Aristotle used a systematic method for drawing conclusions from empirical observations. His concept of reality revolves around the idea of “substance,” which actually means “entity” in the sense employed by Aristotle. Every entity, he taught, is composed of matter that takes a certain form, configuration, or shape. For Aristotle, the “form” is what characterises each entity, what defines the nature of an entity, what makes it what it is. A material (“matter”) such as wood can take different forms. For instance, it can be an element in trees, but also in furniture, in a building, etc. In addition to speaking about matter and form, Aristotle employed the concepts of potentiality and actuality. He argued that most entities have the potential to become something else, and reach actuality when it fulfils its potential. Modern psychology employs the term self-actualisation to denote the process of human achievement. A man who pursues goals that fulfil his potential is driven by self-actualisation. For plants, a seed has the potential to become a plant. When a seed grows into a plant, it attains actuality, but psychologists don’t employ the term self-actualisation for plants and animals due to their inability to formulate complex goals. Aristotle’s theory of potentiality and actuality helps us grasp change and causality. The world is driven by entities that try to achieve their full potential; they generate relationships of cause and effect. Plants grow. Animals look for food. Human beings build homes and roads. Aristotle only managed to outline his philosophy of reality after he had abandoned Plato’s theory of forms. Plato believed in a mythical realm populated by perfect, immutable ideas or “forms.” According to Plato, the objects we perceive are just a reflection of the realm of forms. After rejecting Plato’s theory of an invisible realm of perfect forms, Aristotle simply pointed out that “forms” are part of the entities themselves. Each entity is made of matter and form. You cannot have one without the other. By using reason, humans can identify relations of cause and effect between several entities. There are four different types of causation, according to Aristotle, that is, four possible types of cause-and-effect relationships. Aristotle named them the material, the formal, the efficient, and the final cause. Let us take a bed as an example. What is the material cause? The wood that has been employed as material to make the concerned item. What is the formal cause? The carpenter’s design or idea of a bed. The efficient cause is the carpenter himself. The final cause is the purpose of the bed, that is, a place to sleep. By employing the Aristotelian concepts of matter and form, potentiality and actuality, and the types of causation (material cause, formal cause, efficient, and final cause), we can assess reality systematically, draw conclusions and gather knowledge. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-the-nature-of-reality/

When Aristotle was born in 384 BC, logic was in its infancy and indistinguishable from rhetoric; the ancient Greeks viewed rhetoric as useful because it could help them secure a business deal or win a case in court. The purpose of rhetoric was to win; logic (even twisted logic) was just part of its arsenal. Aristotle came up with a fresh approach to logic. His books “Categories,” “Prior Analytics” and “Posterior Analytics” give us his insights in this regard. “Categories” was written around 350 BC. Aristotle was just thirty-four years old at that time. The book enumerates crucial categories for analysing reality. The Aristotelian categories refer to substances, qualities and quantities, and to the relations between objects. They don’t add much to terms used by prior philosophers such as Plato (428-347 BC), Anaxagoras (500-428 BC) or Democritus (460-370 BC), but for the first time, they provide a systematic overview. In “Categories,” Aristotle introduces the term “substance.” I must point out that he did not mean “material” or “ingredient” as we do nowadays. For Aristotle, “substance” means “entity,” “creature” or key characteristics that define them. He says for instance that “the substance of human beings is rationality.” He means that the key characteristic that defines humans is rationality. Aristotle’ second and third works on logic are titled “Prior Analytics” and “Posterior Analytics.” They contain much more innovative ideas than “Categories.” Aristotle must have written “Prior Analytics” and “Posterior Analytics” after Plato’s death, that is, after 347 BC. Those two works are devoted to syllogistic reasoning, that is, to the rules for drawing correct conclusions from facts or statements. The term “syllogism” employed by Aristotle simply means a logical argument; every syllogism is composed of three steps of which the initial two are called premises (major premise and minor premise); the third step is the conclusion. Here is an example of a syllogism. “All men are mortal” is the major premise, and “Achilles is a man,” the minor premise. If you combine the major and the minor premise, you’ll arrive at the conclusion “Achilles is mortal.” In this example, “Achilles is a man” is the minor premise because Achilles is included in the major premise “All men are mortal.” Since Achilles is a man, he must be mortal. “Prior Analytics” teaches us that conclusions must be either true or false. Either Achilles is a man or he is not. If he is, then he must be mortal; when syllogisms are well-constructed, there is no possibility of a middle ground. Achilles cannot be at the same time mortal and immortal. He is either one or the other. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-philosophy-of-logic/

Like Schopenhauer would do twenty-four centuries later, Aristotle regarded practical wisdom (“phronesis” in Greek) as a crucial ingredient of a happy life. In his “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle defined “phronesis” as a skill that enables us to choose the correct course of action and for the correct reasons. In other words, “phronesis” is the daily implementation of general moral principles. How do you develop practical wisdom? Through experience and rational reflection, answered Aristotle. It is not something that you can learn by heart. It does not consist of a series of rules that can be memorised and implemented blindly. To cultivate phronesis, you need to exercise judgement on a case-by-case basis, draw lessons from each experience, and adapt those lessons to the context of each situation. Practical wisdom, according to Aristotle, will not only help you attain your own happiness, but also contribute to the common good. It will guide you to a flourishing, thriving life, which will surely impact the community positively. Aristotle emphasised the role played by virtues in practical wisdom. Virtues such as courage, temperance and justice will guide you in each case, as general principles, so that you can make wise decisions and achieve happiness (“eudaimonia” in Greek). Although Aristotle linked practical wisdom to the pursuit of the golden mean, I strongly recommend you to ignore his ideas about the golden mean. They don’t make any sense and cannot be implemented consistently. The golden-mean principle consists, according to Aristotle, in finding the mid-point between extremes. For instance, if you take the virtue of courage, the mid-point should lie somewhere between cowardice and recklessness. Thus, Aristotle’s advice is that your actions should be neither excessive nor deficient. If you accept the golden-mean theory, practical wisdom will take a different shape in each situation. Virtue will be context-dependent and constantly variable. It will be driven by the ups and downs of life and your ability to cope with them. Aristotle didn’t view practical wisdom as purely intellectual because it is linked to one’s character and moral values. Since life prompts us to make quick decisions once and again, one needs strong ethics in order to find the right answers. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-concept-of-practical-wisdom/

The justice definition given by Aristotle in “Nicomachean Ethics” is simple, but accurate and profound. A person behaves in accordance with justice only if he has “an habitual disposition to render to each person his due.” The definition demands giving consistently and regularly to each person his due, not only occasionally, not only from time to time. Aristotle’s predecessors such as Socrates (469-399 BC) had not been able to come up with such a complete definition. Despite his focus on self-examination and introspection, Socrates had failed to give a precise meaning to the concept of justice. He had talked about the need of “knowing oneself” in order to “lead an examined life” as prerequisites to happiness, but in no way had he provided practical advice about justice. Instead of concentrating on essential features (as Aristotle had done), Socrates had focused on the method. By means of debates, he had tried to identify the nature of justice and ethics, but with little success. Socrates had theorised that ignorance is the main cause of injustice, but without giving any proof for his statement; in fact Socrates had just made up the link between ignorance and lack of justice. It only takes a second to reveal the falsehood of Socrates’s theory. Look at history and you’ll find thousands of examples proving that injustices and abuses are frequently committed in full knowledge of their dire consequences. Thus, it is no wonder that Socrates’ ideas about justice have made zero impact on later generations. If anything, they have confused people and led them in the wrong direction. In contrast, Aristotle’s theory of justice has shaped Western civilisation. A definition of justice similar to Aristotle’s was coined by Ancient Roman jurists and constitutes the backbone of modern legal systems. The Roman jurist and senator Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) believed in the existence of natural law, a universal set of moral principles inherent in human nature and common to all peoples on earth. Cicero argued that fundamental laws are discoverable by all men through reason. He asked to apply them universally to all human beings because they form the basis of justice. Like Aristotle, Cicero connected justice with virtue. He saw justice as an essential moral virtue that goes hand in hand with wisdom, courage, and temperance. Cicero also underlined the need for steadiness in practising the virtue of justice. Unless justice is a continuous part of one’s moral character, one should not regard that person as just. What does justice consist of specifically? Aristotle had not made reference to natural law, but the universality requirement was implicit in his definition. Cicero linked his definition of justice to natural law. In his eyes, just human laws should reflect natural law. When laws or court decisions deviate from natural law, they are unjust and should be rejected and condemned. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/impact-of-aristotles-theory-of-justice/

In this article, I present one of Aristotle’s key contributions to philosophy. Aristotle’s theory of the four causes seems at first sight very easy to understand, but if you dig into the details, you will see its epochal consequences. It changed human mentality, and in doing so, it changed the course of history. The four causes, and in particular the final cause, can dramatically change your life for the better. Aristotle adopted a systematic approach to studying the world. His theory of the four causes entails that, if you want to fully understand something, you should consider four distinct causes. First, a material cause that pertains to the material substance that makes up an item or creature. For example, the material cause of a woollen suit is wool. Second, a formal cause that relates to the object’s shape or structure. In the case of the woollen suit, the formal cause consists of a vest and a pair of pants. Their shape constitutes a suit, not a scarf, a raincoat, a shirt, or an overall. Third, an efficient cause that is concerned with the agent or force responsible for making the object. It replies to the question “What brought the object into existence?” In the context of the suit, the efficient cause is the tailor who made it. Fourth, a final cause that deals with the purpose. It answers the question, “Why does the object exist?” In the case of the suit, the final cause is to allow me to wear the suit for work, formal dinners, and other such occasions. The theory of the four causes seems simple enough as a tool for analysing reality, but as we’ll see now, it gets exceedingly complicated when it is coupled to social and political events. It is not exaggerated to affirm that Aristotle’s theory of causation has driven the intellectual discourse for twenty-five centuries. In the Middle Ages, Avicenna (980-1037) took over the four causes and applied them to his environment. Avicenna was a prominent Persian sage in the Islamic Golden Age. Although he was profoundly influenced by Aristotle’s ideas, he made a large change to the theory of the four causes. Avicenna’s theory involved a material cause equivalent to Aristotle’s material cause, focusing on the physical substance of an object. For what concerns the formal cause, Avicenna expanded Aristotle’s concept by including not only the essential features of an object, but also the secondary “accidental” ones. In this way, Avicenna allowed for a broader understanding of an object’s nature. Avicenna also retained Aristotle’s concept of efficient cause, but introduced the idea of “necessary existence.” Avicenna was suggesting that the efficient cause of everything is God, which is the only necessary being. The concept of necessary existence enabled Avicenna to reconcile the four causes with Islam. For what concerns the final cause, Avicenna showed a very heavy influence of Plato. Instead of expanding on Aristotle’s key innovation, Avicenna downplayed its importance. Instead of studying the ethical aspects of the final cause, he suggested that everything in the universe is moving toward the ultimate goal of returning to prime mover. This theory is very similar to Plato’s endless search for perfect ideas or forms. Thirteen centuries after Aristotle’s death, Avicenna initiated a tradition of distorting the four causes to fit his beliefs. I don’t doubt that Avicenna had powerful reasons to do so, but ended up losing the final cause as a tool for studying human behaviour. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-the-four-causes/

In contrast to his predecessors, Aristotle (384-322 BC) built his theory of knowledge on empiricism. The main principle of empiricism is that knowledge can only be gained from sensory experience before it can be assessed and refined. Aristotle taught that humans start at birth with a blank mind (a blank slate) and will acquire knowledge through interactions with the external world. In his early period (before 347 BC), Aristotle had endorsed Plato’s theory of innate knowledge. Plato had taught students that the human soul possesses innate knowledge drawn from a mystical world of pure abstractions. Learning, said Plato, is the same as remembering our innate knowledge. By the time Aristotle opened his Lyceum in Athens to teach his own students (335 BC), he had discarded Plato’s doctrine of innate knowledge. I can only infer that Aristotle had regarded Plato’s theories as nonsense already for a long time, but that he only began to attack them when he felt financially secure. In his book “Metaphysics,” Aristotle speaks of two broad categories of knowledge. He calls the first category “epistemic knowledge” and defines it as general knowledge and principles of general application. His second category is called “technical knowledge.” It includes detailed know-how and craftsmanship. How do you know if a statement is true or false? Aristotle answered this question by defining a logical method, which he named “syllogism.” The Aristotelian syllogism is a deductive argument that is made of a major premise (“normally, the weather in Athens is warm in the summer”), a minor premise (“we are in the middle of July in Athens”), leading to a conclusion (“chances are that the weather will be warm today”). In his “Metaphysics,” Aristotle also introduced the concepts of potentiality (“what an entity could become”) and actuality (“what an entity is”); He regards learning as the process of moving from potentiality to actuality. It’s the process of letting go of doubts and ascertaining the facts in detail. According to Aristotle, every entity in the natural world has the potential of becoming a better version of itself; for humans, the potential is usually realized through learning and acquiring skills. Education is the process of developing one’s potential. The acquisition of knowledge can be greatly facilitated and accelerated if we use precise vocabulary. To this end, Aristotle wrote the work “Categories,” where he defines key concepts in physics. The purpose of Aristotelian categories is to construct syllogisms with solid premises leading to flawless conclusions. Aristotle didn’t build his theory of knowledge from scratch. He was well versed in the ideas of prior Greek philosophers, in particular Parmenides and Heraclitus, and took over their best concepts. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-knowledge-and-learning/

Aristotle (384-322 BC) outlined his philosophy of education primarily in his works “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics.” His work “Politics” also contains some statements on education, as part of Aristotle’s views on governance and social organisation. The Aristotelian formula for education revolves around the concept of virtue: the purpose of education is to equip students with physical, moral and intellectual habits enabling them to achieve “eudaimonia.” How should we translate the Greek term “Eudaimonia” that appears in Aristotle’s works? Medieval translators had mostly transcribed “eudaimonia” as “happiness.” In later centuries, we can find translations employing the words “human flourishing” and “human thriving.” I prefer the modern translations because “flourishing” and “thriving” are dynamic terms. They convey a more accurate picture of the Aristotelian meaning of happiness. For Aristotle, “eudaimonia” is not a fixed status. It is not a fixed destination at which one arrives, a fixed place where you can stay. I would rather describe “eudaimonia” as a spiritual experience achieved by practising virtue day after day. If the Aristotelian “eudaimonia” is a dynamic process, so is the Aristotelian education. It is not a fixed amount of materials that you need to study, memorise, and regurgitate. Aristotle viewed education as a lifelong process of gathering knowledge to grasp the world better. Why does Aristotle’s educational philosophy revolve around virtue? Because Aristotle considered “eudaimonia” the purpose of life, and virtue as the best method to achieve “eudaimonia.” It’s meaningless to say that Aristotle recommended studying metaphysics, rhetoric and history if one does not grasp the goal of studying. Aristotelian education is not primarily designed to raise obedient children and good citizens. Instead, its goal is to raise self-reliant, happy human beings. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-education/

When people nowadays speak about curiosity, they usually mean the open, random, wide-range interest in a multiplicity of subjects. They mean the curiosity of children exploring their environment in a disorderly, superficial, inconsistent manner. Renaissance authors such as Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) employed a different definition of curiosity. They carried out research in a multiplicity of subjects, but in the pursuit of a tightly defined goal. Their efforts were neither disorderly nor random. Montaigne displayed a remarkable curiosity in his literary work, to which he devoted the last two decades of his life. He researched classical authors, taking copious notes, and seeking to draw conclusions of universal value. For Montaigne, all humanistic research revolved around one single goal, namely, to find recipes for happiness. His curiosity was focused, even if it encompasses dozens of subjects. When Montaigne referred to the lifestyle of ancient Greece or Rome, he was pursuing a clear goal, not just retelling amusing stories. I find it specially noteworthy that Montaigne never hesitated to address difficult subjects. He routinely picked up subjects or angles that no author had considered so far. He did not fear the unknown because he was seeking the truth. Montaigne would frequently start writing an essay without having yet made up his mind about the conclusions. He began by quoting a sentence from Plutarch, Seneca, or Julius Caesar, and seeing where it took him. Those essays show us Montaigne’s mind assessing the facts and weighing the arguments. I characterise Montaigne and other Renaissance authors by the road they did not take. By embracing curiosity, they did not take the road of blind conformity. By carrying out their own research, they did not take the road of regurgitating tradition. By elevating curiosity to a work method, Montaigne attains astonishing results. He puts together ideas and historical events that nobody before had combined. He gathers solid arguments against and in favour, prompting readers to think along. I consider Montaigne’s essay “On the inconstancy of our actions” the best example of curiosity in action. On every page, we can follow Montaigne’s own intellectual struggle to assess the facts and draw accurate conclusions. The sheer number of historical citations used by Montaigne is mind-boggling. For instance, he quotes Plato’s “Phaedrus” to argue that the human soul often behaves inconsistently. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-intellectual-curiosity/