Abigale Upham

Professor Clarke
LITS 2306
3 November 2011
From Particular to Genus: Aristotles Unique Perspective Applied to Literature
Aristotle spearheaded the Pre Modern Ancient period of thinkers who existed between 700
BC and 300 CE. He grew as a philosopher under the guidance of the infamous Plato. However,
Aristotle formulated his outlook on the world from a much different perspective than his teacher.
Aristotles approach to the nature of reality is more robustly down-to-earth than
Platos (Cottingham, 71). Where Plato posed as an idealist believing in another higher world,
Aristotle would be referenced as a realist or materialist who emphasized description and analyzation
in his attempts to figure out the workings of things. His views on literature were influenced by, and
thus coherent with, his views of knowledge. In the case of poetry Aristotle was concerned with its
impact, where the cause of the impact came from and how the impact occurred. His ontological,
epistemological and psychological views stemmed from the notion that we should be interested in the
here and the now and use our senses to explore particulars of this world in order to draw broader
conclusions. He applied his approach of knowledge to his interrogations and philosophy of art and
literature bringing them to focus in his works Categories, Posterior Analytics, De Anima and Poetics
as well as Abramss The Mirror and the Lamp.
Aristotle was interested in four categories of study: metaphysics, epistemology, logic and
reasoning and the philosophy of mind or psychology. He believed an understanding of the nature of
reality could be attained through these four avenues of study. We see him apply them to his study
and philosophy of literature as well. As suggested by the scientific nature of the four categories,
Aristotles ontology dealt with what he could physically hold in his hands and test as opposed to
Plato who was focused on providing knowledge about an other ideal world. While Plato speaks of
literature to prescribe the effects and hinderances it imposes upon reaching an ideal world, Aristotle
looks at how literature physically and emotionally effects people and the world they exist in. This
distinction is further enhanced by Aristotles ontological interest in particulars rather than abstract
essences of things. For Aristotle the substance is primary and priority while the universal is
secondary and abstract. The introduction of Aristotles Categories reiterates this notion for us by
stating For Aristotle, the ultimate units of being are individual substances (70). He would,
therefore, find interest in a man that belonged to a species of men that in turn belongs to a genus of
animal rather than the species or genus itself. Aristotle rationalized his focus with the primary on
the grounds that secondary categories exist because we have primary examples form which to build
them. The exert Individual Substances in Aristotles Categories uses a horse to clarify his theory by
stating that a secondary or genus of a horse is only a copy of a horse. The actual horse holds the
Upham 1
essential characteristics which make things what they are (70). Primary examples are the base that
form categories. The secondary is predicted from the primary and the genus from the secondary (71).
If the primary substance did not exist it would be impossible for any other things to
exist (Aristotle, Categories 71). The further we get from the primary the more abstract the
categories become and, in a sense, less real. A primary has no abstraction to it. It is tangible,
concrete and explorable where a secondary consists only as an idea or an intellectual
abstraction (Clarke). One must understand a primary before being able to make truthful claims
about a secondary. Aristotle applies this theory to his study of literature by attending and exploring
concrete particular plays in order to reason claims about the secondary category of poetry and
literature and eventually the genus of art.
By prioritizing the primary, Aristotles epistemological views assume induction as the chosen
method of discovery for confronting particulars and trying to understand them with the goal of
revealing relevant information that could lead to a further generalization of universals. Still, he
accepts that the abstract secondary subject has properties of the primary subject that allow us to
create functioning definitions and so are, in their own way, also important. A genus can be
referenced when questioning qualities of a primary but only after the primary has been explored and
committed to a secondary. Because of this process Aristotle aligns his main interest with the primary
and particulars of a subject. He assigns three main characteristics to his study of particulars. A
subject can be no more than one thing at the same time represented by his discovery that a tragedy
cannot infer the same results as a comedy and vice versa. Each exist as their own entity within a
broader genus of literature. He claims another characteristic to be that a substance does not exude a
sense of degree; it either is something or it is not. A poetic work either has the elements that render it
a tragedy or it does not and is therefore a failure of tragic literature. The final characteristic is that
there are accidental qualities may vary and change but these do not get included within a genus
category.
Aristotle further outlines his epistemological philosophies in his book Demonstrative
Knowledge and its Starting Points where he speaks of inherited knowledge as being derived though
testimonies of others admitting that we do not discover everything on our own. Dispositions are
neither innate in determinate form, nor on the other hand do they arise from other higher states of
knowledge, but they come about from sense perception (Aristotle, Posterior Analytics 21). He
explains that we tend to use syllogisms as a form of logic to demonstrate that a general conclusion is
as truthful and valid as the particular premises through which it was inductively inferred. This is
completed through the process of scientific method. Scientific syllogism is knowledge through
demonstration. . .all teaching and all intellectual knowledge arises from some pre existing
knowledge (Aristotle, Posterior Analytics 20). In this same way, people learn from literature,
poetry and plays. Because of this, Aristotle does stress that character should be good and true to life
Upham 2
as well as consistent (Aristotle, Poetics 58). However, Aristotle does not look to denounce
literature as Plato does but attempts to look at how that process of inheriting knowledge through it
occurs as well as discover its final cause upon audience psyche.
Aristotle stresses that the scientific method must include the aspiration of the scientist to be
objective and neutral leaving all biases and subjectivity behind if he or she wishes to reach a true
knowledge of a premises from which to base broader conclusions. He supports this method by
personally attending plays with a objective perspective in order to derive further claims about
literature in general. In chapter four and 19 of Demonstrative Knowledge and its Starting Points he
continues to say that reasoning can be useful but only once you have proven your premises true
through a scientific and objective method. It is only then that one can reason and infer about a more
abstract and universal category in a sound and truthful manner. Reasoning has a place in inferring
possible truths from actual truths but first one must use an objective scientific approach divorced
from reasoning. Only after this can inferred truths be extracted from primary truths. Demonstrative
Knowledge and its Starting Points clearly states that deductive knowledge relies on self evidentially
true starting points. In chapter eight Aristotle also points out that scientific knowledge does not deal
with temporary things but with what is true everywhere and at all times (Clarke). This speaks
again to the need for poetry to be realistic and consistent in its imitations. It is the only way to make
truthful claims about a genus. As reiterated by Professor Clarke, Scientists should be concerned
with laws about consistency and scientific knowledge comes about when when we understand the
cause of the item in question which we arrive at through Aristotles theory of the Four Main Causes.
Chapter 19 continues Aristotles epistemological argument for empiricism and against
rationalism. He states the starting point for any knowledge is sense-perception. Aristotle stresses
the crucial role of sense perception in providing the raw materials of knowledge...knowledge
develops naturally from sense perception to arrive at intuition (Cottingham 19). In other words, and
in much opposition to Platos claims, reasoning begins with perception. From sense perception,
there arises memory; and when there is repeated memory of the same thing, there arises experience,
and from experience there arises the starting point of scientific knowledge (what is) (Aristotle,
Demonstrative Knowledge 20). Because of this, it is necessary for a tragedy to be a certain length
and have a graspable element of good fortune gone bad, or vice versa, to allow the memory to
embrace it. There is no room for irrational actions (Aristotle, Poetics 58). Through sense
perception the mind establishes resemblance between things over a period of consistent time
allowing particulars to be turned into universals which is what knowledge is concerned with. We see
here again the stress on the importance of the tangible over the intangible, the particulars and the
primary as a crucial base for internalizing all future knowledge or, as reiterated by Professor Clarke,
the ability to perceive things becomes the starting point for all rationally derived knowledge. We
again see Aristotle favoring the tangible elements in life by placing much priority and focus on
Upham 3
singular real poetics that he can attend and build memorable experiences from through his senses.
Only after this has occurred can he draw objective conclusions regarding literature.
Aristotles essays on physics help to reveal a focus on the natural world that human beings
find themselves in. He exercises empiricism through The Four Causes to understand why a thing is
what it is and tries to assign it a reason for being. In his writing Four Types of Explanation he states,
In order to understand the nature of any natural or humanly-made phenomenon, the key thing is to
understand its origin or cause (302). He applies this theory to his study of literature by attempting
to understand its impact. Aristotle labels this branch of knowledge the Productive Senses referring
to the study of the production of rhetoric, poetics, language, logic, and reasoning stating that
everything and anything can be understood by implying the concept of the Four Causes (301).
While Plato looks at literature in reference to a non-physical ideal world, Aristotle applies his Four
Causes to investigate literature as a tangible element of the world in which we exist. He uses his
ontological views to classify art as a genus, literature as the secondary and poetry (or a play) as the
primary and strongly believes that if he wants to understand literature and plays he must go watch
them for himself. He then applies induction by watching a particular or primary play and producing
broader claims of knowledge about secondaries. Butcher clarifies in Poetics stating that Aristotle
approaches literature as if he were a classical biologist intending to classify and categorize kinds of
literature systematically (49).
The first of Aristotles Four Causes is the Material Cause and it is interested in the thing out
of which something is made (Clark). This assumes importance because everything is made out of
something. It cannot be denied that everything has a material cause. Literature does not exist or
appear but it created through the mind of a poet and is further developed through the elements of a
play. Without material cause literature would cease to exist failing to bring a cause to the forefront
for audiences.
The second cause is the Formal Cause. It is interested, as the name implies, with form.
Form is a particular shape that constitutes the definition of a thing; that which makes a thing unique
in it definition (Clarke). Two things can be created out of the same material but each will have a
unique and particular form that distinguishes them. Form as a defining quality was very important to
Aristotles studies and he applied it to literature by describing a set criteria for both tragedies and
comedies that allow a recognition of the two as separate entities.
The third cause is the Efficient Cause and it deals with what initiates change within
something or how something comes to be. He applies this cause to his study of literature by
outlining successful tragic plot structures including simple verse complex, reversal and recognition.
The fourth cause is known as the Final Cause and it is concerned with purpose. In his
Physics Aristotle claims that the final cause is that for the sake of which something is done (301).
He states that the Final Cause of why we produce art and literature lies in its impact on the emotions
Upham 4
and the psyche. If literature cannot produce a final cause aligned with its poetic type it fails as a
work of art.
Like his studies of the natural world, Aristotle was interested in the material cause of poetry
because he felt that art depicts, imitates and represents the things men normally do. Aristotle also
looks at the evolution of poetry, its history, where it originated, how it developed over time, and the
underlining importance of form within it. While his approach is somewhat mimetic, believing that
art holds a mirror up to life, he is more deeply interested in how it mirrors life. Professor Clarke
clarifies Aristotles focus by explaining that to Aristotle the structure of art is just as important as the
fact that it is holding a mirror up to life. Aristotle is therefore very focused on the final cause of
poetry as well because form and material cause go hand in hand with final cause. He is also one of
the first thinkers to critically discuss genre and distinguishes artistic imitation by medium, object and
manner. (Butcher 51). In Abramss The Mirror and the Lampich Aristotle is depicted as believing
that different methods for imitation to be accomplished in art exist and he invested much energy into
exposing these differences and their unique impacts on man (9). He is interested in what formal
cause makes each type of art significant from the other divisions such as what defines literature from
sculptures, paintings, etc. He further divides literature into two categories, that of the tragedy and that
of the comedy. He continues to divide tragedy into the complex, the pathetic, the ethical and the
simple (Aristotle, Poetics 59). The distinction between the tragedy and comedy is derived from the
differences in meaning and matter in eachs object of representation. Poetry now diverged into two
directions according to the individual character: actions of good men and actions of meaner
persons (Aristotle, Poetics 52). As Aristotle previously claimed, all poetry depicts men doing
things but what they are depicting depends on if the literature is a tragedy or a comedy. Aristotle
defines comedy as representing common people, or the average person, who tend to be flawed. On
the other hand, tragic poets are more serious minded and represent the noble actions and the
doings of noble persons; the better type of man who usually meets an unhappy endings through error
like that of Oedipus (Clarke). A tragedy must also incorporate six elements analyzed by Aristotle in
order to be considered in the tragic genre (Aristotle, Poetics 53). Further, it must entail a clear
beginning, middle and end with the beauty of the play depending on magnitude and
order (Aristotle, Poetics 54). Finally, an element of wonderful is required in a tragedy (Aristotle,
Poetics 63).
While the two styles of poetry have their clear distinctions, they both work toward a final
impact constructed through form. It is here that Aristotle really stresses the importance of form to the
function of poetry. Each kind of play has an impact of character which is the final cause, a
characteristic effect is achieved through a particular form (Clarke). Therefore, form, function and
effect go hand in hand because the final cause or impact of poetry can only be achieved through the
use of a particular form. For example, the function of tragedy is to provoke pity and fear in the
Upham 5
audience and the form of a tragedy is the only way to create this. The form of comedy would be
insufficient in achieving that particular final cause. Through studying and experiencing poetry first
hand, Aristotle was able to determine what tactics, structure and form result in a successful cause or
desired impact upon an audiences psyche allowing him to further classify varying species of poetry
in a more abstract genus of art.
Aristotles empirical research oriented approach to literature lead him to establish six
elements he believed to be present in all successful pieces of poetry. A specific arrangement of
represented actions must come first. This Aristotle calls the plot or mythos. Much thought must
be invested into the order of events that happen in a play in order to create and sustain drama and a
plot that can be followed by the audience. For example, there is the strategy of rearranging events
within a play that could not possibly occur in real life such as flashbacks reverting between present
and past to achieve a higher level of dramatic effect. Since causing an impact on the audience is the
final goal of poetry, increased dramatic effect can be very beneficial. Still, the play cannot become
disorganized and confusing in its arrangement of events or else the final cause cannot be reached and
the play fails.
The second characteristic is character or ethos. Ethos is the second most important element
to Aristotle. He found that questions of character often become questions of ethics, what is right and
wrong. Plato was very worried with the lessons that audiences would derive from characters, their
ethics and the consequences related to these particular ethics. Aristotle seemed to approach
characters and the simultaneous issue of ethics with more interest than worry in how they depicted
human nature. He watched a multitude of plays to gain an ontological and psychological
understanding of what particular character actions reveal about the personal choices of human beings
as well as how those revelations effect the psychology of the audience. Here we truly see his
descriptive epistemological approach to the study of nature and man displayed through his study,
analysis and philosophy of literature.
The third characteristic he labels dianoia and claims it to be about persuasion found within a
piece of poetry developed through the thought of characters. Every play must have words and the
words that a character says must correspond to his character if a successful play is to be formed and
final cause to be achieved. He even analyzes use of language by dividing words into seven
categories: current, strange, double (or triple), coined, lengthened, contracted or altered (Aristotle,
Poetics 61). Without diction a character would not be able to convey his dianoia to the audience
and no connections could be made between a characters ethics. Er go persuasion and the final
meaning of the story would prove unclear resulting in either no effect or an incorrect impact being
imposed upon those watching. Aristotle mentions spectacle (stage effect, setting, scenery, actor
quality) and music but renders them less important than the first four characteristics which he
chooses to prioritize in his study of literature.
Upham 6
A play is first and foremost a representation of the actions chosen by men and the
consequences which these entail (Aristotle 101). Aristotle believes that art represents actions of life
and how they bring happiness or unhappiness to a person. To him most important is the structure of
the incidents for tragedy is an imitation, not of men, but of an action and of life (Aristotle, Poetics
53). Therefore Aristotle prioritizes plot structure over character because nature of plot-structure of
action is crucial to the success of a poem in depicting the happiness or unhappiness of a character as
a final cause. Art is about depicting actions of characters rather than the characters
themselves (Clarke). Character is solely the device through which the author represents his main
message to his audience. It is involved in the play for the sake of assisting the action, a means of
achieving the more important characteristic of plot. Action for an end is present in things which
came to be and are nature and not an act of spontaneity of coincidence (Aristotle, Physics 302). If
the goal of life is to reach happiness then some form of happiness or unhappiness must reside in the
final cause of the literature. The poet being an imitator must imitate one of three objects: things as
they were or are, things as they are said or thought to be, or things as they ought to be (Aristotle,
Poetics 64). Poetry must show through a progression of plot how specific actions lead a man to
happiness or unhappiness or else it fails as a piece of literature regardless of who the character
happens to be. The depiction and evaluation of character is not what is important but rather their
choices, the things they do and the results of these actions. Because of this the incidents of plot are
coined the most important part of literature. We can look at tragedy in this light as a more detailed
explanation. The final cause of a tragedy is to evoke pity and fear. While word choice, music tone
and dianoia are helpful in achieving this, it is more their accumulation with the acute structure and
development of plot that achieve and implement a successful final cause on the audience. If there is
no probable connection or flow between the events of a plot or if every component in the play is not
working towards a single united focus then literature cannot carry out its function.
Aristotle also applied his Four Causes to his theory of the human body and soul creating a
drastically different opinion of the matter from that of his teacher who believed that human soul and
feelings existed as a distinct entity from the body. Here we see Aristotle stretching beyond his
philosophies regarding epistemology and ontology to also consider the philosophy of DeAnima or
knowledge of the soul (Clarke). Aristotle believed that Platos notion of separate soul and body
could not be proven and outlined his opposing perspective in his writing Soul and Body, Form and
Matter. He felt that the body was a formal and material cause from which the soul could not be
extracted. His view was that body has potential but until it is invested with a soul it cannot reach full
actualization. In this way the soul gives the body form that distinguishes it from other bodies. Soul is
also dependent on the body because its matter is what enables it to experience feelings, emotions and
thoughts. Affections of the soul are inseparable from the natural matter of the animals in which they
occur (Aristotle De Anima 135).
Upham 7
Plato and Aristotle even disagree about what to study when questioning the emotions of the
soul and body. While Plato was focused on what function an emotion serves, Aristotle tried to
understand the material processes by which an emotion is born in attempt to classify the living
natural world in terms of final cause and function to a larger whole. His theories and methods are
strongly connected to the cognitive sciences that attempt to understand the workings of the mind in
reference to the workings of the brain, also known as psychology (Clarke). He argues that this is
proven through the fact that emotions cause both physical and mental reactions. He gives an
example which he develops on pages 134 and 137 of De Anima using the eye to claim that if the eye
were an animal (body) then sight would be its soul or its reason for being. Therefore if the soul in a
human is related to the brain and to thinking then the goal for humans is to think and grow in
knowledge and to use our reasoning to come to an understanding of the world (Clarke). He goes as
far to say that human beings should devote themselves to eduamonia or intellectual activities if they
wish to find happiness. All of these views directly influence and feed into Aristotles unique
understanding of literature. Aristotle can use his study of literature to reaffirm his views on the
interconnectedness of soul and body. He gives the example that a tragedy should mingle in our
intellect producing emotions like pity and fear that then lead us to tears and other sorts of physical
reactions. Through experience and empirical study of poetry he feels confident in claiming body and
soul do not exist as tow separate entities.
One can clearly see Aristotles reliance on his particular ontological, epistemological, and
psychological views through his studies and conclusions regarding literature. The same four causes
that he uses to objectively explore human beings and the world we exist within are what he sees fit
for studying the literature we create and are impacted by. He looks to answer questions of what it
is and why it is when delving into the realm of literature as he would with any entity in the natural
and scientific world. Because of this approach, Aristotle is able to classify literature, its elements, its
fundamental causes and the impacts it imprints on men in a descriptive and relatively unbiased
manner.
Upham 8
Works Cited
Aristotle. Demonstrative knowledge and its Starting Points. Extract from Posterior Analytics.
Trans. Cottingham, John. Western Philosophy: an Anthology. Ed. John Cottingham.
Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. 19-22. Print.
Aristotle. Individual Substance. Extract from Categories. Ed. Cottingham, John. Princeton:
Princeton UP, 1984. 70-74. Print.
Aristotle. Four Types of Explanation. Extract from Physics. Ed. Cottingham, John. Princeton:
Princeton UP, 1984. 301-303. Print.
Aristotle. Poetics. Extract from Adams. Trans. T. S. Dorsch. Classical Literary Criticism. Ed. T.
S. Dorsch. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1965. 50-56. Print.
Aristotle. Soul and Body, Form and Matter. Extract from De Anima. Trans. D. W. Hamlyn.
Western Philosophy: an Anthology. Ed. Cottingham, John. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. 134-138.
Print.
Clarke, Richard. Ancient Greek Philosophy II: Aristotles Proto-Empiricism. LITS 2306.
University of the West Indies, Barbados. 19-21 September 2011. Presentation.
Clarke, Richard. The Enlightenment: Rise of Science. LITS 2306. University of the West Indies,
Barbados. 26-28 September 2011. Presentation.


Word Count: 4360
Upham 9