Comments on Aristotle’s Approach to Understanding Things

Aristotle pursues an understanding of the existence of things.  Examples of things that Aristotle is pursuing a better understanding of are those things that exist in man’s life, that surrounds him in his everyday life, that are used by man as he pursues day-to-day living.  Things can be art works, objects in one’s house, tools at work, even man himself.  In the pursuit of this understanding of things, Aristotle develops an approach that uses the concept “causes” which Aristotle describes is series of four sets of questions about the thing.  One will have a better knowledge of a thing, a better understanding of it, if one attempts to have that understanding by going through a series of four steps, each of which addresses a “cause” (a set of questions) associated with the thing. 

My understanding from Aristotle’s writings about “causes” and using them to acquire a  better knowledge of a thing (Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Part 3) is that in thinking of causes (a way of pursuing knowledge of a thing) such terms as: why (for example, why does the thing exists); form (for example, what is the structure, the form that the thing takes);  origin (for example, where did the thing come from, how was it produced, who produced it); and impact (for example, what is the impact, the actions and consequences that is associated with  the thing) could be used.  For example, in thinking of a silver bowl and trying to better understand it, think of why, the form/structure, the origin, and the impact (the four causes of the silver bowl).   Why does the silver bowl exist?  To hold, contain.   What is the form of the silver bowl?  It is round and made of silver.  Where did the silver bowl come from?  It was made by the silversmith in the next town.  What is the silver bowl’s impact?  To serve, provide service and to make life easier for the user.  And because it is made of silver it has certain impressions on the user.   With these answers, we have a better understanding, more knowledge of the silver bowl.

Aristotle uses different terms (names), from what I am suggesting in the previous paragraph, in referring to his four causes.  For the first cause, in which I am using the term why, Aristotle uses formal.  With formal, Aristotle is interested in why the thing exists.   For the second cause, in which I use the term form, Aristotle uses material.  During the “material” cause, Aristotle is interested in what the thing is made of, what is its structure (or form).  In the third step (cause), for which Aristotle uses the term maker, I call the step origin.  In this step, Aristotle is interested in where is the thing is from.  And in the final cause (set of questions), for which he uses the term goal (telos in Greek), Aristotle wants to know what the thing is for, its consequences.  Here I use the term impact, which I believe gets to what Aristotle had in mind.

This set of four questions (causes) seem to be a good approach to better understanding, to having more knowledge about things in man’s environment.  The approach represents a good system for increasing knowledge.

Aristotle’s writings on the understanding of the existence of things seem to me to relate very much to questions and answers that are of a “scientific” mindset.  Greek philosophers were very much interested in explanations for events that would be of  interest to “scientists of today”, such as the movement of the earth, the stars, and the planets;  and what is the fundamental nature of the materials of the cosmos, with earth water, air, and fire suggested by philosophers of that period as being the basic materials from which all things are made.

These questions and answers of a “scientific” mindset, in my mine, is an especially important triggering event in a long process leading to scientific inquiries as we know them today.  Although much of what was written by the Greek philosophers is outdated by information and data discovered over the centuries (by using better and more observational tools and by accumulated knowledge and understanding), what Aristotle and other philosophers of that period contributed is monumental to the history of science.

I have recently read the book “Liberating the Gospels – Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes” by  John Shelby Spong, and fully embrace his message.   He has convinced me that the primary, predominant messages  and practices in Christian communities leave those communities lacking in being able to provide what I believe religious communities should be offering.

The primary problem I think (in refereeing to Spong and his book) is that Christian communities are relying upon literalism versus idealism in their messaging.  As Spong has pointed out, two thousand years of evolution in Christian doctrine has arrived at the point that literalism and the Christian gospels go hand-in-hand, whereas I believe the writers of the gospels, again referencing Spong’s arguments, never met those writings to be literally true, but symbolic of truth and a way towards idealism (a godly soul; the kingdom of God).

I accept Spong’s arguments that the Gospels were never intended to be literally true but rather a teaching and liturgical tool to describe events that help us obtain idealism.

In my faith journey, Spong’s book have taken me down a road that I feel exceptionally good about going.  I believe it is a road that deals with many of the problems that literalism creates for us in today world and provides what is missing in our church communities – a community that should has, as its overwhelming purpose, the obtainment of godly souls, bringing the kingdom of God into our internal beings.  

This obtainment cannot be based on literalism of the Gospels; in fact, demanding literalism interferes with obtainment, and is the major problem of today’s Christian communities.   I believe literalism has corrupted the benefits of Jesus’s message, and the Christian message in general.   Also literalism has been very divisive with respect to convergence with other religions.  In my opinion, a primary goal for a better world is for our major religions to converge around idealism.

To develop more fully the above about idealism versus literalism, I turn to an approach I have used before (such as above in some of the things I write about).  This approach is using a set of questions that have only no/yes answers from my perspective.  As I focus on and generate relevant questions and answer them, my mine becomes clearer on what I believe.

Does idealism deal with ideas ?                                  yes

Do ideas have to be literally true (literalism)?            no

Is idealism different from literalism?                          yes

Can the ideas be about anything?                               yes

Can the ideas be about religions?                                yes

Are ideas generated in only the human mind?           yes

Is literalism generated in the human mind?                no

Is literalism about physical events only?                    yes

Is idealism about physical events only?                     no

Is literalism found in the consciousness?                    no

Is idealism found in the consciousness?                     yes

Are religions about physical events?                          no

Can religions influence physical events?                   yes

Do religions consist of ideas?                                     yes

Do religions consist of physical events?                    no

Can religions influence physical events?                   yes

Do religions consist of ideas?                                     yes

Are religions physical events?                                    no

Are religions ideas?                                                    yes

Going through this set of yes/no questions helps me to generate the following:   Religions are not physical events but are ideas.  Religions can influence physical events but are not those events – they are ideas.   Physical events can  influence ideas, and therefore can influence religions, but are not religions.  Religions are only ideas and therefore ideas (idealism) should be what drive religions not physical events (literalism).  The truths of religions should not be based on physical events but on the truths of ideas.

Religious communities are most successful when they ponder and develop truthful ideas.  Depending on the truths of physical events (literalism) hampers the development of truthful ideas.  For example, that a man can walk on water is not a physical event and therefore religions based on such will lack optimum success, e.g., the full development of a Godly soul, the achievement of the kingdom of God.   However, using the ability to walk on water to characterize the power of God is an idea that can be truthful and especially useful in the full development of a Godly soul, the achievement of the kingdom of God.

When thinking about what idealism is, ideas are a critical attribute.  But also are ideals.  The use of ideas to obtain ideals is, in my mind, what defines idealism.   And religions are most successful when ideals are achieved, and such ideals require ideas.  

​

​

Immanuel Kant, as he writes in his treatise “Answer the Question: What is Enlightenment”, published in Prussia in 1784, believes that man has had too much of a tendency to not think for himself and that tendency needs to change.  Man needs to be “enlightened”, to begin to think for himself.  Man needs to break loose from a past mindset dominated by being unable to think for himself and  from being depended on others for what and how to think.

In my essay, I will explore further what Kant wrote in his 1784 treatise and connections of what he wrote to what has become known as the “age of enlightenment”.   For example, I will evaluate a writing of Jean Jacques Rousseau, like Kant, another 18th Century philosopher, as to whether the Rousseau writing demonstrates that Rosseau is an enlightened figure as defined by Kant.

According to Kant in his treatise, the transformation to man thinking for himself represents an “enlightenment” of man’s mind, a major improvement in man’s ability.   Man for too long, throughout history, has not been motivated sufficiently to develop a desire to think for himself.  Many reasons for this (according to Kant) include: man has not had sufficient opportunity to develop a mature mind, e.g., through education and reading; culture has been for man mostly a dependence on others; society has consisted, overwhelmingly, of what can be described as herd mentality – following what everyone else is doing; economic incentives have been insufficient; and man has lacked sufficient courage to overcome the status quo.

Kant suggests that these various reasons for why man has not developed a sufficient ability to think for himself are caused in society by a lack of sufficient and necessary freedoms.  Therefore sufficient and necessary freedoms are needed in society and the result of this will be a new age – an age that can be called “the age of enlightenment”.

As Kant was writing, and before, a societal competition, a conflict of historical importance was emerging.  On the one hand was the lack of man’s ability to think for himself.  And on the other hand, was a need for man to think for himself.  This conflict fits well with the ideas of Georg Wilhelm Hegel, a student of Kant, on thesis – antithesis – synthesis conflicts that arise in society and on which historical progress depends.  The conflict between man not thinking for himself (the thesis) versus the need for man to become self-thinking (the antithesis) resulted in what has been described as the age of enlightenment (the synthesis).

In his 1784 treatise “Answer the Question: What is Enlightenment”, Kant is likely contemplating that such an age of enlightenment is developing in Prussia and explaining why and how that age is coming about (the emergence of self-thinking).  In fact, such an age had been developing elsewhere in Europe throughout the 18th Century.  A French writer (philosopher) that shows the emergence of self-thinking in the 18th Century, and the age of enlightenment, is Jean Jacques Rousseau.  The rest of my essay will evaluate one of Rousseau writings “A Discourse Upon the Origin and the Foundation of the Inequality Among Mankind”, published in 1755,  to show whether Rousseau is an enlightened figure as defined by Kant.

Rousseau’s essay is long (26,000 words), complex, and difficult to read.  Rousseau’s dealing with inequality and man seems to me to be the part of his long essay of most interest (he deals with many other subjects in the essay).  Rousseau summarizes his ideas about inequality in the following paragraph taken from his essay:

"I have endeavored to exhibit the origin and progress of inequality, the institution and abuse of political societies, as far as these things are capable of being deduced from the nature of man by the mere light of reason, and independently of those sacred maxims which give to the sovereign authority the sanction of divine right. It follows from this picture, that as there is scarce any inequality among men in a state of nature, all that which we now behold owes its force and its growth to the development of our faculties and the improvement of our understanding, and at last becomes permanent and lawful by the establishment of property and of laws." 

I read from this paragraph that it is through the “…development of our faculties and the improvement of our understanding …” inequality (and more generally mankind’s advance) is addressed.  This statement summarizes well what Kant was getting at in his treatise about man needing to think for himself and by doing so an “Age of Enlightenment” will come about and result in an improved society, e.g., that all men are created equally.  Therefore, Rosseau is an enlightened figure as defined by Kant.

This essay considers historical progress and how two thinkers of the 19th Century, Karl Marx and Gustave Flaubert, thought about historical progress.

Marx, as a student of Hegel, followed Hegel’s ideas about historical progress being a continuum of thesis-antithesis and then synthesis occurrences that resolve two historical conflicts (the thesis and the antithesis), resulting in a new history (the synthesis).

Marx applied Hegel’s ideas on historical progress to the struggles between the working classes (the proletariat) and the capital/ruling classes (the bourgeoise) and wrote about his ideas in his 1848 book “The Communist Manifesto”, co-written with Friedrich Engels.   Marx believed a conflict between the working classes and their struggles for a meaningful life (the thesis) and the capital classes and their struggles to remain in control of the working classes (the antithesis) existed.   And that this would result in a revolution (the synthesis) in which the working classes would win and gain control of the means of production and of their lives and welfare.   And historical progress would be made, a more perfect society.  

However, when revolutions did occur in 1848 in several countries in Europe, Marx decided to reevaluate his ideas on the expected synthesis and why it did not occur.   Marx concluded that it was through economic changes in society that impacted historical progress, not struggles between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

Gustave Flaubert also lived through the 1848 European revolutions and had a quite different reaction to them and how historical progress is made.  Flaubert looked upon the 1848 revolutions as a waste of time, an exercise in futility that did not advance historical progress, but only created chaos.

Presumably, Flaubert did not believe in Hegel’s ideas about historical progress being explained through thesis-antithesis-synthesis conflicts.  Such ideas were too much reliant on scientific, technical, and rational explanations of historical progress.  But instead Flaubert believed historical progress was made through aesthetics considerations, by individuals advancing and perfecting forms, leading to artistic consciousness attainments.  It is through artistic consciousness that man creates those truths and realities that advance history.

These views of Flaubert can be found by an analysis of his novel Madame Bovary, published in 1856.  In Madame Bovary, Flaubert explores the contrast between life lived by a romantic, as portrayed by Madam Bovary, and life lived by a pragmatist, a rationalist, as portrayed by the pharmacist Homais.

For Flaubert, historical progress is found in the perfection of art.  This perfection is gained through form – the process that the artist brings to the creative process.   It is the creative process, the perfection of the process (the form) that drives history forward, and this is what motivated Flaubert – to become a better, more perfect writer – to achieve the perfect sentence (or for a painter, the perfect painting; a musician, the perfect score; a scientist, the perfect experiment, etc. etc. etc., for all disciplines, trades, and crafts) and in doing so history would advance, progress made.

Charles Darwin came along during a period when two approaches to achieving understanding and knowledge were developing: utilitarianism and romanticism.

For the utilitarian, understanding and knowledge were acquire through measurement, observation – one utilized these activities (measurement and observation) to gain understanding and knowledge.

For the romantic, understanding and knowledge were not measurable, not quantifiable, but experienced, felt – in the present, in the here and now.  And it was those experiences, feelings that lead to greater understanding and knowledge.

Darwin could not have achieved his understanding and knowledge of the historic progress of life on earth – on the origin of species, on their development, change over time - without being a utilitarian.

But, I believe, at the same time, Darwin also contributed, from a romanticism perspective, to understanding and knowledge.  How could this be?  I believe it is because a key difference between utilitarianism and romanticism, with respect to understanding and knowledge, is the framing of time.  Utilitarianism and romanticism deal with time differently.  And, depending on how time is framed,  the understanding and knowledge gained, and its use, is affected.  

Darwin’s work makes great progress in critical understanding and knowledge, progress based on utilitarianism.   This progress made has a time frame, different from the romantics’ time frame.    Utilitarianism gains come from being associated with a different time frame than the time frame associated with romanticism’s gains.  The gains are of a different nature because of this.

Exploring this further,  another way of looking at the impact of Darwin’s conclusions are how a romantic might look at them.  What does looking at Darwin’s conclusions from romanticism’s perspective bring to understanding and knowledge?  I believe it is major!  A romantic does not have to carry out the work of a unitarian to be deeply affected by accepting the results of the utilitarian.   And the utilitarian is inspired by the romantic in him- or herself; an inspiration that is necessary to carry on as a utilitarian.

The Frenchman, Charles Baudelaire, another 19th Century thinker, offers just the opposite situation compared to Darwin – a body of work that is primarily romantic in how it might be viewed in its contribution to understanding and knowledge, but has utilitarian consequences.

Baudelaire was a poet - his work’s accomplishment was prose poetry based on his romantic impressions of what he experienced as he walked around Paris.  Paris was undergoing major changes during Baudelaire’s time – in infrastructure, growth, diversity.   What was happening in Paris foreshadowed what has been happening globally ever since – with currently more than 30 cities having populations of more than 10 million, ten of these with more than 20 million.

Gaining understanding and knowledge on low to make these cities, all cities, more successful for its inhabitants is of major importance for humanity and its progress.  Back in the 1860s, Baudelaire recorded reactions, romantically, to his experiences as he walked about Paris.  Such a romantic reaction motivates, inspires,  and indicates a need for knowing cities better, including also from a utilitarian perspective.  

For optimal progress to be made from the understanding and knowledge of evolution, both utilitarianism and romanticism are needed.    Both are also needed in making cities work better.

​

​

​