Aristotelianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Aristotelian philosophy)
Jump to: navigation, search
Aristotle, by Francesco Hayez

Aristotelianism (/ˌærɨstəˈtliənɨzəm/ ARR-i-stə-TEE-li-ə-niz-əm) is a tradition of philosophy that takes its defining inspiration from the work of Aristotle. The works of Aristotle were initially defended by the members of the Peripatetic school, and, later on, by the Neoplatonists, who produced many commentaries on Aristotle's writings. In the Islamic world, the works of Aristotle were translated into Arabic, and under philosophers such as Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes, Aristotelianism became a major part of early Islamic philosophy.

Moses Maimonides adopted Aristotelianism from these Islamic scholars and based his famous Guide for the Perplexed on it; and that became the basis of Jewish Scholastic Philosophy. Although some knowledge of Aristotle's logical works was known to western Europe, it wasn't until the Latin translations of the 12th century that the works of Aristotle and his Arabic commentators became widely available. Scholars such as Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas interpreted and systematized Aristotle's works in accordance with Christian theology.

After retreating under criticism from modern natural philosophers, the distinctively Aristotelian idea of teleology was transmitted through Wolff and Kant to Hegel, who applied it to history as a totality. Although this project was criticized by Trendelenburg and Brentano as non-Aristotelian, Hegel's influence is now often said to be responsible for an important Aristotelian influence upon Marx. Postmodernists, in contrast, reject Aristotelianism's claim to reveal important theoretical truths. In this, they follow Heidegger's critique of Aristotle as the greatest source of the entire tradition of Western philosophy.

Recent Aristotelian ethical and 'practical' philosophy, such as that of Gadamer and McDowell, is often premissed upon a rejection of Aristotelianism's traditional metaphysical or theoretical philosophy. From this viewpoint, the early modern tradition of political republicanism, which views the res publica, public sphere or state as constituted by its citizens' virtuous activity, can appear thoroughly Aristotelian.

The most famous contemporary Aristotelian philosopher is Alasdair MacIntyre. Especially famous for helping to revive virtue ethics in his book After Virtue, MacIntyre revises Aristotelianism with the argument that the highest temporal goods, which are internal to human beings, are actualized through participation in social practices. He opposes Aristotelianism to the managerial institutions of capitalism and its state, and to rival traditions - including the philosophies of Hume and Nietzsche - that reject its idea of essentially human goods and virtues and instead legitimate capitalism. Therefore, on MacIntyre's account, Aristotelianism is not identical with Western philosophy as a whole; rather, it is "the best theory so far, [including] the best theory so far about what makes a particular theory the best one." Politically and socially, it has been characterized as a newly 'revolutionary Aristotelianism'. This may be contrasted with the more conventional, apolitical and effectively conservative uses of Aristotle by, for example, Gadamer and McDowell. Other important contemporary Aristotelian theorists include Fred D. Miller, Jr. in politics and Rosalind Hursthouse in ethics.

History[edit]

Ancient Greece[edit]

Main article: Peripatetic school

The original followers of Aristotle were the members of the Peripatetic school. The most prominent members of the school after Aristotle were Theophrastus and Strato of Lampsacus, who both continued Aristotle's researches. During the Roman era the school concentrated on preserving and defending his work.[1] The most important figure in this regard was Alexander of Aphrodisias who commentated on Aristotle's writings. With the rise of Neoplatonism in the 3rd century, Peripateticism as an independent philosophy came to an end, but the Neoplatonists sought to incorporate Aristotle's philosophy within their own system, and produced many commentaries on Aristotle.

Islamic world[edit]

In the Abbasid Empire, many foreign works were translated into Arabic, large libraries were constructed, and scholars were welcomed.[2] Under the caliphs Harun al-Rashid and his son Al-Ma'mun, the House of Wisdom in Baghdad flourished. Christian scholar Hunayn ibn Ishaq (809–873) was placed in charge of the translation work by the caliph. In his lifetime, Ishaq translated 116 writings, including works by Plato and Aristotle, into Syriac and Arabic.[3][4] Al-Kindi (801–873) was the first of the Muslim Peripatetic philosophers, and is known for his efforts to introduce Greek and Hellenistic philosophy to the Arab world.[5] He incorporated Aristotelian and Neoplatonist thought into an Islamic philosophical framework. This was an important factor in the introduction and popularization of Greek philosophy in the Muslim intellectual world.[6]

The philosopher Al-Farabi (872–950) had great influence on science and philosophy for several centuries, and was widely regarded to be second only to Aristotle in knowledge (alluded to by his title of "the Second Teacher") in his time. His work, aimed at synthesis of philosophy and Sufism, paved the way for the work of Avicenna (980–1037).[7] Avicenna was one of the main interpreters of Aristotle.[8] The school of thought he founded became known as Avicennism, which was built on ingredients and conceptual building blocks which are largely Aristotelian and Neoplatonist.[9]

At the western end of the Mediterranean Sea, during the reign of Al-Hakam II (961 to 976) in Córdoba, a massive translation effort was undertaken, and many books were translated into Arabic. Averroes (1126–1198), who spent much of his life in Cordoba and Seville, was especially distinguished as a commentator of Aristotle. He often wrote two or three different commentaries on the same work, and some 38 commentaries by Averroes on the works of Aristotle have been identified.[10] Although his writings had only marginal impact in Islamic countries, his works would eventually have a huge impact in the Latin West,[10] and would lead to the school of thought known as Averroism.

Europe[edit]

Although some knowledge of Aristotle seems to have lingered on in the ecclesiastical centres of western Europe after the fall of the Roman empire, by the ninth century nearly all that was known of Aristotle consisted of Boethius's commentaries on the Organon, and a few abridgments made by Latin authors of the declining empire, Isidore of Seville and Martianus Capella.[11] From that time until the end of the eleventh century, little progress is apparent in Aristotelian knowledge.[11]

The renaissance of the 12th century saw a major search by European scholars for new learning. James of Venice, who probably spent some years in Constantinople, translated Aristotle's Posterior Analytics from Greek into Latin in the mid-twelfth century,[12] thus making the complete Aristotelian logical corpus, the Organon, available in Latin for the first time. Scholars travelled to areas of Europe that once had been under Muslim rule and still had substantial Arabic-speaking populations. From central Spain, which had come under Christian rule in the eleventh century, scholars produced many of the Latin translations of the 12th century. The most productive of these translators was Gerard of Cremona,[13] (c. 1114–1187), who translated 87 books,[14] which included many of the works of Aristotle such as his Posterior Analytics, Physics, On the Heavens, On Generation and Corruption, and Meteorology. Michael Scot (c. 1175–1232) translated Averroes' commentaries on the scientific works of Aristotle.[15]

Aristotle's physical writings began to be discussed openly, and at a time when Aristotle's method was permeating all theology, these treatises were sufficient to cause his prohibition for heterodoxy in the Condemnations of 1210–1277.[11] In the first of these, in Paris in 1210, it was stated that "neither the books of Aristotle on natural philosophy or their commentaries are to be read at Paris in public or secret, and this we forbid under penalty of excommunication."[16] However, despite further attempts to restrict the teaching of Aristotle, by 1270 the ban on Aristotle's natural philosophy was ineffective.[17]

William of Moerbeke (c. 1215–1286) undertook a complete translation of the works of Aristotle or, for some portions, a revision of existing translations. He was the first translator of the Politics (c. 1260) from Greek into Latin. Many copies of Aristotle in Latin then in circulation were assumed to have been influenced by Averroes, who was suspected of being a source of philosophical and theological errors found in the earlier translations of Aristotle. Such claims were without merit, however, as the Alexandrian Aristotelianism of Averroes followed "the strict study of the text of Aristotle, which was introduced by Avicenna, [because] a large amount of traditional Neoplatonism was incorporated with the body of traditional Aristotelianism".[18] Albertus Magnus (c. 1200–1280) was among the first among medieval scholars to apply Aristotle's philosophy to Christian thought. He produced paraphrases of most of the works of Aristotle available to him.[19] He digested, interpreted and systematized the whole of Aristotle's works, gleaned from the Latin translations and notes of the Arabian commentators, in accordance with Church doctrine. His efforts resulted in the formation of a Christian reception of Aristotle in the Western Europe.[19] Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), the pupil of Albertus Magnus, wrote a dozen commentaries on the works of Aristotle.[20] Thomas was emphatically Aristotelian, he adopted Aristotle's analysis of physical objects, his view of place, time and motion, his proof of the prime mover, his cosmology, his account of sense perception and intellectual knowledge, and even parts of his moral philosophy.[20] The philosophical school that arose as a legacy of the work of Thomas Aquinas was known as Thomism, and was especially influential among the Dominicans, and later, the Jesuits.[20]

Modern era[edit]

After retreating under criticism from modern natural philosophers, the distinctively Aristotelian idea of teleology was transmitted through Wolff and Kant to Hegel, who applied it to history as a totality.[citation needed] Although this project was criticized by Trendelenburg and Brentano as un-Aristotelian,[citation needed] Hegel's influence is now often said to be responsible for an important Aristotelian influence upon Marx.[21] Postmodernists, in contrast, reject Aristotelianism's claim to reveal important theoretical truths.[22] In this, they follow Heidegger's critique of Aristotle as the greatest source of the entire tradition of Western philosophy.

Contemporary Aristotelianism[edit]

Aristotelianism is understood by its proponents as critically developing Plato's theories.[23] Recent Aristotelian ethical and 'practical' philosophy, such as that of Gadamer and McDowell, is often premised upon a rejection of Aristotelianism's traditional metaphysical or theoretical philosophy.[citation needed] From this viewpoint, the early modern tradition of political republicanism, which views the res publica, public sphere or state as constituted by its citizens' virtuous activity, can appear thoroughly Aristotelian.[citation needed]

The contemporary Aristotelian philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre is specially famous for helping to revive virtue ethics in his book After Virtue. MacIntyre revises Aristotelianism with the argument that the highest temporal goods, which are internal to human beings, are actualized through participation in social practices. He opposes Aristotelianism to the managerial institutions of capitalism and its state, and to rival traditions—including the philosophies of Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche—that reject its idea of essentially human goods and virtues and instead legitimize capitalism. Therefore, on MacIntyre's account, Aristotelianism is not identical with Western philosophy as a whole; rather, it is "the best theory so far, [including] the best theory so far about what makes a particular theory the best one."[24] Politically and socially, it has been characterized as a newly 'revolutionary Aristotelianism'. This may be contrasted with the more conventional, apolitical and effectively conservative uses of Aristotle by, for example, Gadamer and McDowell.[25] Other important contemporary Aristotelian theorists include Fred D. Miller, Jr.[26] in politics and Rosalind Hursthouse in ethics.[27]

In metaphysics, an Aristotelian realism about universals is defended by such philosophers as David Malet Armstrong and Stephen Mumford, and is applied to the philosophy of mathematics by James Franklin.

Criticism[edit]

Bertrand Russell criticizes Aristotle's logic on the following points:[28]

  1. The Aristotelian system allows formal defects leading to "bad metaphysics". For example, the following syllogism is permitted: "All golden mountains are mountains, all golden mountains are golden, therefore some mountains are golden", which insinuates the existence of at least one golden mountain.[29] Furthermore, according to Russell, a predicate of a predicate can be a predicate of the original subject, which blurs the distinction between names and predicates with disastrous consequences; for example, a class with only one member is erroneously identified with that one member, making impossible to have a correct theory of the number one.[30]
  2. The syllogism is overvalued in comparison to other forms of deduction. For example, syllogisms are not employed in mathematics since they are less convenient.[30]

In addition, Russell ends his review of the Aristotelian logic with these words:

I conclude that the Aristotelian doctrines with which we have been concerned in this chapter are wholly false, with the exception of the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant. Any person in the present day who wishes to learn logic will be wasting his time if he reads Aristotle or any of his disciples. None the less, Aristotle's logical writings show great ability, and would have been useful to mankind if they had appeared at a time when intellectual originality was still active. Unfortunately, they appeared at the very end of the creative period of Greek thought, and therefore came to be accepted as authoritative. By the time that logical originality revived, a reign of two thousand years had made Aristotle very difficult to dethrone. Throughout modern times, practically every advance in science, in logic, or in philosophy has had to be made in the teeth of the opposition from Aristotle's disciples.[31]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Furley, David (2003), From Aristotle to Augustine: Routledge History of Philosophy, 2, Routledge
  2. ^ Gaston Wiet, Baghdad: Metropolis of the Abbasid Caliphate Retrieved 2010-04-16
  3. ^ Opth: Azmi, Khurshid. "Hunain bin Ishaq on Ophthalmic Surgery." Bulletin of the Indian Institute of History of Medicine 26 (1996): 69–74. Web. 29 Oct. 2009
  4. ^ Lindberg, David C. The Beginnings of Western Science: Islamic Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2007. Print.
  5. ^ Klein-Frank, F. Al-Kindi. In Leaman, O & Nasr, H (2001). History of Islamic Philosophy. London: Routledge. p 165
  6. ^ Felix Klein-Frank (2001) Al-Kindi, pages 166–167. In Oliver Leaman & Hossein Nasr. History of Islamic Philosophy. London: Routledge.
  7. ^ "Avicenna (Ibn Sina) (c.980–1037)". The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2007-07-13. 
  8. ^ "Avicenna (Abu Ali Sina)". Sjsu.edu. Archived from the original on 11 January 2010. Retrieved 2010-01-19. 
  9. ^ "Avicenna". Encyclopedia Iranica. Retrieved 2010-04-14. 
  10. ^ a b Edward Grant, (1996), The foundations of modern science in the Middle Ages, page 30. Cambridge University Press
  11. ^ a b c Auguste Schmolders, History of Arabian Philosophy in The eclectic magazine of foreign literature, science, and art, Volume 46. February 1859
  12. ^ L.D. Reynolds and Nigel G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars, Oxford, 1974, p. 106.
  13. ^ C. H. Haskins, Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, p. 287. "more of Arabic science passed into Western Europe at the hands of Gerard of Cremona than in any other way."
  14. ^ For a list of Gerard of Cremona's translations see: Edward Grant (1974) A Source Book in Medieval Science, (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Pr.), pp. 35–8 or Charles Burnett, "The Coherence of the Arabic-Latin Translation Program in Toledo in the Twelfth Century," Science in Context, 14 (2001): at 249-288, at pp. 275–281.
  15. ^ Christoph Kann (1993). "Michael Scotus". In Bautz, Traugott. Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL) (in German) 5. Herzberg: Bautz. cols. 1459–1461. ISBN 3-88309-043-3. 
  16. ^ Edward Grant, A Source Book in Medieval Science, page 42 (1974). Harvard University Press
  17. ^ Rubenstein, Richard E. Aristotle's Children: How Christians, Muslims, and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Middle Ages, page 215 (2004). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
  18. ^ Schmölders, Auguste (1859). "‘Essai sur les Ecoles Philosophiques chez les Arabes’ par Auguste Schmölders, (Paris 1842)" [Essay on the Schools of Philosophy in Arabia] (full–text/pdf). In Telford, John; Barber, Benjamin Aquila; Watkinson, William Lonsdale et al. The London Quarterly Review 11. J.A. Sharp. p. 60. "We have said already that the most interesting and important of the Arabian schools is that which was the simple expression of Alexandrian Aristotelianism, the school of Avicenna and Averroes; or, as the Arabians themselves called it par excellence, that of the 'philosophers.' In no material point did they differ from their master, and, therefore, an exposition of their doctrines would be useless to those who know anything of the history of philosophy; but, before the strict study of the text of Aristotle, which was introduced by Avicenna, a large amount of traditional Neo-Platonism was incorporated with the body of traditional Aristotelianism, so as to take them sometimes far astray from their master's track." 
  19. ^ a b Albert the Great entry by Markus Fhrer in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  20. ^ a b c Saint Thomas Aquinas entry by Ralph McInerny in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  21. ^ For example, George E. McCarthy (ed.), Marx and Aristotle: Nineteenth-Century German Social Theory and Classical Antiquity, Although many disagree Rowman & Littlefield, 1992.
  22. ^ For example, Ted Sadler, Heidegger and Aristotle: The Question of Being, Athlone, 1996.
  23. ^ For contrasting examples of this, see Hans-Georg Gadamer, The Idea of the Good in Platonic-Aristotelian Philosophy (trans. P. Christopher Smith), Yale University Press, 1986, and Lloyd P. Gerson, Aristotle and Other Platonists, Cornell University Press, 2005.
  24. ^ Alasdair MacIntyre, 'An Interview with Giovanna Borradori', in Kelvin Knight (ed.), The MacIntyre Reader, Polity Press / University of Notre Dame Press, 1998, p. 264.
  25. ^ Kelvin Knight, Aristotelian Philosophy: Ethics and Politics from Aristotle to MacIntyre, Polity Press, 2007.
  26. ^ Fred D. Miller, Jr., Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle's Politics, Oxford University Press, 1997.
  27. ^ Rosalind Hursthouse, On Virtue Ethics, Oxford University Press, 1999.
  28. ^ Russell (1967), Chapter XXII Aristotle's Logic
  29. ^ Russell (1967, p. 197)
  30. ^ a b Russell (1967, p. 198)
  31. ^ Russell (1967, p. 202)

Further reading[edit]

  • Russell, Bertrand (1967), A History of Western Philosophy, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0671201581 
  • Chappell, Timothy (ed.), Values and Virtues: Aristotelianism in Contemporary Ethics, Oxford University Press, 2006.
  • Ferrarin, Alfredo, Hegel and Aristotle, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
  • Kenny, Anthony, Essays on the Aristotelian Tradition, Oxford University Press, 2001.
  • Knight, Kelvin, Aristotelian Philosophy: Ethics and Politics from Aristotle to MacIntyre, Polity Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-7456-1976-7.
  • Knight, Kelvin & Paul Blackledge (eds.), Revolutionary Aristotelianism: Ethics, Resistance and Utopia, Lucius & Lucius (Stuttgart, Germany), 2008.
  • Lobkowicz, Nicholas, Theory and Practice: History of a Concept from Aristotle to Marx, University of Notre Dame Press, 1967.
  • MacIntyre, Alasdair, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, University of Notre Dame Press, 1984 / Duckworth, 1985 (2nd edn.).
  • MacIntyre, Alasdair, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?, University of Notre Dame Press / Duckworth, 1988.
  • MacIntyre, Alasdair, Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition, University of Notre Dame Press / Duckworth, 1990.
  • MacIntyre, Alasdair, 'The Theses on Feuerbach: A Road Not Taken', in Kelvin Knight (ed.), The MacIntyre Reader, University of Notre Dame Press / Polity Press, 1998.
  • MacIntyre, Alasdair, Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues, Open Court / Duckworth, 1999.
  • MacIntyre, Alasdair, 'Natural Law as Subversive: The Case of Aquinas' and 'Rival Aristotles: 1. Aristotle Against Some Renaissance Aristotelians; 2. Aristotle Against Some Modern Aristotelians', in MacIntyre, Ethics and Politics: Selected Essays volume 2, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
  • Moraux, Paul, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias: Vol. I: Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im I. Jh.v. Chr. (1973); Vol. II: Der Aristotelismus im I. und II. Jh.n. Chr. (1984); Vol. III: Alexander von Aphrodisias (2001) – Edited by Jürgen Wiesner, with a chapter on Ethics by Robert W. Sharples.
  • Riedel, Manfred (ed.), Rehabilitierung der praktischen Philosophie, Rombach, volume 1, 1972; volume 2, 1974.
  • Ritter, Joachim, Metaphysik und Politik: Studien zu Aristoteles und Hegel, Suhrkamp, 1977.
  • Schrenk, Lawrence P. (ed.), Aristotle in Late Antiquity, Catholic University of America Press, 1994.
  • Sharples, R. W. (ed.), Whose Aristotle? Whose Aristotelianism?, Ashgate, 2001.
  • Shute, Richard, On the History of the Process by Which the Aristotelian Writings Arrived at Their Present Form, Arno Press, 1976 (originally 1888).
  • Sorabji, Richard (ed.), Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and Their Influence, Duckworth, 1990.
  • Stocks, John Leofric, Aristotelianism, Harrap, 1925.
  • Veatch, Henry B., Rational Man: A Modern Interpretation of Aristotelian Ethics, Indiana University Press, 1962.

External links[edit]