Does Change Exist? Pt.2 Aristotle’s Ontology
The great Greek Philosopher Aristotle studied the relationship between beings (Ontology, the ‘onta’ meaning ‘being’). His opponents were the Eleatics, followers of Parmenides, who stated the world was always changing and completely unknowable .Aristotle, however, believed it was possible to explain why and how things changed. He emphasised the importance of using human language correctly, and felt we often muddled the true meaning of words. In order to understand his ideas, we must first gather knowledge on his concepts of universals, particulars, the categories and substances.
Most sentences that we speak throughout our everyday lives consist of a subject and a predicate. For example, “squid are cephalopods”, squid is the subject for the predicate, cephalopod. The subject is the focus of the sentence, whereas the predicate is telling us something about that subject.
Let’s take the example, “the shark is swimming”. When we say this, we are not referring to the word but the predicate that is invoking the shark to swim.
“Some things are said of a subject but not in a subject” - Aristotle
The swimming is in the shark, but it is not part of the shark. If we replaced the predicate with it’s definition, the sentence would no longer make sense:
The shark is swimming (predicate)
Swimming, for a shark, is a movement by propelling it’s tail
If we replace the predicate with it’s definition, then:
The shark is a movement of it’s tail!
This makes no sense, and shows us the confusing difference usage of the word ‘is’. The shark is a fish, however, would make perfect sense if we did the same test as above.
Swimming, walking, or any other action needs an underlying thing (hypokeimenon*) to enable it, someone must be doing the swimming, and cannot exist separately; this is what Aristotle means when he says “in a subject… not as part”. The shark is more fundamentally real than the swimming, ontologically, thus it is more real than what is predicated of it.
All objects in the world can be assigned to one of Aristotle’s ten categories; the most important being substance, followed by quality, quantity, relation, time, place, position to name a couple. Aristotle gives the term substance to subjects of inherent items, e.g blue, running. For example, the shark is the substance, a member of species, whereas it’s qualities are grey, 18 foot, swimming, ocean, etc. However, these categories are doubted by his successors. They argued the only necessary form is substance, the other nine, such as place and time do not define the object, they merely ask questions about it.
For scientific terminology, Aristotle’s categories needed to be generalised into species (human), and furthermore, into genus (animal). Aristotle believed that species was the most important classification, for saying a shark is a fish, for example, tells us more about it’s essence of nature than the shark is an animal.
Aristotle called Socrates, for example, a particular, which means it isn’t said of a subject. He called that which could be said of the subject - e.g. human, mammal, animal, universals - which can belong to many particulars (more than one man can be a human). The universals depend on the particulars for their existence, making them less important. Thus, in Aristotle’s terminology, “the squid is a cephalopod” is a definition of a squid, whereas “the squid is speckled”, is a description.
Before we move onto change, let’s summarise Aristotle’s key terms:
Substance: Objects in the world, e.g. Socrates, the most basic of things
Category: A way in which a substance can be
Universal: Said of a subject e.g. human
Particular: Not said of a subject, e.g Socrates
So, how does this come into why and how things change? Aristotle’s explanation of change is built on his conception of the categories, and of substance. Let’s imagine a flower losing it’s petals. Aristotle (following Platonic tradition) would claim that there has been a transformation in one of the flower’s categories, but these categories are separate to it’s essence, thus it still remains a flower. As a human being grows older, they continue being a human. For a living thing, an alteration of quality seems a plausible explanation, but what of a statue, for example? What is it exactly that continues despite the change?
This is where Aristotle’s combination of form and matter comes into play. This belief makes Aristotle a Teleologist, as he argues from the perspective of purpose and design. He states a substance consists of both form and matter. Defining the matter for an unnatural substance is easy. This matter is what enables the bronze statue, for example, to continue. Matter is not more basic than substance, however, it is shapeless and characterless. Substances come into the world when matter is combined with form. In the case of the statue, the sculptor externally applies the form to the matter to create the substance.
But what about natural substances? What about an oak tree? How does the form and the matter for an acorn combine? For the statue, the bronze is the persisting underlying subject, but it cannot be leaves and branches for the oak tree, as they came into being after, and the acorn does not persist until the end either. Aristotle’s answer here is the elements; earth, wind, fire and water. He claims that the elements coming together to form the acorn is intrinsic to them, and that the form of the oak tree is internal. Therefore, nature is the underlying matter for plants and animals.
However, this doesn’t explain why change occurs. Aristotle has opened up another problem; doesn’t this make the four elements primary substances? And instead, Socrates, for example, inheres in the properties of material elements, making him merely an attribute to them? The categories state that primary substances are subjects for everything else, and of change. Aristotle disagrees, saying that nature and substance are different things. He distinguishes nature through motion and purpose, which is central to his teleology of change.
“The distinguishing feature of a natural thing is that it has a “principle of motion” and stability in place, growth and decay, or in alteration” - Aristotle
Nature, therefore, is a reason why substances change, for it is in their nature to do so. For example, an oak tree grows and spreads it’s branches because it is in it’s nature. The principle of growth is not within the oak tree but the elements, which have come together in a complex way. This natural growth, Aristotle believed, is for a greater good, and humans should not interfere with matters of nature. In the case of non natural objects, it’s nature will be a result of how it is made and what it is intended to be used for. Plants and animals have internal principles of change that belong to them individually depending on what they are - in their form and virtue.
Nature, therefore, lies in form and not in the amorphous matter Aristotle described. The elemental attributes ‘decide’ on the form; for example, animals stop growing at a certain size, depending on their form. Form (nature) determines the structure of the natural body. Nature, therefore, in conclusion, is an internal principle of change.
Aristotle continues to explain the four causes responsible for change. These causes are known as:
The material cause - concerns it’s form, change due to it’s components, e.g. flammable paper catches fire (what is it made of?)
The formal cause - change in order to fulfill a purpose, e.g. acorn into an oak tree (what is it?)
The efficient cause - the specific origin of change, closest to the modern viewpoint. The primary principle, the actual factor or event of change, e.g. lightning strikes down the tree, or a bricklayer building a house (what made it?)
The final cause - change for a goal (telos), e.g. someone is walking to be healthy
Aristotle believes these four causes are explanations as to why change occurs.
In conclusion, Aristotle explains how and why change occurs in two different ways. Firstly, when something changes, such as a petal losing it’s flowers, there has been an alteration in one of it’s categories. For the change of something coming into being, however, this is an explanation of form and matter. A statue, for example, is the combination of form and matter from the sculptor. For an oak tree (a natural object), on the other hand, it grows because of it’s nature, which is inherent to it’s form when combined with matter.
Aristotle continues further in his theory of causation, motion and the goal of good that thrives in the nature of our Universe. His fascinating, in-depth teleology will be explored to an adequate depth in future posts, for there is so much more to say.
* Hypokeimenon means the substance which resists change, maintaining the essence of an object