PHL3240 Aristotle and Aristotelianism
-
Handbook entry- a brief description of the subject can be found in the handbook entry. The handbook also provides information about the unit leader, the semester and mode in which the unit is available, the contact hours and the assessment requirements.
-
MUSO site - there is a WebCT site for this unit where assessment tasks, lecture notes and other unit resources will be posted. Once enrolled, students taking this unit are advised to check the WebCT site regularly.
Subject description:
This subject concentrates on the metaphysics and natural philosophy of Aristotle (385-322 BC) and its consequences for western thought. Up until the scientific revolution, it is fair to say that Aristotle's world view was roughly that of educated people throughout Europe and the Mediterranean. To understand the achievement of thinkers such as Galileo, it is thus crucial to understand what came before. More importantly, it is crucial to see how Aristotle's world view presents a theory of nature that says that things are largely as they seem. By contrast, the view that the earth moves, or that bodies in motion will naturally remain in motion unless acted upon by something else is really quite contrary to our experience. It was not merely the power of the church that kept Aristotelian natural philosophy in place for all these years.
What will I accomplish by completing this subject?
You will not become familiar with everything Aristotle wrote by taking this subject. He wrote far too much. You will, however, become familiar with the contents of some of his most influential works. More importantly, you will come to understand certain key Aristotelian concepts, such as the distinction between matter and form. This will allow you to go on to read more of Aristotle on your own and to understand the role that these central concepts play in the history of western thought. Finally, you will learn to tackle philosophical problems in the right way by noticing the methodological virtues in Aristotle's approach to a question. Even when he gets to the wrong answer, the way Aristotle argues should serve as a model for everyone who aspires to write clear, rigorous philosophy.
Do I need to have taken the subject on Plato first?
No, though you may be in a position to see things in Aristotle's thought that you might otherwise have missed if you have taken the Plato subject. But that's nothing special: frequently the more Philosophy you have done, the more you'll see in any philosophical text. In any case, where it is necessary, I'll fill in the background to Aristotle's views in lecture.
What if I'm a Classical Studies student who hasn't done Philosophy before?
The normal pre-requisites for this subject can be waived with the permission of the instructor. However, it must be said that this subject may be the most demanding of those Philosophy subjects available for credit towards a Classical Studies major.
Give me a sample:
Not all of Aristotle's natural philosophy was 'made to order' for the purposes of the Catholic church. It was necessary for thinkers like St Thomas Aquinas to demarcate the boundaries between the realm of faith and that of reason in which Aristotle could be authoritative. One source of conflict that had to be resolved was Aristotle's view on whether the world was created or not. He claimed that it was not - that it has always existed and would always exist. He offered numerous arguments for this view. One relates to his theory that the present instant, or 'the now', is not itself a part of time, but rather a boundary between past and future time. Moreover, the existence of time depends upon the existence of change. There could be no first instant of time, since it is a boundary. But since there has always been time, there has always been change since the former depends on the latter. Thus the world did not come into being from nothing.
Possible essay topic: What is Aristotle's theory of time and how does he attempt to argue for it? It seems to be a consequence of his view that if there were no such thing as change, there would be no such thing as time. Is this a plausible view to hold about the nature of time? Defend your answer.
Check out some Aristotle on the web:
In Physics book VIII, [http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.8.viii.html ] Aristotle argues for the claim that the ultimate source of motion in the beginningless and endless cosmos is 'the unmoved mover'. In Metaphysics XII, he identifies this unmoved mover with God.