Wicksteed has this comment in intro to Physics II: “Popular thought further recognizes the agency of Luck or Chance; and the inveterate belief that events just ‘happen’ by the blind working of forces pushing from behind, without any intelligent direction, has been countenanced or tacitly assumed by men of science. To such a view of the world Aristotle, as the successor of Plato and Socrates, is fundamentally opposed. He does not, however, deny validity to the conceptions of Chance and Luck; he sets himself to analyse them and to find for them a meaning and a sphere consistent with the belief that the workings of Nature cannot be completely understood as the outcome of chance or of mere necessity, but reveal the presence of some kind of purpose aiming at a goal desired”
I think that’s a very relevant note especially on our modern notions of “chance” as a cause. Chance is not a thing that can produce effects.
Also, I was always fascinated by teleology. I remember this illustration from Alastair Macintyre’s After Virtue where he asks what is a good watch? Is it one that is pretty, made of gold, shinny? Or is its goodness defined by what its telos is? to display the right time? Similarly, what is a good human? It can’t be what we randomly choose to define it like, it has to be tied to its telos.
Anyway, looking forward to more Aristotle readings.
Good morning, Larry. I purchased one of the physics books on Aristotle that you recommended, but it doesn’t align with the terms you use in your readings. I have book I, book II, etc., but not Physics II. Is the first cause what nature is and what it is to be by nature? Thanks
It’s just an abbreviation. Physics II is shorthand for Physics, Book II. So Phys. II.3 would be the third part of the second book.
For your second question, I’m not really sure how to answer. Our Aristotle reading so far has not been about first causes (that comes later), per se, unless you mean the first of the four causes, but I’m not sure if that is what you meant. Phys III.1 is indeed about what it means to say that something exists “by nature.” But this is translating a Greek term (physis) which does not mean just what we mean by “nature.”
Can you please elaborate your questions a little more? Then I will be sure to take them up at greater length.
Good morning, Larry. Physics, book 2, begins with “what sorts of causes there are and what way they are causes.” Is that the beginning of what you would like me to read? Thanks
Book 2, section 3 is the end, not the beginning, of the sections covered by “Physics II.1—3”. I hope this is all clearer now.
In the book I purchased, book 2, number 4, begins with “puzzles raised about the existence of luck and chance as causes.” Is that one of the readings? Thanks
No, it’s not assigned, but it’s not irrelevant and might be interesting to read.
I’m sorry I forgot to respond to your curiosity. In Aristotle’s book on physics, book 2, #1 is titled “what nature is and what it is to be by nature.” Is that where I begin? Thanks
Yep!
Unless you have done the Plato readings and to do those first.
I appreciate your patience, Larry. It is all clear now.
I wondered at first whether the line about “begotten by human and sun” had some astrological connotation. Then I spent an embarrassingly long time researching ancient Hellenic horoscopy. My biggest takeaway: I am probably going to fall into a well someday like Thales of Miletus.
The explanation about food makes more sense. They may not have known about photosynthesis, but anyone who’s ever planted a garden knows that plants need sunlight, and, of course, they understood the sun also provides the warmth all life needs to survive.
I talked to Claude about that (the significance of the sun here), and it had another long explanation that (a) wasn’t my idea and (b) I didn’t want to take the time to research, so I left it out.
Tom, also see footnote 3 above, which I just added.
Leave a Reply to Tom Dill Cancel reply