Muhammad Abdullah (19154) Book 4 Chapter 5

"Summary Essay"

This chapter on 'The Peripatetic School' talks about this school and its decline. By 'peripatetic', it means the school of thought of Aristotle. Moreover, 'The Peripatetic School' was a philosophy school in Ancient Greece. And obviously its teachings were found and inspired by Aristotle. Other than that, its followers were called, 'Peripatetic'. At first, the school was a base for Macedonian influence in Athens. The school in earlier days -and in Aristotle's times- was distinguished by doing research in every field, like, botany, zoology, and many more. It tried to solve problems in every subject/field. It also gathered earlier views and writings of philosophers who came before. First, it talks about the difference in botanical writings of Theophrastus and Aristotle. Theophrastus was the successor of Aristotle in the Peripatetic School. He was a plant biologist. Theophrastus wrote treatises in many areas of philosophy to improve and comment-on Aristotle's writings. In addition to this, Theophrastus built his own writings upon the writings of earlier philosophers. The chapter then differentiates between Lyceum (The Peripatetic School) and Ptolemaic Alexandria. Moreover, after Aristotle, Theophrastus and Strato shifted the focus of peripatetic philosophy to more of empiricism and materialism. One of Theophrastus' most important works is 'Metaphysics' or 'A Fragment'. This work is important in the sense that it raises important questions. This work seems to object Aristotle's work of Unmoved Mover. Theophrastus states that there's natural phenomenon at work. However, some interpretations suggest that Theophrastus goes against Platonist. Theophrastus says, "...the universe is an organized system in which the same degree of purposefulness and goodness should not be expected at every level." Additionally, the chapter points out that objecting the writings and building your own work upon it is what the 'real' Aristotelian way of doing work is. Aristotle himself raised objections to the works and built and solved the problems in them. The chapter states some reasons for the decline of the Peripatetic school too. Stating that, after Strato, the Lyceum rapidly declined. There were not very competitive and philosophy-loving theorists after that. Some say that that the fall of peripatetic school was due to the shift in perspective and emphasis. Moreover, the chapter also gives another reason for the decline that, special sciences in the Hellenistic period developed a driving force of their own in institutions other than the Lyceum, like medicine in Ptolemaic Alexandria; however, that does not fully explain why zoology and botany, the sciences Aristotle and Theophrastus had made their own, declined in the Lyceum without evolving somewhere else. In addition, in the Hellenistic period, the work of Aristotle wasn't considered very good or great. Aristotle stressed the importance of doing research in many different branches of philosophy and also said that all the branches are separate from each other, unlike Plato, who said that the branches aren't very different from each other. Another reason the chapter gives for the decline is that, when the writings of Aristotle and Theophrastus reached their successors, they just hid them somewhere instead of developing on the works of Aristotle and Theophrastus. This was a big reason Lyceum declined. The chapter states a very important line about the successors, stating that, the successors weren't 'able to do philosophy in a systematic way'. The earlier writers focused on continuing Aristotle's work but the later ones just did their commenting the work. The hidden writings were then passed on to other people/empires through conquests and taking over of lands. From those taken over writings, Andronicus started taking the writings forward and built upon them and commented on the writings. The chapter also states that the 'revival' of Aristotelianism started from Andronicus. The status of Aristotle's text/writings had changed after Andronicus. The works of Aristotle started to get translated into different languages. However, a caveat that occurred is that the writings had lost the essence of Aristotelianism/Aristotle himself. Later, another decline of Aristotelianism came, in which, Aristotelianism fused into 'Neoplatonism'. Neoplatonists tried incorporating Aristotelian views into Plato's. After Alexander, all the works are fused into Neoplatonism. Moreover, some writings of Aristotle were taught before the students were taught Plato's views and writings in the schools. In addition, Theophrastus and Eudemus continued the study of formal logic introduced by Aristotle in the 'Prior Analytics' and improved it. They both tried to make it simpler and, as a result, the statements of logic now behaved as statements of fact. After the decline of Stoic school, and acceptance/use of Aristotelian texts into Neoplatonic syllabus meant that Peripatetic logic won. However, in consideration of logic, after Eudemus and Theophrastus, there was no great work done on logic from Aristotelian writers. The chapter then talks about Aristotle and his views on time. And also the writings of later theorists after Aristotle. Strato and Alexander didn't agree with Aristotle's views while Theophrastus and Eudemus didn't reject these views. Then, the chapter talks about the definition of 'Place' by Aristotle. Strato and Theophrastus both rejected Aristotle's view on this. Theophrastus said that place is 'the proper position of a part in a complex whole'. On the other hand, Strato says that the place of a thing is the space that it occupies. Moreover, for Aristotle, the sublunary things are composed of Earth, air, fire, and water. And the heavenly bodies are composed of a fifth element called ether. However, others after Aristotle rejected it. The chapter further points out a caveat that the peripatetics were forced to develop 'aristotelian' positions on issues on which Aristotle himself didn't give a lot of attention. The theory of Providence is also pointed out in this chapter and chapter further states that Alexander's theory of Providence is just Aristotle's theory but in disguise. In addition, Alexander also agrees with Aristotle in regards with the 'fate'. Alexander also greatly smacks the concept of Stoics for including God in each and every detail of the management of the world. Theophrastus and Strato didn't pay a lot of attention to the shortcomings of general metaphysics like the nature of universals. Alexander's views on this are that, the 'nature of human being would be the same even if only one human being existed'. Other than that, Alexander also says that there would be no human beings if not even one individual human being existed. The chapter then turns towards the 'soul'. It clearly states that Alexander didn't agree to Aristotle's views on soul. Aristotle defined soul as 'the form of the living creature' and also wrote that the body is bound to be explained in terms of the soul. Aristotle also views intellect as separate from any other organ. And then the chapter goes on to tell the views of successors of Aristotle on this view. Such as, Dicaearchus regarded soul as harmony, Strato argued that soul functions through breath and spirit, and many more such views. Some of them in favor of Aristotle on the view of soul some not so much. Aristotle further writes about soul that, there is an active intellect and a passive intellect. Active intellect, according to Aristotle, is identified with Unmoved Mover (Supreme Being) and not an individual element of a person's soul. Then, other theorists comment on this in favor of against. The author of 'On Intellect' says that the Active Intellect acts on our intellects; it does so by making us aware of it so that it becomes, as it were, a framework for us to understand. The chapter then points out Alexander's book 'On Soul', and it's impact. Alexander tries to clarify Aristotle's doctrine. Moreover, it is very vague, as the chapter states that, if Alexander's 'On Soul' tries to improve or worsen 'On Intellect'. Next to that, the chapter points out Aristotle's teachings on Ethics, Politics, and Rhetoric. The chapter also elaborately states the critiquing of Cicero on others' views on this topic. According to Areius, there is no happiness without external goods as well as virtue; however, while the lack of external goods does not lead to actual unhappiness, the lack of virtue always leads to unhappiness. The Stoics, too, rejected Aristotle's views. Moreover, Aristotle writes about emotions that, when one's angry and he can't show it then it is his/her weakness. In addition to this, Aristotle saw pathos not as an excessive movement of the soul, but as an excessively susceptible irrational movement. It was also defined by Andronicus and Boethus as a move of an irrational part of the soul, and with some divergence/discrepancies and other views of theirs too. The Stoics attributed their ethics to the realization of the living creatures of 'their own selves'. Moreover, for the rhetoric, Theophrastus continued to develop Aristotle's theory of rhetoric, elaborating a doctrine of the four virtues of style (correctness, clarity, appropriateness, and ornament) from Aristotelian materials that became the model for later writers and this is what Aristotle had neglected or not given much attention. Also, later on, the Rhetoric became a separate study subject and moved apart from peripatetic philosophy. In conclusion, according to the chapter, the real cause of the decline of Aristotelianism and Peripatetic School was that Aristotelianism appealed to thinkers and to common sense; where as other schools of thought like Platonism had a distinctive message. Moreover, the school declined due to lack of 'its own' distinctive position.