Politics and Pedagogy in Aristotle's Metaphysics A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
POLITICS AND PEDAGOGY IN ARISTOTLE’S METAPHYSICS A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Government By Christopher B. Utter, B.A. Washington, DC August 20, 2015 Copyright 2015 by Christopher B. Utter All Rights Reserved ii POLITICS AND PEDAGOGY IN ARISTOTLE’S METAPHYSICS Christopher B. Utter, B.A. Thesis Advisor: Gerald M. Mara, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Most scholars of Aristotle see him as disagreeing fundamentally with Plato on the character of philosophy and what philosophy can and should achieve. Some see Plato as an idealist and Aristotle as a realist; others see philosophy for Plato as essentially knowledge of ignorance, whereas for Aristotle philosophy is a system whereby we achieve systematic knowledge of the world. Recently, however, many have suggested that Aristotle and Plato agree more than they disagree—in particular, they agree that philosophy is a continuous search rather than a systematic construction. Political philosophy, as the search for the best regime, is not programmatic, therefore, but critical insofar as it shows us the flaws in any regime. The existence of the Metaphysics threatens this interpretation of Aristotle, however, because it seems to be an account of being—it implies, therefore, that Aristotle thinks we can attain wisdom, and not merely seek it. I argue, on the contrary, that Aristotle primarily intends in the Metaphysics to provoke his audience to question their intentions in pursuing the knowledge of causes the work purports to demonstrate. In asking why philosophy is a worthwhile pursuit, his audience is led back to the questions that animate the Nicomachean Ethics and Politics: what is the best life for a human being? What is it we desire most of all? Is a life devoted to political action the best life, or one devoted to contemplation—or is there a kind of philosophic life that is active? I conclude that the iii Metaphysics is a work of zetetic philosophy, much like that illustrated by Plato’s Socrates, the end of which is self-examination and a search for knowledge of causes that necessarily begins with an attempt to know oneself. Aristotle characterizes the study of politics as the study of what human beings hold to be noble and just—and why they hold them to be so. Insofar as the Metaphysics forces us to ask why the pursuit of philosophy is noble and just it adds to our understanding of the core political questions. iv For Laura I am also grateful to everyone else who has helped me in my education, formal or otherwise: to my parents for instilling in me a love of books and the classics; to Mitchell Findhorn, for years of thoughtful conversation; to my tutors at St. John’s College with whom I first read the Metaphysics; to Charles Butterworth, Briana McGinnis, Craig French, Gianna Englert, and Ella Street, whose conversation contributed greatly to my thinking on this subject. Many thanks to my committee members, Bruce Douglass, Paul Ludwig, and Josh Mitchell for their patient advice and guidance, and especially to my advisor, Gerry Mara. With sincerest thanks, Christopher Utter v TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction: Aristotle’s Genre: The Metaphysics as an Exercise in Zetetic Philosophy ....................................... 1 Chapter One: Aristotle’s Quarrel with Simonides: An Introduction to the Pedagogical Intent of the Metaphysics .......................... 44 Chapter Two: Honor in the Metaphysics ....................................................................... 83 Chapter Three: Eros for the Unmoved Mover: Love of the Beautiful or Love of the Good? .................................................... 115 Chapter Four: Happiness in Aristotle’s Metaphysics ................................................... 152 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 185 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 197 vi Introduction Aristotle’s Genre: The Metaphysics as an Exercise in Zetetic Philosophy Therefore Aristotle proceeded in a book that he called Metaphysics to inquire into, and to investigate, the beings in a manner different than natural inquiry…the understanding of the causes of visible things, which the soul desired, is more human than that knowledge that was construed to be necessary knowledge…And it has become evident that the knowledge that he [Aristotle] investigated at the outset just because he loved to do so, and inspected for the sake of explaining the truth about the abovementioned pursuits, has turned out to be necessary for realizing the political activity for the sake of which man is made. The knowledge that comes next is investigated for two purposes: one, to render perfect the human activity for the sake of which man is made, and second, to perfect our defective natural science, for we do not possess metaphysical science.1 The quotation above, which closes Alfarabi’s “Philosophy of Aristotle,” illustrates the question I will address in this dissertation. Alfarabi seems not to consider metaphysics a complete science. Furthermore, he connects our lack of metaphysical science with the need to realize and render perfect a “political activity” and a “human activity” each of which is the end of human life. The Metaphysics, Alfarabi seems to be saying, does not present a complete account of first philosophy, but instead reveals the nature of the best possible life for a human being. As to the way in which it does this, Alfarabi does not say here. If the Metaphysics is not, or not entirely, Aristotle’s attempt to give an account of the causes of beings as beings, then what 1 Alfarabi, Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, trans. Mushin Mahdi (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 130. Emphasis added. 1 is it? In what way could Alfarabi be right in thinking the Metaphysics has a political dimension, and one that relates to the best life for a human being? However intriguing this question may be, it is insufficient alone to prompt an investigation. Another way to see the problem is to begin with the difference between Aristotle’s manner of writing and Plato’s. Martin Heidegger, in his course on Aristotle that came to be known as the “Aristotle breakfast club,”2 began his first lecture saying, “As regards Aristotle himself, as regards the circumstances and the course of his life, suffice it to say: Aristotle was born, spent his life philosophizing, and died.” Jacob Klein finds this lacking and adds: “Whenever we try to understand what Aristotle is saying, we stumble on something that we simply cannot ignore, and that is that his words bring up the words of another man who was his teacher and bore the name of Plato.”3 We cannot help but compare Aristotle to Plato, especially since they seem on the surface to disagree, both in style and in substance. More specifically, Plato mainly wrote dialogues and Aristotle mainly wrote treatises. Many scholars (to be discussed below) have taken this difference in form to reflect a disagreement regarding substance. In particular, Plato’s Socrates says he knows of nothing both noble and good (Apology 21d), and that he is expert only in erotics (Symposium 177d). Socrates’s pursuit of knowledge, then, seems to be a never-to-be-completed erotic hunt for wisdom—a pursuit that necessarily takes the form of conversations. Aristotle seems to imply the very opposite: his treatises give the impression of a system that is based on purer motives than eros—a subject he almost never addresses—which culminates in absolute knowledge of causes—in the knowledge of the divine 2 Walter A. Brogan, Heidegger and Aristotle (New York: SUNY Press, 2005), 1. 3 Jacob Klein, “Aristotle, an Introduction,” in Jacob Klein: Lectures and Essays, ed. Robert B. Williamson and Elliott Zuckerman (Annapolis: St. John’s College Press, 1985), 171. 2 unmoved mover of the Metaphysics. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics4 and Politics, however, suggest that Aristotle’s intention is not to construct a philosophic system, but is dialogic in a similar way to Plato’s dialogues, implying a similar, Socratic interpretation of knowledge and erotic longing for wisdom. If this is the case, however, what are we to make of the Metaphysics, which seems, at least, to be a straightforward, if abstruse and monologic treatise? This project is a reading of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. We read great books or classic texts because they uniquely help us think about the questions that are at their heart. Some scholars think there isn’t a question at the heart of the Metaphysics—that it is a haphazardly assembled jumble of notes lacking coherence—while others see it as a coherent whole, but that its coherence consists in the elaboration of a philosophical doctrine entirely separable from Aristotle’s other writings. I will argue, on the contrary, that the Metaphysics is coherent, but with respect to Aristotle’s political and pedagogical intent. This intent is political insofar as politics has to do with the just and the noble or beautiful, and Aristotle points his audience toward asking about the justice and nobility of the philosophic life throughout this work. It is pedagogical insofar as Aristotle is concerned that his audience of convinced students of philosophy ask themselves why they are so drawn to the study of being—and whether they truly understand the alternative lives they could be living, especially the political life. Furthermore, there are two points about human beings that we gain from reading the Metaphysics alongside the NE and Politics. First, we are able better to see our character as incomplete beings because we can see what we would need in order to know the first principles and causes of all things—in order to be wise. We would need knowledge of a god that orders the world in the way we 4 Hereafter abbreviated NE. 3 believe it may be ordered, and we would need the knowledge this god possesses.