Aristotle emphasizes that metaphysics (which he also calls “first philosophy”) is required only to the extent that there is indeed a motionless reality, without the existence of which physics would be the primordial and universal science. It is the very existence of a motionless reality that turns physics — the object of which is the kind of reality that has the principle of its own motion and rest within itself, in contrast to the technical object — into a merely secondary philosophy. For Aristotle, Φῠ́σῐς does not designate the whole of reality, but only “a specific kind of beings.” There is, therefore, a reality of being, which the world of becoming does not exhaust." — StreetlightX
There was no metaphysics in Aristotle. "First philosophy" is his physics, and what's later called "metaphysics" is just as much physics. — Xtrix
There was no metaphysics in Aristotle. "First philosophy" is his physics, and what's later called "metaphysics" is just as much physics.
— Xtrix
Perhaps you could argue why this is so.
It is not immediately apparent to me as a phenomenon. — Valentinus
"Aristotle’ s Physics is the hidden, and therefore never adequately thought out, foundational book of Western philosophy.
Probably the eight books of the Physics were not projected as a unity and did not come into existence all at once. Such questions have no importance here. In general it makes little sense to say that the Physics precedes the Metaphysics, because metaphysics is just as much “physics” as physics is “metaphysics.” For reasons based on the work itself, as well as on historical grounds, we can take it that around 347 B.C. (Plato’s death) the second book was already composed. (Cf. also Jaeger, Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development, p. 296, originally published in 1923. For all its erudition, this book has the single fault of thinking through Aristotle’s philosophy in the modern Scholastic neo-Kantian manner that is entirely foreign to Greek thought. Much of Jaeger’s Entstehungsgeschichte der Metaphysik des Aristoteles, 1912, is more accurate because less concerned with “content.”)
But even so, this first thoughtful and unified conceptualization of nύσις is already the last echo of the original (and thus supreme) thoughtful projection of the essence of nύσις that we still have preserved for us in the fragments of Anaximander, Heraclitus, and Parmenides." (On The Essence and Concept of Phusis in Aristotle's Physics B, 1. p. 3, in German from the Gesamtausgabe: p. 241) —
So the question "What is 'nature'?" ends up leading to a more fundamental question: "What is the 'physical'?" and that ultimately resides in the etymology of φῠ́σῐς and, finally, in the origins of Western thought: Greek thought.
The analysis of this concept is very important indeed to understand our current scientific conception of the world, and therefore the predominant world ontology (at least non-religious, or perhaps simply the de facto ontology ). Does anyone here have an analysis to share, original or otherwise? Full disclosure: I am particularly struck by Heidegger's take, especially in his Introduction to Metaphysics. But other analyses are certainly welcome. — Xtrix
The even more fundamental, or preliminary (thus, 'perennial'), question at the root (ῥάδιξ) of (Western and non-Western) "thought": "what is real?" - more precisely: what about 'any X' differentiates 'real X' from 'not-real X'? — 180 Proof
Which, in turn, has lead to a deep sense of 'otherness' from the natural world - a sense which was mostly absent from the ancient and medieval worldview, which presumed an affinity either between nous (intellect) and the natural order which it reflected, or between the divine intellect as reflected in the soul. There was an implicit conviction of a relationship between the cosmic, natural and human order, which is precisely what was undermined by the mechanist philosophy of Descartes, Galileo and Newton. — Wayfarer
Heidegger in fact contradicts much of what's referenced here. — Xtrix
What this writer is indicating is that there's a difference between the "becoming" world and the "motionless" world, and tries to say the former is "physics" (secondary) and the latter "metaphysics." — Xtrix
But a lot of what is considered 'physical' in science cannot be sensed.The idea of the physical is intimately tied to the senses. What is physical is exactly that which can be sensed; the converse, however, is false for the reason that hallucinations occur. — TheMadFool
Ibid, but further the word 'physical' no longer has any substance related meaning. IOW it looks like a claim about substance, but it now simply means real. Regardless of the qualities or lack of qualities of something if science decides something is real, it will fall under naturalism and be taken as physical, even if it shares nothing in common with chairs and rocks.Naturalism, to me, is the philosophy that claims that all there is is the physical; in other words, what is real has to be sensible in some way or other. — TheMadFool
But colors do make a difference in a blind person's world. A blind person could ask someone near him what color the light is and know (to the degree he trusts the sighted person) whether it is time to cross the street or not. Perhaps all sorts of things that are supposedly 'non-physical' are simply seen by some but not others.There is good reason to assume such a position because to admit the non-physical as part of reality is like a blind man admitting colors into his world; even if there are colors, the blind man will never perceive them and it will fail to make a difference to his world. — TheMadFool
First, many so called supernatural phenomena are perceived. Perhaps misinterpreted, perhaps hallucinated, but there is a very large empirical facet to religion and 'supernatural experiences.' This does not prove that the religious and those who believe in the supernatural (a truly badly labeled category) are correct, but it is as if there is no empirical facet to these things when there is. And we know that things have been said to be impossible, when sensed by a minority which have turned out to be real.If both the perceptible and the imperceptible are real then what is not real? — TheMadFool
"...the other to an abstract universal." Characterized by what, exactly? Does it not seem to you that it can have neither substance nor accidents? Being, itself, would seem to be one place where in Heidegger's phrase, "the nothing noths." Or, if being is the possibility of being, then being isn't, until it is, but in that instant of becoming it becomes no longer being. Or, in short, "Being" seems to be a bookkeeping trick, a plug value that, in itself, is just nothing whatsoever itself. Any philosophy of such being, being then a joke.What Aristotle demonstrates is that the twofold usage of the word "being" is a category difference, one referring to a material particular, the other to an abstract universal. — Metaphysician Undercover
But colors do make a difference in a blind person's world. A blind person could ask someone near him what color the light is and know (to the degree he trusts the sighted person) whether it is time to cross the street or not. Perhaps all sorts of things that are supposedly 'non-physical' are simply seen by some but not others. — Coben
Sure, and then the issue becomes are there some people who can perceive things others cannot that are nevertheless real.Firstly, as this "someone near him" reveals, there must be someone to whom color is perceivable. — TheMadFool
But in science things are often posited that are not perceived. We see effects on new causes that effect something else and this makes a meter move. Sometimes things are accepted as real that do not even do this, but are deduced. Like the idea of a natural law.Secondly, the fact that you say "seen by some but not others" implies what I've been saying all along - that whatever is deemed to exist must register on the senses of someone. The very requirement that "some" perceive indicates the essence of being real is to be perceived. — TheMadFool
I disagree. I would say the usual contexts are where there is expertise: poker professionals, art authenticators, dermatologists, botanists, carpenters, detectives, psychologists will all perceive things where non-experts will not. This is a regular part of a vast range of fields, but is also happening in all sorts of leisure and private settings and activities.The usual contexts in which such kinds of privileged perception, only some perceiving, appears are in deception and insanity. — TheMadFool
We can always remain agnostic. Sometimes merely trivially and formally, in other cases with more serious agnosticism. There is no need to make an immediate binary choice.How will we know we're not being deceived? — TheMadFool
That is a fairly useless heuristic and we depend on the special perception of experts regularly and certain in crisis. And these can be mundane experts like spouses, friends, parents, not to speak of professional experts. We are constantly engaging others who are better at perceiving some things.After all the only means we have, that what is real, and not a deception, must necessarily be perceived by all, is now useless. — TheMadFool
Does it not seem to you that it can have neither substance nor accidents? Being, itself, would seem to be one place where in Heidegger's phrase, "the nothing noths." Or, if being is the possibility of being, then being isn't, until it is, but in that instant of becoming it becomes no longer being. — tim wood
But in science things are often posited that are not perceived. We see effects on new causes that effect something else and this makes a meter move. Sometimes things are accepted as real that do not even do this, but are deduced. Like the idea of a natural law — Coben
I disagree. I would say the usual contexts are where there is expertise: poker professionals, art authenticators, dermatologists, botanists, carpenters, detectives, psychologists will all perceive things where non-experts will not. This is a regular part of a vast range of fields, but is also happening in all sorts of leisure and private settings and activities. — Coben
We can always remain agnostic. Sometimes merely trivially and formally, in other cases with more serious agnosticism. There is no need to make an immediate binary choice. — Coben
That is a fairly useless heuristic and we depend on the special perception of experts regularly and certain in crisis. And these can be mundane experts like spouses, friends, parents, not to speak of professional experts. We are constantly engaging others who are better at perceiving some things. — Coben
Sublation is in the eye of the beholder, the nothing don't do nuffin'. Or maybe it's all in the eye of beholder, which would then leave the question as to what the nothing is. I buy the notion that with nothing and being a philosopher - any thinker - has to be very careful indeed lest he or she step off the edge of meaning into an abyss. Of course the way to be careful is to assign meaning and then within the constraints of that meaning to see if they work.Hegel said that nothingness sublates being into the flow of the world (becoming). — Gregory
The whole third chapter of the Introduction - tellingly titled 'The Restriction of Being' - is more or less an account of how Plato and Aristotle fucked up (or began the fucking-up-of, completed by Latin translators) the perfectly good notion of φῠ́σῐς that the pre-Socratics, Heraclitus and Parmenides in particular, had - at least according to Heidi's as-usual idiosyncratic reading of philosophical history. — StreetlightX
The idea of the physical is intimately tied to the senses. What is physical is exactly that which can be sensed; — TheMadFool
Naturalism, to me, is the philosophy that claims that all there is is the physical; in other words, what is real has to be sensible in some way or other. Since this implies that what isn't sensible iisn't real, naturalism excludes religion and the spiritual from the realm of reality for they deal in what can't be sensed. There is good reason to assume such a position because to admit the non-physical as part of reality is like a blind man admitting colors into his world; even if there are colors, the blind man will never perceive them and it will fail to make a difference to his world. — TheMadFool
The religious, the spiritually inclined and supernaturalists may counter naturalism by saying that it is possible for existence to be true despite nothing being perceptible through the senses i.e. all is not physical. However, a moment's reflection reveals a serious problem, the problem of defining reality. Being perceptible through the senses and not being perceptible through the senses are contradictory statements and, as it appears to me, it's impossible to bring them together under the same banner, reality. If both the perceptible and the imperceptible are real then what is not real? — TheMadFool
For Aristotle, the physical is the world of "becoming", change, and this is the subject of ancient Greek science, and Aristotle's "Physics". In a number of distinct places, he demonstrates that "being" and "becoming" are incompatible. — Metaphysician Undercover
Nothing that can't be detected or measured i.e. perceived is real in science. — TheMadFool
Characterized by what, exactly? Does it not seem to you that it can have neither substance nor accidents? — tim wood
Or, if being is the possibility of being, then being isn't, until it is, but in that instant of becoming it becomes no longer being. — tim wood
I realize this is a common interpretation of Aristotle, but the way. — Xtrix
Nothing that can't be detected or measured i.e. perceived is real in science. — TheMadFool
What do they look like? What are they made of? Are they physical? Made of atoms, quarks? They can be deduced, sort of.Natural law, if meant here as the laws of nature, can be observed. — TheMadFool
That's very hard to prove and further, are you willing to put in the time to become an expert in things you have decided are not real? And certainly some people both from experience and innate talent have a much easier time. And then last, again, my point was just how common it is that when one person can perceive something this is due to expertise/experience rather than your generalization that this is usually hallucinations, etc.It is possible for anyone to become an expert. — TheMadFool
Again easy to say and further it does not refute what I wrote. Furhter there are tempermental and paradigmatic reasons certain people never try to be experts in many areas. Then they assume things, like you do, about those who are experts or may be. And then they talk as if they know that those experts are not basing their beliefs on empirical stuff.As I said, anyone can be an expert. — TheMadFool
As you can see, there would be an infinite regress if we account for change, "becoming", with statements of "being", what the thing is. — Metaphysician Undercover
What do you say nothing and being are? — tim wood
If you realize that it is a common interpretation, then why ask me for passages? All you need to do is read his "Physics" to see that the theme of the book is change. He starts by saying that physicists take for granted that either some things, or all things are in motion, and he proceeds to the conditions of change (the causes), and then to talk about time and motion. Why would you interpret his "Physics" in any other way? — Metaphysician Undercover
It's characterized by knowing, — Metaphysician Undercover
I think these two cover it, with respect to being and nothing. That is, not anything out there. Idols of thinking, we might call them. In as much as they not are, what function do they have? I know well and perfectly what I mean when I use "nothing": "Are there any chocolate chip cookies left?" "There's nothing in the cookie jar!" That nothing is the non-presence of something or many things determinate - the absence of them. "Being" similarly. It's a placeholder for thinking-in-process. These my usages. Are there any others? Or another way, when I hear or read about being or nothing, my nonsense warning lights light up.Being is that which we can sense with our being. — Gregory
It's not an infinite regress. It's just a gray canvas. Almost every bit of Aristotle is circular and a waste of time — Gregory
Did you read what I wrote? It's very clearly an infinite regress. The change between X and not-X is described as the state of Y. This requires something to explain the change between X and Y, call that state Z. This requires something to account for the change between X and Z, onward ad infinitum.
Change, "becoming," is incompatible with states of being. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.