A Metephysic question has arised.

[Gonzalo Jerez]

Is identified like “Element” the initial material which gets participation into composition, and which can not be divided to heterogeneous; thus, the individual elements are what constitute the sound, are the last parts on which it is divided; it can not be separated on other sounds of different specie then his owns self…(…) [i have done this translation from Spanish but if you can not understand it, you can read it at Aristotle’s “Metaphysics” Fifth book, Chapter 3].

Was Aristotle equivocated? I would like to know your opinion about this chapter of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. I tell:

I make know I think that Aristotle was not equivocated at his time –IV century b.C.- on giving us his definition of “element”. If he was met Karl Werner Heisenberg, he would really enjoy it… but Heisenberg lived more later than Aristotle. I want to think he used “element” like a category (Excuse me but I have not study much of his “Categories” but I know some of those.) and not like concrete, corporeal, tangible… element. I have a nice shock, when I have done a lecture of this chapter of Metaphysics.

I think the other seeing of that is what leans about Aristotle’s fault… He would take “element” on materiel sense. And everybody know that atoms can be divided.

But being conscious I have to declare Aristotle’s is not culpable of his error. At his time, they had not any knowledge about sub-atomic particles, Quantum Mechanic, Planck´s Constant, Schrödinger wave equation, quarks, Dirac wave equation, etc.

What do you think?

Good premises!

Gonzalo Jerez

[Reidy]

Here's a translation I found at http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphys...ysics.5.v.html:

Element means (1) the primary component immanent in a thing, and indivisible in kind into other kinds; e.g. the elements of speech are the parts of which speech consists and into which it is ultimately divided, while they are no longer divided into other forms of speech different in kind from them. If they are divided, their parts are of the same kind, as a part of water is water (while a part of the syllable is not a syllable). Similarly those who speak of the elements of bodies mean the things into which bodies are ultimately divided, while they are no longer divided into other things differing in kind; and whether the things of this sort are one or more, they call these elements. The so-called elements of geometrical proofs, and in general the elements of demonstrations, have a similar character; for the primary demonstrations, each of which is implied in many demonstrations, are called elements of demonstrations; and the primary syllogisms, which have three terms and proceed by means of one middle, are of this nature.

What do you mean by "equivocate?" The word is equivocal (it has more than one meaning, in Greek as in English), so he gives more than one; the quote above covers only the first of the senses he lists.

Nobody defends Aristotle's mechanics, chemistry or cosmology these days, but you can abstract his point (an element is an irreducible part) from the examples he gives.

Peter

[Reidy]

PS to previous:

"Category" is a technical term in Aristotle; "element" wouldn't be an example. Categories are the broadest possible classes. Entity is the primary category; action, state, attribute and number are some of the others. One explanation I've seen is that these are the end points of any chain of "what's that?" questions. Point to somebody and keep repeating the question:

My neighbor Betty

A woman

A person

An animal

... and so on up to

An entity

Or:

Cerulean blue

A shade of blue

A color...

An attribute

Peter

[Gonzalo Jerez]

Well, you have substantially solucionated my doubt.

But I want more information, sorry, I am so curious.

Gonzalo

[Reidy]

If you're looking for an introduction, Rand recommended Randall's Aristotle. I recommend Bambrough's Aristotle the Philosopher. His writings are more difficult than Rand's, so you'd be wise to start with a book such as these. I don't know if they're available in translation.

Peter

[Gonzalo Jerez]

The translated version it does not a problem. I can rightly understand English but I can express me with some difficults, as you see. Really, in OL is the first time at what I speak English... and I think I can be understood not so bad.( :-$ )

Thanks for the reference. I will try to buy that at amazon.com but I will do it when I buy more books (I have on my list around thirteen English books. The sent-cost is more than $15.)

Gonzalo

[AndrewED]

Hi, Gonzalo,

I loved what Peter said. Very simple, to the point.

I think there is another side to this that I am hearing in what you have said. Please tell me if it is or not.

I think Aristotle's primary mistake was not in saying that elements could not be reduced further, but in talking about it as a philosopher at all. It would have been fine for him to talk about physics or cosmology as a scientist, which he also was. But he actually thought these things mattered to his conclusions as a philosopher. Many philosophers and students of philosophy have made the same mistake ever since. One does not need the results of science to know the general nature of reality. One needs to know the general nature of reality in order to practice science.

This mistake arises from his (Realist) idea that universals are entities separate from the mind. If a philosopher keeps universals (ideas, concepts, essences) in the mind where they actually occur, she needn't describe a separate realm or dimension where universals are alleged to be located. She can just explain how they work in the mind. This explanation would be simple (if not easy) and anyone can test it for themselves. This is exactly what Ayn Rand did, and consequently, we don't have the baggage of a cosmology to deal with in her philosophy.

Further this epistemological error of the mislocation of universals arises from a metaphysical denial of the reality of the self. It begins with loss of a sense of non-existence, where our sense of connection to the universe lies. (Non-existence, different from nothing, is the part of being that "stands back" from existence. See my essay The Being of Existence) Lacking the sense of connection with everything else, one loses the sense of oneself. Losing the sense of oneself, one eventually denies the self. There being no one in whom universals can occur, one must invent a realm where they reside and explain it's nature, too. One must invent universals as things with a reality and nature that is separate from oneself. So many try; no one can; and we get a philosophiacal Tower of Babel.

The answer, of course, is to break into this vicious cyce at any point, overturning all of its falsehoods, including the denial of the reality of non-existence, and to find oneself again. With a little study--not a lot--these problems cannot even arise. (Exactly how to break into this cycle is another matter.)

I'm sure getting a kick out responding to the problems posed here.

Andrew

Edited September 21, 2006 by Andrew Durham