Aristotle Metaphysics Discussion

Introduction

In this discussion, we will take a look at an ancient philosopher who lived between about 600 B.C. and 1350 A.D. Tens of philosophers lived between these periods, but Aristotle emerged to be one of the influential ones whose philosophy is studied even today. Aristotle is an ancient philosopher who forever changed the understanding of metaphysics with his deep knowledge of substance and essence (Witt, 2018). He lived in the 4^th century BCE and deviated from his teacher, Plato, stating that the core of reality is not only in the abstract Forms but also in the physical world (Schaper et al., 2022). Notably, at the core of Aristotle’s metaphysical theory is the concept of substance, which denotes the specific entities that are the substance of existence (Sonderegger, 2020). According to Aristotle, substance is a combination of matter and form, and it is the interaction of these two aspects which determines the nature of a person’s reality.

Aristotle’s metaphysical claim

Primarily, Aristotle’s metaphysical claims show the distinction between two types of substances, which are primary and secondary. According to him, primary substances are specific beings in nature, like individual human beings or animals (Witt, 2018). According to Aristotle, their nature is a result of the combination of matter and form, making it very unique for each. In contrast, secondary substances are the general types or kinds, such as ‘human’ or ‘horse’, that contain common characteristics among the individual entities that fall under them (Sonderegger, 2020). For Aristotle, the nature of a substance is a combination of potentiality and actuality. In his philosophy, matter denotes the potentiality of a substance, while the actuality of the substance is represented by form, which is the essence that defines the substance. This reciprocity between potentiality and actuality becomes the way in which to understand the nature of existence in Aristotle’s metaphysics.

Disagreement or Divergence

Aristotle’s opinion is, however, very different from that of Avicenna, a Persian polymath who lived in the 10th and 11th centuries (De Haan, 2020). However, Avicenna questions Aristotle’s focus on substance as the main reality, and he offers a more abstract and unified metaphysical background. In Avicenna’s thought, the attention changes to a single, necessary substance, which is similar to Plato’s Form of the Good (Duman, 2021). This God or Good, the necessary being, is the source of all the contingent beings, and all the existence emanates from this divine essence. Moreover, Avicenna’s metaphysical system is more monistic than Aristotle’s dualistic one (Duman, 2021). While Aristotle perceives reality as a collection of individual substances with their different essences, Avicenna imagines a rather unified reality based on the uniqueness of the necessary being. However, the conflict between Aristotle and Avicenna refers to the very core of reality and also the underlying laws that govern existence.

In addition, Aristotle’s metaphysics understanding of the substance shows the union of matter and form and potentiality and actuality (Sonderegger, 2020). This offers a broad outline for understanding the nature of the individual entities. Therefore, Aristotle’s treatment of these particulars, of the variety of primary substances and also their enduring essences, defines his metaphysical understanding (Sonderegger, 2020). On the contrary, Avicenna’s metaphysical analysis goes far beyond the details of the individual substances. This Persian polymath emphasizes the necessary being as the final cause, resulting in a much more generalized and integrated view of reality (Morvarid, 2023). In essence, the primacy of the diverse substances rejected by Avicenna for the necessary being undermines Aristotle’s foundational ideas.

Nevertheless, the philosophy of Aristotle, which is based on empirical evidence and the material world, is an example of his revolutionary achievements. On the other side, Avicenna builds on his intellectual frameworks and takes the metaphysical inquiry to the limits of abstraction and unity in reality (Morvarid, 2023). These two philosophical bigwigs, who are separated by centuries, converse across time, challenging us to consider the nature of reality from different angles.

Conclusion

In summary, Aristotle’s metaphysical understanding focuses on substance, essence, and also the relationship between potentiality and actuality. This provides an in-depth analysis of the meaning of being. However, Avicenna’s disagreement with Aristotle’s philosophy shows the unity and singularity of a necessary being as the origin of everything, which leads to another path of metaphysical study. The interplay between these two opposing approaches adds a lot of depth to the philosophical environment, encouraging researchers to consider and investigate the eternal issues of the essence of our existence.

References

De Haan, D. D. (2020). Avicenna’s Metaphysics of the Healing. In Necessary Existence and the Doctrine of Being in Avicenna’s Metaphysics of the Healing (pp. 1-9). Brill.

Duman, M. (2021). Avicenna’s conception of metaphysics as a science. FLSF Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (31), 133-152.

Morvarid, H. (2023). Avicenna on common natures and the ground of the categories. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 1-32.

Schaper, E., Martin, G., & Leclerc, I. (2022). An introduction to general metaphysics. Routledge.

Sonderegger, E. (2020). Aristotle, Metaphysics Λ Introduction, Translation, Commentary A Speculative Sketch devoid God.

Witt, C. (2018). Ways of Being: Potentiality and Actuality in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Cornell University Press.