DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter Two Outline

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter Two Outline THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA Aristotle on Nature and the Moral Life A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Philosophy Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy By Margaret Ross Cecere Washington, D.C. 2014 Aristotle on Nature and the Moral Life Margaret Ross Cecere, Ph.D. Director: Jean De Groot, Ph.D. Aristotle‘s teleological view of nature has become increasingly difficult to understand and to accept the further we move from him in time. The goal of this dissertation is to offer a way of looking at Aristotle‘s teleology that will make it more accessible to the contemporary reader while remaining true to Aristotle‘s vision of nature. I compare his account of nature to his theory of moral action. Since Aristotle‘s natural teleology is directly related to his definition of nature as an inborn principle of change or rest, the dissertation begins by examining Aristotle‘s understanding of nature, focusing on the convergence of formal, final, and efficient causes in natural objects. For Aristotle, natural objects possess their own principles of change and rest and are therefore directed from within their own being. This means that natural processes are not simply the result of objects external to them acting in accordance with natural laws. The dissertation then distinguishes Aristotle‘s account of natural causality from that of modern mechanism and further distinguishes it from the account he gives of the causality at work in artifacts, both of which lack the convergence of causes that Aristotle sees in natural objects. I argue that the concept of energeia, actuality, lies at the heart of Aristotle‘s account of natural objects and is necessary for understanding the convergence of causes he finds there. The dissertation contrasts Aristotle‘s teleology with the contemporary functionalist account, again focusing on the role of energeia. The most common analogy for understanding nature in Aristotle has been making, i.e., craftsmanship or the design and production of artifacts. The dissertation concludes by arguing that Aristotle describes the moral life in a way that in some respects parallels the teleology found in nature. In particular, the orientation of the moral life toward human flourishing highlights the concept of energeia, and to that extent provides a better model for natural objects than artifacts do. After considering the benefits and drawbacks of both the moral life and artifact models, we propose the moral life as a supplementary model for natural teleology. This dissertation by Margaret Ross Cecere fulfills the dissertation requirement for the doctoral degree in philosophy approved by Jean De Groot, Ph.D., as Director, and by Richard Hassing, Ph.D., and Tobias Hoffmann, Ph.D., as Readers. _____________________________ Jean De Groot, Ph.D., Director _____________________________ Richard Hassing, Ph.D., Reader _____________________________ Tobias Hoffmann, Ph.D., Reader ii To my parents iii Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 I. A Brief History of Teleology............................................................................................1 II. Natural Sources of Obscurity ..........................................................................................8 III. Aristotelian Teleology .................................................................................................22 III.1 Aἴtia as Causes, Aἴtia as Explanations .....................................................23 III.2 Immanent and Universal Teleology ...............................................................38 IV. Outline of the Dissertation ...........................................................................................44 1 The Debate over Teleology and Mechanism ..................................................................47 I. What is ―Mechanism‖? ...................................................................................................47 I.1 Mechanism in Modernity..................................................................................48 I.2 Mechanism in Contemporary Philosophy of Science.......................................49 I.3 Mechanism in the Literature on Aristotle‘s Natural Philosophy ......................53 II. Debate: Is Non-Teleological Causation Present in Aristotle‘s Account of Nature? .....58 II.1 Soft Compatibilism .........................................................................................58 II.2 Hard Compatibilism ........................................................................................60 III. Teleological and Non-Teleological Causation in Aristotle .........................................65 III.1 The Non-Teleological ....................................................................................66 III.2 The Relationship Between Teleological and Non-Teleological Causation ...67 III.3 Why Is Natural Teleology Necessary? ..........................................................71 III.4 Aristotle‘s Proof of Natural Teleology ..........................................................77 III.5 Hypothetical Necessity and the Role of Form in Natural Processes .............84 III.6 The Value of the Debate over Compatibilism ...............................................92 IV. Final Cause as TÕ Oá Ἕneka ....................................................................................94 2 The Convergence of Formal, Efficient, and Final Cause ...........................................102 I. Form and Final Cause ...................................................................................................103 I.1 The Weaker Senses of Eἶdoj: Form as Accidental Being and as the Being Specified by a Definition ................................................................................105 I.2 Form, Nature, and Efficient Cause .................................................................111 I.3 The Convergence of Formal and Final Cause Through Efficient Cause ........116 II. The Role of Form in Teleology ...................................................................................123 II.1 Actuality: ἖nέrgeia and ἖ntelέceia .......................................................124 II.2 ‗Éxij as Δi£qesij and ἖nέrgeia ...............................................................129 II.3 Levels of Actuality and Form: Δi£qesij, ἖nέrgeia, and ἖ntelέceia ....134 3 Aristotle and Contemporary Teleology .......................................................................146 I. Contemporary Teleology ..............................................................................................148 II. Making Aristotle Our Contemporary ..........................................................................158 II.1 The Functionalist Account of Form ..............................................................162 II.2 Why Aristotle Is Not a Functionalist.............................................................175 iv 4 Poίηsiς and the Artifact Model ..................................................................................183 I. Modeling Natural Poίηsiς ..........................................................................................183 I.1 Poίηsiς .........................................................................................................187 II. The Artifact Model ......................................................................................................193 II.1 Tšcnh ............................................................................................................195 II.2 The Benefits of the Artifact Model ...............................................................199 II.3 The Inadequacy of the Artifact Model ..........................................................205 5 Pr©xiς and the Moral Life ...........................................................................................214 I. Pr©xiς as a Model for Natural Teleology ..................................................................215 I.1 Pr©xij as ἖nšrgeia ....................................................................................216 I.2 Pr©xij as Action Done for Its Own Sake ....................................................222 I.3 Types of Pr©xij: Pleasure vs. Moral Action ................................................238 II. The Model of Moral Action ........................................................................................241 II.1 The General Structure of Moral Action ........................................................241 II.2 Causal Convergence in Moral Action ...........................................................245 II.3 The Moral as a Mirror for the Natural...........................................................246 6 Limitations, Objections, and Replies ...........................................................................252 I. Limitations of the Moral Model .......................................................................252 II. Natural Pr©xij? ............................................................................................262 III. Morality as Poietic .........................................................................................267 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................272 I. Old Debates ..................................................................................................................273
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thinking About Evolutionary Mechanisms: Natural Selection
    Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 36 (2005) 327–347 www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsc Thinking about evolutionary mechanisms: natural selection Robert A. Skipper Jr. a, Roberta L. Millstein b a Department of Philosophy, ML 0374, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0374, USA b Department of Philosophy, California State University, East Bay, CA 94542-3042, USA Abstract This paper explores whether natural selection, a putative evolutionary mechanism, and a main one at that, can be characterized on either of the two dominant conceptions of mecha- nism, due to Glennan and the team of Machamer, Darden, and Craver, that constitute the Ônew mechanistic philosophyÕ. The results of the analysis are that neither of the dominant con- ceptions of mechanism adequately captures natural selection. Nevertheless, the new mechanis- tic philosophy possesses the resources for an understanding of natural selection under the rubric. Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Mechanism; Natural selection; Evolution 1. Introduction This paper explores whether natural selection—a putative evolutionary mecha- nism, and a main one at that—can be adequately characterized under the rubric of the Ônew mechanistic philosophyÕ. What we call the new mechanistic philosophy is comprised of two dominant conceptions of mechanism, one due to Glennan E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.A. Skipper Jr.), [email protected] (R.L. Millstein). 1369-8486/$ - see front matter Ó 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.006 328 R.A. Skipper Jr., R.L. Millstein / Stud.
    [Show full text]
  • Contemplation and the Human Animal in the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2011 Contemplation and the Human Animal in the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas Edyta M. Imai Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Imai, Edyta M., "Contemplation and the Human Animal in the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas" (2011). Dissertations. 205. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/205 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2011 Edyta M. Imai LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO CONTEMPLATION AND THE HUMAN ANIMAL IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM IN PHILOSOPHY BY EDYTA M. IMAI CHICAGO IL DECEMBER 2011 Copyright by Edyta M. Imai, 2011 All rights reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER ONE: CONTEMPLATION AND NATURAL APPETITES 30 CHAPTER TWO: SENSATION AND CONTEMPLATION 104 CHAPTER THREE: DESIRE AND CONTEMPLATION 166 CHAPTER FOUR: DELIGHT AND CONTEMPLATION 230 BIBLIOGRAPHY 291 VITA 303 iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ST Summa theologiae SCG Summa contra gentiles QDV Quaestiones disputatae de veritate QDA Quaestiones disputatae de anima In Boetii de Trin. In Librum Boetii de Trinitate Expositio In DA Sententia libri De anima In NE Sententia libri Ethicorum In Met Commentarium in XII libros Metaphysicorum In Ph Commentarium in VIII libros Physicorum SENT Commentarium in quatuor libros Sententiarum iv INTRODUCTION In this dissertation I examine the manner in which – according to Thomas Aquinas - the operations of the sensitive soul contribute to contemplation.
    [Show full text]
  • CCAC Guidelines On: Laboratory Animal Facilities — Characteristics
    Canadian Council on Animal Care guidelines on: laboratory animal facilities — characteristics, design and development This document, the CCAC guidelines on: laboratory animal facilities — characteristics, design and development, has been developed by Drs David Neil and Donald McKay with the collaboration of the CCAC Facilities Standards Subcommittee: Dr Laurence Schofield, Department of National Defence (Chair) Dr Michèle Bailey, Cornell University Mr Richard Bélanger, Ottawa Health Research Institute Dr Sandra Fry, Canadian Food Inspection Agency Dr Martin Kirk, University of Calgary Dr Donald McKay, University of Alberta Dr David Neil, University of Alberta Dr Elizabeth Rohonczy, Canadian Food Inspection Agency Dr Gilles Demers, Canadian Council on Animal Care Dr Gilly Griffin, Canadian Council on Animal Care In addition, the CCAC is grateful to those individuals and organizations that provided comments on earlier drafts of this guidelines document. © Canadian Council on Animal Care, 2003 REVISION DATE: May 2020 ISBN: 0–919087–41–8 Canadian Council on Animal Care 1510–130 Albert Street Ottawa ON CANADA K1P 5G4 http://www.ccac.ca CCAC guidelines on: laboratory animal facilities — characteristics, design and development, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. PREFACE . .1 3.16 Laundry facilities . .31 3.17 Toilets . .31 SUMMARY OF THE GUIDELINES 3.18 Staff break and meeting room(s) . .31 LISTED IN THIS DOCUMENT . .3 3.19 Mechanical and electrical space and distribution of services . .31 B. INTRODUCTION . .13 3.20 Corridors . .32 3.21 Barriers . .33 C. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A 3.22 Radiation shielded suites . .37 LABORATORY ANIMAL 4. Functional Adjacencies . .38 FACILITY . .15 4.1 Personnel facilities . .38 1. Functional Imperatives of the 4.2 Animal holding rooms .
    [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]
  • Behavioral Responses of Zooplankton to Predation
    BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, 43(3): 530-550, 1988 BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES OF ZOOPLANKTON TO PREDATION M. D. Ohman ABSTRACT Many behavioral traits of zooplankton reduce the probability of successful consumption by predators, Prey behavioral responses act at different points of a predation sequence, altering the probability of a predator's success at encounter, attack, capture or ingestion. Avoidance behavior (through spatial refuges, diel activity cycles, seasonal diapause, locomotory behavior) minimizes encounter rates with predators. Escape responses (through active motility, passive evasion, aggregation, bioluminescence) diminish rates of attack or successful capture. Defense responses (through chemical means, induced morphology) decrease the probability of suc- cessful ingestion by predators. Behavioral responses of individuals also alter the dynamics of populations. Future efforts to predict the growth of prey and predator populations will require greater attention to avoidance, escape and defense behavior. Prey activities such as occupation of spatial refuges, aggregation responses, or avoidance responses that vary ac- cording to the behavioral state of predators can alter the outcome of population interactions, introducing stability into prey-predator oscillations. In variable environments, variance in behavioral traits can "spread the risk" (den Boer, 1968) of local extinction. At present the extent of variability of prey and predator behavior, as well as the relative contributions of genotypic variance and of phenotypic plasticity,
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanism and Biological Explanation*
    Mechanism and Biological Explanation* William Bechtel†‡ This article argues that the basic account of mechanism and mechanistic explanation, involving sequential execution of qualitatively characterized operations, is itself insuf- ficient to explain biological phenomena such as the capacity of living organisms to maintain themselves as systems distinct from their environment. This capacity depends on cyclic organization, including positive and negative feedback loops, which can generate complex dynamics. Understanding cyclically organized mechanisms with com- plex dynamics requires coordinating research directed at decomposing mechanisms into parts (entities) and operations (activities) with research using computational models to recompose mechanisms and determine their dynamic behavior. This coordinated endeavor yields dynamic mechanistic explanations. 1. Introduction. Within biology (and the life sciences more generally), there is a long tradition of explaining a phenomenon by describing the mechanism responsible for it. A perusal of biology journals and textbooks yields many mentions of mechanisms but few of laws. Philosophers of *Received October 2010; revised January 2011. †To contact the author, please write to: Department of Philosophy, University of Cali- fornia, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0119; e-mail: bill@mechanism .ucsd.edu. ‡I thank Adele Abrahamsen, Colin Allen, Carl Craver, Lindley Darden, William Wim- satt; audiences at Duke University, Indiana University, University of the Basque Coun- try, University of California, Irvine, University of Chicago, University of Groningen; and referees for this journal for many helpful comments and suggestions. This article’s title is not original; it previously appeared as the title of a 1972 article in Philosophy of Science by Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana.
    [Show full text]
  • ARISTOTLE's TELEOLOGY and Uexk1tll's THEORY of LIVING NATURE
    ARISTOTLE'S TELEOLOGY AND UEXK1tLL'S THEORY OF LIVING NATURE THE purpose of this paper is to draw attention to a similarity between an ancient and a modern theory of living nature. There is no need to present the Aristotelian doctrine in full detail. I must rather apologize for repeating much that is well known. My endeavour is to offer it for comparison, and, incidentally, to clear it from misrepre- sentation. Uexkiill's theory, on the other hand, is little known, and what is given here is an insufficient outline of it. I do not maintain that either doctrine is right. I am fully aware that the problem of the essence of living nature by no means admits of an easy solution.' In offering for consideration the comparison contained in this paper I would go no farther than owning my belief that the two authors here discussed, both thinkers who combine an intensely philosophical outlook with a wide biological experience, are worth the attention not only of the historian of science and philosophy, but also of the student of philosophical biology. One of the various meanings which dv'at bears for Aristotle is that of a cause. In the second book of his Physics, as is well known, he investigates the philosophical character of that cause. The result is what we are accustomed to call his teleology. He maintains that not only rpoalpacr~sbut also dv'c is rTwvEIEKL r'tov alrlwv.2 This teaching has exercised a deep influence, especially throughout the Middle Ages. It has subsequently been discarded, especially since modern science established its mechanistic outlook on nature, which is strictly opposed to teleological explana- tions.
    [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]
  • Aristotle (384-322 BCE) [1]
    Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Aristotle (384-322 BCE) [1] By: Haskett, Dorothy Regan Racine, Valerie Yang, Joanna Keywords: Aristotle [2] Epigenesis [3] Aristotle [4] studied developing organisms, among other things, in ancient Greece, and his writings shaped Western philosophy and natural science for greater than two thousand years. He spent much of his life in Greece and studied with Plato at Plato's Academy in Athens, where he later established his own school called the Lyceum. Aristotle [4] wrote greater than 150 treatises on subjects ranging from aesthetics, politics, ethics, and natural philosophy, which include physics and biology. Less than fifty of Aristotle [4]'s treatises persisted into the twenty-first century. In natural philosophy, later called natural science, Aristotle [4] established methods for investigation and reasoning and provided a theory on how embryos generate and develop. He originated the theory that an organism develops gradually from undifferentiated material, later called epigenesis [5]. Aristotle [4] was born in 384 BCE in Stagira, a coastal town in the Chalcidice peninsula of northern Greece. His mother was Phaestis, who came from a wealthy family on the island of Euboea, and his father was Nicomachus, who was a personal physician to King Amyntas of Macedon. Nicomachus boasted of descent from the Asclepiads, who were devotees of Asclepius, the Greek god of healing and medicine. The Asclepiads valued empirical observations, and that culture made Aristotle [4] familiar with biological studies in his early years. Both parents died when Aristotle [4] was young, and he went to live with Proxenus of Atarneus, who was married to Aristotle [4]'s older sister.
    [Show full text]
  • 29.Philosophy of Liberation.Pdf
    CONTENTS Preface viii Chapter 1 HISTORY 1.1 Geopolitics and Philosophy 1 1.2 Philosophy of Liberation ofthe Periphery 9 Chapter 2 FROM PHENOMENOLOGY TO LIBERATION 2.1 Proximity 16 2.2 Tota1ity 21 2.3 Mediation 29 2.4 Exteriority 39 2.5 Alienation 49 2.6 Liberation 58 Chapter 3 FROM POLITICS TO ANTIFETISHISM 3.1 Politics 67 3.2 Erotics 78 3.3 Pedagogics 87 3.4 Antifetishism 95 Chapter 4 FROM NATURE TO ECONOMICS 4.1 Nature 106 4.2 Semiotics 117 4.3 Poietics 126 4.4 Economics 140 vi Chapter 5 FROM SCIENCE TO PHILOSOPHY OF LIBERATION 5.1 Science 153 5.2 Dialectic 156 5.3 The Analectical Moment 158 5.4 Practice 160 5.5 Poietics 163 5.6 Human Sciences 165 5.7 Ideological Methods 167 5.8 Critical Methods 169 5.9 Philosophy of Liberation 170 Appendix PHILOSOPHY AND PRAXIS A. Philosophy and Ideology 181 B. Dialectic between Philosophy and Praxis 183 C. Exigencies for a Philosophy of Liberation 188 D. Toward an International Division of Philosophical Labor 195 Notes 197 Glossary of Concepts 201 Glossary of Non-English Terms 213 vii PREFACE What follows is addressed to neophytes in philosophy of libera- tion. It does not claim to be an exhaustive exposition. It is a discourse that proceeds by elaborating one thesis after another, using its own categories and its own method. It is a provisional theoretical philosophical framework. Except in the Appendix, this work has few footnotes and no bibliography. Writing in the sorrow of exile (in Mexico), I did not have access to my personal library (in Argentina).
    [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]
  • The Great Fiction 2Nd Edition.Indb
    Th e Great Fiction Th e Mises Institute dedicates this volume to all of its generous Supporters and wishes to thank these, in particular: Benefactors Susan B. McNiel, Mr. and Mrs. Donald M. Rembert, Sr., Steven R. Berger Mr. and Mrs. Gary J. Turpanjian, Juliana and Hunter Hastings Ryan Schmitt in Memory of William Norman Grigg Yousif Almoayyed and Budoor Kazim Patrons Anonymous, Behfar and Peiying Bastani in honor of those known and unknown who fi ght for liberty, Wayne Chapeskie, Carl S. Creager Th omas and Lisa Dierl, Reza Ektefaie, Willard and Donna Fischer Kevin R. Griffi n, Jeff and Jamie Haenggi, Jule R. Herbert, Jr. Albert L. Hillman, Jr., Hunter Lewis and Elizabeth Sidamon-Eristoff Arnold Lisio, MD in Memory of Margit von Mises, Arthur L. Loeb David McClain, Joseph Edward Paul Melville, Michael L. Merritt Gregory and Joy Morin, James Nardulli, Chris and Melodie Rufer, Leif Smith Dr. Th omas L. Wenck, Brian J. Wilton, Walter and Sharon Woodul III Donors Anonymous, Wesley and Terri Alexander Th omas T. Amlie making amends for grandfather Th omas Ryum Amlie William H. Anderson, John Bartel, Dr. Th omas Beazlie, Ryan Best Bob and Rita Bost, Rémi Boudreau, John Boyer, Michael L. Burks John L. Buttolph III, Prof. Paul Cantor, Terence Corcoran, Jim and Cherie Cox Paul Dietrich, Randall Dollahon and Kathleen Lacey, Jeff ery M. Doty Prof. Frank van Dun, Bill Eaton, David J. Emery, Eric Englund, John Rock Foster Dietmar Georg, Christopher Georgacas, Kevin Paul Hamilton Charles F. Hanes, Sheldon Hayer, Wilfrid Helms, Dr. Frederic Herman Adam W.
    [Show full text]