

them

—

if

we had

not formed ideas of them.

Thinking begins with the formation of ideas on the

basis of

the information received by our senses. Sensations are the input

the the

mind receives from mind produces as a

Thinking goes

them other.

the outside world. Ideas are the output result

further.

It

of what

receives.

relates the ideas

together, separates them,

By these

it

and

sets

it

produces.

It

joins

one idea against an-

further activities of thinking, the

mind produces

knowledge, not only knowledge about objects we can perceive,

remember, or imagine, but not

fall

also

knowledge of objects that do

within our sense experience. Arithmetic, algebra, and

geometry are good examples of such knowledge.

1^6

Aristotle for

:

A

sensation

when you

Everybody

is

neither true nor

the sensation

when your

itself

is

when

in

it

is

The

error

is

in

is

not

you think

false;

that

but

we can

objects

it

on the

if,

would as

it

basis of

you may be

black,

it is

in

your thinking, not in your sensing.

and almost every adjective and verb

our language names an object of thought

we have formed an

think about because

dog, for ex-

not black. Your sensing

as gray,

common noun

Every

The

shadows. In bright sunlight,

shadows

in

that information alone, error.

as

it,

senses deceive you, as they often do,

neither true nor false.

may have been

have been seen by you black

simply have

sense the blackness of a dog or the blueness of an au-

tomobile. Even

ample,

You

false.

think about are objects

remember, or imagine. Dogs and

—an

object

idea of

we can

it.

Not

in

we can all

the

also perceive,

example, are objects

cats, for

we can perceive, but we can also think about them when no dogs and cats around for us to perceive through our senses. In addition, we can think about the very small particles that

there are

atom although our

of matter inside the

senses are unable to per-

ceive anything so small, even with the help of the most powerful

microscope. Like sensations, ideas are neither true nor

were talking or the single

to

one another, and

word

''cat,"

I

you would not be able

saying either yes or no. Let us assume for the

and

I

had the same understanding of these

meant

for

also

meant

for you,

same

ideas.

When

me, they

they expressed the

suppose that

when

I

said "cat,"

the direction of an animal in the that very

room

My

uttering the

to

you and

I

respond by

for

said "dog,"

when I

I

each of us

you and

I

said "cat."

nodded or pointed

in

that started to bark at

moment. You would immediately

a cat, that's a dog."

If

moment that you words. What they

because

I

thought about the same object. So, too,

Now

false.

spoke the single word "dog"

say,

"No,

that

is

not

word "cat" while nodding

Man or pointing to

the

Knower

:

137

an animal that both of us were perceiving could

have been spelled out in a sentence: "That animal over there a cat."

Your saying no could

ing, "If

you think

than

we can be

shadows assertion,

That

thinking of cats or dogs any

more

made

cannot be in error in error

as black rather

just

have been spelled out by sayin error.

that animal

statement you have just

We

also

a cat,

is is

you are

false."

when we is

dog standing

see the

than gray. Only

such as "That dog

black," does the question arise is

must enter

and along with

into our thinking,

When

"is"

and

"is

have passed from the level of

in the

when we make some

whether what we say or think

word, "not."

is

true or false.

That word it

goes another

not" enter into our thinking, just

"is"

we

having ideas to the level of

combining and separating them. Then we have reached the level

where we are forming opinions that can be either true or

false.

There are other words, such

as

"and," "if" and "then,"

"since" and "therefore," "either, or," "not both," that enter our

thinking at a

still

higher level of thought. This

which making one statement reject

another as

is

the level at

leads us to affirm another or to

false.

among these three levels of thought in his account of how the mind operates to produce knowledge. From the raw materials of sense experience, the mind forms ideas. Ideas in turn are the raw materials out of which the mind Aristotle distinguishes

forms judgments in which something

is

affirmed or denied. As

single ideas are expressed in speech by single

so judgments are expressed by sentences in

which the words

words or phrases,

—

declarative sentences

"is" or "is not" occur.

The third level Aristotle calls reasoning or inference. Only when one statement becomes the basis for asserting or denying

1^8

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

another statement does the mind

move up

to the third level of

thought. At this level, thinking involves giving reasons for what

we

At

think.

true or false,

He

it

may

what we think may not only be

also

be either logical or

wrote the

first

book on the

many

the standard textbook for

subject, a

his basic rules for

book that was

centuries and that

considerable influence. In the next chapter,

some of

either

illogical.

was a great logician. He founded the science of

Aristotle logic.

this level,

we

still

exerts

shall consider

conducting our thinking in a logical

manner. Although does

not

logical thinking

always

pointed out that

reach

it is

Hence cal or

for

logical

better than illogical thinking,

conclusions that are

possible for the

are true without reaching

possible

is

them

mind

result

Aristotle

to hold opinions that

in a logical

thinking to

true.

it

manner, even

in

as

it is

false conclusions.

we pay some attention to what makes thinking logiillogical, we shall have to consider what makes thinking after

true or false.

17

Wbrds

Logic's Little

As Newton's name Aristotle's stein's

is

name

is

associated with the law of gravitation, so

As Ein-

associated with the law of contradiction. is

to the theory of relativity, so Aristotle's

theory of the syllogism. contradiction:

''is"

and

Two

to the theory of the syllogism

incorrect reasoning.

words

not."

''is

They

—

are

lie at

Two

to the

the heart of the law of

pairs of

Aristotle's

is

words are central

account of correct and

"if and "then," "since" and

"therefore."

As a rule of thought, the law of contradiction marily what not to do. that

commands

our speech or

in

It

is

a

tells

us pri-

law against contradiction, a law

us to avoid contradicting ourselves, either in

our thought.

It tells

us that

we should not an-

swer a question by saying both yes and no. Stated in another

way,

it

tells

us that

proposition. If

I

we should not

affirm

say or think that Plato

was

and deny the same Aristotle's teacher,

I

should avoid saying or thinking that Plato was not Aristotle's

140

:

Aristotle for

To

teacher.

Everybody

say or think that

would be

to

deny something

that

I

have affirmed.

You may

ask

why

this

sound. Aristotle's answer

rule of thought

and

so basic

is

that the law of contradiction

is

so

not

is

only a rule of thought but also a statement about the world

—about the

self

The law

we

realities

is

immediately obvious to

ever

it

may be

It

think about.

try to

of contradiction, as a statement about reality, says

what time.

it-

—cannot both

either exists or

it

common exist

does not

sense.

and not

A

—what-

thing

exist at the

but not both

exist,

same

once.

at

A

thing cannot have a certain attribute and not have that attribute at the

same time. The apple

my hand

in

that

am

I

looking at

cannot, at this instant, be both red in color and not red in color.

This

is

so very obvious that Aristotle calls the law of contra-

diction self-evident. deniability.

It

and not red that a part

is

at the

is

Its

self-evidence, for him,

means

impossible to think that the apple

same time,

greater than the

just as

whole

it

is

un-

impossible to think

which

to

its

both red

is

it

belongs.

It

is

impossible to think that a tennis ball that you hit over the fence is

to be

found

in the grass that lies

time, to think that

it

beyond and,

at the

cannot be found there because

it

same

no longer

exists.

The law

of contradiction as a statement about reality

underlies the law of contradiction as a rule of thought.

itself

The law

of contradiction as a statement about reality describes the way things are. scribes the

The law of contradiction as way we should think about

thinking about

When true,

them

to

conform

to the

a rule of

thought pre-

things

we wish our

if

way things

are.

a pair of statements are contradictory, both

nor can both be

false.

One

cannot be

must be true, the other

false.

Man

the

Knower

.

141

Plato either was or was not Aristotle's teacher. All swans are

white or some are not. However,

if

instead of saying that

some

swans are not white, which contradicts the statement that

swans are white,

would not have

I

had

said

Aristotle's distinction

is

who

possible for both of these statements

cannot be

—

"No swans are white" true. Some swans may be

is.

it is

Aristotle

dictory, Is

false to say that all

calls

be

to

—

"All swans are

false,

though both

white and some black, in

swans are white or that none

a pair of statements

when both cannot be

not contra-

contrary,

both can be

true, but

there a pair of statements, both of

both of which cannot be

state-

this.

white" and

which case

a contradiction

are not acquainted with

between contradictory and contrary

ments may be surprised by It

no swans are white,

People

resulted.

all

false.

which can be

true, but

according to Aristotle, the

false? Yes,

statement that some swans are white and the statement that some swans are not white can both be true, but both cannot be false. Swans must be either white or not white, and so if only some are white, some must be not white. Aristotle calls this pair of statements subcontrary.

Suppose, however, that instead of saying that some swans are white and some swans are not white, are white"

statements have been subcontrary false?

I

White and black

true that

said

— impossible

No, because some swans might be

or blue.

had

"Some swans

and "Some swans are black." Would that

any

it

both

must be

will not

to

be

gray, or green, yellow,

are not exclusive alternatives.

visible object

This being the case,

for

pair of

It is

not

either white or black.

do

to pose as the contrary of

"All swans are white" the statement "All swans are black," for

neither

may be

true

and both can be

not "All swans are black."

To state the contrary "No swans are white,"

false.

of "All swans are white," one must say

I 142

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

Unlike "black" and ''white," some pairs of terms, which are contrary terms, do exhaust the alternatives. integers or

third possibility. natives,

and

not."

"is

When

one uses terms

odd number

The is

I

it

that are exclusive alter-

statement that any given whole

not odd, and

is

no

number is an number is

contradicted by the statement that that

an even number, because even,

all

is

possible to state a contradiction without using "is"

is

it

For example,

whole numbers are either odd or even. There

it

odd,

if it is

it

is

not even, and

must be one or the

cannot exaggerate the importance of

if it is

other.

Aristotle's rules

con-

cerning statements that are incompatible with one another in

one of these three ways

—through

being contradictory of one

another, through being contrary to one another, or subcontrary to

one another. The importance

that observing these rules not

is

only helps us to avoid making inconsistent statements but also helps us to detect inconsistencies in the statements others

and

When herself or

him and

to challenge

a person

we

what they

made by

say.

are conversing with contradicts himself or

makes contrary statements, we have every

right to stop

"You cannot make both of those statements. Both cannot be true. Which of the two do you really mean? Which say,

do you want It

is

ments

to claim as true?"

particularly

—statements

important to observe that general containing the word "all"

dicted by a single negative instance. ization that all swans are white, single sifies

swan

that

is

To

—can

state-

be contra-

contradict the general-

one needs only

to point to a

not white. That single negative instance

fal-

the generalization.

Scientific generalizations are put to the test in this way.

claim that they are true can be upheld only so long tive instances are

negative instances

found is

to falsify

as

The

no nega-

them. Since the search

an unending one,

a

scientific

for

general-

Man

the

Knower

14^

:

ization can never be regarded as finally or completely verified.

Human

beings are prone to generalize, especially in their

human

thinking about other

beings

in sex, race, or religion. If they are

selves to say

—unthinkingly,

such and such.

who

one hopes and

so. If

they will permit themselves to say that

one can point was

The

permit them-

that all

women

are

all

they are Protestants,

Catholics are this or

every one of these cases, one negative instance suffices

to invalidate the generalization;

ization

—

from themselves

will

they are white persons, they will permit them-

If

selves to say that all blacks are so

that. In

differ

men, they

the easier

to,

in the

first

and the more negative instances

it is

to

show how wild the

general-

place.

use of contrary terms, such as "black" and "white," or

"odd" and "even," brings into play another

set

control our thinking according to certain rules

—

of words that

"either-or"

and

when we toss a coin to decide somewhen it lands, it must be either heads or

"not both." For example, thing,

we know

that

tails,

not both. That

ever,

weak disjunctions,

or that,

the

is

a strong disjunction.

which something may be

in

and perhaps both, though not

same time. To

There

in the

same

are,

how-

either this

respect or at

say of tomatoes that they are either red or

green permits us to say that one and the same tomato can be

both red and green, but Disjunctions,

at different times.

especially

strong

disjunctions,

enable

us

to

make simple, direct inferences. If we know that a whole number is not odd, we can infer immediately that it must be even. Similarly, if we know that a whole number is not a prime number, we can infer immediately that it must be divisible by numbers other than

itself

coin has landed heads up, tails,

have

lost the toss.

and one.

we know

When we at

see that the tossed

once that we, who bet on

We do not have to turn the coin over to be

sure of that.

Inferences of this sort Aristotle calls immediate inferences

144

•

Everybody

Aristotle for

because one goes immediately from the truth or statement to the truth or ing are involved.

If

falsity

one knows

of another. that

it

and

one knows

in addition

that at least

of one

falsity

steps of reason-

true that all swans are

is

white, one also knows immediately that

No

some swans are white; some white objects are

swans.

One

can make mistakes

and mistakes

that all swans are white, jects are

in this

simple process of inference,

made. For example, from the

are frequently

some white ob-

correct to infer that

it is

swans, but quite incorrect to infer that

fact

all

white objects

are swans.

That incorrect inference

The

class of

Swans

are only

is

some of the white

also say that all white objects are

Two

pairs of

well as in the

and

which they

objects in the world.

say, "/fall

are white."

we

all

swans

words are operative

are white

is

to treat the

in

To

we can

two

classes

immediate inference

process of reasoning.

They

are

as

''if"

to express the

an immediate inference (the inference that

from the

fact that all

swans are white, then

say, "//" all

To make

swans are white,

and "since" and "therefore." In order

''then,"

conversion.

are not.

more complex

logical correctness of

some swans

illicit

larger than the class of swans.

the mistake of thinking that because

as coextensive,

an

Aristotle calls

white objects

it

swans are white), we that

some swans

illicit

conversion,

must follow

express the incorrectness of an

swans are white, then

it

does not follow that

all

white objects are swans." "If-then" statements of these two kinds are statements of logically correct

and

point to note here

logically incorrect inferences. is

The important

that the truth of these "if-then" statements

about logically correct and logically incorrect inferences does not in any way depend upon the truth of the statements con-

nected by "if" and "then."

Man

The and

it

statement that

would

still

may

swans are white

all

Knower

the

be

in fact

—but only —

are white, if

would

still

if

Even

all are.

if

the statement that

be logically incorrect to infer that

from the

So much

What

and "then"

for the use of "if"

must follow" or

"it

it

white objects

all

"it

—the

accom-

latter

does not follow"

—

to

of correct and incorrect inferences.

recognition

When we

and "therefore"?

about "since"

all

false,

swans are white.

fact that all

panied by the words express our

false,

be logically correct to infer that some swans

white objects are swans were in fact true instead of

are swans

14^

:

substitute

we are actually make when we said only

"since" and "therefore" for "if" and "then,"

making the inference "if"

we

that

did not

and "then."

To

stay

we have been

with the same example that

using,

I

have made no actual inferences about swans or white objects in all

the "if-then" statements

make an

have made about them.

I

actual inference until

therefore follows that

swans are white enables

Only when

I

I

say, ''Since all

some swans

make

me

are white."

to assert that

may be

falsity

false

no swans

I

if all arey

white

even though

are,

When .

making

.

say, "If all

not that .

,"

I

was

But when

.

I

.

I

would

.

The

,"

I

my

first

inference

actual infer-

statement, intruth

may be

conclude that

false to

am

so.

only saying

say "Since all swans are

saying that all are.

are white.

My

my

initial

are white.

of

falsity

was logically correct to do

all are.

am

it

it

connected by

second.

false in fact.

swans are white

that assertion,

some swans

it

is

and so

are white,

my

because

troduced by the word "since,"

some

my

logically correct, but the conclusion of

ence may be actually

that

of

swans are white,

kind,

"since" and "therefore," does the truth or

statement affect the truth or

do not

My assertion that all

some swans

assertions of this

I

Should

I

be right in

also be right in asserting that

— 146

:

Aristotle for

What

Everybody

has just been said about Aristotle's rules of immediate

inference helps

me

summarize

to

briefly the rules of reasoning

that constitute his theory of the syllogism.

Here

a

is

model

syllogism:

Major premise:

Minor

All animals are mortal.

premise:

men men

All

Conclusion:

All

are animals. are mortal.

Let us consider two more examples of reasoning syllogistically

from a major and

one is

in

false

a

minor premise

which the reasoning

is

to a conclusion. First, this

logically valid, but the conclusion

because the minor premise

is

false.

Major

premise:

Angels are neither male nor female.

Minor

premise:

Some men

are angels.

Some men

are neither

Conclusion:

And

this

one

in

which

male nor female.

a true conclusion follows logically

from

two true premises. Major

premise:

Mammals do

Minor

premise:

Human Human

Conclusion:

not lay eggs.

beings are

mammals.

beings do not lay eggs.

Considering these three different pieces of reasoning, we can observe at once that syllogistic reasoning

is

more complicated

than immediate inference. In immediate inference,

once from

a single statement to

we go from two

syllogistic reason-

statements, in which there are three dif-

ferent terms, to a conclusion in

occur.

at

another single statement, and

both statements will have the same terms. In ing,

we go

which two of these three terms

Man In the

first

example above, the three terms

the

Knower

in the

:

14J

major and

minor premise were ''animals," "men," and "mortal." And the in the conclusion

two terms

premise) and "mortal"

were "men"

term

(a

in the

term in the minor

(a

major premise). That

always the case in syllogistic reasoning, and

is

always the case

it is

that the third term, which occurs in both premises ("animals"),

has been dropped out of the conclusion.

term that

Aristotle calls the

common

is

minor premise the middle term. sion because

it

has serx^ed

That function other.

is

its

It is

to the

major and the

dropped out of the conclu-

function in the reasoning process.

connect the other two terms with each

to

is

why

as contrasted

with

The middle term mediates between them. That

Aristotle calls syllogistic reasoning

mediated

immediate inference. In immediate inference, there dle term because there I

The

yourself. First,

that

if

this

works in the three ex-

You can do

that for

only additional rules that you must note are these. the major or the

some form of

contains

how

reasoning just given.

syllogistic

is

no need of mediation.

bother to spell out

will not

amples of

is

no mid-

"is

minor premise

is

negative

(if

it

not" instead of "is," or "no" instead

of "all"), then the conclusion must also be negative.

not draw an affirmative conclusion

if

You

one of the premises

is

canneg-

ative.

The second nectively.

do

rule

Here

is

is

that the middle term

an example

in

must function con-

which the middle term

fails to

so.

Major

premise:

Minor

premise:

Conclusion:

Not only

is

No men are by nature beasts of burden. No mules are by nature men. No mules are by nature beasts of burden.

the conclusion false in

incorrect conclusion.

An

but

it is

also a logically

affirmative conclusion

must be drawn

fact,

I 148

:

Aristotle for

Everybody

from two affirmative premises, but no conclusion

at all

drawn from two negative premises. The reason

validly

the negative in the major premise excludes

minor premise excludes

men. Hence we cannot between the

relation

men

is

that

fi:om the

by nature beasts of burden; and the nega-

class of things that are tive in the

all

can be

all

mules from the

class of

correctly infer anything at all about the

mules and the

class of

class of things that

are by nature beasts of burden. It is

example

interesting to observe in the

major and minor premises are both

from them

that does not logically follow

both premises to be

sible for

given that the

just

conclusion

true, while the

false in fact

is

false. It

and

is

quite pos-

for a false

conclu-

sion to follow logically from them. For example:

Major

premise:

No

Minor

premise:

All married

No

Conclusion:

What consider)

out and

have daughters.

married

show us

is

have daughters.

many

others that

perhaps, worth repeating. Reasoning

we might

may

be logi-

whether the premises and the conclu-

sion are true or false in fact. is

are fathers.

something that has already been pointed

cally correct regardless of

true

men men

these examples (and

all

is,

fathers

Only

if

both premises are in

the conclusion that follows logically from

them

fact

also in

fact true. If

either premise

logically

which

it

logically

that

is

false,

then the conclusion that follows

from them may be either true or is.

On

the other hand,

from certain premises

is

if

false.

We

cannot

tell

the conclusion that follows

in fact false,

one or both of the premises from which

then we can infer it

is

drawn must

also be false.

This leads us to one more important rule of reasoning that

Man

Knower

the

immediate

Aristotle pointed out. In syllogistic reasoning, as in

inference, the validity of the inference

and

149

:

expressed by an

is

a "then." In the case of syllogistic reasoning,

we

''if"

are saying

that if the two premises are true, then the conclusion that logically follows

from them

also true.

is

the truth of the premises.

We

We

have not yet asserted

have asserted only the validity of

the inference from the premises to the conclusion.

we

Only when

assert the truth of the premises by substituting "since" for

"if,"

can we also substitute "therefore"

for

"then" and assert the

truth of the conclusion.

The

On

rule with

which we

the one hand,

of the conclusion other hand, the premises

it

if

if

are here

says that

it

we

we have

concemed has two

parts.

a right to assert the truth

assert the truth of the premises.

says that

we have

we deny

the truth of the conclusion.

On

the

a right to question the truth of

tion the truth of the premises" rather than

I

say "ques-

"deny the truth of the

when we deny the truth of the conclusion, we know only that either one of the premises is false or that both may be, but we do not know which is the case. The double-edged rule just stated is particularly applicable to premises" because

a kind of reasoning that Aristotle called hypothetical.

It

usually

involves four terms, not three.

Alexander Hamilton,

men

in

one of the Federalist papers,

were angels, no government would be necessary."

ing said that, Hamilton went on to deny that

no conclusion would

follow.

Denying the

men

said: "If If,

hav-

were angels,

ff statement (which

is

called the antecedent in hypothetical reasoning) does not entitle

you

to

deny the then statement (which

is

called

the con-

sequent).

However, Hamilton obviously thought that government unquestionably necessary for a society of

human

beings.

would, therefore, have had no hesitation in denying that

is

He men

1 ISO

:

Aristotle for

are angels.

Everybody

He would have been

doing so because deny-

right in

ing the consequent (or the then statement) in hypothetical rea-

soning does entitle you to deny the antecedent (or the

if state-

ment).

The

truth that

a single

complex statement

reasoning behind

cause

Hamilton

men

society."

it.

getting at can also be expressed in

that conceals rather than reveals the

That complex statement

are not angels,

The

is

government

is

is

as follows: ''Be-

necessary for

of statements about the difference between

men and

well as statements about the special characteristics of

make government compressed

human

reasoning that goes unexpressed involves a series

necessary for

argument

that

human

omits

or

society.

conceals

premises Aristotle called an enthymeme.

angels as

men

The

that

kind of

indispensable

18

Telling the Truth

Thinking

The word

and

It

"truth" has been used over and over again in the two

preceding chapters. Since those chapters are about the way the

mind works and about thinking and knowing, that reference to truth

When we know When we try to

and

falsity

it is

quite natural

should have been frequent.

something, what we know

is

the truth about

think correctly and soundly, our effort

is

it.

to get

at the truth. I

thought

it

possible to use the words "truth"

and

"falsity" (or

mean because everyone does understand what they mean. They are common notions, commonly used. The question "What is truth?" is not "true" and "false") without explaining what they

a difficult question to answer. After is,

the difficult question, as

whether

The

we

a particular statement

reason

why

I

is

you understand what

shall see,

is:

How

and

tell

true or false?

say that everyone, as a matter of

sense, understands truth

truth

can we

falsity is that

common

everyone knows

how

1S2

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

to tell a

Every one of us has told

lie.

lies

on one occasion or

another, and everyone understands the difference between ing a

and

lie

telling the truth.

Let us suppose that

On

Sunday. taurant

moment,

the

to you.

My

of what

I

when

To

think.

dinner that evening.

I

"is"

— It

is

think

think

is

it

think

"is

this

not"

"is

To

—

tell

in other words,

why

I

For lied

open

for

dinner

or to say "is not"

when you

is

when

the very op-

think "is," and

who

taught at Harvard University

century wittily remarked that a

liar is a

is

a person

who

thinks.

To

lie is

but the very opposite of

said a

have done

is

understands.

moment

To

tell

the truth,

it.

ago, everyone understands this. All

have done so

His answer consists in

is

I

what everyone

as preparation for Aristotle's simple,

and common-sense answer

makes our thinking

to

not to say in words what one thinks,

to spell out, as explicitly as possible, I

A

intentionally puts "is" in

to have what one says in words agree with or conform

what one

clear,

is

the truth

place of "is not," or "is not" in place of "is."

I

is.

not" are what he meant by ontological predicates.

liar,

As

that resit

willfully misplaces his ontological predicates. "Is"

"is

is

that

not."

philosopher

and

then,

you

on

closed

not open.

consists in saying "is"

when you

who

I

to tell a lie.

beginning of

person

tell

said that a certain restaurant

when you

An American at the

I

us not be concerned with the reason

same time

say "is"

not"

for

let

posite of this. "is

is

lying consisted in saying in words the very opposite

at the

you think

think a certain restaurant

I

Sunday morning, you ask me whether

a

open

is

tell-

to the question

about what

true or false.

that, just as telling the truth to

another person

an agreement between what one says and what one

thinks, so thinking truly consists in an

agreement between what

Man one thinks and what one

think truly

I

he was not an

if

Columbus was

a Spaniard or

think he was an Italian and falsely

I

for

an understanding of

explanation of what makes our thinking true or

is;

have truth

or that that

sity in

that

is

in

which

our mind)

which

if

not,

our mind) not,

is

we

if

not.

is

we

is

Truth

I

Ital-

think

We

Aristotle's

We

false.

think

think that that which

is,

is

is,

fal-

not; or that

in

someone

words

to

the agree-

else,

another person and

what we actually think. In the case of thinking the is

an

if

am

I

is.

between what we say

agreement

if

think falsely (or have

think that that which

In the case of telling the truth to

ment

153

:

Italian.

This one example suffices

truly (or

Knower

thinking about. For example,

is

asked whether Christopher ian,

the

between what we think and the

consists in a

truth, the

facts as

they are.

correspondence between the mind and

real-

ity.

We

express most of our thoughts in words, whether

we

are

speaking to ourselves or to someone else or writing our thoughts

down

some

in

fashion.

Not

all

the thoughts

we

express orally

are either true or false. Aristotle points out that questions are

neither true nor

nor the

false;

nor are the requests we make of others,

commands we

give.

some form

tences that contain

Only

declarative sentences

of the words

''is"

that can be rephrased to contain those words

—

and

facts

things are. fail

to

Only such statements can

do

so. If

lies in its

of the matter. Declarative statements

are the only statements that try to describe the facts

or

not," or

fact that Aris-

understanding of what makes a statement true

agreement with the

sen-

are true or false.

This should not seem surprising in view of the totle's

''is

—

—

the

way

either succeed in doing so

they succeed, they are true;

if

they

fail,

they

are false. It

would appear, then,

that statements that are prescriptive

154

Aristotle for

•

Everybody

rather than descriptive cannot be either true or false. tive

statement

How

to reading

truth

is

one

and

what you or

that prescribes

can a statement that says that books and

I

ought

I

A

prescrip-

ought

to do.

devote more time

to

playing games be true or false

less to

if

the statement of our thoughts consist in an

falsity in

agreement between what we

assert or

deny and the way things

are or are not?

Being able to answer that question there were to

aim

no answer

at in life,

to

it,

is

of great importance.

If

we ought employ in

statements about the goals

and about the means we ought

order to reach them, would be neither true nor

to

false.

Everything we learned from Aristotle about the pursuit of happiness (in Part

an expression of

of this book) might

III

Aristotle's

could not claim, and

I

opinions about such matters. But he

could not claim, truth

mendations about what we ought

good

human

life

that

we

be interesting as

still

are

to

do

recom-

for his

in order to achieve the

under a moral obligation

to try to

achieve.

Aristotle obviously life

and how

to

had an answer

thought that his teaching about the good

achieve

it

was

true. Therefore,

about the truth of statements that

to the question

contain the words ''ought" or ''ought not." just as a descriptive

forms to

reality,

he must have

statement

is

true

if

it

He

did.

He

said that,

agrees with or con-

so a prescriptive statement

is

true

if it

agrees

with or conforms to right desire.

What is right desire? It consists in desiring what one ought to desire. What ought one to desire? Whatever is really good for a human being. What is really good for a human being? Whatever satisfies a human need. The statement that a person ought to desire whatever is really good

for

himself or herself

is

a

self-evident truth.

It

is

self-

Man way

evident in the same

than the Just as

whole

finite

it

is

that the statement that a part

which

to

than any of

ought

edge

parts, so

its

to desire that

our

really

is

human

good

for

consists in desiring

we ought it

really

is

bad

really

is

needs

less

is

self-evidently true.

is

greater

is

less

is

human

good

for us, or that

we we

for us.

the need for knowledge. Knowl-

is

beings to have. Since right desire

what we ought

right desire,

to

155

:

impossible for us to think that

is

it

which

is

it

statement that

to desire, the

knowledge conforms

to desire

conforms

belongs

belongs, or of a whole that

it

which

to desire that

Among

it

impossible for us to think of a part that

than the whole to which

ought not

Knower

the

true,

Because

to right desire.

according to Aristotle's

theory of what makes a prescriptive statement true.

We

have

A

false. its

taken the easiest step toward answering the

just

question about

how we can

statement such as ''A

parts" reveals

its

truth

stand the terms that

and "greater than" true. is,

tell

It is

on

whether

finite

its

whole

a statement is

greater than

very face. As soon as

—

make up the statement we immediately see that

—

any of

we under-

''whole," ''part,"

the statement

impossible to understand what a whole

and the

true or

is

what

is,

relation oi greater than, without at the

understanding a whole to be greater than any of

its

a part

same time

parts.

There are not many statements we can make that are evidently true in this way.

good ought

to

be desired

is

The

statement that what

one of them. But

its

truth

manifest as the truth about wholes and parts because for us to

understand wholes and parts than

it

is

is

to

it

self-

is

really

is

not as

is

easier

understand

the distinction between real and apparent goods and the distinction

between what ought

to

be desired and what

is

in fact de-

sired.

We

sometimes

call

statements self-evident that are not

self-

156

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

evident.

When we

do

argument. That

is

so on.

—acceptable

men

all

These statements may have been accepted

What

I

have

and by

just said indicates

whether a statement its

wrote,

are created equal, that they are

may

truth

as true by the

to establish their truth.

another way in which we can

true or false. If

is

and

others, but a fairly extended

argument would have been necessary

true,

when he

their Creator with certain unalienable rights,"

signers of the Declaration

tell

without any further

Jefferson did

Independence, that "we hold these truths

be self-evident: that

endowed by

recommend them

usually wish to

what Thomas

in the Declaration of to

we

so,

acceptable truths

as generally

it is

not self-evidently

be established by argument or reasoning. Ac-

cording to Aristotle, the truth of some statements can be demonstrated in this way.

Two

conditions are required for the

onstration or proof of a statement's truth.

premises used in the reasoning.

The

One

other

is

is

dem-

the truth of the

the correctness or

validity of the reasoning itself

Let the statement be: 'The United States State of truth.

other

New

New

One

''A

one

is

Two

whole

"The United

is:

York

that the

York."

is:

United States

is

than the

larger

premises are needed to establish

is

States

larger than is

From

part."

is

any of

a whole, of

its

parts."

which the

these two statements,

larger than the State of

New

it

its

The

State of

follows

York.

The

premises being true, the conclusion that follows from them

is

also true. Just as very

few statements can be seen by us to be

self-

evidently true, so also very few can be seen by us to be true as a result of valid reasoning

from true premises. The truth of most

we think is not so easily dewe remain in doubt about whether a false. When we are able to resolve our

of the statements that express what

termined. In most cases,

statement doubts,

is

true or

we do

so by appealing to the evidence afforded us by the

experience of our senses.

Man For example,

we

if

way

look at the building and count

its

building's height

The

Knower

157

:

doubt whether a certain building

are in

twelve or fifteen stories tall, the

simple observation will

the

remove

to

A

stories.

that doubt

single,

is

is

to

relatively

us whether a statement about the

tell

true or false.

is

appeal to observation

way

the

is

determine the truth of

to

statements about things that are perceivable through our senses.

You may the

way

ask whether

check our

to

we can

own

trust

our senses. Not always, but

observation

to

is

have

it

confirmed or

corroborated by the observation of others.

For example,

as a result of

my own

observation,

I

may make

the statement that the automobile that crashed into the wall was

going very

Other witnesses of the same event may have

fast.

be appealed to in order to get

them

report the

A is

who

the truth of this matter. If

same observation,

automobile was going very nesses

at

fast

is

it

possessed by a statement that

ment its

its is

speed

is

we

We

truth.

we

wit-

it is.

it

was not.

When we

A

statement

say that a state-

are not estimating the degree of

own

assessing our

are

The more

regard as certainly true. Ei-

either true or false.

only probably true,

claiming truth for

of

only probably true has the same truth that

ther the auto was going very fast or

about

to

probably true that the

crashed.

more probable

agree on this point, the

statement that

is

it

when

all

degree of assurance in

it.

Degrees of probability are not measures of the truth of a

state-

ment, but only measures of the assurance with which we can determine

its

as the truth

truth that

we

truth.

A

truth that

about wholes and

we

affirm with certitude, such

parts, is

no more

true than a

regard as only probable, such as the truth about

the speed of the auto that crashed.

Some

witnesses are qualified to

make

us to determine the truth of statements;

ample,

as a result

of

my own

observations that help

some

observation,

I

are not.

may

For ex-

say that the

1^8

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

on your

ring

gold and

finger

gold.

may, of course, look

It

be only gold plated.

still

sible, to tell

is

which

It

is

difficult,

as if

if

looking at or handling the ring.

ways of determining the

made of

witness, can say

not impos-

The

jeweler

By putting your

gold.

whether

result of

my

it,

by

this just

knows there

real character of objects that

and by observing the

test

were

by unaided observation. Even an experi-

it is

enced jeweler would not give you an opinion about

they are

it

are

look as

if

ring to the appropriate

the jeweler, as an expert

original statement about the ring

is

true or false.

So jects

far

we have considered

—statements about

statements about particular ob-

the height of a certain building, about

the speed of a certain automobile, about the metal of a certain ring.

The

tion.

Sometimes,

truth of such statements can be checked by observa-

we can be

servation of others as well,

or the ob-

relatively sure

about the

under consideration; sometimes, we are

truth of the statement left

own

of observation, our

as a result

unsure.

Observation seldom gives us the certainty we have about the truth of statements that are self-evidently true or that can be es-

tablished as true by valid reasoning.

I

say "seldom" rather than

''never" because, according to Aristotle,

about observable objects are

some simple statements some general

as evidently true as

statements are self-evidently true. That there in

my

typewriter as

evident to me.

me am as

I

am

I

of the truth of

fact.

certain of

ment about wholes and

We

are

alizations

left

a piece of paper is

immediately

do not need the confirmation of other witnesses

to assure I

is

writing this sentence

its

my

statement about this observable

truth as

I

am

of the truth of the state-

parts.

with a large class of statements that

from experience, such statements

we

as "All

call

gener-

swans are

Man white" or "All Eskimos are short." Since

it

the

Knower

:

159

impossible for us

is

or anyone else to observe the color oi all swans, or the height of

Eskimos, observation by

all

itself

cannot establish the truth of

these generalizations.

A number

may persuade us that the The larger the number of

of observations

izations are probably true. tions, the

more we may be persuaded. Increasing

can only increase the probability.

It

can never

general-

observa-

number

their

result in certainty

that the generalizations are true.

However, we can be certain that even

if

we can never be

certain that

a generalization it

is

true.

I

is

false,

pointed out in

preceding chapter that the statement ''Some swans are

the

black" or even the statement 'This swan that

I

am

observing

is

black" contradicts the statement "All swans are white." Contradictory statements cannot both be true.

vation that this one swan

is

swans are white. In the

all

black

falsifies

light of that

with certitude that the generalization Aristotle's tell

whether

saying that

The

is

a statement

is

are able to

tion provides us with

obser-

the generalization that I

know

false.

how we

true or false can be

do so by appealing

the one hand, and to reason,

my

one observation,

answer to the question about

we

truth of

are able to

summarized by

to experience,

on

on the other hand. Sense percep-

one way of checking the truth or

falsity

of

recommends that we always consider the opinions of others before making up our own minds the opinions held by most men, or by the statements in question. In addition, Aristotle

—

few

who

are experts, or by the wise.

19 f'l

Beyond

a

Reasonable Doubt

In our courts two standards are set for the verdict to be rendered

by a

jury.

On

questions of fact that the court submits to the

jury, the jury

is

sometimes required

to give

an answer that

holds beyond a reasonable doubt; and sometimes if

the jury's answer

is

one that

it

thinks

is

it

is

it

sufficient

supported by a prepon-

derance of the evidence. Aristotle

made

a

somewhat

similar distinction between two

which we can answer questions of

ways

in

jury's

answer that

is

beyond

can answer a question by knowledge.

When

Aristotle calls

all

a reasonable doubt,

sorts.

Like the

we sometimes

a statement that has the status of

our answers do not consist of knowledge,

them opinions. Opinions approach knowledge

to

the extent that they have the weight of the evidence on their side.

At the very opposite end of the scale are those opinions

that are totally

unsupported by evidence.

Aristotle's distinction

between knowledge and opinion

is

a

Man one

very sharp

We

consists of necessary truths.

beyond

ample, we cannot doubt that a If

something

its

parts.

parts.

its

than any of

Such

161

is

whole

is

whole,

it

finite

a finite

impossible for

It is

affirm such truths with

reasonable doubt. For ex-

all

it

greater than any

must be

greater

not to be.

one example of what

self-evident truths constitute

means by knowledge. The other example

totle

:

sharp, perhaps, for us to accept without

certitude because they are

of

Knower

For him, when we have knowledge, what we

quahfication.

know

—too

the

Aris-

consists of con-

clusions that can be validly demonstrated by premises that are

When we

self-evidently true.

know

only

what they sert

is

that assert

true,

Here, too,

what they true.

is

we know we are in

Aristotle in his

is

Knowing

true, but

the

what they

that

we not we also know why reasons why what they as-

affirm such conclusions,

assert

assert

cannot be otherwise.

possession of necessary truths.

day thought that mathematics, especially ge-

ometry, exemplified knowledge of this high quality. that

is

The view

held of mathematics in our day does not agree with Aris-

totle's.

Nevertheless mathematics

comes nearer than any other

meant by knowledge. of geometry, we can understand one

science to exemplifying what Aristotle

Considering the truths

other distinction that Aristotle

made between knowledge and

opinion. There are two ways, he says, in which one can affirm the conclusion of a geometrical demonstration.

who

The

teacher

understands the demonstration affirms the conclusion in

the light of the premises that prove In contrast, the student stration

but

teacher said truth itself

someone

is

else

who it

is

who

affirms

it.

He

does not understand the

the

conclusion

to

only

true does not have knowledge.

a necessary truth, to affirm is

or she has knowledge.

hold

knowledge. For most of

it

as a matter of

it

demon-

because

Even

if

the

the

on the authority of

opinion rather than

us, the scientific truths

with which

as

we

i62

Aristotle for

:

Everybody

are acquainted are opinions tists,

we

not knowledge that

We may

find this

we hold on

the authority of scien-

ourselves possess.

way of distinguishing between knowledge

and opinion more useful

as well as

more

Only

acceptable.

a

very few statements are necessary truths for us because they are

and

self-evidently true,

their opposites are impossible. All other

may

statements express opinions that

Though

would

Aristotle

call

may

or

true.

statements of this sort state-

all

ments of opinion rather than of knowledge,

we can

not be

let

divide opinions into two groups, one of

us see whether

which has some

resemblance to what Aristotle meant by knowledge.

The

we hold may either be supported by reasons and by observations, or they may be held by us without such opinions

support. For example,

one

me

else told

it

reason for thinking

my it

part.

The

any the

cerned,

I

thinking

it

was it

if

hold an opinion only because some-

true,

and

I

myself do not have any other

be true, then that

to

statement

less a

I

may

Each of us we hold to be

a

mere opinion on

be true. That does not make

in fact

mere opinion. So

far as affirming

me

have no grounds that provide to

is

it

con-

is

with reasons for

be true apart from the authority of someone

else.

—

number of personal prejudices things we want to believe them. We grounds for believing them. Instead, we are

also has a

true simply because

have no rational

emotionally attached to them. For example, persons often believe that their

may is

may

or

country

not be true.

is

It

the best country in the world. That

may even

true by citing evidence of

one

sort or

reasons for thinking so. But persons

not

cite

The

be possible to argue that

who

evidence or give reasons. They

statements to which one

is

it

another or by giving

believe this usually

just

wish

to believe

do it.

emotionally attached by such

wishful thinking are mere opinions. Other persons

may

be emo-

Man

the

tionally attached to opinions that are opposite.

one opinion nor the other, which may be

Knower

Since neither

very opposite,

its

supported by reasons or evidence, one opinion of this sort

good

16^

:

is

is

as

as another.

In the case of or her

tached.

none

own

mere opinions, everyone

—those

entitled to prefer his

which the individual

to

emotionally

is

About such opinions there can be no argument,

that

is

rational.

Opinions of this

personal taste in food or drink.

than pineapple juice, and

You

orange juice.

There

is

is

no point

I

at least

sort are like expressions of

You may like orange juice better may prefer pineapple juice to and

are entitled to your likes,

in

at-

our arguing about which

is

I

to

mine.

better.

become arguable only when the opinions about which we differ are not mere opinions in the sense just indicated only when they are not simply personal prejudices, expressions of taste, or things that we wish to believe. Differences of opinion

—

For example,

I

may have good

reasons for thinking that har-

nessing the energy of the sun will provide us with sufficient

when we run out may have good reasons

energy

solve the problem. statistics

of

fossil fuels

such

as coal

for thinking that solar

Each of

us, in addition,

and

oil.

You

energy will not

may be

able to cite

provided by careful studies of energy sources. Neither

may be able to persuade the other. Nevertheless, opinions we hold and about which we differ and argue are of us

mere opinions on our

the

not

part.

Let us suppose that neither of us has studied the energy prob-

lem

ourselves.

others

on the

We

have simply read what has been said by

The

we hold

are based

others. Let us further suppose that

you have

subject.

on the authority of

most of the authorities

opposite opinions

in this field

authorities that can be appealed to,

your

side.

on your

side; or that

of the

you have the most expert on

Aristode would say that you have the stronger case.

—

164

:

Aristotle for

Everybody

In his view, the opinion that

most of those who are the experts,

We

held either by most men, or by

is

experts, or by the best-quahfied

among

hkely to turn out to be the better opinion to hold.

is

approach nearer to what Aristotle meant by knowledge,

and we move further away from mere opinion, when the opinions held are based

on

Those opinions

ing.

scientific

evidence and scientific reason-

that are supported by a

preponderance of

the evidence and by the soundest reasoning are regarded by entists in It

is

sci-

our day as knowledge.

not knowledge in Aristotle's sense of the term because

what we claim

to

know may

opinions when,

opposite

more evidence

is

turn out not to be the better of two

by further

scientific

found on the opposite

side; or

investigation,

when, by

fur-

ther scientific thought, better reasons are found for holding the

opposite opinion.

No

scientific

finally or ultimately true

—

^true

conclusion

beyond the

tion or rejection by further investigation

known by

is

possibility

us to be

of correc-

and further thought

about the matter.

The

opposite of any opinion that

we hold

as

scientific

a

conclusion always remains possible because no scientific conclusion

of

is

itself a

scientific

necessary truth. Nevertheless, a large

derance of the evidence and by unchallenged reasons centuries.

number

conclusions have been supported by a prepon-

The

fact that

new

discoveries

may

shift

for

many

the scales

against these conclusions or the fact that the reasons in favor of

them may be

seriously challenged by

new

thinking about the

subject does not prevent us from regarding such conclusions as well-established knowledge

Are

for the time being.

scientific conclusions,

supported by a preponderance of

the evidence and by the best reasoning that time, the only opinions

we

is

available at the

are entitled to regard as knowledge?

No. Philosophical conclusions may

also be opinions that

we

are

Man entitled to regard as

the

Knower

How

them

165

knowledge because they are supported by

sound reasoning and by the weight of the evidence that favor of

:

is

in

rather than their opposites.

do the conclusions of philosophical thought

the conclusions of scientific research?

The answer

differ

from

in the

lies

two words "thought" and "research." Scientific conclusions are based on the investigations undertaken by laboratories or not.

The

conclusions never by

scientists,

whether

in

thinking that scientists do to reach these

itself suffices.

It

is

always thinking about

the observations or findings of carefully planned and carefully

executed research or investigation. In contrast, philosophical thought reaches conclusions based

common

on

experience, the kind of experience that

have every day of our

lives

without doing any research

carefully carrying out carefully

phers do no research.

of us

all

—without

planned investigations. Philoso-

They do not

devise experiments or carry

out investigations. Philosophical thought about the

common-sense opinions

common

that

experience begins with

most persons hold.

It

improves

upon such common-sense opinions by being more reflective and analytical than most persons are. In my own view of the matter, I

it

reaches

have called

its

best

Aristotle's

and most-refined conclusions

uncommon common

in

what

sense.

Scientific or philosophical conclusions are usually general-

izations

from experience

—

either the special experience that re-

sults

from research or investigation or the

that

all

common

experience

of us have without investigation or research. As

noted in an earlier chapter, any generalization can be

by a single negative observation. This sophical as

it

is

is

it

as true of a philo-

of a scientific generalization.

eralization goes without being falsified, the to regard

as established

we

falsified

The

more

longer a gen-

entitled

we

are

knowledge even though we can never

1

66

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

regard

it

as finally or ultimately true

—beyond the

possibility

of

correction or rejection.

Because philosophical conclusions are based on rather than

by the

on

results

common

special experience, because they are not affected

of investigation or research, conclusions of the

kind that Aristotle reached more than two thousand years ago

can

still

claim the status of philosophical knowledge in our day.

our

common

Most of the

scientific

Nothing

in

experience since his time has

falsified

them. conclusions that were currently ac-

cepted in Aristotle's day have been rejected or corrected since then.

They have

either

research, or they have

been

falsified

by the discoveries of

been corrected and improved by

later

better

thinking as well as by better observations and more thorough investigations.

Not

all

opinions that can be regarded as established knowl-

edge take the form of

scientific or philosophical generalizations

from experience. Historical investigation or research reaches

—the

conclusions about particular matters of fact

date

when

some event took place, the steps by which some individual became a ruler, the circumstances that led to the outbreak of a war, and so forth.

Here, as in the case of science, research amasses evidence

about which historians think and,

in the light of their thinking,

advance conclusions that they regard

as

supported by a prepon-

derance of the evidence and by good reasons.

When

they are

reached in this way, historical conclusions can be regarded as established knowledge even though further research

may change

our view of the matter.

We now

see that there are at least five different kinds of

knowledge, only one of which

is

knowledge

in the strict sense

Man that Aristotle attaches to that word.

we have when we understand other four kinds are ical

thought

(i)

(2)

is

Knower

:

i6j

the knowledge

truths that are self-evident.

The

the well-founded opinions of mathemat-

—the conclusions

demonstrate;

That one

the

that

mathematicians are able

to

the well-established generalizations of scientific

research or investigation; (3) the philosophical opinions that are

based on

mon

common

experience and on the refinement of com-

sense by philosophical reflection; and (4) the opinions

about particular

facts that historians are able to

support by his-

torical research.

All four are opinions in the sense that they are never so firmly

established by reasons

and evidence

or corrected by further thought or are also

knowledge

that they

new

in the sense that at a given

the weight of the evidence in their favor

supports

cannot be

observations. Yet

them remains unchallenged.

falsified all

four

time they have

and the reasoning that

PART T DIFFICULT

PHILOSOPHICAL

QUESTIONS

20

Infinity

Difficult philosophical questions are questions that

ble to answer in the light of

of

common

sense.

common

it is

impossi-

experience and by the use

To answer them requires sustained reflection

and reasoning.

How

do such questions

from the refinements of

arise?

For Aristotle they arose in part

common

sophical thought developed.

sense that his

own

philo-

In part, they were questions he

asked in response to the views of others that were current in his day.

Among Greek

the students of nature

physicists,

who

preceded him were two

Leucippus and Democritus, who

first

proposed

the theory of atoms. According to their theory, everything in the

world of nature ter,

is

composed of

— space

separated by a void

tiny, invisible particles of totally

mat-

devoid of matter. They

called these particles atoms to indicate that these units of matter

were not merely very small, but absolutely small.

Nothing

172

Everybody

Aristotle for

;

atom

smaller, in their view, can exist, for each

unit of matter.

It

cannot be cut up into smaller

Atoms, according only in

And

size,

They

differ

units.

from one another

are constantly in motion.

they are infinite in number.

Confronted with In the

it.

Democritus,

to

shape, and weight.

an indivisible

is

an atom

If

void or empty space inside

is

in

which case

empty space, the matter

it

is

a solid unit of matter with

then, he argued,

it,

cuttable or indivisible. Either an it,

to

place, he challenged the central notion in the

first

theory of atomism.

inside

two objections

this theory, Aristotle raised

is

it

no

cannot be un-

atom has some empty space

not a unit of matter; or, lacking

continuous, in which case

it is

divis-

ible.

The

reasoning here can be illustrated by taking something

larger than I

break

of

it

wood

an atom.

am

I

holding in

into two smaller pieces of

is

now

my hand

No

a separate unit of matter.

piece of wood, they can

of the two pieces of

no longer be broken

wood can be

one matchstick.

wood. Each of these pieces longer being one

into two. But each

further divided,

and so on

without end.

Whatever

is

Anything that uous.

If

it

or more.

one

were not,

By

— it

is

infinitely divisible.

a single unit of matter

—must be contin-

would not be one unit of matter, but two Aristotle thought he showed that

this reasoning,

there could be ter,

continuous, Aristode held, is

no atoms. There may be very small

but however small these particles

divided into smaller particles,

if

each

is

may

be,

units of mat-

they can be

a unit of matter

—one

and continuous. In the second place, Aristotle objected to the view that there are

an

be very

infinite

number

of atoms in the world.

large, so large that

a counter

might use

to

it

do

The number may

cannot be counted in any time that so.

But

it

cannot be an

infinite

Difficult Philosophical Questions

number because,

These two objections of his day

may

an

Aristotle maintained,

number

infinite

moment

things cannot actually coexist at any

173

:

of

of time.

that Aristotle raised against the atomists

appear

at first

to

be inconsistent.

On

the one

hand, Aristotle appears to be saying that any continuous unit of

On

matter must be infinitely divisible.

the other hand, he ap-

number

pears to be saying that there cannot be an infinite units in existence at

any one time.

existence of an infinity

The apparent

and

contradiction

is

an

We

earlier chapter of this

the distinction between the potential

what can be (but

is

not)

and what

Aristotle thinks that there tial,

One

neither actual.

is

it?

resolved by a distinction that

characteristic of Aristotle's thought.

distinction in

he not both affirming the

Is

denying

also

of

have come upon

book

(see chapter 7).

and the actual

is

this It is

—betweep

is.

can be two

infinities

—both poten-

the potential infinite of addition.

The other is the potential infinite of division. The potential infinite of addition is exemplified in the infinity of whole numbers. There is no whole number that is the last number in the series of whole numbers from one, two, three, four, and so on. Given any number in that series, however large it may be, there is a next one that is larger. It is possible to go on adding number after number without end. But it is only possible,

to

you cannot actually carry out

do so would take an Aristotle, as

we

infinity of time.

world

—

that

it

infinite

time

this process of addition, for

—time without end.

shall see in the next chapter, did not

On

deny the

the contrary, he affirmed the eternity of the

has no beginning or end. But an infinite time

does not exist at any one

whole numbers,

it is

moment. Like

the infinite series of

only a potential, not an actual, infinite.

So, too, the infinity of division

is

a potential, not

an actual.

— 174

•

Everybody

Aristotle for

infinite.

Just as

you can go on adding number

number

after

without end, so you can go on dividing anything that

contin-

is

uous without end. The number of fractions between the whole

numbers two and three is numbers is infinite. Both actual.

At

They do not

this

be

if

moment

Aristotle

number of atoms

of time.

maintained, there

infinity of coexisting things, as there

the atomists were correct in their view.

be remembered, that

totle

moment,

number of whole

however, are potential, not

actually exist at any

or any oth^r

cannot be an actual

infinite, just as the infinities,

at this very

coexist.

It

is

They

moment an

that

held,

would it

must

actually infinite

and that alone which

Aris-

denied.

His reasoning on this score ran as follows. Either the of actually coexisting things indefinite.

is

definite or indefinite. If

number it is

But nothing can be both actual and

infi-

indefi-

nite,

it is

nite.

Therefore, there cannot be an actual infinity of any sort

an actually

infinite

infinite world,

an actually

ally existing units

The

number of

coexisting atoms,

infinite space that

is

an actually

filled

with actu-

of matter.

only infinities that there can be, according to Aristotle,

are the potential infinities that are involved in the endless processes of addition or division. Since

one moment of time suc-

ceeds another or precedes another, and since two

time do not actually coexist, time can be

infinite.

moments of

21

Eternity

Time can be

infinite, Aristotle

of a series of

moments

thought, because

it

is

made up

or instants that precede or succeed

another and do not actually coexist. ceases to exist as the next

moment

One moment

one

of time

of time comes into existence.

Since that process can go on endlessly, there can be an infinite

number of moments or instants of time. Time can be infinite, but is it? If it is, then the world that now exists has no end. Even if it had a beginning, it can go on without end, for there

is

no end

to time.

There can always be

another moment. Aristotle less,

went

further.

He

not only thought that time

is

end-

but he also thought that the world had no beginning as

well as

no end.

If

the world had neither beginning nor end,

no moment of

then time

is

infinite in

time that

is

not preceded by an earlier moment. There

moment

of time that

is

both directions. There

is

not succeeded by a later

moment.

is

no

— ij6

:

Aristotle for

Why

Everybody

did Aristotle think the world

word "eternal"

express

to

his

He

eternal?

is

used the

understanding that the world

has neither beginning nor end. Sometimes the word "eternal"

used to signify timelessness, nal. Aristotle

when

is

it

God

said that

is

eter-

used the word "eternal" in that sense, too. But, in

his view, the eternity of the

of

as

is

God quite another. To understand this

world

distinction

one thing, and the

is

between the two

eternity

eternities

the eternity of timelessness and the eternity of time without

beginning or end of time

—we

must consider

understanding

Aristotle's

itself.

Time, he said, is the measure of motion or change. Another way of expressing this thought is to say that time is the dimension in which motion or change occurs, just as space is the which material things

dimension

in

cupy or

space.

fill

ball that rolls

Changing things endure

from one

is

in time.

The

billiard

side of the table to the other does so in a

period of time. That motion takes time.

motion

Existing things oc-

exist.

The

duration of the

measured by the number of moments of time

that

it

took for the billiard ball to get from here to there. It

follows, Aristotle thought, that time has neither beginning

nor end

why

if

motion or change has neither beginning nor end. But

did he think that motion or change cannot begin and can-

not end? That

The

answer,

is

if

a very difficult question, indeed.

there

is

an answer,

lies in

Aristode's notion of

cause and effect and in his notion of God. Anything that happens, Aristotle said,

thing must cause

must self.

itself It

it

must have to

a cause. If a

cue that struck

it.

to move move itTo set the

had

to

move. But

move. That which causes

move. For example, the

was moved by the

billiard

billiard ball in

motion, the

something

had

else

to

body moves, some-

move

billiard it.

a

body

billiard ball did not

And

cue

itself

so on.

Difficult Philosophical Questions

What mover

amounts

this

in the series of

to

a denial

is

existence

—of

come

first

did not first

tion of the

world.

that, the neces-

mover

moving and moved. The the of motion

—

efficient cause

first

we

moving.

on God, we

shall return to Aristotle's

concep-

I

need only point out

God, unlike the God of the

Bible, did not create

first

that Aristotle's

Aristotle, as

in his view, the first

in a series of things

that started things

In chapter 23

—more than

mover. But,

first

mover was not the

mover

the

a

ij-j

Aristotle's part of a first

mo\ers and things moved.

shall see, did affirm the existence sar\'

on

:

mover. For the present,

Aristotle

would ha\e denied the statement with

which the Bible opens: "In the beginning God created the

He would

heavens and the earth."

saw no reason whatsoever

have denied

for thinking that the

because he

it

world ever had a

beginning. If

there

is

no reason

for thinking that the

ever had a beginning, there that the world in

ual things of

motion

is

equally

will ever

which the world

is

come

world in motion

no reason to

composed come

and pass away. There cannot be an

for thinking

an end. The individ-

infinite

into existence

number

of individ-

any one time. But there can be an inficoming into being and passing away in an

ual things coexisting at nite

number

of things

infinite time, or

Coming into we have seen, one t\'pe of change. movement from one place to another, it

time without beginning or end.

being and passing away Like local motion, or

never started and

The

it

is,

as

never ends.

t\pe of motion that Aristotle had most in

talked about the eternity of

bodies on earth nor any other terrestrial change. at

the heavens

and

at the

the planets, and the

movement

stars.

mind when he

motion was not the movement of

He

there of the sun

looked up

and moon,

These motions, he thought, most

clearly exemplified the eternity of

motion and, with

it,

the eter-

ij8

:

Aristotle for

Everybody

nity of the world.

God

is

As we

shall see in chapter 23, the eternity of

used by Aristotle to explain the eternity of the world.

These two

eternities are as different as timelessness

from everlasting time.

is

different

22

The

Immateriality of

The

Mind

three philosophical questions with

which we

in this chapter are not all equally difficult.

question

difficult

is

question whether the existence of the

an element of immateriality into Finally,

first

and

least

whether the material things of the physical

world are also immaterial in some respect.

rial.

The

are concerned

and most

difficult

More

world that

a

of

all,

difficult

human mind is

is

is

the

introduces

otherwise mate-

the question whether

the universe includes a being or beings wholly immaterial.

The

reader

who remembers what was

have some clue question.

We

to the

answer that Aristotle gave

saw there that

all

rials that

human

art.

to the first

the changing things of physical

nature are composed of matter and form.

terms of works of

said in chapter 8 will

The

artist

We

understood

this in

or craftsman takes mate-

can be formed in one way or another and produces a

—

work of

art

them

form they did not originally have. The wood that be-

a

by transforming the materials he works on

giving

i8o

Aristotle for

:

comes form

Everybody

a chair as a

—the

form of chaimess

maker transformed It is

human

of

result

—

that

it

The

did not have before the

chairs that

men

we understood that form is many different

produce have

shapes, but whatever shape they have, they are

the form,

a

it.

important to remember that

not shape.

on

productivity takes

not the shape,

makes

that

all chairs.

It

is

chairs of different

all

shapes the same kind of thing. That form was an idea in the

mind of the maker before it became the form by which he transformed the wood into a chair. Having that idea, the maker understood the kind of material thing he wished to make. As the idea in the

mind

of the maker

is

an understanding of the kind of

thing to be made, so the form in the materials transformed by the maker

what makes

is

Whether they than

artificial things, all

not material.

it

the kind of thing that

are products of

Form

is

human

made.

is

art or natural rather

material things have an aspect that

not matter; matter

is

is

not form. Things

composed of form and matter have an immaterial

as well as a

material aspect.

As we have seen, we may be able

—

without form, but pure matter not

The forms

exist.

Lacking

ities.

all

and what has no Is it

to think

that matter can take actualize

form, matter by

about matter

unformed matter

itself

—can-

its

potential-

can have no

actuality;

actuality does not exist.

equally true to say that the forms that matter takes do not

exist apart

tuality

totally

—

from the matter

to

which they

give

some kind of acThe

the actuality of a chair or the actuality of a tree?

forms that are the immaterial aspect of material things are material

forms

—forms

that have their existence in matter.

the only existence they have?

Can

But

is

that

they also exist apart from the

matter of things that are composed of matter and form? Aristotle's

answer

to that question

is

affirmative.

Once more

— Difficult Philosophical Questions

necessary

is

it

remember something

to

chapter. In chapter 16, totle,

in

an

earlier

understands the kind of thing that a

by having an idea of

is

in

pointed out that, according to Aris-

I

human mind

the

chair or a tree

said

181

:

Having an idea

it.

consists

having in the mind the form of the thing without having the

matter of

The

also.

it

made

point just

activity as

its

relates to the difference

knower and mind

As producer, the mind has

in

its

between mind

a productive idea that

transform raw materials into chairs and tables.

and

into those raw materials table.

As

of the physical world. rial

things

gets

It

It

tree or a horse

By doing

so,

uses to ideas

its

them

the form of a chair or a

from the natural things

them by

taking the forms of mate-

away from the matter of those composite

trees or horses.

it

puts

gets ideas

gives

knower, the mind

a

in

activity as producer.

it

objects

understands the kind of thmg a

is.

remember from chapter 16 is the difference between knowing and eating. When we eat (take food into our system and digest it), we take both the matter and the form of Another point

to

the composite thing that gives us nourishment

—an apple

or a

potato.

As

Aristotle

eat gives us

saw

its

why the apple or potato that we that when we digest and assimilate

the reason

nourishment

we transform

it,

it,

is

matter.

Nourishment involves the assimilation of the food we similation occurs

when

a potato loses that foFjn

bone, and blood. That

eat.

As-

matter that had the form of an apple or

and

is

takes

on the form of human

why we must

take into our

own

flesh,

bodies

both the matter and the form of the material things from which

we

seek nourishment. If

to

knowing were exactly

like eating,

we would never be

understand the kind of thing an apple or a potato

is.

To

able

un-

i82

Everybody

Aristotle for

:

we must

take

away from the matter

that

derstand the kind of thing an apple or a potato the forms of those composite things

is,

they form.

we must

In assimilating edible things,

separate the matter

from the form and replace the form the matter had by the form of our

own

bodies.

we must

In understanding knowable things,

separate the form

from the matter and keep the form separate from matter. Only as separate

from matter does the form become an idea

in

our

minds, an idea by which we understand the kind of thing an apple or a potato

Why?

This

is

is.

the difficult question that remains to be an-

swered. Aristotle's answer turns on a distinction between the

kind of thing a potato or an apple

is

in general,

and particular

potatoes or apples, each a unique thing. This particular apple that

I

my hand

have in

form, which makes ter that

makes

it

it

is

the unique thing

an apple,

this apple,

is

The

is

because the

not that one over there on the table.

That one over there has the same form matter.

it

united with this unit of mat-

in a different unit of

different units of matter that enter into the

position of two individual apples

is

what makes them

com-

different

individuals. The form that each of them has is what makes them both apples the same kind of fruit. When we have the idea that enables us to understand the

—

kind of thing an apple eral,

is,

we

are understanding apples in gen-

not this or that individual apple. In Aristotle's view,

can perceive through our senses the individuality of apple, but

understand

we cannot, through its

individuality.

the ideas

Only kinds

we have

in

we

this or that

our minds,

in general are

under-

standable, not individuals.

That eral, ter

is

why

the mind, in

its

understanding of kinds in gen-

must separate the forms of material things from

and keep those forms separate

as the ideas

their

by which

mat-

we un-

Difficult Philosophical Questions

derstand.

forms

—

That

also

is

why

mind

Aristotle called the

183

:

the form of

the place where the forms of material things can exist

apart from their matter.

We

now

have

reached Aristotle's answer to the second ques-

beginning of

tion stated at the

mind introduce an element of immateriality otherwise material? Yes, Aristotle said, If

it

into a world that

beings,

would not

it

in the

makeup

the

mind

separate from their matter,

is

as distinct

To keep

And

did not keep or hold the forms of material things

which we understand kinds tato

of

give us the ability to understand

material things by separating their forms from their matter. if

is

does.

mind were not an immaterial element

the

human

Does the human

this chapter.

we would in general

not have the ideas by

—

the kind of thing a po-

from the kind of thing an apple

is.

or hold forms separate from matter, the

mind

itself

must be immaterial.

If

or held in matter,

and then they would no longer be ideas

it

were material, the forms would be kept

by which we understand kinds in general.

There

is

another way of saying the same thing that

us to understand Aristotle's

perceiving are one

mode

argument

a

little

better.

When we

of knowing.

material elements in our

Understanding

is

we know

derstanding, vidual thing

is.

Sensing and

knowing

in-

which

are

brains,

makeup.

a different

and perceiving, we know

and our

help

sense and per-

ceive individual things (this or that apple), such volves the action of our sense organs

may

mode

of knowing. By sensing

this or that individual thing.

By un-

the kind of thing in general that this indi-

Unlike sensing and perceiving, such knowing

does not involve the action of any material organ, not even the brain.

Seeing

is

our brain.

an act of the eve, but understanding It is

an act of our mind

is

not an act of

—an immaterial element

in

184

:

Aristotle for

Everybody

our makeup that

may

be related

to,

but

is

distinct from, the

brain as a material organ.

To sum up what we have totle,

learned so

far:

According

to Aris-

the forms of material things in the physical world are im-

material aspects of them.

which we

In addition, the material world, of

are a part, includes

we have minds

an immaterial element because

as well as brains,

minds

that are distinct

from

brains.

These ficult

are Aristotle's answers to the

first

philosophical questions with which

and most

difficult

—

material being

question

will

—about the

two of the three

we began. The

dif-

third

existence of a totally im-

be answered in the following chapter.

23

God

Aristotle's

view of the universe as eternal

dergoing change

He

change.

—

leads

him

—

to question the

attributes all the

as everlastingly

changes constantly occurring on

earth to the motion of the heavenly bodies.

them It

everlastingly in

If

cause of

its

it

effect to

cause

—

else in

A

it,

too,

is

itself in

would need

motion or changing

a cause of

its

in

motion, a

changing. Given infinite time, one might go back

from

a

were,

But what keeps

motion?

cannot be something that

any way.

un-

cause of everlasting

cause in an infinite series and never reach a

mover

in

motion that

is

not

itself

first

moved by something

motion.

prime mover that moves everything that

out moving and without being

is

in

motion with-

moved must cause motion by The bat that hits the ball and propels it is the efficient or active cause of the ball's motion. The candy in the window that entices me into the store to

being attractive rather than propulsive.

1

86

:

buy and self

Everybody

Aristotle for

eat

cause of

causes

it

moving,

my

it

my

motion

me.

attracts

It

entering the store

way. Without

in a different

it-

not the efficient but the final

is

—

why

the reason

I

move

in that

direction.

To move tion, the

everything else without

prime mover,

itself

Aristotle argues,

the gravitational attraction that the earth exerts that

fall

moon

to

upon the

come

tides.

them and adopt them

he says that a heavy body that

he

to rest there,

That motion tracted

is

only

in this

on

intelligences

motives for action.

as

wishes to

to earth

falls

speaking metaphorically, not

is

like

literally.

the motion of the person that

by the candy in the window to enter the

Thinking

mind

upon the bodies

In his view, attractive or final causes operate that can respond to

When

in

at-

surface, or the gravitational attraction that the

its

exerts

an

as

he did not have

tractive or final cause. In thinking this,

mo-

being moved or in

must function

way, Aristotle found

it

at-

is

store.

necessary to

endow mo-

the heavenly bodies with intelligences that function as their tors.

As the engine of an automobile

telligence

is

is

motor, so an

its

in-

the motor that keeps a star in motion. But unlike

the automobile engine, which must celestial intelligences function as

itself

be

set in

motion, the

motors through being attracted

by the prime mover of the universe.

To

be an

unmoved and

eternal

ingly in motion, the prime

mover of

a universe everlast-

mover must be immutable. But must

be immutable, in

Aristotle's view,

Anything that

material has potentialities:

is

change or motion. actually

We

all

that

it

have seen,

It

is

some

to

also be immaterial.

also imperfect, for at

it

subject to

is

any time

it

is

not

can be. in earlier chapters, that that

completely potential cannot tual in

it

exist.

respects, while

Nothing

which

is

exists that

being potential

purely or is

not ac-

in other respects.

Difficult Philosophical Questions

The

reverse,

however,

is

:

i8y

not true. Pure actuahty (form without

though pure potentiahty (matter without form)

matter) can exist,

cannot.

It is

by such reasoning that Aristotle came to the conclusion

that the prime

mover

is

pure actuality

—

a being totally devoid of

matter or potentiality. In addition, this immaterial being perfect being, a being lacking

This perfect being, which

to attain.

universe, Aristotle called

God,

no perfection

for Aristotle,

The

universe.

is

is

is

a

that remains for

it

the prime

mover of the

God. not the only immaterial being in the

intelligences that keep the stars in their eternal

rounds through being attracted by the perfection of

God

are also

immaterial. But though they, too, are immaterial in Aristotle's

them

theory, he did not regard

Only God It is

as perfect or

not impossible to explain the potentiality that

attributed to the stellar intelligences

actualities.

pure actualities.

that.

difficult if

must be

ality

is

Something

does not

fit

To modern

that

is

ears, Aristotle's

they are not pure

both immaterial and has potenti-

easily into Aristotle's

verse everlastingly in

if

scheme of

things.

account of what keeps the uni-

motion sounds mythical. Yet

ing to follow the reasoning that led

him

it is

interest-

to affirm the existence

of the immaterial and perfect being that he called God. That

reasoning provided a model for later thinkers in their efforts to

—

God not Aristotle's God, but the God of Genesis, the God who created the world out of nothing. The conception of God as Prime Mover and the conception of God as Creator are alike in three respects: the immateriality,

prove the existence of

the immutability, Aristotle's

and the perfection of the Divine Being. But

Prime Mover only serves

the universe

and

its

to

account

everlasting motion.

It

for the eternity of

was the need

to ex-

i88

:

Everybody

Aristotle for

which

plain that

led Aristotle to develop his theory of the

of the heavenly bodies and his concept of the Prime

motion

Mover

as

the final cause of their movements. Aristotle did not think

it

necessary to explain the existence of

the universe. Being eternal, so, in his view,

—

into being

it

never

it

came

into existence,

and

did not need an efficient cause that brought

it

human maker who human being However, the human creator

a cause that operated like a

We

produces a work of art.

who makes something

ordinarily speak of the

as creative.

He

always has the materials of nature to work on.

does not

make something out of nothing. He is, therefore, not creative way that God is thought to be creative. The conception of God as Creator arose from the need

in

the

explain the existence of the universe, as the conception of as

Prime Mover arose

in

Aristotle's

explain the eternity of the universe and is

would have

West had which

It

totle

the need to

everlasting motion.

arisen in the

minds of

God

reads, "In the beginning is

God

created the heavens and the

—Judaism,

West

Christianity,

would be both natural and reasonable

would have accepted or

rejected

to ask

what

is

and Islam.

whether Aris-

asserted by that

sentence. Since he thought the universe to be eternal,

not have denied that the universe had a

who

would he not

created

If to

Cre-

later thinkers in the

regarded as divinely revealed truth by the three

religions of the

ing that,

as

It

not been for the opening sentence of Genesis,

it

earth." This

major

its

determine whether the conception of

difficult to

ator

mind from

to

God

also

would he

beginning? And, deny-

have rejected the notion of a

God

it?

create

is

to

cause something that does not exist to

into existence (comparable to

producing a work of

art),

what the

human

artist

come

does in

then a world that has no beginning

Difficult Philosophical Questions

:

i8g

does not need a creator. But even a world that has no beginning

may need

a cause for

continued existence

its

Something

not necessary. Aristotle's view,

world does not

is

that does

if its

not necessarily

something that may or may not

exist necessarily,

may

then, keeps a world that

it

existence

may

cease to

is

exist,

in

If

the

exist.

exist.

What,

cease to exist everlastingly in exis-

tence? Aristotle did not himself raise or face that question. If

he had,

he might have reasoned his way to the conclusion that a cause

was needed

to

keep the universe everlastingly in existence,

as he did reason his

needed shift in

to

way

to the

conclusion that a

keep the universe everlastingly in motion. By a

the meaning of the word

''creator," the

reached might have led to the conception of

just

cause was slight

conclusion so

God

as Creator,

not just as Prime Mover. In

one sense of the word,

does not exist to

word

(a

more

to

cause something that

into existence. In another sense of the

which may or may not

into existence.

It

is

to cause the ex-

without regard to

exist,

in the latter,

is

more

its

subtle sense of

God

both as

Aristotelian theories described in this chapter

and the

the word

that Aristotle

Prime Mover and

The

is

subtle sense, perhaps), to create

istence of that

coming

come

to create

theory that

I

might have conceived

as Greator.

have suggested he might have developed within the

framework of

his philosophy are not

not even refinements of

common

common

sense,

sense.

They

are

though they may be

based on such refinements. In this very important respect, the theories dealt with in this

chapter differ from the philosophical views in earlier chapters of this book.

The

we have considered

theories dealt with in this

chapter might be regarded as Aristotle's theology, not his philos-

igo

Aristotle for

:

ophy.

If

his

Everybody

theology

is

thought, as his philosophy religious beliefs

—

it

is

at least related to

common

have prevailed in West-

more than two thousand

years.

This

fact

is

reason for thinking that Aristotle's conception of God, and

the reasoning that led this

is,

religious beliefs that

ern civilization for

my

not related to our common-sense

book.

him

to

develop

it,

should be included in

EPILOGUE For Those or

Who Have Read

Who Wish to Read Aristotle

In

my

Introduction to this book,

wished to learn

how

last

Aristotle's

thing

I

anyone who

I

did not

recommend

that

was

anyone

would

tell

anyone

is

to do.

much too difficult for beginners. Even in much of what is said remains obscure. The

books are

the best translations, translators use

do not use

to

by reading the books that Aristotle wrote. That

start

the very

recommended

to think philosophically that Aristotle

the teacher to begin with.

should

I

many words

words that we

that are unfamiliar,

in our everyday speech.

Though some

of the Greek

words that Aristode himself used were words that

his fellow

Greeks used, he gave them special meanings. Nevertheless,

some

readers of this

book may wish

those parts of Aristotle's works from which

I

spiration for this exposition of his thoughts.

that

among

It is

the readers of this book there will be

read the works of Aristotle before

—

if

to read

have drawn the

in-

even possible

some who have

not in their entirety,

at

192

Epilogue

:

least certain of his

major

They may wish

treatises.

exposition against the texts on which

I

have reHed

to check

my

main

for the

tenets of Aristotle's thought.

To fied

for

both groups of readers,

wherever possible. unusual ones.

I

I

must confess

I

that

I

have simpli-

have substituted commonplace words

have kept to the main thrust of

Aristotle's

thought on major points of his doctrine and have never allowed myself to be drawn off the main path by the qualifications, the complications,

and the

that

subtleties

Aristotle

himself in-

troduces, often to the perplexity rather than the enlightenment

of his readers.

To

provide those

who have

read or

who

wish to read Aristotle

with a guide to the texts that have served as

my

drawn up

book, which paral-

lels

a

second table of contents

for this

the table of contents that appears at

second table of contents,

I

have changed

its

all

sources,

I

have

beginning. In this the

titles,

substitut-

ing for the originals (which were appropriate to the style and

substance of that

more

pounded

my

rendition of Aristotle's thought) a set of

titles

precisely describes the Aristotelian doctrines being exin the five parts of this

book and each of

its

twenty-

three chapters.

To make

this clear,

precisely descriptive

contents at

I

have placed

titles,

the twenty-three chapters,

ments,

in

pounded

the

the beginning of

Aristotelian

titles

this I

in brackets, after the

that appear in the table of

book. Under the

will

language,

more

title

of each of

sometimes place brief

state-

of the doctrines being ex-

in that chapter. In every case,

I

will

append

a

references to appropriate portions of Aristotle's works, in

list

of

some

cases indicating the special relevance of a particular portion

being cited.

Epilogue

Part

1.

the Philosophical Animal]

Aristotle s Fourfold Classification of Sensible, Material Substances: In-

organic Bodies, Plants, Animals,

In this chapter

we

Men

Games]

[Philosophical

which

are concerned with the criteria by

tinguished between living and nonliving things; within the ing things, between plants and animals; and within the

between brute animals and rational animals,

life,

Metaphysics, Bk.

I,

Ch.

On

I,

Chs.

the Soul, Bk.

1,

5;

Generation of Animals, Bk. Parts of Animals, Bk.

is

this

I,

Bk.

liv-

domain of animal

human

beings.

I,

II,

Chs. 1-3,

Bk.

5, 9;

Ill,

Chs.

3,

12.

1.

Chs. 1-9; Book IV, Chs. 4-6.

Chs. 4-5.

was aware of

also pointed out that Aristotle

scheme of

i.e.,

Aristotle dis-

domain of

1.

History of Animals, Bk. X, Ch.

It

and His

Aristotle s Universe of Discourse: His Categories

I.

Taxonomy [Man

193

:

classification.

The

difficulties in

difficulties arise

applying

because of the

exis-

tence of borderline cases that straddle the lines that divide the living from the nonliving, and plants from animals.

History of Animals, Bk. VIII, Ch.

The

distinction

between

1.

essential

and accidental

differences

is

in-

troduced.

Categories,

Ch.

5.

Metaphysics, Bk. V, Chs. 4,

2.

11;

Bk. IX, Ch. 8.

The Range of Beings: The Ten Categories [The Creat Divide]

In this chapter exist in the ical objects,

way

we

are

concerned with the being of objects that do not

that sensible, material substances exist (e.g.,

fictions,

mathemat-

minds, ideas, immaterial substances, such as the

disembodied intelligences that are the

celestial

motors, and God).

194

•

Epilogue

Metaphysics, Bk.

On

Chs. 5-6; Bk. XII, Ch.

Ill,

the Heavens, Bk.

On. the

The

Soul, Bk.

II,

Chs.

8;

Chs. 4-6.

Ill,

between substance and accident,

distinction

Bk. XIII, Chs. 1-5.

12.

1,

i.e.,

between bodies and

their attributes.

Categories, Chs. 5-7. Physics, Bk.

I,

Ch.

2.

Metaphysics, Bk. VII, Chs. 4-6.

The

foregoing distinction

related to the point that material substances

is

and

are the subjects of change,

their accidents are the respects in

which

they change.

Physics, Bk.

I,

Chs. 6-7; Bk.

Essence or specific nature

II,

On The

11; Bk. VII,

form.

Ch. 16^ VIII, Ch.

6;

Bk. IX,

8.

the Soul, Bk.

II,

Ch.

4.

hierarchy of specific natures or essences.

Metaphysics, Bk. VIII, Ch.

On

3.

in relation to substantial

Metaphysics, Bk. V, Chs. 4,

Ch.

Ch.

the Soul, Bk.

II,

Aristotle's inventory

Ch.

of the various categories under which the accidental

attributes of substance

Categories,

Among

Ch.

3.

3.

fall.

4.

the accidents of substance,

some

are

permanent

or unchanging;

these are the properties that are inseparable from the essential nature of

each kind of material substance.

Topics, Bk. V, Chs. 1-3.

Epilogue

Aristotle's policy with regard to the

On

Ch.

II,

Productive,

3.

Ch.

Interpretation,

Topics, Bk.

195

:

ambiguity of words.

1.

4.

Practical,

and

Theoretic Reason or

Mind

[Man's Three

Dimensions]

summarizes

This chapter

briefly

tual

or thought into thought for the sake of

activity

thought

for the sake of

Aristotle's threefold division of intellec-

moral and

political action,

sake of acquiring knowledge as an end in

making

things,

and thought

for the

itself.

Ethics, Bk. VI, Chs. 2, 4.

On

Part

11

the Soul, Bk.

Ill,

Ch.

7.

Aristotle s Philosophy of

.

Nature and of Art [Man the

Maker] 4.

Nature as an Artist and the

totle's

The

difference between

Physics, Bk. Poetics,

The

Human

Artist as Imitator of

Nature

[Aris-

Crusoe]

I,

what happens by nature and what happ)ens by

Chs. 7-8; Bk.

II,

art.

Chs. 1-3, 8-9.

Chs. 1-4.

difference

between what happens by

art

and what happens by

chance.

Physics, Bk. Politics,

The

Bk.

II, I,

Chs. 4-6.

Ch.

11.

difference between the changes brought about by nature

changes brought about by

art.

and the

196

;

Epilogue

Metaphysics, Bk. VII, Chs. 7-9.

The

difference between man's production of corporeal things

and the

generation or procreation of Hving things in nature.

Generation of Animals Metaphysics, Bk. VII, Ch.

7.

The Three Main Modes of Accidental Change: Change of Place, Change

5.

of Quality, Change of Quantity [Change and Permanence]

The

between substantial change and accidental change, and

distinction

the differentiation of three distinct

Categories,

Ch.

Physics, Bk.

Ch.

modes of

accidental change.

14.

Ill,

Ch.

1;

Bk. V, Chs.

1-2,

5;

Bk. VII, Ch.

4;

Bk. VIII,

7.

Corporeal substances as the permanent or enduring subjects that

throughout

Physics, Bk.

all

I,

persist

accidental changes.

Chs. 6-7; Bk.

II,

Chs. 1-3.

Metaphysics, Bks. VIII-IX; Bk. XII, Chs. 1-5.

Aristotle's refutation

of the Parmenidean denial of change and of the

Heraclitean denial of permanence.

Physics, Bk.

The

I,

Chs. 2-4, 8-9; Bk. VI, Ch.

Aristotelian distinction

Physics, Bk. IV, Chs.

On

the Heavens, Bk.

The tion:

1, I,

8;

between natural and violent motion.

Bk. V, Ch.

Chs. 2-3,

6;

Bk. VIII, Ch. 4.

^8.

special character of the subject of

prime matter

9.

as the subject of

change

change

in

generation and corrup-

in substantial

change.

Epilogue

Physics, Bk.

I,

Ch.

7;

Bk.

197

:

Chs. 1-3.

II,

Metaphysics, Bk. VII, Chs. 7-9; Bk. XI, Ch. 11; Bk. XII, Chs. 2-3.

Aristotle's

6.

Doctrine of the Four Causes: Efficient, Material, Formal,

and Final [The Four Causes]

The

doctrine stated.

Physics, Bk.

Chs. 3-9.

II,

Metaphysics, Bk. VII, Ch.

The

Chs. 3-10; Bk. V, Ch.

Bk. VI, Chs.

3;

Ch.

17; Bk. VIII, Chs. 2-4; Bk. IX,

consideration of final causes in nature and

Physics, Bk.

On

I,

8;

2-3; Bk.

Bk. XII, Chs. 4-5.

art.

Chs. 8-9.

II,

the Soul, Bk.

Chs. 12-13.

II,

Parts of Animals, Bks. II-IV.

Generation of Animals, Bk.

The

role of potentiality

I,

Chs. 4-13.

and actuality

in

both substantial and accidental

change.

Physics, Bk.

Ill,

Chs. 1-3.

Metaphysics, Bk.

I,

Chs.

^7;

Bk. VII, Chs.

7-17; Bk. VIII, Chs. 4-6;

3,

Bk. XII, Chs. 2-5.

The

role of substance as the material

cause and of accidental form

as the

formal cause in accidental change; and of prime matter as the material cause and substantial form as the formal cause in substantial change.

Physics, Bk.

I,

Chs. 4-9; Bk.

Metaphysics, Bk.

I,

II,

Ch.

7;

Bk.

Chs. 6-7; Bk. V, Ch.

II,

8;

Ch.

3.

Bk. VII, Chs.

3,

7-17; Bk.

VIII, Chs. 4-6; Bk. IX, Chs. 6-9; Bk. XII, Chs. 2-5.

7.

Further Developments in the Theory of Potentiality and Actuality, and

of Matter and Form, Especially with Respect

to

Substantial Change, or

Generation and Corruption [To Be and Not to Be]

Epilogue

198

Physics, Bk.

Ill,

Chs. 1-3.

Metaphysics, Bk. VII, Chs. 6-9; Bk. IX, Chs. Bk. XII, Chs. 2-3,

Generation and Corruptions, Bk.

Aristotle's Analysis

8.

1,

3-9; Bk. XI, Chs. 9, 11;

5. I.

Chs. 1,3-5; Bk.

of the Intellectual Factors

7, 9.

Production

and

Know-How]

Ch.

4.

artist as imitator.

Poetics,

The

1,

intellectual virtue of art.

Ethics, Bk. VI,

The

Chs.

in Artistic

His Classification of the Arts [Productive Ideas and

The

II,

Chs. 1-5.

special character of the three cooperative arts of farming, healing,

and teaching. j

1

Physics, Bk.

II,

Chs. 1-2,

The beauty of products Poetics,

Ch.

8.

that are well

made.

7.

Part HI. Aristotle

s

Moral and

Political Philosophy

[Man

the

Doer]

9.

'

The End as

Means tion

j

the First Principle in Practical Thinking

as the Beginning of Action:

and Last

in

the

The End

Order of Execution

as First in the

as the desirable

Ethics, Bk.

I,

Chs. 1-2.

and the desirable

the

Use of

Order of Inten-

[Thinking about Ends and

Means]

The good

and

as the good.

Epilogue

The

:

igg

for their

own

ultimate end in practical thinking compared with axioms or

self-

between ends and means

distinction

as

goods desirable

sake and goods desirable for the sake of something else.

Ethics, Bk.

The

Chs.

I,

7, 9.

5,

evident truths in theoretical thinking.

Posterior Analytics, Bk.

10.

I,

Ch.

2.

Happiness Conceived as That Whidi Leaves Nothing

End

and, as so Conceived, the Final or Ultimate

to

to

Be Desired

Be Sought

Li\ing

and Living Well

The

distinction

between

Bk.

Chs. 1-2,

Politics,

I.

The conception

living

and

living well.

9.

of happiness as a whole good

Ethics, Bk.

I,

Aristotle's Distinction

11.

^10;

Chs. 4-5,

Goods That Ought

to

together with various

life,

\iews held by indi\iduals concerning what a good

life

consists in.

Bk. X, Chs. 2, 6-8.

Between Real and Apparent Goods, or Between

Be

L>esired

and Goods That Are

in

Fact Desired,

Together with His Distinction Between Satural and Acquired Desires

[Good, Better, Best]

Ethics, Bk.

On

II,

Rhetoric, Bk.

12.

Ch.

the Soul, Bk. I,

6;

II,

Bk.

Ill,

Chs. 4-5; Bk. X, Ch.

Chs. 2-3; Bk.

Ill,

Chs.

Chs. 6-7.

The Real Goods That Are the Components of

Constitute Happiness,

How

of Happiness

Ethics,

Bk.

I,

5.

3, 7.

to

and Moral Virtue

the

Whole of Goods That

as Indispensable to the Pursuit

Pursue Happiness]

Chs. 4-5, 7-10; Bk. VII, Chs. 11-14; Bk. IX, Chs. 4,

8-11; Bk. X, Chs. 1-8.

200

:

13.

Epilogue

Moral Virtue and Good Fortune as

the

Two

Indispensable Operative

Factors in the Pursuit of Happiness [Good Habits and

Moral

virtue

general and the three

in

temperance, courage, and

main

aspects

Good Luck] of moral

virtue:

justice.

Ethics, Bks. II-V.

Good

fortune as indispensable to happiness: the distinction between the

virtuous and the blessed

Ethics, Bk.

Ch.

I,

10; Bk. VII,

Politics, Bk. VII, Chs.

The

man.

1,

Ch.

13; Bk.

X, Ch.

8.

13.

between limited and unlimited goods: moral virtue

distinction

as

resulting in moderation with respect to limited goods.

Ethics, Bk. VII, Politics, Bk.

14.

I,

Ch.

14.

Chs. 8-10; Bk. VII, Ch.

1.

The Obligations of the Individual With Regard

Others and With Regard

[What Others Have

Man

as a social

Politics, Bk.

The

I,

and

to

the Welfare of the

a Right to

political

to

the Happiness of

Organized Community

Expect from Us]

animal.

Chs. 1-2.

family, the tribe, and the state, or political society, as organized

communities.

Politics, Bk.

Justice as

I,

Chs. 1-2.

moral virtue directed toward the good of others.

Ethics, Bk. V, Chs. 1-2.

Epilogue

The

distinction

on the

between

on the one hand, and friendship or

201

love,

other.

Ethics, Bk. VIII, Chs.

The

justice,

:

1, 9.

kinds of friendship.

Ethics, Bk. VIII, Chs. 2-6.

1 5.

The Role of

suit of

the State in Abetting or Facilitating the Individual's Pur-

Happiness [What

from the

Aristotle's

Have

conception of the good

of happiness by

Politics,

We

a Right to

Expect from Others and

State]

Bk.

I,

its

state as

one

promotes the pursuit

that

citizens.

Ch.

2;

Bk.

II,

Ch.

6;

Bk.

Ill,

Chs. (^10; Bk. VII, Chs.

1-3, 13-14.

Aristotle's theory of the

forms of government, and of the

criteria for judg-

ing the goodness and badness of diverse forms of government.

Politics,

Bk.

Chs. 2-3,

I,

Chs.

Aristotle's distinction

Politics, Bk.

1,

8, 12; Bk.

I,

5,

12-13; Bk.

VI, Ch.

4;

between natural and

Chs. 4^7,

Aristotle's

Ch.

I,

Ch.

legal or

conventional slavery.

from

legal or conventional justice.

7.

view of the role of

Politics, Bk.

Chs. 6-7, 11, 15-16; Bk. V,

13.

Aristotle's theory of natural as distinct

Ethics, Bk. V,

Ill,

Bk. VII, Chs. 2, 14.

13.

women

in the family

and the

state.

202

Epilogue

:

Part IV. Aristotle

[Man

The Senses and

16.

and Theory of Knowledge

Psychology, Logic,

s

the Knower] the Intellect: Perception,

Memory, Imagination, and

Conceptual Thought [What Goes into the Mind and What Comes out of

It]

Language

in relation to thought.

Ch.

Categories,

On

1.

Interpretation, Chs. 1-2.

Aristotle's

account of the external senses and of their distinction from the

common

interior senses: the

On

the Soul, Bk.

memory, and imagination.

sense,

Chs. 5-12; Bk.

II,

Chs. 1-3.

Ill,

Sense and the Sensible History of Animals, Bk. IV, Ch.

The

distinction

8.

between mere sensations and perceptual experience.

Metaphysics, Bk.

I,

Ch.

1.

Aristotle's doctrine that sensations

isolation, are neither true

Categories,

On On

Ch.

nor

ideas, taken

by themselves or in

4.

Interpretation, the Soul, Bk.

Ch. II,

1.

Ch.

5;

Aristotle's theory of ideas as

the Soul, Bk.

Ill,

Bk.

6;

Metaphysics, Bk. IV, Ch.

On

and

false.

Chs.

Ill,

Bk. V,

Chs.

Ch.

3, 6.

29.

forms that the intellect abstracts from experi-

4, 7-8.

Metaphysics, Bk. XIII, Chs. 2-3.

17.

Immediate Inference and

Syllogistic

Reasoning [Logic's

Little

Words]

Epilogue

The law

:

203

of contradiction as an ontological principle and as a rule of

thought.

On

Interpretation,

Ch.

Prior Analytics, Bk.

6.

Ch.

II,

Posterior Analytics, Bk.

I,

17.

Ch.

11.

Metaphysics, Bk. IV, Chs. 3-8; Bk. IX, Chs. 5-6.

The

On

square of opposition: contradictories, contraries, and subcontraries.

Interpretation, Chs. 6, 10.

Categories,

Ch.

10.

Prior Analytics, Bk.

Ch.

I,

2.

Immediate inference based on the square of opposition.

On

Interpretation, Chs. 7-10.

Prior Analytics, Bk.

The

I,

Chs. 2-3; Bk.

I.

Posterior Analytics, Bk.

Aristotle's distinction

Prior Analytics, Bk.

The enthymeme

Theoretical

II,

Ch.

II,

II,

12.

logical validity

and

factual truth.

Chs. 2-4. I,

Ch.

in rhetorical

Prior Analytics, Bk.

Rhetoric, Bk.

I,

between

Posterior Analytics, Bk.

The

Chs. 8-10, 22.

rules of the syllogism.

Prior Analytics, Bk.

18.

II,

Ch.

12.

argument.

27.

Chs. 20, 22.

and

Practical Truth [Telling the Truth

definition of truth.

and Thinking

It]

204

•

Epilogue

Metaphysics, Bk. IV, Ch. Categories,

The

Ch.

7.

5.

truth of axioms or

principles: self-evident truths.

first

Posterior Analytics, Bk.

I,

Chs.

Sentences that are neither true nor

On

Ch.

Interpretation,

Aristotle's theory

The

false.

2.

of the difference between the truth of factual and of nor-

mative statements:

Ethics, Bk. VI,

10, 12.

5,

3,

"is- statements"

Ch.

and "ought- statements."

2.

certitude or probability with

which propositions

are affirmed or de-

nied.

On

Ch.

Interpretation,

Prior Analytics, Bk.

9.

Ch.

I,

Posterior Analytics, Bk.

13; Bk. II,

Chs.

I,

Ch.

2, 6, 8,

25.

30, 33.

Metaphysics, Bk. IV, Chs. 4-6; Bk. VI, Ch.

19.

Aristotle's

Ch.

I,

Ch.

Posterior Analytics, Bk. I,

Rhetoric, Bk.

Ch. II,

I,

On

Doubt]

Ch.

Chs.

the Soul, Bk.

13.

Chs.

2,

4-8, 30, 33.

2.

25.

Metaphysics, Bk. IV, Ch. 10; Bk. XI,

a Reasonable

5.

Prior Analytics, Bk.

Topics, Bk.

Bk. IX, Chs. 6-7.

Theory of Knowledge and His Distinction Between Knowledge

and Right Opinion [Beyond Categories,

1;

4;

6, 8.

Ill,

Ch.

3.

Bk. VI,

Ch.

2;

Bk. VII, Ch. 15; Bk. IX, Ch.

Epilogue

Fart V. Aristotle

Cosmology and Theology

s

[Difficult

:

20$

Philo-

sophical Questions] The Actual and

20.

the Potential Infinite [Infinity]

Aristotle's criticism

Physics, Bk.

On

I,

Ch.

of the theory of the atomists.

2.

the Heavens, Bk.

Ch.

Ill,

4; Bk.

IV, Ch.

2.

Aristotle's doctrine with regard to the infinite divisibility of

continuous

magnitudes and of matter.

Physics, Bk.

Ill,

Chs.

1,

6-7; Bk. V, Ch.

Ch.

3;

Bk. VI, Chs. 1-2.

V, Ch. 13.

Metaphysics, Bk.

Ill,

Aristotle's denial

of actually infinite multitudes or magnitudes, together

4; Bk.

with his affirmation of the potential infinites of addition or division.

Physics, Bk.

Ill,

Chs. 4-8.

Metaphysics, Bk. XI, Ch. 10.

21.

The Eternity of the World and of Motion

Aristotle's

conception of time

as the

or

Change

[Eternity]

measure of motion.

Physics, Bk. IV, Chs. 1(^14.

Aristotle's

arguments

for the endlessness of

time and

for the everlast-

ingness of motion or change.

Physics, Bk. VII, Chs. 1-2; Bk. VIII, Chs. 1-6, 8.

Aristotle's theory of the influence of the restrial

On

motion of the heavens upon

motions and changes.

the Heavens, Bk.

I,

Chs.

2,

Generation and Corruption, Bk.

9-12; Bk. II,

II,

Ch.

Chs. 10-11.

3.

ter-

2o6

:

Epilogue

Aristotle's

conception of the immutability or eternity of God: the time-

lessness of the eternal or

immutable.

Metaphysics, Bk. XII, Chs. 6-7,

The Immateriality of

22.

9.

Human

the

volving the Abstraction of

Intellect:

Conceptual Thought as In-

Forms From Matter [The Immateriality of

Mind]

Posterior Analytics, Bk.

On

the Soul, Bk.

Ill,

I,

Ch.

3.

Chs. 4-5, ^8.

Metaphysics, Bk. XIII, Chs. 2-3.

23.

The Prime Mover: The Divine Being

as Pure Actuality [God]

Aristotle's theory of intelligences as celestial motors.

On

the Heavens, Bk.

II,

Chs.

Metaphysics, Bk. XII, Ch.

Aristotle's

arguments

1,

12.

8.

for the existence of a

motion of the heavens

in the

manner of

Physics, Bk. VIII, Chs. 1-6.

Metaphysics, Bk. XII, Chs. 6-9.

prime mover that causes the

a final, not

an

efficient, cause.

MAN

THE PHILOSOPHICAL ANIMAL Philosophical Games The Great Divide Man's Three Dimensions

NO

IDEA IN THIS BOOK IS LESS THAN 2,400 YEARS OLD. MAN

THE MAKER

Aristotle's

Crusoe

Change and Permanence The Four Causes To Be and Not to Be Productive Ideas and Know-How

MAN

THE DOER

Thinking about Ends and Means Living and Living Well

Good,

How

Better, Best to Pursue Happiness

Habits and Good Luck a Right to Expect from Us a Right to Expect from Others and from the State

Good

What Others Have What

We

Have

MAN What Goes

THE

KNOWER

Mind and What Comes out Logic's Little Words

into the

Telling the Truth

Beyond

and Thinking

a Reasonable

of

It

It

Doubt

ALL THE IDEAS IN THIS

BOOK ARE

RELEVANT TO CONTEMPORARY

LIFE

AND THOUGHT DIFFICULT PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS Infinity

Eternity

The Immateriality

of

Mind

God

MACMILLAN PUBLISHING CO., New York, N.Y.

866 Third Avenue,

INC. 10022 PRINTED IN

USA.