Every philosophic mind knows that grand illuminating
masterpiece composed by Raphael in the 16th century: “The School of Athens.” Here is Pythagoras, Diogenes, Zeno, Heraclitus,
Parmenides, Averroes, Carneades, and Epicurus; all working diligently at their craft, but
walking above them all, as to say that these two shaped the age, was Plato, “pointing
upward to his perfect state” (Durant), and the philosopher of our interest, Aristotle,
“holding out his hand with downward palm, as to bring his master’s soaring idealism
back to earth.” (Durant) He was born in the year 384 before the Common
Era in the Macedonian city of Stagira, and as if guided by providence, the environment
in which he grew was rich with opportunity to develop his encyclopedic mind. We are not certain as to the age at which
Plato welcomed the reckless youth, but it

seems most likely that by twenty, he had already begun the molding process under the roof of The Academy. If our assumption is correct, then we can estimate that he stayed with the master for upwards of 20 years, and though they had their differences, the genius of Aristotle did not go unnoticed by Plato. By the year 344, Aristotle had married one of the wealthiest women in Athens, and by 345 was en route to tutor one who was destined to be ruler of the known world. It speaks volumes of Aristotle’s merit as a scholar if the king of Macedon, seeking the best for his son Alexander, decided that Aristotle would fit this mold. There was at first a disconnect between our philosopher and the youth, as there was between Aristotle and Plato, though he would eventually find success, for a brief time at least, and Alexander would come to see in Aristotle a figure resembling a second father. If we are to believe the words ascribed to Alexander by Plutarch, then “though he had

received life from the one; the other had
taught him the art of living.” This lasted all of two years before destiny
called, and Alexander left Aristotle to the tasks which would bring them both immortality. It would be in his 53rd year that he would
form his School, “The Lyceum,” named for the Athletic field with which it shared its
domain. It was a well-funded school owing to Aristotle’s
relationship with Alexander. Its focus was more so on the biological rather
than solely on philosophical digest. One of the great achievements of The Lyceum
was the vast Zoological collection which it boasted; it being the most magnificent the
world had known in its time and for centuries thereafter. While the collection which he maintained was
vast and without comparison, the tools which he had to study them hardly surpassed those
natural to his own body; “He was compelled to fix the time without a watch, to compare
degrees of heat without a thermometer, to

observe the heavens without a telescope, and
the weather without a barometer.” (Eduard Zeller). These limitations would be
apparent by the copious errors, some more obvious than others, which are scattered throughout
his manifold works. The number of works attributed to Aristotle
is estimated in the hundreds and by some up to one thousand. It is not without cause that
he would gain the moniker “The Encyclopedia”. While Alexander was off conquering the known
world through violence, Aristotle set out to do it through truth. In letter XII of Voltaire’s Letters on the
English, there comes to us a quote meant for Isaac Newton, but I think it applicable to
our philosopher and his student: “It is to him who masters our minds by the force of
truth, and not to those who enslave them by violence, that we owe our reverence.” The scope of his achievement is magnificent
and can be separated into four categories: the scientific, logical, Esthetic, and strictly
philosophical works.

It is also reported that he too had composed
literary dialogues, though not one has survived to our own day. What might also be mentioned is that much
of what we attribute to Aristotle are instead works likely composed and stitched together
by students and followers, but we can “be sure that Aristotle is the spiritual author
of all these books that bear his name: that the hand may be in some cases another’s
hand, but that the head and the heart are his.” (Durant). Like so many of the great minds throughout
history, Aristotle did not end his life as fortunately as it had begun. When Alexander had ordered the execution of
Aristotle’s nephew, he protested. Finding himself as successful as ever in convincing
Alexander to change his mind, he was rebuffed and warned that he too could be sentenced
if his protest continued. The Athenians who surrounded him, too, found
the philosopher as intolerable as they had found Socrates. When Alexander died suddenly, 323 B.C.E., these
Athenians seized the opportunity to rid themselves

of Aristotle in much the same way as they
had with Socrates. They accused him of blasphemy, more specifically
for teaching that prayer and sacrifice were of no use. Though our story deviates here from that of
Socrates’ when instead of allowing the people of Athens to make the same mistake twice over,
he chose exile and fled to Chalcis (Cal-sis). It was not soon after arriving here that Aristotle,
alone and no doubt disappointed by the turn of events, became sickened and without the
will to carry on died here 322 B.C.E. We must start our review of his academic contributions
with the field of which he near single-handedly started logic. While most of the time dull, it is likely
the most important discipline for one to adhere to within the field of philosophy, as without
it one may be led astray by any Charleton or Snake-Oil Salesman. We should begin with Aristotle’s work concerning
Definitions since it is the definitions which

make up the core of any argument. He would have us separate each definition
into two parts: the first being the group to which it belongs. Take the word canine,
for example; its group may be that of mammal. Second, we must determine how a canine differs
from the other members of its class, such as a human, cat, or horse. We could say that canines tend to be slender,
long-legged animals which bark, howl, or yip. With this, we may gain a clear distinction
between a canine and other members of its class, and in so doing, come to a common definition
which satisfies each party participating in the argument. Next, in perhaps the most well-known of his
contributions to logic, comes the Syllogism. The Syllogism is “a trio of propositions,
of which the third (the conclusion) follows from the conceded truth of the first two (the
‘major’ and ‘minor’ premises).”

(Durant) E.g., Frank is a canine. Canines
have four legs, therefore Frank has four legs. As can be seen above, by cancelling out the
common term “Canine” from both premises and combining what terms remain, we have our
conclusion. However, the difficulty is clear, this being that “the major premises takes
for granted the point to be proved in the conclusion.” (Durant) For if Frank does not have four legs,
it is not a universal truth that canines are four-legged animals. We can assume with some confidence that Aristotle
would point out that this is not an issue of any significance for as long as the object
in question has a multitude of traits which link it to that specific class, then we can
presume its belonging. We should think of the Syllogism not as a
tool for discovering a universal truth, but rather for “the clarification of exposition
and thought.” (Durant) There can be no doubt that here we have a
man who, through his own power of mind, started

a science which would stimulate all those
who came after, few of which could add profoundly to the varied logical works of Aristotle. “Categories,” “Topics,” “Prior”
and “Posterior Analytics,” Propositions,” and “Sophistical Refutation”. Before an investigation into the Metaphysics
of Aristotle, I think it appropriate to review, if only briefly, his thoughts and findings
regarding the various life sciences he dedicated much of his time accumulating. We can be sure that before Aristotle, the
various sciences of which he observed and recorded were hardly present in any organized
manner. I would like to make known that I am not forgetting
Thales who hypothesized the sun and stars to be balls of fire, Empedocles who told of
life as the survival of the fittest, and of course Democritus who contemplated the atom;
I am only stating that the beginning of “organized science” starts here with these works: “Physics,”
“On the Heavens,” “Growth and Decay,”

“Meteorology,” “Natural History,”
“On the Soul,” “The Parts of Animals,” “The Movements of Animals,” and “The
Generation of Animals.” First, he gives us a magnificent Treatise
on Meteorology. He paints us a strikingly modern picture of our hydrological cycle. When looking toward the species which populate
the planet, he believes them to be near identical to their predecessor when taken in the large.
A link could be formed to the beginning of life on earth; “nature makes so gradual
a transition from the inanimate to the animate kingdom that the boundary lines which separate
them are indistinct and doubtful.” He falls short of evolution and does not believe,
as Empedocles did, that these small variations come about through the survival of the fittest. He classifies man as “mammal” and thinks
the monkey a fitting intermediary between man and those predecessors who roamed the
earth on all fours. Embryology too finds its origin in Aristotle.
“He who sees things grow from their beginning,

will have the finest view of them.” (Aristotle). Though it is true that Aristotle
was not the first to think these thoughts, he was, without question, the first to catalogue
his findings with careful observation and experiment. As for his errors, we can forgive him that;
we must keep in mind that the tools which were used were archaic, and the previously
established body of knowledge, which we rely so heavily on today, was for the most part
undiscovered. When we search the depths of Aristotle’s
metaphysic, we find two principles which establish the basis for his chain of reasoning. These two things are form and matter. Form we may picture as the “inner necessity
and impulse which moulds mere material to a specific figure and purpose; it is the realization
of a potential capacity of matter; it is the sum of the powers residing in anything to
do, to be, or to become.” (Durant). All matter has its antecedent form,
of which this form too has its own antecedent.

and so on until we arrive at matter without
form. Perhaps an example would help to clarify. If we begin with an adult man, we may say
that the child is its form, from which the embryo is its form, then the ovum. The form
of this; all guided and designed from within to become what they were destined to be. When we arrive at matter without form, we have
arrived at the question which all children will ask when discovering the eternal nature
of God, which is, but where does this matter come from? Aristotle would answer that matter itself,
as but the possibility of future forms, can be eternal, though motion must have a beginning. Here is where he inserts the “prime mover,
unmoved”, a being of infinite and incorporeal nature. This being is the driving force within and
without each individual thing as well as the whole of nature. This god has no desires, no purpose behind
its action, and certainly has no personal

preference for man in particular, as he is but a part of the whole which god is the vital principle. For Aristotle, the will is free in so far as we can choose our environment, such as the books we read or the friends which we employ, but “we cannot directly will to be different from what we are” (Aristotle). The use of praise and blame, he believes, presupposes moral responsibility and free will in this way. The soul, according to Aristotle, is not unique to human beings, but it is present in all animate things. Plants, for instance, their soul can be thought of reproductive power, while in man it is the power of reason and thought. We may define it as the vital principle of any organism, the sum of its power and processes. In Man, there is the active and passive aspect of the soul; the passive being his individual power of reasoning, while the active comes to us in the form of universal thought and

is independent of man’s body and individual
characteristics, such as memory and personality. The passive
reason dies, while the active
lives on undisturbed by reality; such are the metaphysics of Aristotle. After some time collecting and observing the
natural world around him, Aristotle turned inward to man and his perfection. Within the ethics of Aristotle, Santayana
tells us, “The conception of human nature is perfectly sound; every ideal has a natural
basis, and everything natural has an ideal development.” Happiness, to begin, was the end goal of human
conduct. “We choose happiness for itself, and never with a view to anything further;
whereas we choose honor, pleasure, intellect . . . because we believe that through them,
we shall be made happy.” (Aristotle) This is, of course, obvious, and
its revelation would do nothing for man without a clear path to its achievement; this is what
his ethics endeavored to clarify and solve.

The clearest path was through that which separated
man from the lower animals: clear and rational thought. Man’s reason is his key to happiness; with
the tools of clear judgement and self-control, he may rise from the very slums to the heights
which befit the rational individual. The golden mean is the method by which right
reason is acquired. The golden mean is that quality of character
which meets the particular circumstance of each situation. The math is simple: one who has in excess
what is required to meet the situation, and one who has too little to meet the situation,
are both equally faulty. It is he who has just the right amount in just the right time
who rises to excellence. It is no matter which can be settled without
patience and diligent practice; excellence is only won through the development of right
habits. In other words, virtue cannot be obtained
through a few great deeds but must be something cultivated through the consistency of one's
right actions.

“The good man is a working of the soul in
the way of excellence in a complete life; . . . for as it is not the one swallow or
one fine day that makes a spring, so it is not one day or a short time that makes a man
blessed and happy.” (Aristotle). Material and external goods, too, must be
acquired if one is to be called happy. We must first have what is necessary. Happiness
is difficult when one is poor and starving. Something else which is important to the wise
man’s search for happiness is friendship. Friendship being something which requires
duration and equality. We must not think of friendship as something to be won easily or
bought, and we should be suspicious of those who boast of countless friends. But we must not forget that happiness is something
which comes from within, and no amount of material goods would suffice to make an individual
happy without the development of knowledge and right reason.

“The operation of the intellect aims at no end beyond itself and finds itself the pleasure which stimulates it to further operation; and since the attributes of self-sufficiency, unweariedness, and capacity for rest plainly belong to this occupation, in it must lie perfect happiness.” (Aristotle). In short, the wise man of Aristotle is happy in solitude, finding no pleasure in speaking without good reason. In fact, he finds no significant pleasure in anything, nor does he experience undue mental strain from his misfortunes. He is not ostentatious in anything and has a level character which feels neither vehemence nor reverence. If death calls, he is of good cheer and understands that life, in some circumstances, is not worth living. Like many of us, Aristotle’s political ideals were heavily shaped by the circumstances of his life and of course by the environment which he laid. These were troubling times and with the rise and fall of Alexander the political climate

was as if it changed with each season. We can say confidently that the strain of
his political thought was thoroughly conservative, much like his master. He too was well acquainted
with the disaster, which was the Athenian political experiment of Democracy. He believed that change to the fundamental
structures, which uphold society, though well-intentioned, will almost certainly be to the
detriment of those involved and to the generation unfortunate enough to follow their blunder. He placed the utmost value on societal custom
and traditions; and to alter or disrupt them, he thought, would have an effect equal to
“weakening the inmost essence of all law, whatever.” (Aristotle) For this reason, he believes revolution
to be a destructive method of transformation, which, while achieving some success in nice
areas, comes at the cost of unintended destruction; as it is said, the path to hell is paved with
good intentions lost along the way. In short, we should not be so quick to discard
customs, which history has judged to be worthy.

of perpetuation without strict contemplation
and arduous trial. He was opposed to communism, stating “that
which is common to the greatest number has the least attention bestowed upon it. Everyone thinks chiefly of his own, hardly
ever of the public interest.” He is not so naïve to believe that all will
befriend all and understands that the evils of the state are not the result of accumulated
wealth and property, but “arise from quite another source – the wickedness of human
nature.” In his view, inferiors should be ruled by their
superiors, no amount of communism would suffice to create equality among unequals. Monarchy, if power was bestowed upon the most
virtuous, such as in Rome under Marcus Aurelius, has potential to become the best of governments. But as history has shown, this is not typically
the case, and power eventually falls into the lap of the greatest flatterer, a snake oil
salesman rich in rhetoric, but poor in action.

The fate of monarchy is underlined by that famous quote from Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” Aristocracy has many benefits and ranks far superior a form of government than its predecessor Monarchy. A government ruled by the wisest and most honorable of citizens, free from the destructive force of the many voting with uninformed zeal for the greatest despot which tells them what they want to hear. At least this is what an Aristocratic Utopian would say of Aristocracy, but Aristotle knew full well that all Aristocracies were destined for that inevitable fate of degrading into Plutocracies (rule by the wealthy) and where money beats out ability there can be no true aristocracy since the Plutocratic ruling class will be overthrown by the common citizen in favor of Democracy. “Love of gain in the ruling classes tends constantly to diminish

their number, and so strengthen the masses,
who in the end set upon their masters and establish democracies.” (Aristotle). Like all Polities, Democracy too has its unique
benefits and risks. He thinks that it has the advantage of being
less corruptible, with the simple logic that “The many are more incorruptible than the
few”. But its fatal flaw is that it “arises out
of the notion that those who are equal in one respect are equal in all respects.” (Aristotle) and “He who seeks equality between
unequals, seeks an absurdity.” (Spinoza). Now that all forms of popular polity have
been given their due Aristotelian treatment, what qualities does he think make for the
greatest likelihood of success in government? Our state will be likened to that of a constitutional
government. It is not the best, but it is the best the common citizen can be convinced
to accept willingly. First, we must begin by “having in mind
such a life as the majority will be able to

share, and a form of government to which states
in general can attain.” (Aristotle). He begins by opening the road
to political office for all those who demonstrate the aptitude. No citizen who has not demonstrated
the skill required to hold office will be permitted to attain it. And though all are not welcome in the political
theater, they will be present to help determine the end which these qualified individuals
are to strive for. Education will be front and center of our
government. “That which most contributes to the permanence of constitutions is the
adaptation of education to the form of government. … The citizen should be moulded to the form
of government under which he lives.” (Aristotle). The laws provided by the polity will be strictly
inculcated so that every citizen pays them do mind. A citizenry which does not respect
the law of the land is a citizenry doomed to tyranny as people will not long tolerate
the intolerable chaos associated with lawlessness.

To ensure proper quality and quantity of the
populace, mimicking Plato’s Republic, the state will be the matchmaker so that the best
may be with the best. He believes women to be out of place within
the political theater and has been by many accused of misogyny; this may be the origin
of those countless paintings of Aristotle being ridden embarrassingly by Phyllis, the
mistress of Alexander, to satisfy the philosopher’s own lust. This, we might suspect, was likely to say
that the man who believes women to be beneath him is now beneath them, but we may give to
him that he considered equally the happiness of all peoples in his ethics. His legacy and influence have been almost
without comparison in the history of European philosophy, so much so that deviating from
his thought during the Middle Ages would have been met with animosity and ridicule. His reign of “over a millennium of intellectual
history came to an end only with the audacious

irreverence of Occam and Ramus, the experimental
science of Roger Bacon, and the innovating philosophy of Francis Bacon.” (Durant). The critic will point out that Aristotle is
replete with errors and short-sighted hypotheses, but we must remember that he was very much
a product of his environment; meaning that the tools at his disposal were next to none,
and the knowledge that we rely on today was nigh absent. We must recognize the greatness of his achievement
and pay our respects to his rightful place at the shrine of great minds. As always, thank you for talking philosophy
with me, until next time.

The Life and Philosophy of Aristotle

The Life and Philosophy of Aristotle