Logan+Week+2

Summary/Response to Aristotle by Michael Fowler

I find it important that the emergence of philosophy and science in Athens (450 B.C.) to have started after the birth of Socrates (470 B.C.) and before the birth of Plato (428 B.C.) and Aristotle (384 B.C.). These people are major components to the improvements of science in Greece. I believe what Socrates and Plato started led to the accomplishments of Aristotle.

It began with Socrates, a philosopher and believer of truth. He was a teacher to the sons of wealthy families including Plato. Plato founded the Academy which was basically the first university. Its goal was to find what makes up a perfect city-state. Plato wanted to create a “Republic” because of the currently non-functioning democracy. I find it interesting the topics that were presented at the Academy, “they discussed everything: politics, economics, morality, philosophy, mathematics and science.” It’s interesting how morality is one of the main subjects. Not a course you would see today. However back then the idea of what was right and what was wrong was quite different. Politics and corruption can bring up many controversial issues pertaining to morality. The other subjects are more common and are still seen today at universities.

After Aristotle was born, he came to Athens to study at the Academy until Plato dies at 348 B.C. He then tutored the son of King Philip of Macedonia, Alexander. Alexander, who later created an empire ranging from Egypt to India, was a fan of Greek civilization. Many cities founded in his empire made many important contributions to Greek science, especially Alexandria in Egypt.

Aristotle returns to Athens in 335 B.C. to start his own version of the Academy, called the Lyceum. The subjects of focus included: politics, metaphysics, ethics, logic, and science. The way the Academy operated under Plato differed in the way Aristotle ran the Lyceum, “`first philosophy’ - metaphysics and mathematics, the things Plato had worked on, Aristotle thought it also very important to study “second philosophy”: the world around us, from physics and mechanics to biology.” Plato’s academy was more focused on more on math whereas Aristotle’s Lyceum, science. Aristotle used reality to explain things rather than the more abstract theories of Plato. For example, he paid careful attention to plants and animals to see how they fit into nature. Dissection was also a major part of his research.

Aristotle was the first to explain what scientific knowledge is and why it is important. His method is given as: “1. Defining the subject matter. 2. Considering the difficulties involved by reviewing the generally accepted views on the subject, and suggestions of earlier writers. 3. Presenting his own arguments and solutions.” It is interesting how part of his process is to look at already accepted views on the subject of study. In one way it is good to look at what you know but if you present a view on a topic that contradicts all previous explanations, everyone will disagree with you even if what you say is true. On another note, this is how science tends to stir up conflict with the Church because it disapproves what they already believe in. Many things that can’t be explained are explained through religion and as science advances it typically explains phenomenon differently.

“[Aristotle] stated that any object (animal, plant, inanimate, whatever) had four //attributes//: matter, form, moving cause, and final cause.” In my eyes, Aristotle is trying to describe why things exist. “Matter” is what the object is made up of and “form” is what state it is in. The “moving cause” is what created it and the “final cause” is the object’s goal or purpose in the world and in nature. I find this interesting because we can never really know an object’s or organism’s purpose for being here.

I agree with Fowler’s viewpoint on Aristotle’s beliefs of matter. It is a backwards step in from previous work made by Plato, as Fowler says it. Aristotle categorizes all elements into earth, wind, fire, and air which can be either hot or cold and wet or dry. It seems very elementary to me, when Aristotle is so revered. However, I do think Aristotle’s thought’s are more practical compared to Plato and seem more reasonable even though some are outlandish. Still, Aristotle is made vital contributions to science.

He produced a method for carrying out research. His systematic approach helped him arrive at conclusions or “final causes.” Aristotle’s “enterprise” in science surpassed all research made for centuries. Fowler says that it is comparable to today’s college science department, which is quite impressive given his time. Even though Aristotle’s understanding in physics was lacking, I believe that it was due to the way he carried out his research and also because he was less interested in the subject. In the end his accomplishments as a scientist and philosopher have made him quite an important figure in science.