What is the most effective conspiracy for conception. Conspiracy for the growing moon for conception
If we recall all the solemn events of the country, then the New Year is one of ...
Aristotle (384-322 BC) was a student of Plato. Aristotle's main objections to the teacher are centered around Plato's theory of ideas. Aristotle recognized the existence of ideas and considered them the cause of things. But at the same time, he argued that ideas should be in the things themselves, and not in some intelligible "second" world, the "world of ideas." "If ideas are outside the world, how do they define the world?" - asked Aristotle. Ideas, according to Aristotle, are common in things. But the common is manifested in the singular. Consequently, ideas as "common in things", as "pure forms of things" are in the things themselves, and not outside them.
Aristotle's most powerful argument was that, following Plato, we, as it were, multiply the essence of things and objects. For example, there is a living real person - Socrates. In the world of ideas, he corresponds to the "idea of Socrates", but also the "idea of man", as well as the "idea of the Greek." Thus, for one real Socrates there are several idea-essences. This is unacceptable because it is logically inconsistent. It turns out that not one world of supersensible ideas "rises" above the World of Things, but already two (this argument is called "the third Man" in the ancient tradition). Aristotle put forward many arguments, ingeniously proving that ideas should be in the things themselves, and not outside them. According to Aristotle, the case is as follows. Each single thing contains an idea - "substance" and "substrate". Slightly modernizing the thought of Aristotle, we can say that every thing has a "form" and "content." The form of a thing is the essence of a thing. For example, a copper ball. The main thing here is "form" - the ball, and the "content" or "matter" of which the ball is made up - copper.
Platonic "ideas" are ordinary copies or doubles of sensible things. Aristotle replaces the word "idea" with the more general term "form" and turns to the analysis of its correlation with matter. Only in unity do they form the real being of a thing, a substance. substance is not universal for a multitude of objects. She is distinctive. She is a single being, dwells in herself and in nothing else. “Matter is something indefinite,” a passive state of being. Matter receives its concrete embodiment only when it takes shape. Prior to this, matter exists only as a possibility, potency. "Form" is not only eternal, but also does not undergo any change. here the question invariably arises: where does a new “form” appear in “matter” every time, where should one look for the reason for the existence of the world and world motion? Aristotle addresses God, speaks of him as "the form of all forms." God is both the ultimate cause of all natural phenomena and the prime mover of the world.
From his criticism of the doctrine of the ideas of Plato, Aristotle draws very important conclusions.
First, the world is one. This is a spiritually material, really existing world.
Secondly, things and processes of the real world can be cognized from itself, i.e. reality itself should be studied, not the world of ideas.
Thirdly, at the center of knowledge should be not abstractions and speculative schemes, but the things and processes themselves. Then science also acquires meaning as cognition of the real, not the “transcendent” world, although “ideal” concepts are used in the process of cognition. Science is thinking in concepts. Schemes and laws of motion of concepts are "organon", ie. a tool of science, a tool of thinking. Schemes and laws of motion of concepts are studied by logic. Thus, logic is a tool of science, a tool of thinking. Anyone can master the laws of logic. This means that a person can comprehend the essence of things and the processes of the world in which he lives.
As a result, Aristotle gives the concept of being a different interpretation from Plato. The essence- it is a single, independent being. She answers the question: "What is a thing?" and represents what makes things exactly that, did not allow him to merge with others.
Aristotle divides essences into lower and higher. The lower entities are composed of matter and form. Matter in Aristotle, as well as in Plato, is the primary material, the potency of things. It gives matter an actual state, that is, it transforms it from a possibility into a reality form. Thus, Aristotle replaces the concept of the idea with the concept of form. The form, according to Aristotle, it is an active principle, the beginning of life and activity. He calls the higher essences pure forms. In fact, pure forms are nothing more than ideal essences. Aristotle considers the highest essence to be a pure form devoid of matter - the Prime Mover, which serves as the source of life and movement of the entire Cosmos.
In accordance with the doctrine of essence, Aristotle classifies the causes of being. Aristotle identifies four types of reasons.
1. Material, what things are made of, their substrate.
2. Formal, in which the form manifests itself, forming the essence, the substance of being. Every thing is what it is.
3. Acting or producing - considering the source of movement and transformation of possibility into reality, the energy base for the formation of things.
4. The target or end reason for answering the "Why?" and for what?".
Understanding movement: It is eternal. He distinguishes 4 types of movement: 1) occurrence and destruction; 2) a qualitative change, or transformation of properties; 3) quantitative change, i.e. increase or decrease; 4) movement in space. The main of these types for A. is movement in space, which acts as a condition for all other types of movement and to which all others are reduced. God is the first reason for movement, the beginning of all beginnings.
Aristotle believed that nature consists of four elements - fire, air, water and earth. They are endowed with two pairs of opposite properties, which are active and passive. Each complex body is formed from these elements, taken in different quantitative proportions. Fire is a combination of warm (active) and dry (passive), air is warm (active) and moist (passive), water is cold (active) and moist (passive), earth is cold (active) and dry (passive).
Thus, with his natural philosophical positions, Aristotle expressed in a naive form the idea of the variability of all phenomena and things of nature, the universal connection of things in the world around us.
Aristotle's teaching on knowledge: the source of our knowledge is the objective world that exists outside of us. Knowledge acquired by a person is the essence of knowledge about already existing things and their properties. The starting point of cognition are sensory perceptions and memory that contributes to their retention.
The first specifically human form of cognition is art (all kinds of special knowledge, abilities, skills). If knowledge of individual things is given in experience, then knowledge of the general is achieved at the level of art. the next stage of cognition is the stage of science. In the classification of sciences, Aristotle distinguishes three large blocks: 1) theoretical sciences, 2) practical sciences, and 3) productive sciences.
Preference is given to theoretical sciences (philosophy, mathematics, physics). Aristotle pays special attention to philosophy. For him, she is wisdom in the proper sense of the word, accumulates knowledge about everything that exists.
Socio-political views: He substantiates the need to strengthen and protect the slaveholding system, referring to the laws of nature, speaks of slavery as a natural and eternal phenomenon. Aristotle initiated the detailed development of the theory of the state. it is created in order to live happily. Power in the state should belong to the middle class of slave owners. Thanks to this, the balance of the parties is ensured and internal strife is removed.
Philosophical system
The philosophical doctrine of Aristotle in our days, and in ancient times, was considered and called a "system". An important caveat must be made here. Word " system», « syustema "(Old Greek σύστημα) is a term of Stoic philosophy. It is not by chance that the word is not translated into any language, and it remains in modern languages. Of course, Aristotle, if not the father for the early Stoics, then certainly the godfather, contributed a lot to the formation of the Stoic philosophical doctrine in its specifics. What is meant by consistency, system, vision of philosophy as a system? The world itself is a system, i.e. organic interconnection, inseparability with the need for interconnected parts. From a stoic point of view, philosophizing can start from any position: you can start with logic, you can start with physics, you can start with ethics. Wherever you start your journey, the ultimate goal of the path will be the same.
As for Aristotle, it is certainly possible to speak about the systematic nature of his philosophical concept, but first of all it concerns the theoretical sciences. Let me remind you that theoretical sciences, knowledge that is cultivated within these boundaries - theoretical, contemplative - this knowledge has a goal of itself. Hence the difficulty: it is very difficult, arguing about theoretical sciences, about physics, or about the first philosophy, philosophy in the proper sense of the word, to find some starting point, and starting from it, move on. With regard to practical sciences, this is easier to do, because the goals are external.
You can begin to reason, for example, in the ethical sphere, starting from the concept of good: this is where Nicomachean Ethics begins. You can talk about political sciences, starting from the idea of \ u200b \ u200bthe what there is a family: with this begins Aristotelian "Politics", begins in the literal sense of the word. Due to the presence of external goals, i.e. internally not quite organically inherent in practical knowledge itself, you can start from this external need, from external concerns and goals, to reason further, expanding the circle of your scientific interest.
As for the theoretical sciences, there are a lot of difficulties. I repeat that, according to Aristotle, as can be seen in the texts, and this corresponds to the logic of his reasoning, it is impossible to find some initial point in the theoretical sphere, to rely on some solid foundation, and starting from it, to reason further. Strictly speaking, if we take the text of Metaphysics or Physics, then in these works Aristotle always argues as if he were in the middle of a conversation that had begun without him, from within some current situation. According to Aristotle, in principle, it is impossible in the sphere of contemplative knowledge to reason about the nature of things as if we were in an airless space, as if we were reasoning from some kind of cosmic vacuum.
We, our destiny and life, are inextricably linked with science as such. Man is an intelligent animal by nature, this is inevitable. Hence, of course, to talk about what there is philosophy as such, the first philosophy (later, already in the first centuries of our era, it began to be called “ metaphysics"; and then, not earlier than the 17th century, it began to be called “ ontology", - Aristotle did not know this word), it is practically impossible to argue systematically about this theoretical philosophy. We must decide for ourselves how, in what order understand, interpret and expound what Aristotle called "philosophy as such." In the texts of Aristotle, there is no indication of where to begin to reason when we proceed to higher philosophy, to the first philosophy, to science as such.
In the European tradition, certain rules for considering the theoretical philosophy of Aristotle have developed (we are now talking about the first philosophy, about metaphysics and ontology), rules, partly artificial, to reason within the following scheme. Theoretical philosophy is artificially divided under three headings, in the texts themselves we do not find such a strict division:
- Teaching about categories.
- The doctrine of the reasons.
- The doctrine of the existing in reality and existing in the possibility.
The origin of the concept of "category"
As for the teachings of Aristotle about categories. First, what is category? This word was not invented by Aristotle - " cathegoria"(Old Greek κατηγορία). This word was used before Aristotle, it is also found in Plato. This is a term, and Aristotle uses it precisely in a terminological manner. This word is taken from legal practice. It was noted long ago that philosophy, as a specific kind of knowledge, did not immediately acquire its own concepts.
Friedrich Nietzsche said that philosophical concepts are frozen metaphors. But where did these metaphors come from? It has long been noted that the most ancient terms of philosophical science in ancient Greece came for the most part from the field of jurisprudence and medicine. It just so happened historically that people learned to deceive, kill, get sick and die before philosophizing: both the terminology and the corresponding disciplines developed earlier than philosophy in the modern sense of the word.
Let's say we know that the word " fusis"(Ancient Greek φύσις) - nature, - comes from medical practice, medical experience. Let's say the words “ dike"(Ancient Greek δίκη), or" dikayoshune"(Ancient Greek δικαιοσύνη) - justice, - from legal. As for the word “ cathegoria"- this is a term that came from legal practice, began to be used by philosophers. What is meant? In our domestic usage, the word “ cathegoria"Means two things:
- This is the most general concept of things, about anything, the most general ontological characteristic.
- The final affirmative form of judgment about things ("I categorically affirm").
So, the categoricalness of statements about things and the universality of the message, provided for in these categorical statements, are also associated with the specific life practice of the ancient Greeks and the ancient Romans as well. Respectively, cathegoria- this is, literally, "spoken in the agora", ie publicly, in an open space, in the presence of the gods - God is my witness, this is how things are and not otherwise. As for philosophical practice, here all this is provided, all of this is implied, but, as a rule, it is not said on purpose. Category- this is the most universal, final and general ontological existential characteristic of something.
The ten categories of Aristotle
According to Aristotle, there are at least ten such methods of categorically speaking about things. Aristotle, as a rule, speaks of ten categories, although the complete list of these categories occurs only twice: in an essay with this name - "Categories" - in the first part, which in the Middle Ages began to be called "Predicamenta" (lat. Praedicamenta), and in the first book of the composition "Topeka".
As a rule, Aristotle speaks only of one category or another. But this list is not, according to Aristotle, final. Let me remind you that our world is arranged in such a way that physical reality does not obey a reliable quantitative calculation. Strictly speaking, according to Aristotle, it is impossible to compile a complete list of something: virtues, categories, etc. For example, in one place in "Metaphysics" there is an eleventh category - movement. Still, as a rule, we are talking about exactly ten categories.
There is no reliable explanation, satisfying everyone, why there are ten of them. The most common explanation is associated with the fact that Aristotle had ten fingers on his hands, and when categorically characterizing anything, he bent one finger, and thus it turned out that there are at least ten universal ontological characteristics. I want to remind you that Aristotle's enemies - apparently there were grounds for this - categorically characterized him as such a "dandy": he wore beautiful hairstyles, and he had a ring on each finger, it can be assumed that he used these rings in pedagogical purposes - flashing rings categorically characterized certain circumstances.
But there is an explanation closer to Aristotle himself: he blurts out about it in Metaphysics, in the 28th chapter of the 5th book. Let me remind you that this book is a kind of "philosophical dictionary", has a partly independent character, an intercalary. Each chapter is devoted to considering the meanings of an important concept. So, at the end of the 28th chapter, Aristotle reports that there are as many categories (this word is used) as there are ways of using the verb “ to be»In the meaning of a bundle, copula, speaking the language of modern linguistics.
I would like to remind you that the ancient Greek language and many Western European languages use the verb “to be”, among other things, as a linking verb. Ancient Greek, Latin, German, English, French, etc. - in order to say: “the table is rectangular”, one must say: “the table is rectangular”, or “the table is yellow”.
Quite often, various tables appear in pedagogical practice, this is partly due to the fact that the teacher reads his lectures in an auditorium filled with tables, but in general this example goes back to the medieval tradition. The fact is that in medieval grammatical schools the first word of the first declension with a base on "a" was the word that occurs in the first line of Homer's Odyssey, it is striking - this is the word "muse" (Latin musa). The first declension includes nouns with a stem on "a", because the first word that was declined in ancient schools was the word "muse". But in the Middle Ages it became something reprehensible to bend the word "muse", it turned out that the word "muse" means a pagan deity. In Christian medieval schools, it seemed strange to many to operate with this term, therefore, according to the consonance, they chose another word: not "muse", but " mensa"(Lat. Mensa), ie table. So, in our Russian language we get by with a pause: "the table is rectangular." In Western European languages, we use the verb "to be": is, ist etc.
So, according to Aristotle, as he himself says, there are as many categories as there are ways of using the verb "to be" in the meaning of a bundle. We say: "the table is something", "there is some kind of table", "the table is in some respect", "the table is here, there is now." Through this enumeration of ways of using the verb "to be" in the meaning of copula, we discover how many of the most universal ontological characteristics of things exist: no less than ten.
- The essence
- Quantity
- Quality
- A place
- Time
- Attitude
- Position
- Action
- Endurance
- Possession
Two subgroups of categories
All these ten categories, the most universal ontological characteristics of things, as they said in the Middle Ages - substances, - this group is divided into two subgroups. The first group includes one category, this is the category entities, i.e. a unique characteristic that alone answers the question "what is this?" All other characteristics are indirect in their meaning. If we use the language of medieval scholasticism (and we are forced to use this language, since our European tradition has developed in such a way that, speaking about Aristotle, we are forced to use Latin terminology. This somewhat simplifies a lot.
Let me remind you that, according to Aristotle, language is absolutely conditional, and Aristotle was repeatedly “scolded” for being unsteady in his philosophical usage, that is, he can use the same word in different meanings depending on the context. Hence, a variety of confusion arises, but over time, Latin translators and interpreters, medieval scholastics designed a system of terms, a kind of grid that can be used to "catch" Aristotle), the ten fundamental characteristics are divided into two subgroups. First: substantial category, or category entities... All the others (nine) in medieval scholasticism began to be called “ incidental».
Word " promotion"(Lat. Accidentia) is not translated into any language, and is the equivalent of not quite successful, but well-established for the ancient Greek term, most likely invented by Aristotle -" τὸ συμβεβηκώς "(" then syumbbecos"). How to translate the word "τὸ συμβεβηκώς" is also not very clear. Latin translators racked their brains for a long time and came up with their own word - "accident". Strictly speaking, it is impossible to translate either that term or this one, but it is possible to convey the meaning within the meaning. What is Accident? This is some kind of casual, incidental, optional, non-essential characteristic of a thing. If the substantial category of an entity is essential, obligatory, indicating that what there is this thing, then other, optional, partly random, incidental characteristics do not mean what there is this thing, but they say which she, v what relation, in what place, at what time located .
What's important? There is an essential category - essence. There are incidental characteristics. Where is the correspondence between the Latin term "accidentia" and the Greek term "τὸ συμβεβηκώς" not fully revealed? The fact is that τὸ συμβεβηκώς is literally some optional characteristic of a thing that is in move(movement is a fundamental characteristic of any natural thing, that in which the nature of a thing manifests itself). But accidentia is also an optional characteristic of a thing, but in her static, i.e. movement is not meant here. This is an important difference between these terms. Accidental characteristic is a characteristic that does not give anything for understanding what a given particular thing is.
Let's take our table. The fact that he is a table is the responsibility of the category of essence, which answers the question "what?" But, the table is here, at that time, in this respect etc. - these are accidental, i.e. random and coincidental characteristics. If this table at some point time(incidental characteristic) move to another a place(incidental characteristic), then this table will not become to a lesser extent what it was before, i.e. as it was a table, it will remain. In this respect, the substantial characteristic of the essence is obligatory and necessary, and all other characteristics speak only of what happens to this thing or does not happen under certain circumstances. An important characteristic of a scientist, from the point of view of Aristotle, is the ability to distinguish essential and irrelevant... It's not easy. This ability is not innate, but develops. It appears in a person at about thirteen or fourteen years of age, i.e. children are unable to distinguish between the essential and the non-essential.
The origin of the concept of "essence"
As for the category of entity. Here Aristotle complicates the conversation. One can speak of essence in two ways. It is worth noting that the very concept of essence does not arise immediately in Aristotle. He borrows this term from the Platonic tradition. Let me remind you that Aristotle is a Platonist, but an apostate Platonist, a heretic Platonist. Plato and Aristotle posed the same questions, although they gave different answers.
So, the word "essence", in Greek, " efforts"(Ancient Greek οὐσία), as Plato informs in the dialogue" Cratilus ", goes back to the Pythagorean tradition. We do not know exactly the specifics of the Pythagorean use of this terminology, but Plato himself refers us to this partly preceding, partly contemporary Pythagorean tradition. He says that the Pythagoreans, Italians said axis, or esya, but in the Attic dialect, in which Plato himself wrote, as well as Aristotle, this word began to sound like efforts.
What is meant primarily by the word "essence"? This word is borrowed from everyday life, it is not an invention of ancient philosophers. But they began to use it terminologically in their own interests. I mean a certain immovable property, i.e. we are talking about a thing, or about a set of things that exist in an unshakable way, exist in such a way that they simply there is and everything - the thing just exists. This obligation, immutability, indispensability of existence, denoted by the word "οὐσία", passed into the terminology of ancient philosophy.
According to Aristotle, the category of essence is the result of the reduction of the term “ existence"(Other Greek τὸ ὄν). Repeatedly in the texts of Aristotle, the formulation sounds like a kind of incantation: "Τὸ ὄν λέγεται πολλαχώς", i.e. literally, "things are spoken of in different meanings." Generally speaking, according to Aristotle, all things are spoken of in different meanings, but things are different things, i.e. there are things of a more "challenging" way of being, more "persistent". According to Aristotle, everything is said about existence in different meanings. We say: "the table exists", "good exists", "red exists", "rectangular exists". In our usual conventional usage, we call whatever we want "existing". But, according to Aristotle - and here a certain reduction from of existence To entities, - in the strict sense of the word, only that which is essence.
This is a categorical analysis of things: we single out the essential, which answers the question "what?", And reduce the inessential to a set of random characteristics. In this way, in a strict philosophical conversation, we limit the entire totality of truly existing to one thing - essence. Those. everything that falls under the characteristics of quality, quantity, relationship, place, time - according to Aristotle, is not an essence.
According to Aristotle, there is no such thing - time. Time does not exist, just as there is no place. This is specifically mentioned in the 4th book of Physics. In the ancient philosophical tradition, the overwhelming majority of philosophers, representatives of various schools, rejected the truth that time is an existing thing. Time does not exist either from the point of view of the Stoics, or from the point of view of the Epicureans, or from the point of view of the Peripatetics. The main characteristic of existence is immutability, independence, autonomy of existence. Things are entities.
Essence first and essence second
So, essence should be spoken of in two respects. There is an essence the first, there is an essence the second... Aristotle specifically discusses this in his work "Categories". Let me remind you that in Greek usage, the word "first" does not mean belonging to the order of listing, but the unique specifics of this particular thing. This is a characteristic of its autonomous, full-fledged, full-fledged existence. The first one means "in the proper sense of the word." It is the same with the first essence: the first essence is just an essence. The second entity is an entity with some clarifications, an entity with reservations.
What is meant by the first essence in the work "Categories"? There is a classical definition: the first essence is that “does not affect any subject and is not in any subject". What is meant by the word " subject"? This word hides the Greek word "τὸ ὑποκείμενον" (" then hypocaymenon») - a word with a difficult fate. The word "subject" in our language is a literal tracing of the Greek word "τὸ ὑποκείμενον", i.e. translation is almost letter to letter. In Aristotle, in different contexts, this word takes on different meanings.
In order not to get confused, medieval translators came up with three words to translate one single "τὸ ὑποκείμενον". The initial "πο" in Latin strictly corresponds to the prefix "sub" (for example, as in the word "submarine", that is, a submarine). So, three Latin words: “ subjectum» ( subject), « substantia» ( substance), « substratum» ( substrate). These are three translations of the same word. Subject- this is the subject of our utterance. In the structure of the utterance, it corresponds to predicate.
For example: "Socrates is a man." Socrates is the subject of the utterance, and the person is the predicate of the utterance. Substance Is a separate physical thing that exists by itself: this table, this chair. According to Aristotle's definition, physical substance Is something that exists separately and moves. Substrate- this is the material basis of the existence of a substance, in a sense, with reservations, it is matter. Means: subject, substance, substrate- behind all this is the word “ subject».
The first essence is "this is here"
So, the first essence is that which does not affect any subject. Does not affect - means not predicted, i.e. cannot appear in the structure of a statement as a predicate... For example: "Socrates is a man." Man is a predicate in relation to the subject of Socrates, but we, according to Aristotle, cannot reverse this relation. We cannot transform what takes the position of the subject into a predicate, i.e. we cannot say, "Man is Socrates." If we said so, then we would only consider Socrates a man. The first essence in our statement takes the position of the subject, and cannot act as a predicate. Unpredictability- this is the fundamental characteristic of the first entity according to the text "Categories".
Aristotle uses a special expression here and in other texts, in Greek it sounds like this: "τόδε τι" (" tode ti"). “Τόδε τι” are two words. What is the first essence? This is τόδε τι. Literally translated like this: here it is here... Those. to the question "what is the first entity?" (non-predictive), according to Aristotle, the most accurate answer would be pointing the finger: “What is the first essence? "This is it." Once we begin to refine our understanding of what there is the first essence, i.e. to saturate our knowledge with some predicates, some incidental characteristics, we immediately leave the field of discussion of the first essence, i.e. we go beyond the limits of that knowledge, which is recorded exclusively in the expression "this is here." We cannot say anything more meaningful about the first essence.
What is "second essence"
What the second essence? Its fundamental characteristic according to the text of the "Category" is predicativity... To the question "what is this?" can be answered in two ways. For example: “This is this here” - what is meant by this expression corresponds to the non-predictive first entity. And when we say: "This is the table" - we express a predicative essential characteristic (the second essence).
Let's return to the example of Socrates: “Socrates is a man” - what we call the name “Socrates” in the structure of this statement corresponds to the non-predicative first essence, and what is understood by the word “man” corresponds to the predicative second essence. Both the subject and the predicate in the structure of the statement answer the question "what?" Are substantial characteristics, but they are radically different from each other. The first essence is as empty as possible.
Let me remind you that scientific knowledge is knowledge of the general; single, i.e. what is Socrates in his unique "Socratic nature" can never be an object of reliable scientific knowledge; we cannot say anything more meaningfully about this here except that it is here this is- this is the limit of our relationship to the first essence. And all our meaningful knowledge is connected with what is meant by the second essence, by the predicative essence. "This is a man" - about this here we can know only as much as we are aware of the fact that what means for this thing to be human etc.
Object of scientific knowledge
What is the object of scientific knowledge? According to the text, "Categories" are the second entity. How is our concept formed? Aristotle's concept of a concept allowed many in antiquity to accuse Aristotle of skepticism and agnosticism. From the side of Epicurean philosophy, these accusations were heard very often. According to Aristotle, we can never construct the most adequate concept of a thing. We can endlessly approach and refine our understanding. How are these concepts formed? It is clear that the language is conditional. Words are tags and labels that we create for the convenience of communication with each other. What is behind the words? Words have labels for concepts, not for things. Concepts are not formed immediately. This requires experience and intuition. We with you intuitively and empirically isolate and abstract in relation to this or that thing the entire totality of its essential characteristics. For a scientist (and for any person, since a person is a person to the extent that he is a philosopher) it is fundamentally important to see the essential, and to distinguish between the essential and the non-essential. The more we abstract the essential characteristics of a given thing, the firmer and stricter our understanding of what this something is.
Accidental characteristics are not included in the concept of a thing. Those. the concept of a table does not include the characteristics of time, place, quality (color), relationship, etc. We must highlight the most universal and essential characteristics. The result of this procedure (abstraction and synthesis of characteristics) is this or that concept, which we denote by the word of language.
So, the object of knowledge is the second essence. She happens to be predicative, generic and species... Scientific reasoning is a procedure for summing up particular cases under a general rule. We know, what there is a thing in its specificity insofar as we understand that this single thing - τόδε τι - fits into this or that kind of things, into this or that kind of things, to which this single substance necessarily belongs. Only that common which allows us to deal with this thing, as something special, is the object of scientific knowledge.
The second essence is view things, in Greek εἶδος ( eidos), it is genus things, in Greek γένος ( genos), it is nature things, in Greek φύσις ( fusis), it is the form things, in Greek μορφή ( morphe). When we read in Aristotle - "form" - then we are always talking about the species and generic predicative second essence. Aristotle came up with an expression for the second essence: "τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι" (" to ti en en einay"). Strictly speaking, it is impossible to translate into any language, but the meaning of it sounds something like this: what makes a thing what it is.
Latin translators have come up with their own Latin equivalent, literal tracing word for word. In Latin texts, starting from the XIII century, we constantly meet this expression when it comes to Aristotle and the teachings associated with him: "quod quid erat esse" (" kvod quid erath essay"). Since the medieval scholastics were lecturers-preachers, this four-word expression "got loose" over time, and the cumbersome "quod quid erat esse" began to sound like "quidditas" (" quidditas"). If translated from Latin into Russian, it literally turns out like this: what is... quod quid erat esse - quidditas [quidditas], what is
We said: "Socrates is a man." Socrates is here this is here... Aristotle had a direct image of Socrates in front of him, and could point with a finger - here it is here... After all, we are talking not just about some copy of a certain set of Socrates, "Socrates" was a fairly popular name in Ancient Greece, we are talking about Socrates this one, we are talking about the well-known Socrates, who was executed by the sentence of the Athenian heliums in 399 BC. according to our chronology.
Criticism of Plato's philosophy
An important point should be noted here, which is an element of the criticism of Plato's philosophy from the side of Aristotle. According to Plato, behind every positive characteristic of a thing there is a sufficient reason to believe so, i.e. if we say "table" then there is table how such, if we say "rectangular", then there is sufficient reason to believe that something is rectangular, some idea squareness... According to Plato, there is color idea, exists idea of red, yellow, of any color, of any size: behind any positive characteristic there is a sufficient, ontologically cognitive basis for believing that it exists this way and not otherwise, that and not in another way, and exists and is known as such.
According to Aristotle, predicativity (using the scholastic formula) is a sign nonsubstantiality, i.e. everything that in the structure of our statement acts as a predicate (second essence) in relation to the first essence, says that what is hidden behind the second essence is not a substance, i.e. does not exist as a separate single physical thing - with this here is not. Predicativity is a sign nonsubstantiality... When we say: "This is a table" - does not exist table as such... When we say: "This is rectangular" - does not exist squareness as such... By virtue of the action of the law consistency if we distinguish between the subject and the predicate in the structure of the statement, then they are not the same... If by the subject we mean a single physical thing - Socrates, then the second predicative essence is a single physical thing, a substance is not - a person. Does not exist human as such, does not exist table as such, rectangularity, place, time, etc., due to the predicative structure of the statement. Predictivity is a sign of non-substance.
Aristotle. Works in four volumes. T. 2.Ed. 3. N. Mikeladze. M., "Thought", 1978. Categories (2a). Instead of the word "affects" in the translation there is the word "said." - Approx. ed.
Literature
- Aristotelis Categoriae et Liber De Interpretatione. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit L. Minio-Paluello. Oxonii: E typographeo Clarendoniano, 1949 (repr. 1974) (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis).
- Aristotle's Metaphysics. A Revisited Text with Introduction and Commentary by W.D. Ross. Vols. I-II. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1924 (repr. 1997).
- Düring I. Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens. Zweite Auflage. Unveränderter Nachdruck der Ausgabe von 1966. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2005.
- Frede M., Patzig G. Aristoteles, “Metaphysik Ζ”. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Bde. I-II. München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1988.
- Logik und Erkenntnislehre des Aristoteles. Hrsg. von F.-P. Hager. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972 (Wege der Forschung; Bd. 226).
- Metaphysik und Theologie des Aristoteles. Hrsg. von F.-P. Hager. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969 (Wege der Forschung; Bd. 206).
- Aristotle. Metaphysics. Per. from ancient Greek. A.V. Kubitsky (1934) // Aristotle. Works in four volumes. T. 1. Moscow: "Mysl", 1976 (Philosophical heritage, vol. 65).
- Aristotle. Categories. Per. from ancient Greek. A.V. Kubitsky (1939) // Aristotle. Works in four volumes. T. 2. Moscow: "Thought", 1978 (Philosophical heritage, v. 76).
Philosophical system
The philosophical doctrine of Aristotle in our days, and in ancient times, was considered and called a "system". An important caveat must be made here. Word " system», « syustema "(Old Greek σύστημα) is a term of Stoic philosophy. It is not by chance that the word is not translated into any language, and it remains in modern languages. Of course, Aristotle, if not the father for the early Stoics, then certainly the godfather, contributed a lot to the formation of the Stoic philosophical doctrine in its specifics. What is meant by consistency, system, vision of philosophy as a system? The world itself is a system, i.e. organic interconnection, inseparability with the need for interconnected parts. From a stoic point of view, philosophizing can start from any position: you can start with logic, you can start with physics, you can start with ethics. Wherever you start your journey, the ultimate goal of the path will be the same.
As for Aristotle, it is certainly possible to speak about the systematic nature of his philosophical concept, but first of all it concerns the theoretical sciences. Let me remind you that theoretical sciences, knowledge that is cultivated within these boundaries - theoretical, contemplative - this knowledge has a goal of itself. Hence the difficulty: it is very difficult, arguing about theoretical sciences, about physics, or about the first philosophy, philosophy in the proper sense of the word, to find some starting point, and starting from it, move on. With regard to practical sciences, this is easier to do, because the goals are external.
You can begin to reason, for example, in the ethical sphere, starting from the concept of good: this is where Nicomachean Ethics begins. You can talk about political sciences, starting from the idea of \ u200b \ u200bthe what there is a family: with this begins Aristotelian "Politics", begins in the literal sense of the word. Due to the presence of external goals, i.e. internally not quite organically inherent in practical knowledge itself, you can start from this external need, from external concerns and goals, to reason further, expanding the circle of your scientific interest.
As for the theoretical sciences, there are a lot of difficulties. I repeat that, according to Aristotle, as can be seen in the texts, and this corresponds to the logic of his reasoning, it is impossible to find some initial point in the theoretical sphere, to rely on some solid foundation, and starting from it, to reason further. Strictly speaking, if we take the text of Metaphysics or Physics, then in these works Aristotle always argues as if he were in the middle of a conversation that had begun without him, from within some current situation. According to Aristotle, in principle, it is impossible in the sphere of contemplative knowledge to reason about the nature of things as if we were in an airless space, as if we were reasoning from some kind of cosmic vacuum.
We, our destiny and life, are inextricably linked with science as such. Man is an intelligent animal by nature, this is inevitable. Hence, of course, to talk about what there is philosophy as such, the first philosophy (later, already in the first centuries of our era, it began to be called “ metaphysics"; and then, not earlier than the 17th century, it began to be called “ ontology", - Aristotle did not know this word), it is practically impossible to argue systematically about this theoretical philosophy. We must decide for ourselves how, in what order understand, interpret and expound what Aristotle called "philosophy as such." In the texts of Aristotle, there is no indication of where to begin to reason when we proceed to higher philosophy, to the first philosophy, to science as such.
In the European tradition, certain rules for considering the theoretical philosophy of Aristotle have developed (we are now talking about the first philosophy, about metaphysics and ontology), rules, partly artificial, to reason within the following scheme. Theoretical philosophy is artificially divided under three headings, in the texts themselves we do not find such a strict division:
- Teaching about categories.
- The doctrine of the reasons.
- The doctrine of the existing in reality and existing in the possibility.
The origin of the concept of "category"
As for the teachings of Aristotle about categories. First, what is category? This word was not invented by Aristotle - " cathegoria"(Old Greek κατηγορία). This word was used before Aristotle, it is also found in Plato. This is a term, and Aristotle uses it precisely in a terminological manner. This word is taken from legal practice. It was noted long ago that philosophy, as a specific kind of knowledge, did not immediately acquire its own concepts.
Friedrich Nietzsche said that philosophical concepts are frozen metaphors. But where did these metaphors come from? It has long been noted that the most ancient terms of philosophical science in ancient Greece came for the most part from the field of jurisprudence and medicine. It just so happened historically that people learned to deceive, kill, get sick and die before philosophizing: both the terminology and the corresponding disciplines developed earlier than philosophy in the modern sense of the word.
Let's say we know that the word " fusis"(Ancient Greek φύσις) - nature, - comes from medical practice, medical experience. Let's say the words “ dike"(Ancient Greek δίκη), or" dikayoshune"(Ancient Greek δικαιοσύνη) - justice, - from legal. As for the word “ cathegoria"- this is a term that came from legal practice, began to be used by philosophers. What is meant? In our domestic usage, the word “ cathegoria"Means two things:
- This is the most general concept of things, about anything, the most general ontological characteristic.
- The final affirmative form of judgment about things ("I categorically affirm").
So, the categoricalness of statements about things and the universality of the message, provided for in these categorical statements, are also associated with the specific life practice of the ancient Greeks and the ancient Romans as well. Respectively, cathegoria- this is, literally, "spoken in the agora", ie publicly, in an open space, in the presence of the gods - God is my witness, this is how things are and not otherwise. As for philosophical practice, here all this is provided, all of this is implied, but, as a rule, it is not said on purpose. Category- this is the most universal, final and general ontological existential characteristic of something.
The ten categories of Aristotle
According to Aristotle, there are at least ten such methods of categorically speaking about things. Aristotle, as a rule, speaks of ten categories, although the complete list of these categories occurs only twice: in an essay with this name - "Categories" - in the first part, which in the Middle Ages began to be called "Predicamenta" (lat. Praedicamenta), and in the first book of the composition "Topeka".
As a rule, Aristotle speaks only of one category or another. But this list is not, according to Aristotle, final. Let me remind you that our world is arranged in such a way that physical reality does not obey a reliable quantitative calculation. Strictly speaking, according to Aristotle, it is impossible to compile a complete list of something: virtues, categories, etc. For example, in one place in "Metaphysics" there is an eleventh category - movement. Still, as a rule, we are talking about exactly ten categories.
There is no reliable explanation, satisfying everyone, why there are ten of them. The most common explanation is associated with the fact that Aristotle had ten fingers on his hands, and when categorically characterizing anything, he bent one finger, and thus it turned out that there are at least ten universal ontological characteristics. I want to remind you that Aristotle's enemies - apparently there were grounds for this - categorically characterized him as such a "dandy": he wore beautiful hairstyles, and he had a ring on each finger, it can be assumed that he used these rings in pedagogical purposes - flashing rings categorically characterized certain circumstances.
But there is an explanation closer to Aristotle himself: he blurts out about it in Metaphysics, in the 28th chapter of the 5th book. Let me remind you that this book is a kind of "philosophical dictionary", has a partly independent character, an intercalary. Each chapter is devoted to considering the meanings of an important concept. So, at the end of the 28th chapter, Aristotle reports that there are as many categories (this word is used) as there are ways of using the verb “ to be»In the meaning of a bundle, copula, speaking the language of modern linguistics.
I would like to remind you that the ancient Greek language and many Western European languages use the verb “to be”, among other things, as a linking verb. Ancient Greek, Latin, German, English, French, etc. - in order to say: “the table is rectangular”, one must say: “the table is rectangular”, or “the table is yellow”.
Quite often, various tables appear in pedagogical practice, this is partly due to the fact that the teacher reads his lectures in an auditorium filled with tables, but in general this example goes back to the medieval tradition. The fact is that in medieval grammatical schools the first word of the first declension with a base on "a" was the word that occurs in the first line of Homer's Odyssey, it is striking - this is the word "muse" (Latin musa). The first declension includes nouns with a stem on "a", because the first word that was declined in ancient schools was the word "muse". But in the Middle Ages it became something reprehensible to bend the word "muse", it turned out that the word "muse" means a pagan deity. In Christian medieval schools, it seemed strange to many to operate with this term, therefore, according to the consonance, they chose another word: not "muse", but " mensa"(Lat. Mensa), ie table. So, in our Russian language we get by with a pause: "the table is rectangular." In Western European languages, we use the verb "to be": is, ist etc.
So, according to Aristotle, as he himself says, there are as many categories as there are ways of using the verb "to be" in the meaning of a bundle. We say: "the table is something", "there is some kind of table", "the table is in some respect", "the table is here, there is now." Through this enumeration of ways of using the verb "to be" in the meaning of copula, we discover how many of the most universal ontological characteristics of things exist: no less than ten.
- The essence
- Quantity
- Quality
- A place
- Time
- Attitude
- Position
- Action
- Endurance
- Possession
Two subgroups of categories
All these ten categories, the most universal ontological characteristics of things, as they said in the Middle Ages - substances, - this group is divided into two subgroups. The first group includes one category, this is the category entities, i.e. a unique characteristic that alone answers the question "what is this?" All other characteristics are indirect in their meaning. If we use the language of medieval scholasticism (and we are forced to use this language, since our European tradition has developed in such a way that, speaking about Aristotle, we are forced to use Latin terminology. This somewhat simplifies a lot.
Let me remind you that, according to Aristotle, language is absolutely conditional, and Aristotle was repeatedly “scolded” for being unsteady in his philosophical usage, that is, he can use the same word in different meanings depending on the context. Hence, a variety of confusion arises, but over time, Latin translators and interpreters, medieval scholastics designed a system of terms, a kind of grid that can be used to "catch" Aristotle), the ten fundamental characteristics are divided into two subgroups. First: substantial category, or category entities... All the others (nine) in medieval scholasticism began to be called “ incidental».
Word " promotion"(Lat. Accidentia) is not translated into any language, and is the equivalent of not quite successful, but well-established for the ancient Greek term, most likely invented by Aristotle -" τὸ συμβεβηκώς "(" then syumbbecos"). How to translate the word "τὸ συμβεβηκώς" is also not very clear. Latin translators racked their brains for a long time and came up with their own word - "accident". Strictly speaking, it is impossible to translate either that term or this one, but it is possible to convey the meaning within the meaning. What is Accident? This is some kind of casual, incidental, optional, non-essential characteristic of a thing. If the substantial category of an entity is essential, obligatory, indicating that what there is this thing, then other, optional, partly random, incidental characteristics do not mean what there is this thing, but they say which she, v what relation, in what place, at what time located .
What's important? There is an essential category - essence. There are incidental characteristics. Where is the correspondence between the Latin term "accidentia" and the Greek term "τὸ συμβεβηκώς" not fully revealed? The fact is that τὸ συμβεβηκώς is literally some optional characteristic of a thing that is in move(movement is a fundamental characteristic of any natural thing, that in which the nature of a thing manifests itself). But accidentia is also an optional characteristic of a thing, but in her static, i.e. movement is not meant here. This is an important difference between these terms. Accidental characteristic is a characteristic that does not give anything for understanding what a given particular thing is.
Let's take our table. The fact that he is a table is the responsibility of the category of essence, which answers the question "what?" But, the table is here, at that time, in this respect etc. - these are accidental, i.e. random and coincidental characteristics. If this table at some point time(incidental characteristic) move to another a place(incidental characteristic), then this table will not become to a lesser extent what it was before, i.e. as it was a table, it will remain. In this respect, the substantial characteristic of the essence is obligatory and necessary, and all other characteristics speak only of what happens to this thing or does not happen under certain circumstances. An important characteristic of a scientist, from the point of view of Aristotle, is the ability to distinguish essential and irrelevant... It's not easy. This ability is not innate, but develops. It appears in a person at about thirteen or fourteen years of age, i.e. children are unable to distinguish between the essential and the non-essential.
The origin of the concept of "essence"
As for the category of entity. Here Aristotle complicates the conversation. One can speak of essence in two ways. It is worth noting that the very concept of essence does not arise immediately in Aristotle. He borrows this term from the Platonic tradition. Let me remind you that Aristotle is a Platonist, but an apostate Platonist, a heretic Platonist. Plato and Aristotle posed the same questions, although they gave different answers.
So, the word "essence", in Greek, " efforts"(Ancient Greek οὐσία), as Plato informs in the dialogue" Cratilus ", goes back to the Pythagorean tradition. We do not know exactly the specifics of the Pythagorean use of this terminology, but Plato himself refers us to this partly preceding, partly contemporary Pythagorean tradition. He says that the Pythagoreans, Italians said axis, or esya, but in the Attic dialect, in which Plato himself wrote, as well as Aristotle, this word began to sound like efforts.
What is meant primarily by the word "essence"? This word is borrowed from everyday life, it is not an invention of ancient philosophers. But they began to use it terminologically in their own interests. I mean a certain immovable property, i.e. we are talking about a thing, or about a set of things that exist in an unshakable way, exist in such a way that they simply there is and everything - the thing just exists. This obligation, immutability, indispensability of existence, denoted by the word "οὐσία", passed into the terminology of ancient philosophy.
According to Aristotle, the category of essence is the result of the reduction of the term “ existence"(Other Greek τὸ ὄν). Repeatedly in the texts of Aristotle, the formulation sounds like a kind of incantation: "Τὸ ὄν λέγεται πολλαχώς", i.e. literally, "things are spoken of in different meanings." Generally speaking, according to Aristotle, all things are spoken of in different meanings, but things are different things, i.e. there are things of a more "challenging" way of being, more "persistent". According to Aristotle, everything is said about existence in different meanings. We say: "the table exists", "good exists", "red exists", "rectangular exists". In our usual conventional usage, we call whatever we want "existing". But, according to Aristotle - and here a certain reduction from of existence To entities, - in the strict sense of the word, only that which is essence.
This is a categorical analysis of things: we single out the essential, which answers the question "what?", And reduce the inessential to a set of random characteristics. In this way, in a strict philosophical conversation, we limit the entire totality of truly existing to one thing - essence. Those. everything that falls under the characteristics of quality, quantity, relationship, place, time - according to Aristotle, is not an essence.
According to Aristotle, there is no such thing - time. Time does not exist, just as there is no place. This is specifically mentioned in the 4th book of Physics. In the ancient philosophical tradition, the overwhelming majority of philosophers, representatives of various schools, rejected the truth that time is an existing thing. Time does not exist either from the point of view of the Stoics, or from the point of view of the Epicureans, or from the point of view of the Peripatetics. The main characteristic of existence is immutability, independence, autonomy of existence. Things are entities.
Essence first and essence second
So, essence should be spoken of in two respects. There is an essence the first, there is an essence the second... Aristotle specifically discusses this in his work "Categories". Let me remind you that in Greek usage, the word "first" does not mean belonging to the order of listing, but the unique specifics of this particular thing. This is a characteristic of its autonomous, full-fledged, full-fledged existence. The first one means "in the proper sense of the word." It is the same with the first essence: the first essence is just an essence. The second entity is an entity with some clarifications, an entity with reservations.
What is meant by the first essence in the work "Categories"? There is a classical definition: the first essence is that “does not affect any subject and is not in any subject". What is meant by the word " subject"? This word hides the Greek word "τὸ ὑποκείμενον" (" then hypocaymenon») - a word with a difficult fate. The word "subject" in our language is a literal tracing of the Greek word "τὸ ὑποκείμενον", i.e. translation is almost letter to letter. In Aristotle, in different contexts, this word takes on different meanings.
In order not to get confused, medieval translators came up with three words to translate one single "τὸ ὑποκείμενον". The initial "πο" in Latin strictly corresponds to the prefix "sub" (for example, as in the word "submarine", that is, a submarine). So, three Latin words: “ subjectum» ( subject), « substantia» ( substance), « substratum» ( substrate). These are three translations of the same word. Subject- this is the subject of our utterance. In the structure of the utterance, it corresponds to predicate.
For example: "Socrates is a man." Socrates is the subject of the utterance, and the person is the predicate of the utterance. Substance Is a separate physical thing that exists by itself: this table, this chair. According to Aristotle's definition, physical substance Is something that exists separately and moves. Substrate- this is the material basis of the existence of a substance, in a sense, with reservations, it is matter. Means: subject, substance, substrate- behind all this is the word “ subject».
The first essence is "this is here"
So, the first essence is that which does not affect any subject. Does not affect - means not predicted, i.e. cannot appear in the structure of a statement as a predicate... For example: "Socrates is a man." Man is a predicate in relation to the subject of Socrates, but we, according to Aristotle, cannot reverse this relation. We cannot transform what takes the position of the subject into a predicate, i.e. we cannot say, "Man is Socrates." If we said so, then we would only consider Socrates a man. The first essence in our statement takes the position of the subject, and cannot act as a predicate. Unpredictability- this is the fundamental characteristic of the first entity according to the text "Categories".
Aristotle uses a special expression here and in other texts, in Greek it sounds like this: "τόδε τι" (" tode ti"). “Τόδε τι” are two words. What is the first essence? This is τόδε τι. Literally translated like this: here it is here... Those. to the question "what is the first entity?" (non-predictive), according to Aristotle, the most accurate answer would be pointing the finger: “What is the first essence? "This is it." Once we begin to refine our understanding of what there is the first essence, i.e. to saturate our knowledge with some predicates, some incidental characteristics, we immediately leave the field of discussion of the first essence, i.e. we go beyond the limits of that knowledge, which is recorded exclusively in the expression "this is here." We cannot say anything more meaningful about the first essence.
What is "second essence"
What the second essence? Its fundamental characteristic according to the text of the "Category" is predicativity... To the question "what is this?" can be answered in two ways. For example: “This is this here” - what is meant by this expression corresponds to the non-predictive first entity. And when we say: "This is the table" - we express a predicative essential characteristic (the second essence).
Let's return to the example of Socrates: “Socrates is a man” - what we call the name “Socrates” in the structure of this statement corresponds to the non-predicative first essence, and what is understood by the word “man” corresponds to the predicative second essence. Both the subject and the predicate in the structure of the statement answer the question "what?" Are substantial characteristics, but they are radically different from each other. The first essence is as empty as possible.
Let me remind you that scientific knowledge is knowledge of the general; single, i.e. what is Socrates in his unique "Socratic nature" can never be an object of reliable scientific knowledge; we cannot say anything more meaningfully about this here except that it is here this is- this is the limit of our relationship to the first essence. And all our meaningful knowledge is connected with what is meant by the second essence, by the predicative essence. "This is a man" - about this here we can know only as much as we are aware of the fact that what means for this thing to be human etc.
Object of scientific knowledge
What is the object of scientific knowledge? According to the text, "Categories" are the second entity. How is our concept formed? Aristotle's concept of a concept allowed many in antiquity to accuse Aristotle of skepticism and agnosticism. From the side of Epicurean philosophy, these accusations were heard very often. According to Aristotle, we can never construct the most adequate concept of a thing. We can endlessly approach and refine our understanding. How are these concepts formed? It is clear that the language is conditional. Words are tags and labels that we create for the convenience of communication with each other. What is behind the words? Words have labels for concepts, not for things. Concepts are not formed immediately. This requires experience and intuition. We with you intuitively and empirically isolate and abstract in relation to this or that thing the entire totality of its essential characteristics. For a scientist (and for any person, since a person is a person to the extent that he is a philosopher) it is fundamentally important to see the essential, and to distinguish between the essential and the non-essential. The more we abstract the essential characteristics of a given thing, the firmer and stricter our understanding of what this something is.
Accidental characteristics are not included in the concept of a thing. Those. the concept of a table does not include the characteristics of time, place, quality (color), relationship, etc. We must highlight the most universal and essential characteristics. The result of this procedure (abstraction and synthesis of characteristics) is this or that concept, which we denote by the word of language.
So, the object of knowledge is the second essence. She happens to be predicative, generic and species... Scientific reasoning is a procedure for summing up particular cases under a general rule. We know, what there is a thing in its specificity insofar as we understand that this single thing - τόδε τι - fits into this or that kind of things, into this or that kind of things, to which this single substance necessarily belongs. Only that common which allows us to deal with this thing, as something special, is the object of scientific knowledge.
The second essence is view things, in Greek εἶδος ( eidos), it is genus things, in Greek γένος ( genos), it is nature things, in Greek φύσις ( fusis), it is the form things, in Greek μορφή ( morphe). When we read in Aristotle - "form" - then we are always talking about the species and generic predicative second essence. Aristotle came up with an expression for the second essence: "τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι" (" to ti en en einay"). Strictly speaking, it is impossible to translate into any language, but the meaning of it sounds something like this: what makes a thing what it is.
Latin translators have come up with their own Latin equivalent, literal tracing word for word. In Latin texts, starting from the XIII century, we constantly meet this expression when it comes to Aristotle and the teachings associated with him: "quod quid erat esse" (" kvod quid erath essay"). Since the medieval scholastics were lecturers-preachers, this four-word expression "got loose" over time, and the cumbersome "quod quid erat esse" began to sound like "quidditas" (" quidditas"). If translated from Latin into Russian, it literally turns out like this: what is... quod quid erat esse - quidditas [quidditas], what is
We said: "Socrates is a man." Socrates is here this is here... Aristotle had a direct image of Socrates in front of him, and could point with a finger - here it is here... After all, we are talking not just about some copy of a certain set of Socrates, "Socrates" was a fairly popular name in Ancient Greece, we are talking about Socrates this one, we are talking about the well-known Socrates, who was executed by the sentence of the Athenian heliums in 399 BC. according to our chronology.
Criticism of Plato's philosophy
An important point should be noted here, which is an element of the criticism of Plato's philosophy from the side of Aristotle. According to Plato, behind every positive characteristic of a thing there is a sufficient reason to believe so, i.e. if we say "table" then there is table how such, if we say "rectangular", then there is sufficient reason to believe that something is rectangular, some idea squareness... According to Plato, there is color idea, exists idea of red, yellow, of any color, of any size: behind any positive characteristic there is a sufficient, ontologically cognitive basis for believing that it exists this way and not otherwise, that and not in another way, and exists and is known as such.
According to Aristotle, predicativity (using the scholastic formula) is a sign nonsubstantiality, i.e. everything that in the structure of our statement acts as a predicate (second essence) in relation to the first essence, says that what is hidden behind the second essence is not a substance, i.e. does not exist as a separate single physical thing - with this here is not. Predicativity is a sign nonsubstantiality... When we say: "This is a table" - does not exist table as such... When we say: "This is rectangular" - does not exist squareness as such... By virtue of the action of the law consistency if we distinguish between the subject and the predicate in the structure of the statement, then they are not the same... If by the subject we mean a single physical thing - Socrates, then the second predicative essence is a single physical thing, a substance is not - a person. Does not exist human as such, does not exist table as such, rectangularity, place, time, etc., due to the predicative structure of the statement. Predictivity is a sign of non-substance.
Aristotle. Works in four volumes. T. 2.Ed. 3. N. Mikeladze. M., "Thought", 1978. Categories (2a). Instead of the word "affects" in the translation there is the word "said." - Approx. ed.
Literature
- Aristotelis Categoriae et Liber De Interpretatione. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit L. Minio-Paluello. Oxonii: E typographeo Clarendoniano, 1949 (repr. 1974) (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis).
- Aristotle's Metaphysics. A Revisited Text with Introduction and Commentary by W.D. Ross. Vols. I-II. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1924 (repr. 1997).
- Düring I. Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens. Zweite Auflage. Unveränderter Nachdruck der Ausgabe von 1966. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2005.
- Frede M., Patzig G. Aristoteles, “Metaphysik Ζ”. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Bde. I-II. München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1988.
- Logik und Erkenntnislehre des Aristoteles. Hrsg. von F.-P. Hager. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972 (Wege der Forschung; Bd. 226).
- Metaphysik und Theologie des Aristoteles. Hrsg. von F.-P. Hager. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969 (Wege der Forschung; Bd. 206).
- Aristotle. Metaphysics. Per. from ancient Greek. A.V. Kubitsky (1934) // Aristotle. Works in four volumes. T. 1. Moscow: "Mysl", 1976 (Philosophical heritage, vol. 65).
- Aristotle. Categories. Per. from ancient Greek. A.V. Kubitsky (1939) // Aristotle. Works in four volumes. T. 2. Moscow: "Thought", 1978 (Philosophical heritage, v. 76).
Aristotle is a philosopher of Ancient Greece who lived in 384 BC. BC - 322 BC NS. Disciple of the outstanding thinker of that time, Plato. Aristotle is famous for being the mentor of Alexander the Great. The knowledge transmitted by Aristotle to Alexander was for the commander the guiding star of his entire life. Aristotle's philosophy is worthy of close attention. It still carries useful and valuable knowledge.
Foundations of Aristotle's philosophy
Aristotle was interested in both the foundations of the world order and the issues of the essence of the human person. He reflected these studies in his works that have survived to this day. The thinker devoted many works to the art of rhetoric - he taught eloquence.
Closely Aristotle began to study philosophy at the age of 17. At this age, he entered the Plato Academy, where he studied for 20 years. Subsequently, he founded his own philosophical school in the city of Pele, which was named "Lyceum" (a prototype of a modern lyceum), where he taught until the end of his life.
Components of Aristotle's philosophy
The philosopher's teaching is divided into 4 parts:
- theory - the study of problems and its facets, the origin and essence of phenomena;
- practice - the model of government and the activities of people;
- poetics - the study of the means of artistic expression in literature;
- logic - the science of the true representation of the surrounding reality.
In matters of the essence of being, Aristotle criticized the works of his teacher, Plato. He was opposed to unambiguous theories about the world order, and believed that each idea would depend on the situation in the surrounding world, and each thing is unique. Let us dwell on these points in detail.
The concept of metaphysics
The essence of Aristotle's metaphysics is a criticism of the works of Plato and his concept of the separation of the world of ideas and the world of things. The scientist believes that form and matter are inseparable from each other. The desire to embody in life the possibilities that it contains in itself is inherent in matter.
The concept of "form" according to Aristotle includes three points: the essence of the object "in the present tense", and potentially possible things that can come out of it after - the result of a certain act of creativity that created it.
The transition of a potential opportunity into an existing reality is movement. In the process of movement, simple things become more and more complex. Gradually, they come closer to perfection and to their primary source - God. According to this concept, God is pure thinking that has no expression in material form. In the future, thinking simply cannot develop - it has reached perfection, but God does not exist separately from the material world.
Aristotle on physics
According to the scientist, matter arises, disappears and changes according to the laws of motion, which is the immortal life of nature in time and space. The purpose of the movement is the gradual expansion of the boundaries of the influence of form over matter, and the improvement of life.
The scientist identifies 4 main substances that make up the universe - fire, air, water and earth.
Aristotle's philosophy clearly distinguishes between the directions of movement: up (to the border of the world) and down (to the center of the universe). This is due to the fact that some objects (water, earth) are heavy, while others (fire and air) are light; from this it follows that each of the elements moves in its own way: air and fire tend upward, and water and earth - downward.
The universe, according to philosophical thought, has the shape of a ball. Inside it, celestial bodies move along clearly marked circles, which also have a spherical shape. The border of the universe is the sky, which is a living being, and consists of ether.
What is the soul
Aristotle believed that every living organism has something guiding it - a soul. They are present not only in humans, but also in plants and animals. This is what distinguishes the living from the dead.
According to the treatises of the thinker, the soul and body do not exist without each other, therefore, it is impossible to study one and the other separately.
The Thinker distinguishes the souls of plants and animals from the human. The latter is a particle of the divine mind, has more elevated functions than the responsibility for digestion, reproduction, movement and sensation.
Philosopher about nature
Aristotle in his writings said that matter will always strive for a more perfect state. Thus, objects of the inorganic world gradually become organic; plants in the process of evolution are transformed into objects of the animal kingdom. Everything in nature is a particle of a single whole.
Gradually, the life of organisms becomes brighter and brighter, and reaches its peak, incarnating in a person.
Aristotle on ethics
The ancient Greek philosopher said that the essence of virtue is not the knowledge of what is good and evil, because the presence of knowledge is not able to keep a person from committing bad deeds. You need to consciously train your will to do good deeds.
Good is the predominance of reason over human desires and passions. A person's behavior can be called ethical only when he finds a compromise between his desires and how to act in accordance with moral and ethical standards. A person does not always want to do the right thing. But with an effort of will, he must control his actions. By acting morally and justly, we experience a sense of self-satisfaction.
Morality must be inextricably linked with statehood and politics.
Aristotle on politics
The highest goal of human moral activity is the creation of a state. According to this idea, the unit of society and statehood is a separate family. The spouses are in an alliance with each other, which is based on morality. A man leads him, but a woman in the family also has freedom in her actions. A man should have more power over his children than over his spouse.
According to Aristotle, slavery is normal. Every Greek can have slaves from the barbarian tribes. After all, they are beings of a higher nature. Slaves are completely subordinate to their master.
Several families form a community. And when communities unite with each other, a state appears. It should ensure a happy life for everyone, strive to make citizens virtuous. The state should strive for a perfect order of life.
In his treatise "Politics", the scientist cites several varieties of forms of government: monarchy (the state is ruled by one person), aristocracy (several people rule) and democracy (the people are the source of power).
"Poetics" by Aristotle
The versatile Aristotle also studied the art of drama. He wrote a separate treatise on this branch - "Poetics", which has not reached us in its entirety, but some pages of this work have survived. Therefore, we know what the great philosopher thought about the art of drama.
The scientist believed that the essence of the tragedy is to awaken compassion and horror in the audience. Thanks to such strong impressions, a person experiences "catharsis" - his spiritual cleansing takes place.
In the plays of ancient Greece, a certain period of time was always considered. The philosopher in his treatise "Poetics" said that the time, place and actions in the plot should not diverge from each other (the theory of "three unities").
Many playwrights in their work relied on the teachings of Aristotle. Later, in "New time" in Europe, they did not always adhere to the theory of "three unities", but it became the basis of the classical style in art.
