Aristotle wants to redesign a theory of nature and knowledge.

This block of material is a reaction against

Plato. Aristotle’s concern is that since he is a biologist and he wants to be able to draw conclusions from
his experiments. These conclusions mention that science is about necessity, but for Plato the only access
to necessity is through ideas and not by perception because of the constant change in the physical world.
He wants a theory of the world that makes sense and a theory of the mind that has access to the sense that
it makes. He does this so that his scientific conclusions can have both necessity and universality. He
wants to be able to make statements that are bigger than his experiments.

Nature
1) What does A. mean by “nature” and how is it (nature) made evident?
a. Things which have an internal principle of motion and being at rest an
innate impulse to change, and a source or cause of being moved and
of being at rest.
b. Nature as exhibited in the process of growth, i.e., things that grow into
that towards which they tend. The predetermined direction of the
growth indicates what kind of a thing it is that grows.

Natural objects contain an internal organizational principle that contains a

pattern for development and a drive to make that pattern natural. There is a
plan and dynamic contained in a principle that organizes a thing.
Nature is a cause that works towards a purpose; it is regular and predictable. The evidence for
this is the regularity. It is the fact that teeth come in a certain and same way. This cannot be
explained by chance.

2) A. claims that “It is plain that nature is a cause, a cause that operates for a
purpose.” What evidence does he offer for this claim?
a. By continuous movement
b. Originating from an internal principle
c. Arrives at some completion
d. From a tendency in each toward the same end

Nature, as the organizing principle, physically organizes a thing in such a way

that it has certain capacities, and then it gives those capacities a target so it
can achieve that end. In the end is built the programming.
The activity of the agent actualizes the possibilities that are programmed into
its organizational principle that makes it whatever it is and able to achieve its
purpose.
 The common goal is the full flourishing of the agent. The purpose is why
the world makes sense.
Things in this world are matter organized in a way that allows them to operate according to a
rule. These are quantities of matter organized in a certain way that enables it to do certain kinds
of things and always be able to do those kinds of things.

3) Present the difficulty he raises against this theory and his solution to the
difficulty.
a. Why shouldn’t (all) nature work without a purpose and just from
mechanical (blind) necessity or pure chance?
b. That which is normal and invariable cannot be attributed to chance or
spontaneity because the characteristics of the latter are the opposite.
 Aristotle asks question (a). He raises an objection to this. This is not the only way it is
logically possible to think about nature. It is possible that the regularity is a coincidence. There
is no logical reason why that cannot be the case. There is no conceptual reason why things we
see happening on a regular basis are not operating that way by coincidence. He claims if you
examine the two concepts (*nature is a cause that acts towards a purpose, and *nature operates
by coincidence) and you ask, “What are the peculiar properties of these two approaches? The
properties of the first choice are regularity and predictability. The properties of chance or
coincidence are irregularity and unpredictability. Aristotle asks to look at nature and state what
you see; you see that nature is regular and predictable and that the second alternative is false;
the world makes sense because it is regulated by an internal principle that moves development in
nature towards a predetermined end. His experiments have universal applicability. Observation
refutes the second theory.
He has set up nature as a knowable object.

Knowing
1) What does A. mean by “unqualified scientific knowledge” and what is its
“proper object” and what is the manner or mode of this kind of knowledge?
a. Knowing the unambiguous cause that makes x necessary.
b. That which cannot be otherwise than it is.
c. The demonstration, i.e., the syllogism (give an example), the grasp
which is eo ipso scientific knowledge.
i. Eo ipso=without any words; looking at the language form you
can see that makes necessity evident.

What is science looking for? Science is concerned with the inner causes of nature which have to
be accessed by the mind.
Scientific consists in explanations; in determining what is necessary about the event (not
describing the event). Explanations are always in terms of causes (Why is it necessary that things
occur in this manner?). Science wants to know how to explain the facts. Extract the principle by
observation and experimentation. Then, convert the principle into a concept or definition. With a
definition, one enters intellectual realm and is able to infer. Inferences constitute scientific
literature. Ultimately, one goes from a specific experiment to a universal statement.

2) Present the problem imbedded in the mode or form of this kind of knowledge
and A.’s solution.
a. The open ended regress entails either scientific knowledge is not
possible or all truths are demonstrable.
b. Not all knowledge is demonstrable, i.e., knowledge of the immediate
premises is indemonstrable (originative source which enables us to
recognize the definitions.)

The problem has to do with language. Depending on what you want to do or what you want to
express, that determines the language form you are going to use. He claims that you have to get
the language form that makes necessity evident; the syllogism. Syllogism is a form of proof. The
difficulty with the language form that pertains to science is that it is indefinitely regressive. The
necessity that shows up in the conclusion of a syllogism originates in the first line of the
argument. The regression consists in the question, “where does the first line of that argument get
its necessity?” The first line of that argument is the bottom line of a prior argument (If you keep
asking that question, and continue to go backwards indefinitely, then you cannot get the
 knowledge process started). The solution to that problem is to stop that regress. You stop this
regress with a rational intuition (i.e., there is some necessity that the mind can access intuitively,
and, therefore, without depending on the prior argument). The necessary something is in the
organizing principle; it gives you the defining characteristics of the thing.
We are quantities of matter with an organization that gives us a distinct, definable advantage in
nature; intelligence. We are able to outthink the rest of the animals on the planet. Our line has
developed a capacity that gives us a competitive advantage on this planet.
The defining characteristic is what the mind accesses through rational intuition. Once you have
that defining characteristic (i.e., rational animality), you can put that into a definition (i.e.,
human beings are rational animals), and you can pull out all the things you want to say about
human beings out of that definition (i.e., human beings are political by nature). With access to
that principle and putting that into the definition, then you can proceed to an inference. This
gives you the science (all the body of knowledge) of being human.

3) What does A. mean by “essential attribute and what is its role in

demonstrative knowledge?
a. Essential attributes:
i. Demonstration is an inference from necessary premises;
ii. Necessary premises = essential attributes;
iii. Essential attributes = attributes which are elements in the
essential nature of the subject (e.g., line/triangle, point/line).
b. Essential attributes attach necessarily to their subjects. These
necessary connections serve as the premises of the demonstrative
syllogism.

All scientific knowledge consists in a network of inferences drawn from

primary premises.

4) A. claims that “scientific knowledge is not possible through the act of

perception.” What does this mean and present A.’s case for this claim?
a. Mere sensing as such cannot serve as the basis of knowing that which
is necessary about the object.
b. The characteristics of sense knowledge vs. those of scientific
knowledge.

KNOW QUESTION #1
He has talked about what knowledge is aimed at scientifically. He has talked about the language
form, the problem with the language form, the solution to problem of the language form, and the
target of rational intuition.
He then presents the problem: “sci. knowledge is not possible through the act of perception”
because perception by its very structure is always about particulars (i.e., this, here, and now). So,
there is no universality. Perception always produces descriptions, not definitions. You cannot get
anything necessary about descriptions. The solution to this problem is critical to his whole
philosophical enterprise. If perception cannot deliver necessity, then his whole philosophy is
dead. In spite of the both the limitation of perception (here and now) and the role of perception
(as our only access to the physical world), there has to be some way for our mind to access
necessity to have science.

5) If scientific knowledge is not possible through the act of perception, then how
does it come about? Present A.’s answer.
 a. Aristotle’s account of the grades of data control:
i. Sensing without a trace / sensing with a trace
ii. Systematizing, memory
iii. Experience
iv. Science

His solution this problem is that if you look at nature that has consciousness, you will see a
hierarchy in the sophistication of data control. At the bottom you will have things that are aware
of things that are around them, and once the contact is broken that is the end of it. At this level,
the organism cannot do anything except react to an immediate event. Then you have things that
keep a trace of contact after contact has been broken. This is the beginning of a memory data
bank; that allows for comparison. This comparison allows for systematization, which is the
control that allows for memory. Memory can now be accessed indiscriminately; it has a planning
capability. Frequently repeated memories results in experiences.
He claims that this hierarchy of data control, you have a level of sophistication that involves the
capacity of not only comparing and cataloguing data, but also comparing the categories
themselves. Once you have this level of sophistication, you have an agent that knows what it is
doing; and it is able to understand the cataloguing process which is the beginning of a concept.
Concepts are category controls, and categories are data controls. The agent is now able to set up
experiments. In science you have a theory which is a category, and on the basis of this, you set up
your experiments.

QUICK REVIEW
A discriminating principle is sense perception.
The beginning of real knowledge is retention capacity.
The next stage is systematization. The essence of systemization is
comparison.
Out of sense perception comes memory and out of frequently repeated
memories comes experiences.
Universal is a category. The catalogue in which we organize particulars is
universal.
Cataloguing is the beginning of a concept. With concepts, you can compare
concepts.
With the comparison of concepts, you can begin scientific experimentation of
particulars.

Mind
1) A. claims that “mind (by mind I mean that whereby the soul thinks and
judges) is, before it thinks, not actually any real thing.” Present his defense of
this claim.

Aristotle claims that mind has the capacity to process information on the bottom level, so it is
sensitive to what is going on around it. The bottom level is open to influence. On the top level,
mind has a light and consists in an insight on what it means to understand something. This light
knows the difference between descriptions and definitions. Definitions involve insights.
Descriptions involve perceptions. The mind is born with an insight on what it means to
understand something. This is observed through the fact that we ask questions. We understand
what it means to understand.
The next thing he says about mind is that it has no form of its own. Form is the principle of the
way a thing functions. If the mind is able to know anything and everything it follows, than it
 cannot have a form of its own. IF it had a form, than the form would determine all and what it
can know. Mind is not anything when it is not actually knowing something because it does not
have a form. Real is to be some kind of a thing. You cannot have something real that is not some
kind of a thing. Once mind understands something, it takes on the form of the thing it understands
and it becomes a knowable object to itself. (Once it borrows the form from something that is
understood (i.e., it gets the form that makes the thing what it is) and has a duplicate of it the
mind, it now becomes some kind of a thing). As such, it can become an object of its own
knowledge. Mind can watch itself know something. When it does this, it becomes the most
interesting thing to which it has access.
The bottom line is: why is all this important to Aristotle’s ethics? Mind is the best thing that we
have: it can do anything (it can know anything), it is immaterial (it cannot die), it is alive, and it
is the best object to which it has access in this world. Therefore the lifestyle that makes sense will
be organized around the primacy of intelligence. What is unique about a human being as an
agent is that it can act on insight rather than instinct; it can act because it has understood
something rather than because it has felt something. This makes us free; we are not like the other
animals. The human is different from any other animal because it has the ability to act on reason.

Mind
1) It cannot have a nature of its own since, if it did, it would not be possible for
everything to be an object of thought. Explain why this is so.

***√ previous answer

Ethics
1) What does Aristotle mean by “the function of man” and what is the role of
this concept in his theory of happiness?
a. The good
b. Ranking of ends; the chief good
c. Happiness=the highest of all goods achievable by action
d. Happiness=the end that is final without qualification (always desirable
in itself and never for the sake of something else)
e. Happiness=something final, self-sufficient, and the end of action
f. The problem
g. The solution: “in general, for all things that have a function or activity,
the good and the well is thought to reside in the function.”
h. The function of man
i. The appropriate excellence
j. Perfect happiness=activity in accordance with the best thing in us, i.e.,
our natural ruler and guide (reason)
k. The contemplative activity of reason (to understand) has the
characteristics of complete happiness:
i. Pleasure proper to itself (that is self-energizing)
ii. Self-sufficiency
iii. Leisureliness
iv. Unweariedness
l. The life of reason is the best, most pleasant, and happiest because
reason is each man himself, and that which is the proper to each thing
is by nature best and most pleasant for it.

Humans beings are things in nature that act for a purpose.

 What is the natural purpose of a human being? Happiness. This is the ultimate
achievement/desire of human life. What constitutes the ultimate achievement of human
life? To be good at what it is. The ultimate goal of being happy consists in the function of
the human being; the act of life of the rational element. Our defining function is our
rationality; having the ability to understand that it makes the maximum sense to act this
way. What defines us is our intelligence. Being good at that is the ultimate flourishing of
the human being. There are two features to this: one is the basic capacity (acting on
insight rather than instinct), and the other is the attitude towards that capacity. It is the
attitude of never cheating on insight: integrity. It is combination of the ability to act on
insight + integrity that constitutes being good at being human; happiness. It is a life in
which you have class/style; it is a life that is guided by insight and is free.

2) What does A. mean by “practical wisdom” and how can it be ruined?

a. Practical wisdom=to be able to deliberate well about what is good and
expedient for oneself about what sorts of things conduce to the good
life in general.
Practical wisdom=be able to calculate with a view to some good end
which is not the object of any art.
Practical wisdom is not about the invariable (the necessary) or that
which is impossible for one to do, since these are not objects of
deliberation.
Practical Wisdom=a true and reasoned state of the capacity to act with
regard to things that are good or bad for man.
b. Temperance preserves practical wisdom because it preserves
judgments about what is to be done (i.e., not theoretical judgments)
since these are based on the end as the originating cause of what is to
be done, and a person ruined by pleasure or pain fails to see such
originating cause.

The ultimate practical goal of life is the good life; to flourish. A successful life has to be
now. Practical wisdom consists getting out of life all you want minus conflicts of
interests; putting it all together in an orchestrated way (or being able to deliberate well).
He makes a point of motivation. The human being lives on two levels: intelligence and
instincts (all that animals have). Our instincts do not care at all about our thinking. The
emotions are forces and have the tendency to take over our decision making process;
they conflict with our intelligence. Motivation provides the moral energy to control those
forces. The moral energy derives from having the mind focus on the good life; knowing
what you want and not letting anything interfere with this (i.e., practical wisdom). If a
person takes their eye off that goal, the goal will not be attractive because you cannot be
attracted to something that is not on your mind. You have to stay focused. Self-discipline
preserves function. When you take your eye off that goal, it ceases to motivate, therefore,
something else steps in and fills the gap; something else grabs your attention and
becomes the ultimate in your life.

3) What is the difficulty concerning the objectivity of the good and how does A.
respond to it?
a. Some may say that all men desire the apparent good, but have no
control over the appearance, i.e., the end appears to each man in a
form answering to his character. Therefore, no one is responsible for
his own evil doing.
 b. If each person is responsible for his state of mind, he is responsible for
the appearance. Aiming at the end is not self-chose. We are born with
an eye by which to judge rightly and choose what is truly good. The
end appears and is fixed by nature, and it is by referring everything
else to this that men do whatever they do.

The good is relative to the person making the judgment of what is good. There is no such
thing as the objective good. He claims that there are two things that are wrong with this:
1) If it’s true, then you have no way of doing evil things. This goes against common
sense. Therefore, the good cannot all be relative. 2) The second reason this is wrong is
because it denies a basic fact about the human being; namely that we come into life
endowed by nature with the capacity to distinguish between what makes sense and what
does not make sense. Animals do not have that capacity and are merely opportunistic.
Human beings have that capacity. The ability to make sense is the best gift that nature
has given us. You cannot claim that all good is relative, because it is not. There is also a
question of moral fatigue. Human beings recognize that the tension between the two
layers of our nature is permanent. Eventually one begins to gain control over the lower
part of one’s nature through habits, but one never removes the tension. There is a
temptation to give up. Feelings influence the way we think, but we must keep our
emotions under control, because our emotions are not us. You keep up the fight for
yourself. The voice of reason is me talking to me. My emotions are not me. The voice of
reason is me. The ultimate motivation for persevering in a life of virtue/goodness is
loyalty to one’s self. Each person is meant to be his own or her own very best friend;
because of this, one listens to the voice of reason.
Aristotle will state that we need a successful personal life and standard of living in our
society.

4) Present A.’s description of “perfect friendship.”

a. Perfect friendship=friendship between people who are good, similar in
virtue. They wish each other well because they are good, and they are
intrinsically good.
True friends=people who wish well to their friends for their friends’
sake, for they have this attitude because of what their friends really
are and not because of something incidental.
Therefore their friendship lasts as long as they are good, and goodness
is enduring.
b. The following qualities belong to friendship between good people in
virtue of the character of the friends themselves:
i. the friends are good without qualification to each other,
ii. they are useful to each other,
iii. they are pleasant without qualification to each other,
iv. they act in similar ways,
v. their friendship is based on a certain resemblance.
These are the most lovable qualities.
Therefore, love and friendship are found most and in their best form
between such people.

The key concept is the concept of the good person. Goodness is an enduring thing and is
attractive. The perfect friendship is only possible between people who are good. The
good person has an uncompromising commitment to reason. Perfect friendship is
 possible only between people who have that commitment, because only people who have
this commitment are good in the complete sense. The relationship that Aristotle is talking
about is a relationship between people who have a common commitment to the same
thing; the voice of reason. Since the voice of reason is the source of our freedom, perfect
friendship is the collaboration of being free. Wherever you have people committed to
reason, you have people who can communicate. Perfect friendship is a place of freedom
and clarity. Human beings have to see what they have made of themselves. In a perfect
relationship, you have a mirror of yourself, allowing you to sense who you are in a
relationship than by yourself.

5) Present A.’s theory of broken friendships.

a. Deception:
i. by the other person
ii. by oneself
b. Moral deterioration on one side of the relationship
c. Unequal moral, intellectual development on one side of the
relationship

1) Deception: leading on the other person to set that person up for use, or self deception (i.e., a
situation in which one person tries to impose an interpretation on a relationship that the other
person has never agreed to and may not have interest in. 2) Their moral character changes (i.e.,
moral deterioration). 3) The one person simply outgrows the other morally or intellectually. The
common denominator of all three is realism. If things change in the way that he is describing,
then friendship is not possible. One should not continue that relationship when it goes past the
line where there is any reasonable expectation of salvaging it or turning it around for self
protection.

6) Why is the evil person incapable of friendship?

a. The self-destructive orientation of wickedness
b. The strategy of distraction
c. Self-alienation
d. Destruction of the basis of friendship as such.

The evil person is not capable of friendships; with somebody else or himself/herself. Because they
are evil (they are not acting on reason), there is nothing in them to love. Therefore, they hate
themselves and the only relationship they can have with other people is to use them as a
distraction to hide from themselves. He places another call for motivation; if this is the case,
then it is the end of the line and it means alienation from yourself and alienation from everybody
else. One must make every possible effort to maintain the supremacy of reason in one’s life and
not let feelings take over.

7) Why should a person love herself or himself most of all, and under what
conditions is self-love not selfishness?
a. The question
b. The case against primacy of self-love
c. The case for the primacy of self-love
d. “lover of self” as a term of reproach
“lover of self” in its true and correct sense gratifies the most
authoritative element in oneself which is the self of the rational
principle=the principle of real agency
 There is distinction between self-love that is based on the gratification of one’s irrational
component, and self-love that is focused on one’s rational/intellectual component. He
claims that in the first case, you are not loving yourself anyways because the irrational
compartment is not the “I,” or the person; you are gratifying the non-personal non-free
component in your nature. You are doing this in a way that is stupid, i.e., one is
confusing the means with ends. Ends have value in themselves. Means do not have value
in themselves. The two things that are wrong with first kind of selfish love is that it is not
hitting the target, i.e., me, and it is not making any sense. True self-love consists of
getting all the good things for one’s self. The voice of reason is the person, and you do
this for yourself.

8) Why will “the supreme happy man need friends?”

a. The various characteristics of happiness:
i. Living and being active, but the good person’s activity is
virtuous, and therefore most pleasant
ii. The possessing of things is pleasant
iii. The contemplation of worthy actions is pleasant, and it is the
goal of the supremely happy person, but we can contemplate
our neighbor’s actions better than our own
iv. And the actions of friends are alike in this respect
Therefore, the supremely happy person needs friends of this sort.

The human being in virtue of its intelligence is a seer. For the human being, it is not
enough to become something; it is essential to see what I have become. We are too close
to ourselves to do that with any objectivity. In the context of that successful personal
relationship, we see what is best in ourselves in the other person. The fundamental
response to the question is the mirror effect in a successful relationship; it is confirmed
by that fact that in a relationship that works, one has a clearer sense of one’s identity
than one does all by one’s self. There is a clarity that comes from the environment of a
successful relationship that is impossible in solitude.