DOCSLIB.ORG

The Metaphysics of Causation in the Creation Accounts of Avicenna and Aquinas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Metaphysics of Causation in the Creation Accounts of Avicenna and Aquinas Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Open Access Dissertations Theses and Dissertations Fall 2013 The etM aphysics of Causation in the Creation Accounts of Avicenna and Aquinas Julie Ann Swanstrom Purdue University Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Swanstrom, Julie Ann, "The eM taphysics of Causation in the Creation Accounts of Avicenna and Aquinas" (2013). Open Access Dissertations. 58. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/open_access_dissertations/58 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Graduate School ETD Form 9 (Revised 12/07) PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance This is to certify that the thesis/dissertation prepared By Julie A. Swanstrom Entitled The Metaphysics of Causation in the Creation Accounts of Avicenna and Aquinas Doctor of Philosophy For the degree of Is approved by the final examining committee: Jeffrey Brower Chair Jan Cover Dan Frank Paul Draper To the best of my knowledge and as understood by the student in the Research Integrity and Copyright Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 20), this thesis/dissertation adheres to the provisions of Purdue University’s “Policy on Integrity in Research” and the use of copyrighted material. Approved by Major Professor(s): ____________________________________Jeffrey Brower ____________________________________ Approved by: Matthias Steup 08/02/2013 Head of the Graduate Program Date THE METAPHYSICS OF CAUSATION IN THE CREATION ACCOUNTS OF AVICENNA AND AQUINAS A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University by Julie A. Swanstrom In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2013 Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana ii For my family, with gratitude to their support and encouragement. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my deep gratitude for those who have helped me with this project. Primarily, I would like to thank my dissertation committee for their work. Dan Frank encouraged me to pursue this topic, suggesting avenues to explore. Jan Cover provided me with helpful comments on my initial prospectus that allowed me to compose a much stronger dissertation. My dissertation director, Jeffrey Brower, deserves special thanks both for his support for and engagement with this project and for his support and encouragement throughout my graduate education. I would also like to thank Paul Draper for his questions and comments on the final draft of my dissertation. Attendees at the Aquinas and the Arabs conference in Paris in June, 2013 provided several important criticisms and helpful suggestions, so I thank Dr. Richard Taylor and Dr. Luis López-Farjeat for the opportunity to present. Over the course of my educational career, three individuals have (more than the many others) supported and encouraged me on this journey, so I offer special thanks to Dr. Nancey Murphy, Dr. Kimlyn Bender, and Mr. Leo Kallis. Most of all, I would like to thank the members of my family, who have each shown me grace, patience, encouragement—and, most gratifyingly—interest in my work as it progressed. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... v CHAPTER ONE: HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1 Creation .................................................................................................................................... 2 Aristotelian Efficient Causation ........................................................................................ 13 Neoplatonic Emanation....................................................................................................... 18 Problem of Creation ............................................................................................................. 30 CHAPTER TWO: AVICENNA ON CREATING .................................................................... 40 A Neoplatonic Approach .................................................................................................... 40 Emanation as a Type of Efficient Causation .................................................................... 69 CHAPTER THREE: AQUINAS ON CREATING ................................................................... 96 An Aristotelian Approach ................................................................................................... 97 Efficient Causation without Patients ............................................................................... 119 Emanation as a Type of Aristotelian Efficient Causation ............................................ 132 CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................... 163 Comparison ......................................................................................................................... 163 Metaphysics of Causation .................................................................................................. 175 Aristotelian Efficient Causation and Neoplatonic Emanation as Creation ............... 190 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 203 VITA .................................................................................................................................................. 212 v ABSTRACT Swanstrom, Julie A., Ph.D. Purdue University, December 2013. The Metaphysics of Causation in the Creation Accounts of Avicenna and Aquinas. Major Professor: Jeffrey Brower. The medieval conception of monotheistic creation is this: God voluntarily creates the universe from nothing. Endorsed by medieval philosophers, this conception of creation is in tension with their understanding of causation more generally. Each theory of causation available—Aristotelian efficient causation in which an agent acts upon a patient, and Neoplatonic emanation in which beings are produced through a series of emanations—have attractive explanatory features, but neither theory aligns perfectly with divine creation. Since God acts to create, efficient causation seems to include creating; yet, efficient causation is not causation ex nihilo. Since emanation accounts for producing being ex nihilo, it seems to include creating, but emanation is neither voluntary nor non-necessary production. Thus, medieval philosophers face what I call the ‘problem of creation’: they must either (a) deny the apparent contradiction; (b) modify their understanding of creation; or (c) develop an entirely new account of causation that is compatible with creation. In my dissertation, I examine the causal theories of two prominent philosophers, Avicenna and Aquinas. Both attempt to articulate comprehensive causal theories which include an analysis of God’s creation of the universe. Despite their distinct cultural and religious milieus, both men describe creating as an action performed by God. I examine how vi each navigates commitments to his faith tradition and to both Neoplatonic emanation and Aristotelian efficient causation. On the surface, their theories appear similar: they each attempt to solve the problem of creation by selecting option (a). However, this similarity masks underlying differences: each privileges one causal theory in his creation account, and this has implications for understanding their causal theories. In chapter one, I clarify the problem of creation by discussing each of these traditions in detail. To both Avicenna and Aquinas, solving the problem by selecting option (b) is undesirable, for each would be loath to jettison the claim that God creates either ex nihilo or voluntarily. Option (c) is equally undesirable given the medieval inclination to retain as much of one’s heritage as possible. Each selects option (a), but they do so in distinct ways that are explored in chapters two and three. In chapter two, I contend that Avicenna assumes the truth of Neoplatonic emanation as a model of causation in creation, but he explains that Neoplatonic emanation is not incompatible with divine creation. Avicenna does not take every characteristic of Neoplatonic emanation to be essential to that model, explaining that God emanates voluntarily and non-necessarily (that is, God’s action is subject to no internal or external constraints). He also speaks of creating in terms of Aristotelian efficient causation, although to do so, he must develop (and defend developing) the implications of Aristotle’s explication of efficient causation. Efficient causation can be natural—involving an agent activating some potentiality in a patient—or metaphysical—involving an agent producing being ex nihilo. I argue that Avicenna prefers Neoplatonic emanation in understanding divine creation. In chapter three, I contend that Aquinas assumes the truth of Aristotelian efficient causation as a model of causation, but he explains that Aristotelian efficient causation is not vii incompatible with the Christian conception of creating. Aquinas, like Avicenna, develops the implications of Aristotelian efficient causation, and Aquinas understands efficient causation to be an action performed by an agent. Aquinas also speaks of creating in terms of emanation, which is both voluntary and non-necessary.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Defence of Constructive Empiricism: Metaphysics Versus Science
    To appear in Journal for General Philosophy of Science (2004) In Defence of Constructive Empiricism: Metaphysics versus Science F.A. Muller Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.000 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected] August 2003 Summary Over the past years, in books and journals (this journal included), N. Maxwell launched a ferocious attack on B.C. van Fraassen's view of science called Con- structive Empiricism (CE). This attack has been totally ignored. Must we con- clude from this silence that no defence is possible against the attack and that a fortiori Maxwell has buried CE once and for all, or is the attack too obviously flawed as not to merit exposure? We believe that neither is the case and hope that a careful dissection of Maxwell's reasoning will make this clear. This dis- section includes an analysis of Maxwell's `aberrance-argument' (omnipresent in his many writings) for the contentious claim that science implicitly and per- manently accepts a substantial, metaphysical thesis about the universe. This claim generally has been ignored too, for more than a quarter of a century. Our con- clusions will be that, first, Maxwell's attacks on CE can be beaten off; secondly, his `aberrance-arguments' do not establish what Maxwell believes they estab- lish; but, thirdly, we can draw a number of valuable lessons from these attacks about the nature of science and of the libertarian nature of CE. Table of Contents on other side −! Contents 1 Exordium: What is Maxwell's Argument? 1 2 Does Science Implicitly Accept Metaphysics? 3 2.1 Aberrant Theories .
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Philosophy. Social Studies--Language Arts: 6414.16. INSTITUTION Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Fla
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 086 604 SO 006 822 AUTHOR Norris, Jack A., Jr. TITLE Introduction to Philosophy. Social Studies--Language Arts: 6414.16. INSTITUTION Dade County Public Schools, Miami, Fla. PUB DATE 72 NOTE 20p.; Authorized Course of Instruction for the Quinmester Program EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS Course Objectives; Curriculum Guides; Grade 10; Grade 11; Grade 12; *Language Arts; Learnin4 Activities; *Logic; Non Western Civilization; *Philosophy; Resource Guides; Secondary Grades; *Social Studies; *Social Studies Units; Western Civilization IDENTIFIERS *Quinmester Program ABSTRACT Western and non - western philosophers and their ideas are introduced to 10th through 12th grade students in this general social studies Quinmester course designed to be used as a preparation for in-depth study of the various schools of philosophical thought. By acquainting students with the questions and categories of philosophy, a point of departure for further study is developed. Through suggested learning activities the meaning of philosopky is defined. The Socratic, deductive, inductive, intuitive and eclectic approaches to philosophical thought are examined, as are three general areas of philosophy, metaphysics, epistemology,and axiology. Logical reasoning is applied to major philosophical questions. This course is arranged, as are other quinmester courses, with sections on broad goals, course content, activities, and materials. A related document is ED 071 937.(KSM) FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY U S DEPARTMENT EDUCATION OF HEALTH. NAT10N41
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Causes in Aristotle and Sankara
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Religious Studies Honors Theses Department of Religious Studies 9-11-2006 Types of Causes in Aristotle and Sankara Brandie Martinez-Bedard Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/rs_hontheses Recommended Citation Martinez-Bedard, Brandie, "Types of Causes in Aristotle and Sankara." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2006. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/rs_hontheses/3 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Religious Studies at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Religious Studies Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TYPES OF CAUSES IN ARISTOTLE AND SANKARA by BRANDIE MARTINEZ BEDARD Under the Direction of Kathryn McClymond and Sandra Dwyer ABSTRACT This paper is a comparative project between a philosopher from the Western tradition, Aristotle, and a philosopher from the Eastern tradition, Sankara. These two philosophers have often been thought to oppose one another in their thoughts, but I will argue that they are similar in several aspects. I will explore connections between Aristotle and Sankara, primarily in their theories of causation. I will argue that a closer examination of both Aristotelian and Advaita Vedanta philosophy, of which Sankara is considered the most prominent thinker, will yield significant similarities that will give new insights into the thoughts
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphysics Today and Tomorrow*
    1 Metaphysics Today and Tomorrow* Raphaël Millière École normale supérieure, Paris – October 2011 Translated by Mark Ohm with the assistance of Leah Orth, Jon Cogburn, and Emily Beck Cogburn “By metaphysics, I do not mean those abstract considerations of certain imaginary properties, the principal use of which is to furnish the wherewithal for endless dispute to those who want to dispute. By this science I mean the general truths which can serve as principles for the particular sciences.” Malebranche Dialogues on Metaphysics and Religion 1. The interminable agony of metaphysics Throughout the twentieth century, numerous philosophers sounded the death knell of metaphysics. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolf Carnap, Martin Heidegger, Gilbert Ryle, J. L. Austin, Jacques Derrida, Jürgen Habermas, Richard Rorty, and, henceforth, Hilary Putnam: a great many tutelary figures have extolled the rejection, the exceeding, the elimination, or the deconstruction of first philosophy. All these necrological chronicles do not have the same radiance, the same seriousness, nor the same motivations, but they all agree to dismiss the discipline, which in the past was considered “the queen of the sciences”, with a violence at times comparable to the prestige it commanded at the time of its impunity. Even today, certain philosophers hastily spread the tragic news with contempt for philosophical inquiry, as if its grave solemnity bestowed upon it some obviousness. Thus, Franco Volpi writes: ‘Grand metaphysics is dead!’ is the slogan which applies to the majority of contemporary philosophers, whether continentals or of analytic profession. They all treat metaphysics as a dead dog.1 In this way, the “path of modern thought” would declare itself vociferously “anti- metaphysical and finally post-metaphysical”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Metaphysics of Jonathan Edwards's End of Creation
    JETS 59/2 (2016): 339–59 THE METAPHYSICS OF JONATHAN EDWARDS’S END OF CREATION WALTER SCHULTZ* Abstract: In his dissertation ConcernIng the End for which God Created the World, the American theologian and philosopher, Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758), argues precisely and validly for a particular view of God’s purpose and motive in creating and sustain- ing the world on the substantive assumptions that creation is ex nihilo and that only God is absolutely independent and self-sufficient. He asserts that his is the only conceptually possible counterexample to Baruch Spinoza’s contention that no specific position on God’s end and mo- tive in creation combined with a commitment to God’s aseity and creatio ex nihilo can escape incoherence. His argumentation entails a complex metaphysics, which—with careful qualifica- tion—may be referred to by the following terms: dispositionalism, emanationism, idealism, panentheism, anti-platonism, continuous creationism, and occasionalism. This paper briefly de- scribes Edwards’s argumentation for God’s end and motive in creation, summarizes each of these seven positions, and shows how they logically follow. Key Words: emanation, disposition, idealism, platonism, panentheism, continuous creation- ism, occasionalism. Jonathan Edwards’s argumentation in his 1765 dissertation Concerning the End for which God Created the World entaIlS a partIcular verSIon of emanatIonISm, dISpoSI- tionalism, Idealism, antiplatonism, panentheism, continuous creationism, and occa- sionalism.1 ThIS paper brIefly deScrIbeS Edwards’s argumentation for God’s end and motive in creation then Summarizes each of these seven positions and how they logically follow.2 My aImS are to preSent a précIS of EdwardS’S theory of God and creation only in so far as it is expressed in End of Creation.
    [Show full text]
  • Time Atomism and Ash'arite Origins for Cartesian Occasionalism Revisited
    Time Atomism and Ash‘arite Origins for Cartesian Occasionalism Revisited Richard T. W. Arthur Department of Philosophy McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario Canada Time Atomism and Ash’arite Origins for Occasionalism Revisited Introduction In gauging the contributions of Asian thinkers to the making of modern “Western” philosophy and science, one often encounters the difficulty of establishing a direct influence. Arun Bala and George Gheverghese Joseph (2007) have termed this “the transmission problem”. One can establish a precedence, as well as a strong probability that an influence occurred, without being able to find concrete evidence for it. In the face of this difficulty (which appears to occur quite generally in the history of thought) I suggest here that the influence of earlier thinkers does not always occur through one person reading others’ work and becoming persuaded by their arguments, but by people in given epistemic situations being constrained by certain historically and socially conditioned trends of thought—for which constraining and conditioned trends of thought I coin the term "epistemic vectors"—and opportunistically availing themselves of kindred views from other traditions. As a case in point, I will examine here the claim that the doctrine of Occasionalism arose in seventeenth century Europe as a result of an influence from Islamic theology. In particular, the Ash’arite school of kalâm presented occasionalism as a corollary of time atomism, and since to many scholars the seventeenth century occasionalism of Cartesian thinkers such as De la Forge and Cordemoy has appeared as a direct corollary of the atomism of time attributed to Descartes in his Meditations, Ash’arite time atomism is often cited as the likely source of Cartesian Occasionalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Trans. Greek Thot Handout
    11/14/19 TRANSMISSION OF GREEK THOUGHT TO THE WEST PLATO & NEOPLATONISM Chalcidius (late 3rd-early 4th cent. Christian exegete): incomplete translation & commentary of Timeaus Henricus Aristippus in Sicily (12th c.): translated the Meno and Phaedo Leonardo Bruni (c. 1370-1444/Florence) translated a selection of Plato’s dialogues (from Greek to Latin). Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499/Florence): 1st complete translation into Latin of Plato’s works (publ. 1496), and translation of Plotinus’s Enneads into Latin (1492). Neoplatonic thought was transmitted in the following: (a) Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy (written 524, in prison) (b) Macrobius’ Commentary on Cicero’s Dream of Scipio (written c. 400 CE). (c) Pseudo-Dionysius. A collection of writings attributed to Dionysius the Aeropagite (see Acts 17:34), but 19th century scholarship determined to be written c. 500 by a disciple of Proclus, held considerable authority throughout the middle ages and was a Christian Neoplatonism. (d) Theologica Aristotelis: this summary of Books 4-6 of Plotinus’s Enneads had been wrongly attributed to Aristotle (until 13th century) (e) Liber de Causis: this work based on Proclus’s Elements of Theology was wrongly attributed to Aristotle (until 13th century). ARISTOTLE Victorinus (4th century): Latin translations of Aristotle’s Categories and De interpretatione, as well as of Porphyry’s Isagoge. Boethius (470-524/Padua?): translated the entire Organon and wrote commentaries on all but the Posterior Analytics), as well as a translation of Porphyry’s introduction (Isagoge) to the Categories, but only De Interp. and Categories were readily available until 12th century. James of Venice (c.1128): translated Posterior Analytics; with the rediscovery of other translations by Boethius, this completed the Organon.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Philosophy
    An Introduction to Philosophy W. Russ Payne Bellevue College Copyright (cc by nc 4.0) 2015 W. Russ Payne Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document with attribution under the terms of Creative Commons: Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 International or any later version of this license. A copy of the license is found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 1 Contents Introduction ………………………………………………. 3 Chapter 1: What Philosophy Is ………………………….. 5 Chapter 2: How to do Philosophy ………………….……. 11 Chapter 3: Ancient Philosophy ………………….………. 23 Chapter 4: Rationalism ………….………………….……. 38 Chapter 5: Empiricism …………………………………… 50 Chapter 6: Philosophy of Science ………………….…..… 58 Chapter 7: Philosophy of Mind …………………….……. 72 Chapter 8: Love and Happiness …………………….……. 79 Chapter 9: Meta Ethics …………………………………… 94 Chapter 10: Right Action ……………………...…………. 108 Chapter 11: Social Justice …………………………...…… 120 2 Introduction The goal of this text is to present philosophy to newcomers as a living discipline with historical roots. While a few early chapters are historically organized, my goal in the historical chapters is to trace a developmental progression of thought that introduces basic philosophical methods and frames issues that remain relevant today. Later chapters are topically organized. These include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, areas where philosophy has shown dramatic recent progress. This text concludes with four chapters on ethics, broadly construed. I cover traditional theories of right action in the third of these. Students are first invited first to think about what is good for themselves and their relationships in a chapter of love and happiness. Next a few meta-ethical issues are considered; namely, whether they are moral truths and if so what makes them so.
    [Show full text]
  • “Intentional Transfer” in Averroes and the Issue of Representationalism
    Intentional Transfer in Averroes, Indifference of Nature in Avicenna, and the Issue of the Representationalism of Aquinas Comments on Max Herrera and Richard Taylor Is Aquinas a representationalist or a direct realist? Max Herrera’s (and, for that matter, Claude Panaccio’s) qualified answers to each alternative show that the real significance of the question is not that if we answer it, then we can finally learn under which classification Aquinas should fall, but rather that upon considering it we can learn something about the intricacies of the question itself. In these comments I will first argue that the Averroistic notion of “intentional transfer”, combined with the Avicennean idea of the indifference of nature, yielding the Thomistic doctrine of the formal unity of the knower and the known renders the question moot with regard to Aquinas, indeed, with regard to the pre-modern epistemological tradition in general. These considerations will then lead to a number of further, both historical and philosophical questions, which I will offer in the end for further discussion. So, why is it interesting at all whether this or that philosopher is a representationalist or a direct realist? And why is this question interesting in particular in connection with pre- modern philosophers, who certainly did not think of themselves in these terms? To answer the first question, we must recall that the distinction emerged in the context of the modern (post-Cartesian) theory of ideas. As Thomas Reid saw it, the problem with that theory was that it constituted a mistaken theory of perception and mental representation in general, which in turn led to skepticism concerning an external, mind- independent, physical reality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Postmodern Retrieval of Neoplatonism in Jean-Luc Marion
    The Postmodern Retrieval of Neoplatonism in Jean-Luc Marion and John Milbank and the Origins of Western Subjectivity in Augustine and Eriugena Hermathena, 165 (Winter, 1998), 9-70. Neoplatonism commanded important scholarly energy and poetic and literary talent in the later two-thirds of our century. Now it attracts considerable philosophical and theological interest. But this may be its misfortune. The Dominican scholar M.-D. Chenu judged the Leonine utilization of St. Thomas to have been detrimental for our understanding of his doctrine. Thomas was made an instrument of an imperialist Christianity. The use of Aquinas as a weapon against modernity required a “misérable abus.” The Holy Office made Fr. Chenu pay dearly enough for attempting accurate historical study of the Fathers and medieval doctors to make us give him heed.1 The present retrieval of our philosophical and theological past has a very different relation to institutional interests than belonged to Leonine Neothomism. The problems intellectuals now have with truthfulness come more from within themselves than from outside. There is, nonetheless, much in the character of the postmodern turn to Neoplatonism by Christian theologians to cause concern that the ecclesiastical subordination of theoria to praxis which distorted the most recent Thomism may have an analogue for Neoplatonism recovered to serve our desires.2 And if, in fact, our eye has become self-distorting, the problem in our relation to our history will be worse than anything external pressures can cause. This paper aims to begin assessing the character of this distortion in respect to a central question, our understanding of the history of western subjectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • Proclus and Artemis: on the Relevance of Neoplatonism to the Modern Study of Ancient Religion
    Kernos Revue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion grecque antique 13 | 2000 Varia Proclus and Artemis: On the Relevance of Neoplatonism to the Modern Study of Ancient Religion Spyridon Rangos Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/1293 DOI: 10.4000/kernos.1293 ISSN: 2034-7871 Publisher Centre international d'étude de la religion grecque antique Printed version Date of publication: 1 January 2000 ISSN: 0776-3824 Electronic reference Spyridon Rangos, « Proclus and Artemis: On the Relevance of Neoplatonism to the Modern Study of Ancient Religion », Kernos [Online], 13 | 2000, Online since 21 April 2011, connection on 01 May 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/1293 ; DOI : 10.4000/kernos.1293 Kernos Kernos, 13 (2000), p. 47-84. Proclus and Artemis: On the Relevance of Neoplatonism to the Modern Study of Andent Religion* Imagine the situation in which contemporary philosophers would find themselves if Wittgenstein introduced, in his Philosophical Investigations, the religious figure of Jesus as Logos and Son of God in order to illuminate the puzzlement ofthe private-language paradox, or if in the second division of Being and Time Heidegger mentioned the archangel Michael to support the argument of 'being toward death'. Similar is the perplexity that a modern reader is bound to encounter when, after a highly sophisticated analysis of demanding metaphysical questions about the relationship of the one and the many, finitude and infinity, mind and body, Proclus, l in ail seriousness and without the slightest touch of irony, assigns to some traditional gods of Greek polytheism a definitive place in the structure of being.
    [Show full text]
  • DR. LEONARD PEIKOFF Lecture 5 a REVOLUTION
    Founders of Western Philosophy: Thales to Hume a 12-lecture course by DR. LEONARD PEIKOFF Edited by LINDA REARDAN, Ph.D. Lecture 5 A REVOLUTION: THE BIRTH OF REASON, PART II A Publication of CONTENTS Preface iv 1. Aristotle’s Teleology 2 2. The Unmoved Mover 8 3. Refutation of Zeno’s Paradoxes 15 4. Aristotle’s Psychology: The Natural Soul 17 5. Psychology Continued: Sense-Perception and Reason 22 6. Prime Matter and the Levels of Reality 29 7. Aristotle’s Ethics: Self-Realization and the Golden Mean 35 8. Political Philosophy 57 9. Conclusion 61 Study Questions 65 iii Lecture 5 A REVOLUTION: THE BIRTH OF REASON, PART II Last week we surveyed Aristotle’s epistemology and some of the essentials of his metaphysics. In regard to metaphysics, we said that reality for Aristotle is this world, the world in which we live, the world of concrete individual things as perceived through man’s senses. We said that for Aristotle each individual object, each primary substance, is comprised of two elements: a univer- salizing element, which constitutes the basis for our putting it into a certain class and ascribing to it a certain nature; and an individuating element, which constitutes the basis of its unique- ness and makes it a this. Aristotle’s technical terms for these two elements, you recall, are “form” and “matter.” Matter is the stuff or material compris- ing a thing; form represents its structure or organization. In these terms, change, we said, is the process of matter taking on new form, so that change in no way involves a contradiction; it is eminently logical, rational, scientifically intelligible.
    [Show full text]