Form and Matter in Aristotle Essay

In Phaedo, Socrates uses the soul and body to express the distinction between the forms and appearances. Socrates describes the soul as “divine, deathless, intelligible, uniform, indissoluble, always the same as itself, whereas the body is most like that which is human, mortal, multiform, unintelligible, soluble, and never consistently the same” (Phaedo 80b). Furthermore, Socrates believes there is a “future awaits men after death” (Phaedo 63c) because it might be “a relocating for the soul from here to another place” (Apology 40d). Socrates believes “the one aim of those who practice philosophy in the proper manner is to practice for dying and death” (Phaedo 64a) because philosophers are stuck “in a kind of prison” (Phaedo 62b) struggling to acquire knowledge.

Nature in the dictionary of Cambridge is the animals, plants, rocks, etc. in the world and all the features, forces, and processes that happen or exist independently of people, such as the weather, the sea, mountains, the production of young animals or plants, and growth. Many poets and philosophers have discussed the essence of nature. Both Mary Oliver and Walt Whitman emphasize this essence; for Mary explains why everything in nature has a soul and Walt explains why animals have a better life than we do.

Book Z of Metaphysics, addresses, “The question which was raised long ago, [and] is still and always will be, which always baffles us- ‘What is Being?’-is in other words ‘What is Substance?” (1028b3 Metaphysics Book Z). In order to answer this question Aristotle constructs 4 criterions, which must be

He uses the examples of “anger, courage, appetite, and sensation.” However, an exception to the idea that the soul cannot act without the body, is thinking. Aristotle describes

In the beginning of Metaphysics VII, Aristotle asks again; what is substance? We know that substance is the base of all things that exist, that part is

The mind-body problem can also be answered with the hylomorphic point of view. Hylomorphism is the compound of matter and form, or soul and body as one. Aristotle believed the soul was not the person but a part of the person. In contrast to what Plato believed, Aristotle thought the soul could not be without the body for they are codependent. Aristotle places bodies into the substance category of matter-and-form and subdivides bodies even further by stating bodies can either be natural or artificial. A natural body means hylomorphic aka form and matter. However, both the organic and the inorganic are composed of matter and form. The difference, then, is some have life, while others don’t. By the term life, Aristotle means “self-nutrition and growth” . Self-nutrition is the key variable which makes a body alive. “that every natural body which has life in it is a substance in the sense of a composite” . So, a

Aristotle questions if the body and soul are both independent things. He claims that if affections of the soul can be separated, then the soul and body are separable. He stresses that we should think of the soul as being similar to the body. Aristotle believes that not any soul can be matched with any body. For example, an animal’s soul cannot go in a human body because they have different

Aristotle is considered by many to be one of the most influential philosophers in history. As a student of Plato, he built on his mentor’s metaphysical teachings of things like The Theory of Forms and his views on the soul. However, he also challenged them, introducing his own metaphysical ideas such as act and potency, hylemorphism, and the four causes. He used these ideas to explain his account of the soul and the immateriality of intellect.

Like in the bronze example he uses, he says that a bronze statue’s potency is not in the bronze itself, but in the bronze's ability to be turned into a bronze statue; a simple cube of bronze is not a bronze statue, but has the potency to become one. Once that potency is actualized and the bronze is formed into a statue, that potency must no longer exist because it was set into motion to become the form of a statue – being a statue is the telos for the potency of the bronze. Or, would Aristotle argue that the potency for it to be a statue still exists because the bronze can be melted down and recreated into another statue? Some aspects of potency and motion, like when potency ends, are confusing to

Aristotle clarified the conduct of an object, for example, a stone, as far as the

Aristotle presents a short analysis of the rational part of the soul, dividing it into two parts, a part that uses reason and a part that obeys reason. He sees life as supported by activity and not just the capacity to do something.

The world of sense is at a constant change, so how can the truth be

For example. A man is in the form of a human. Also the man is considered a human when he is an infant. Therefore the form of a human must have existed before the human ever came into being. The child possesses the inner principle of what it means to be a human. Aristotle says, “Whatever things have this sort of principle have a nature. And all these are substance. For there is something underlying, and nature is in an underlying.” In order to understand what the form is to Aristotle, it is necessary to understand what nature is to Aristotle. By knowing the nature of a thing then we will be able to know the form of a thing. According to Aristotle a thing’s nature is that thing’s form. Its nature is what gives an object its purpose in this world and the reason for its making. If nature gives a thing its purpose, then nature must mean the purpose of something. And therefore, if nature is the purpose of something, it then has form. This form is given to the thing whenever it comes into being, or when it comes into existence. Going back to the previous example, a child is known as a human because that is the form it took on when it came into existence, even before it was born. A child’s nature is the form of a human.

With Substance being defined as what something is, Aristotle’s view on substance is a huge part of his philosophy. Basically saying substance is everything we know in the universe. Aristotle believes substance can be humans, rocks, food anything physical. With Plato’s view coming into play he believed we are all imperfections of God. Plato believed in a perfect being of some sort (god) and thought we are all imperfections of this perfect being. When speaking about time Aristotle believed time was related to change and movement. Aristotle states If something or someone moves or changes time must have been a factor. On the other hand Plato describes time as endless parallelism. Within that endless parallelism is endless numbers similar to Pythagoras,

Much of Aristotle’s book 8 of Metaphysics attempts to argue for the First Cause. Aristotle’s argument still holds some merit today but it has greatly changed in form. Today, the argument is known as the cosmological argument. While the form is different the ultimate conclusion is the same: there is a First Cause which explains all subsequent motion and change. This First Cause is held to be an argument for the existence of a Supreme Being or God. While the overall argument is still pondered by philosophers today Aristotle’s version has seen many changes because Aristotle made many assumptions that no longer stand.