Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
"
,.
.-
.~
. :1 .....'J/l.
. ,.
~"..
'. :",
.....~.\. ",.
- ...::: .
c
"
In Ancient Greece there was 110 philosopher with a more encyclopedic scope than
Aristotle (384-322 BC). He was a man who
always looked first and foremost for the
meaning of reality and formulated the truths
he discovered as broadly and deeply as
possible.
In studying Aristotle's biography in detail, one cannot fail to be amazed at how consistently and naturally his philosophy coincided with his life.
The book deals with the basic facts of
Aristotle's biography and main points of his
philosophical system.
I '!.I" -
ISBN 5-01-001985-X
Progress Publishers
the Ages
Man Through
Alexel Losev
Aza Takho-Godi
Progress Publishers
Moscow
CONTENTS
"m;
MAl" WORKS
ARISTOTLE
IS
I. ARISTOTLE III-:FORE illS APPEARANCE
1'1 l'lATO'S .,\CADI-:;\.fY
(384/3)67/6 BC)
IS. Macedonia
16. Aristotle's Origins
21. Aristotle's Relatives
21. Appearance and Character
22. Major and Minor Points in the Biography
of the Young Aristotle
27
11. AT I'LATO'S ACADEMY (367/6.34817 BC)
48. Prorr~p/icu$,
110
VI. ARISTOTLE'S LAST YEARS
110. The Question of Alexander's POisoning by ArislOlic
112. Concerning the Greeks and the Barbarians
114. The Killing of Calhslhcnes
117. Politics and \-forals
119. Aristotle's Nationalistic Inclinations
121. Aristotle's Altitude to Alc)(andcr
125. Greece and ~accdonia in the Second Hair of the Fourth
Century DC
130. Flight from Athens
13), T he POisoning of Alexander and Aristotle's Suicide
135. Aristotle's Will
75
138
or rhorfOlion
55. The Dialogue On Philosophy
"
HC)
67.
I
1
An
102. ' I"e I pistolary Genre
18'
19'
SUHJECf INDEX
When wc exam ine a painting or lislen to music wc im mediately. without any scientific an~lysis, apprehend all
the colors and sounds which the arllst or composer has
used, feeling an amazing closeness between the work of ~rt
and our thoughts and feclings .. For art ?OCS not conSist
merely in eoloTs and tones or life perceived thr?ugh th.c
senses. Art is also in onc way or another always.ldcol~gl
cal in other words it is an index of some kind o f mn~r. hfe,
be 'i t personal or sacio-political or s~irilual! but unraill~gly
of the inner life of a person and the lOner hfe of the object
portrayed in the art.
.
.
Close acquaintance with Aristotle WIll show Lh~ r.cad~r
that everyt hing that exists, in this philoso~hcr>s opmlon, IS
nothing but a work of art. All of nature IS also a work of
art for Aristotle, and man himself is ~ work of art, and all
the world with its sky and firmam ent IS a work of art, too.
lt is no accident that the Greeks called the world the cosmos fo r cosmos in G reek means harmony, co n cord~ order,
ord~rliness and even bea uty. In this respect Aristotle is a
true ancien't Greek. And none of his purely academic a nd
abstract reasonings ever preve nted him from seeing and
feeling beauty as a principle .of life's organization as .a
whole whatever this life was ILke, good or bad. And thiS
principle permeates all of life, from its very first steps to its
summits.
Of course there we re many thinkers who saw life and
existence as based o n the primacy of the aesthetic principle. But Aristotle did so in his own, highly original and
diverse ways. And there is no point in undertaking the exposition and exploration of Aristotle'S philosophy without
the inte ntion of understanding this primary aesthetic prin ciple and appreciating its originality.
~n route toward an ae.sthetic i~lerpretatjon of reality
Anstotle encountered a (hstorted mterprctation of Plat o'
which at the. time was ~idespread among Greek philosophe rs and which Pl~~? hImself would s~metimes promote by
ext remely emphaSIZIng and exa{Joeratmg certain as
, r
00
pec s 0
h"IS Ph"'I osop h"Ica I system, specifically
his doctrine of th
world of Ideas and the material world as a r ", n "c
am re ectlon
" I
h
.
o r t h c 'd ca I wor d. Tt IS true that Plato f
torted understanding of his doctrinc ~re~aw t e dlssha rply opposed to the material WOrldo 'de Ideas als
,an Constant y
8
ill gelleral."z
In the Philosophical Notebooks Leoi n wrote: "Hegel
pe rce ives the idea lism of Aristotle in his idea of god. Of
course, it is idealism, but more object ive and further
removed, more general than the ideal ism of Plato, hence in
the philosophy of nat ure mo re frequently = maleria lism.")
Onc must note a hig hly original feature of Aristotle's
thinking - the combination of a vital, all-embracing OUllook on life with a detailed, scrupulous investigation of life
down to the smallest trines. AriSlolle has an uncommon
love of breaking up any ge neral concept of an _object.
working it out in detail and singllng out th e subtlest nuan ces in it and therefore in gene ral describing reality in all
. r: .
. 'y and comlllcxity. On
Its IOllmlc vane
.
. I
h 10 ohJ'ccts and to hfe
Iytlca approac
.'.'.
r A iSlOtlc have seen In hIm traits of
o r
I."
is negatively Icrm<.!d "scho asHC .
of this anad
Itself manv slu cnls
. hl h h
that p I OSOp Yt <11
.tcC{lUnl
sisted of a large number of books (for example, his descriptions of the social structure of various cil y-statcs).
Hcsychius of Alexandria (sixth century AD) adds to
Diogcncs Lacrlius' li5147 morc.titles of au~hcnlic wor~s. by
Aristotle and 10 atlributed to him. Bul he IS of the opinion
that Aristotle wrote 400 books. Another admirer and bio-
'I.
12
O~
IIF: I:'\G
Mewphysics (on the "t1~I philOSOphy"), 13
boo"
Physics, 8 books
Orl rile I fcll\'tIIS
Orl BC/,'l1Iringal1d I'ms/lmg, 2 books
ETIIICS
NicOlIlUc/ICOII Fr/l/CI, IO\l<lo\.s
f;IIt/CIUIUI1 biricJ
Mug>la Mflralia
ART
"(}Clies
UhcffJric. 3 houks
l'OI,lTI("$
I'olilies, 8 hooks
III STORY
/he Al/lrlll/m COII.\IilllliO/I (the SIale Structure
of Athens)
",\TII R.\ I. se iI' '\<' K~
MC1COrolfl1.,cJ (on atnlOlOphttic phcnO!T1cna)
0" Ihe l'urlS of Am1110 is, 4 bools
011 111(' MOI"I~mo" of Al/wl<l/s
0" rile (lr"('I""/II1II flf All/mo/s
IIi.lIOri<l A";",,,/iwII
Macedonia
Aristotle's life and personality are linked with Macedonia, near which he was born, During the whole of the
fourth century BC it played an increasingly decisive role in
the life of the Greek people. It was a country to the north
of the area which is usually called Northern Greece, i.e., to
the north of Epirus and Thessaly. The Macedonians were
so closely connected with Thrace and llIyria evcn farther
north that it is Slill a big question for specialists what purely Greek elements and what Thracian and ilIyrian elements lie at the origin of the Macedonian nation.
Some think that Macedonia is a sort of offshoot of
ancient Greece close to Thessaly. Others try to maximally
separate the Macedonians from the Greeks. Still others
feci that both Greek and Thracio-lIlyrian elcments were
equally represented in the so-called substralUm of the Macedonian people. It is not part of our task to engage in the
solution of this problem with all its ethnic and linguistic
difficulties. Nevertheless, two circumstances are immediately obvious, irrespective of our scholarly interests in the
historieal origins of Macedonia.
The first circumstance is Ihat however distant the Macedon ians were from the Greeks in cu ltural terms, nonetheless the successes of Greek cullUre and the enormous
achievements of Greek civili7..3lion always impressed the
Macedonians so that the Macedonian rulers strove to assimilat e the a~hievem ents of Greek culture, preferr~d the
Greeks to all other peoples and historically always tned to
keep in ste p with them,
..
could be
The second circumstance conslSls lR w,hat
called opposition to Greece. The Mac~dontans werBc n~(
. .tn the eyes 0 f G recce or their own eyes. ul It
Barbanans
15
Aristotle's Origins
Aristotle, the son of Nicomachus and Phaestis, was
born in 384/3 BC, and mo re precisely, between July and
O ctober 384. This was the first year of the 99th Olympiad .
It must be noted, however, that the Greeks began the ir
chronology with the supposed first year of the first Olympiad, i.e., 776 BC. The word Olympiad itself arose to designate the four-yea r interval between Olympic Games
which got their name from Olympus in the Western Pelo~
pon nesus where .the national Greek games were held .
T~ercfore when I~ Greek so~rees. we find references to
thiS.or l~at Olympiad, the deSignation is not very exact for
t
us since It embraces a whole four years. But we hav
o I 'bo h
eexac
know Id
e ge 0 fA.nslot e s 1ft preCisely in the first ear of
the 99th Olympiad.
y
The name of the town in which Aristotle was b
.
orncan
also be rend ere d 10 vanous ways: we wtll use th f
Oan
d wo~ Id IIterature Ariste IOrm
. Stagira. In bot h anCient
ot e IS also
called the Stagirite, i.e., born In Stagira.
Fro m the point of view of Greeks of the t
Stagira but all of Macedonia was a rather :me not only
ince which in the nort heast even bordered 0 CrRlhote prov was actuall
nraceA
,
cording
to some sources, S
taglra
I
. cThracc. But we proceed fro m the assumplio/ hOcated in
t at Stagira
16
l-0128 2
t7
mans immortal.
'h I' rather tangled m~th. Cnronis.
Here was a .... (1 1.:,
h
r Ih !,.;
A 11 married a certam he ),S, ~on 0
beloved
O'Ela'lu~ Out of jealousy Apollo killed
Thcssalo n l3.n mg fro m h~ r womb the infant about to Ix
Coronis. but IO~C hOrn A"dcpi us Asclcpius was educated
born an~ namc r' Chira n (Pindar TIle Py/hia/l Odes Ill ,
by thc WlscccnI au
' .
h
d"
,
"
~ n,cd,"cal art led hi m to t e au aCIDUS
4S 5~ ) Asc1CpiU:'>
.
Ih~ught of resurrecting the dead. Myths tell of hG1sJ resurrecLion of many heroes: Hippolytus, Capancus,
aucus,
",nos, "''" nd others The enraged Zeus) struck
Icson
Or M
h
him with a lightning-bolt (Apollodorus Ill , 10, 3-~ . In reApollo killed the Cyclopes, Zcus' blacksmiths, and
.'
'1 " h
"
r an
sponse
was sent by Zcus to expiate Ius gUl t m t. e serVice 0 m kind. Two sons arc ascribed to Asc\eplus, ~a~haon and
Podaleirius, who are mentioned as fin e ?hyslcl3~s ~s ~ar
back as Homer (Iliad IV, 194; XI, 518).- ASc\~PlUS W1~e
was named Epione, whieh means Soother of Pam, and hiS
daughters were called Hygieia (Health) and Panacea
(U niversal Healer).
.
The cuil of Asclepius was particularly famous In the
city of Epidaurus, where people thronged fr om all corners
of Greece to have their illnesses cured. In his comedy TIle
Plulus (654-741), despite the parodic situation, Aristophanes brings in information on how at night, wh ile they
were a"lcep, pilgrims were cured in the temple of Asclepius.) Asclepius' indispensable attribute was a snake,
which received sacrifi ces in the temple.
The fi gure of Asc1epius combines ancient, i.e.,
chthonid forces of the healing earth (hence the snake living in the de.rths of the ea r~h; moreover not only is the
snake an attribute of Asc1eplUS, but he himscJf is thought
of as a snake) and the notIOn that divine functions were
transmitted to the sons of gods, heroes who in their audacity vi?late~ .thc balance established in the world by the
gods mhablt mg Olympus.
Those who arc not particularly vcrsed "
"
h
"
". h . .
n ancient myt 0logy mlg~t ,,:o~uer ow IllS that Asc\epius a od
Id b
killed. l-hs lralling must be. understOOd in th g ,cou . e
.h h Uranus was "k illed" by C
c same sense m
"" IC
ronus., and Cronus and all
18
l;lr
r-
19
r an lOSt ructIOns on
reaI ways 0 r curmg Illnesses. It is theref
..
that Aristotle's fathe r,anm
. hab'Jlantofthe
orc not .surprlsmg
. 1
of Stagira was so well k
h
provmCla town
,
nown t roughout M d
he was invited to serve as a COurt
'.
ace. oOla that
tas 11 , father of the fam ous Phili rhyslcmn to King Amyneven more famous Alexande 'hPGI and grandfather of the
.
r e reat
d
An yet Lt must be said th t A'
.
er'ltic altitude to his "d',~ ~, ~Is~olle had a very demol.,ne ongon A h i
has come down to us in which
h
. WOe discourse
does not at all consist in wealth e ar~ucs th,at noble origin
or Simply 10 One's anees-
20
I
mpensation he liked LO dress up,
tiny eyes and a hsp.. ~ C? gs at ~ time and styled his hair in
wore several cxpcns.\,c no
an unusual ~aY'h' social habits it must be said that they
arcChOa~~~;~~~u~~ significance. Certainly thcs~ habits?f a
owned hilosophcr may make a strange ImprcsSIO~.
~;t the ac~unlS of Aristotle's foppishness rcla~e to his
youth and that is excusable. Wc won't be lOO ca~tIOT"
Fo~ example, onc may risk assuming l~at ~ist'b.t c was
a rather vain and ambitious man,. especially. In ~s ~at~r
years. He is known t? h~vc been, dlsplcasc~ With t c CCI~
sions taken against him In Delphi. He conSIdered them un
worthy of his fam c. He even complained about them to
Antipatcr, Alcxan~cr the .G ~cal's vlC,Croy in Gre?ce. The
sourCC which prOVIdes thiS mformatlon,. and w.hlch does
nol charge Aristot le with vanity, is most mstru~tlve. In ~hc
Varia Hisioria of the second-century AD ~Iter Acl l.an
(X IV, 1), we read that Aristotle, justly consl~ered a.wl~e
man, after being deprived of the honors appomted him In
Delphi wrote to Antipater that as far as the honors that
had been allotted him in Delphi and now rescinded were
concerned, he had decided not to think about them too
much but not to stop thinking about them entirely either.
Aelian goes on to say that these words do not attest to
Aristotle's vainglory and that he would not accuse him of
anything of the sort, since Aristotle was fully justified in
thinking that it is quite a different maller not to have
something at all, and to have it and then lose it; for it isn' t
terrible not to get something in the first place but it is
painful to be d~pri~ed of. what on~ has already g~t.
All these bnef bIts of mformatlOn abouI Aristotle's personality a r~ .only prcli~inary in character. In the course of
our exposition we Will have many occasions yet to enco~ nter other much m.ore important aspects of the great
philosopher's personahty.
Major and 1\1inor Points in the Ri
of the Young Aristotle
ra h
og p y
could very well have mana : 'n the Academy without any
aralian and have
appearc.
"?'
I possible
that he studied as
this is
IS
hod d '
B9
:.b.
25
,_
"
VI: 73-83.
"
. '
SO)
h r
\hc scoon<.lnruI} AI) philosopher AnslOCICS lra~ I ,s ~cw 0
Ari~10tlc's carly youIII bad: 10 CpICUI\IS. E)[1riIcts from An(~:!~ ,,:g~)
arc found in the laic Gn:c~ "'flIer EuscblUS of Cacscna
.
1Io,,"-c,-c T. ,hc accounlS of An~lollc'~ tumulen1 )'OIl.h can be dlspu,ed , as
they ",ere by AriSIOClcs himself.
in l'lato's Academy
27
29
i1y at Ihe lime, led tn Plato's being sold 11110 slavl:ry. (lI~s
freedom was, however, immed iately bought back.,br hi s,
friends.) And now, in 366 BC, Plato a~a~n left ~or Sicily al
)~
.at~
oul petly elements even, was felt within the walls of the
Academy. There probably was something dubious about
Ari stotle's bchavior after all. Spiteful tongues claimed that
he had bathed in wa rm oil and then sold the oil (Diogenes
Laertius citing Lyco, V, 16). People also said that Aristotle
had ousted Plato from the place in the Academy where he
taught, taking advantage of the illness of Speusippus
Plato's nephew, and the absence of Xenocrates, another of
Plato's favoriLe students. Aelian (1II, 19) tells us that one
day, when Xenocrates had left Athens for a while to visit
his native town, Aristotle accompanied by Mnaso of Phoeaea and others went up to Plato and began to press him
Spcusi ppus w~s sick that day and could not accompany hi~
teacher, an elghty-ye?r-old ma~ ~th a memory already
weakened by age. ATlstot~e mahcl~usly attacked him and
arrogantly
questions
'
hbegan to ask him.
' wishl' og t 0 expose
h Im some ow, and behaved
Impertinently a
d 'Isrcmost
nd
.
spect ru11 y. From t hat time on Plato ceased t
the limits of his own garden and strolled 0 go o.utsl~e
pupils only within the enclosu re.
around with hiS
At the cnd of three months Xenocrat
found Aristotle walking where Plato h d es returned and
that after their walk he headed with ~is used to. ~oticing
for Plato's house but for town, he asked compamons not
interlocutors whe re Plato was, beca USCh
One ofh Aristotle's
Plato had not come oul . on accau n0111
t r. e t ought that
answered that P1ata was In good health but n~. The man
since Aristotle
3()
31
?3
Q[ whoever It
may
be in general. But in Aristotle's mouth the whole expression relates not only to the truth but also to Plato himself,
b
w
11
U3. Y wc contra ute .little or nothing to the truth b th
uni on of all a conSiderable amount is am
,: y e
physics 11 , 1). In Oil/lie Soul (I 1) he . a.s~<ed (!deta we do that, whi le knowledge of a~ ki:nt.es. H.oldtng as
honorcd and prized onc kind oft y ~ IS a thmg to be
its greater exactne~s Or of a hi~~:Y' ~I(~er by reason of
wonderfulness in its objects be dlgmty and greater
precious than another, on bat'h a more honorable and
rally be led to place in the f ccounts we should nalusou l." And again in his Rheto r.on(t rank the stUdy of the
. things
an d wondcTlng
at thiogs arc ne
I I' 11). "Learnmg
dering implies the desire of la SO 'pleasant as a rule wonearning, s Ih
o at the object of
32
33
through Plato's will and testament as tbrough the inheritance laws of the time according 10 which the deceased's
property was passed on to the closest male relative. And
Plato had no children. Moreover, it is reported (albeit
solely .in a Syrian bi~graphy of Aristotle) that the ailing
Speuslppus wrote Aristotle a letter requesting him to return to the Academy and even become its head. The differe.n~e i? views bctween Plato and Aristotle was hardly of
d~clslve Impo~tancc here. (As we have said, the liberalm.ln~ed .Plato In general admitted heterogeneous opinions
Within hiS school. Note that Arcesilaus and Carneades th
nex1 directors of .the Academy after Speusippus 'an~
Xenocr~les, estabhshe.d a new trend, scepticism, which
t~ey qUite cle~erly derived from Plato's own philoso h )
F.lnally, Speuslppus soon died (339/8 BC) b
Pafy"
h d hA"
I d"d
' ut even ter
IS eat
ns~ot e I not return to the Academ
!he most Important point, which historian y. f
phi losophy sometimes overlook is that alth ~ 0 ~reek
was a pure Greek he harbored '
M
o~g Aristotle
ics whK:h never ldh him even w~ro- h aeedom~n sympathfeelings towa rd Macedonians ben he entertal?ed hostile
and Alexander. It is not at all', e t. ~se the kings Philip
urpnsmg 'h t "
"
portan! respects Aristotle inci" d
a ID Some Im The famous orator and POliticia~n1 t~~ard Macedonia.
was also a Greek who sympath :se. mes (389-314 BC)
harbo r such sentiments it was IZC with Macedonia To
nma'aU"
becn born near the Macedonian bo d necessary to have
tcrritorial proximity to the Mae r e~, although Stagira's
course have been of Some signfi edon~an state might of
of Aristotle's p~o-Macedonianl ;cance I? the development
of the Greek city of Olyn,h us .)'mpatbles.
Philip', razmg
"
In the su
mmer of 348 BC
34
35
3"The Works of Arislolle", Vol. 11, Great Books of the IVeston World
~ .I
(Ibid., p. 594.
III
(1973).
Il is worlh touching on these early works of Arislotle if
only because everyone would nalurally like 10 know how il
was that Plato's nearest disciple moved on in other philos
ophical direcLi ons, how this shift occurred and what,
properly speak ing, is the differe nce between Aristotle and
Plalo, of which everyone speaks in various ways.
Aristot le cou ld not immediately have become an adversary of Plato, ot herwise there would have been no se nse.in
hi s living at the Academy for nearly twenty years. A rls,
tot lc's divergence from Plato hardly c~me about all at
once; it was gradu:tl in the maJ..ing. In view of the lack of
precise chronological data it is uncerla.in whether the definitive break occurred while he was sllll a( the .Academy
and whether it was definitive. It seems to us qUite ~nde~.
standable that th e young Aristotle shou ld worship hiS
teache r, at least in his lirst few years at the A~demy.
The refore, oul of the great many titles of works wrlllen by
37
In the early days of his literary career Aristotle. foUowing Plato'S example, began by writing philosophical dialogues. Later on he gave up writing dialogues, and his
scholarly works arc essentially a concise exposition of his
lectures and studies.
Plato was inclined to write metaphorically. He d rew
pleasure from showing people engaged in the process of
philosophizing and discovering the truth rather tban from
systematically expounding his own teaching. Besides he
viewed philosophy itself not as a realm of theoretical probings but as the reconstruction of all elements of being in
the most general form.
. But in the d~velopment of Plato's writing style one can
slOgle out a senes of late dialogues in which his exposition
ha~ a ~ore systematic and analytically abstract character.
~hls dlscr~pancy between the philosophical and artistic
Sides of hiS work is clearly manifested in his dialogue
17leaeterus, v.:here for the first time his interest in the
~ e~hod ~f philosophical meditation triumphed over his artJsllc aspirations. To ~ .significant extent this dialogue al ready approaches a cnucal treatise.
In the Sophist
bOO
Od and Politicus! Timaeus .nd Plo/
lleUStrlS
even. more. e,? ent. that the dialogue form had becom
SP~CI~ stylistiC deVice for Plato with no Ion er an h' e ~
arlis(Jcalness and dramatism. Socrates th g . Y lOt ?
Plato's dialogues, was reduced to a s~ e mam figure ID
the Sophist and does not appear at IJ' co~dary role after
last pi ece.
a In t e Laws, Plato's
Thus the urge to classify the subtl
.
wh ich prevailed in Plato's late pe . dest tWIsts of thought
call~d dialectics, entirely squecz~~o a me~h~ which he
malle fealUre~ from. his dialogues. ~~t artistic and. drae complete dlsappea rance of hIS cia<;<,lcal dialogue f
of time, as its hvi ng rOOts had wit~rm Was only a question
ered away. This is the
38
o
0
Td h~ SOr'llS\hC~::~~~ic dialogues of the same names. In
enve rdom
P-trepricus one can trace the admonitory
the non- la loglc
0
IV
39
,
[PI I ',Ellth)'demlls right down to litcrttl Cotr(,:.
sect ion 0
a0
cl
'
"
possible
that
Pl
ato
serve
as
an
IOl l.:rIo.
spon dCRCCS. I1 I
'/"d' PI
, A' I lie', dialogues as Socrates v i 10 alt s.
cutorlO
rlSO
.
d I
[
, I ' I le here is dislincllvcly pure an c r.:ar, or he
AnstolCSSY
".
I d
h Id '[r,
felt that the power of sCientific ~now c gc S ou J. C o(
a
onc' s Ianguage, 100 . At the same tlrne Elldcmlls contains
.
retelling of the myth of Midas and frequent compansom,
along Platonic models.
.,
Generally speaking the style of A~lstollc s early ~orks
gave pleasure la many people, as testified by the anCient s,
for example the cynic philoso~hcr Crates of Thc~s, who
read Aristotle's Prolrepliclls WIth the cobbler Phlhscus In
his workshop (fragment 50). Arislollc'~ .dia logues ~aught
the interest of the stoics Zeno of Cil ium, Chryslppus,
Cleanthes, and subsequently, of Cicero, Philo of Alexandria and Saint Augustine (354.430 AD). The latter be
came acquainted with Protrepticus through Cicero's dialogue H0l1ellsius. 1We can find echoes of Aristotle's early
works still later, in the sixth-century philosopher Bocth ius.
Of course for all their merits Aristotle's dialogues evcn in
antiquity were never placed on a par with Plato's, although
in the Hellenistic period of late antiquity they perhaps had
an even greater significance.
But now we must ask: what was the relation between
teacher and pupil in the area of pure philosophy? Unfortunately at the time of Andronicus of Rhodes who stud ied
Aristotle's works in Ro~e in the first century BC, the d ialogues of the young Amtotle had been pushed into the
backgroun~ by a newly aroused interest in his system atic
wor.ks, w?lch had been neglected for a long time. The
Penpatetlc scholars!, followers of Aristotle's school,
turned to
these, works
and began to study Ihe'
'I
'
.
m'nlen , , ~y,
Th e slnct Penpatetlc Alexander of Aph d"
(seeon d
'
d
'
ro
ISlas
an d t hIr centuries AD) felt that in his d' I
'
la
ogues
Anstotle
"
mere Iy reporte d the Opinions of othe h' l
his own opinion had to be looked f . r ~ I osophers, and
Many of Aristotle's dialogues wereor In .~s matu rer works.
thing esoteric, i.e., written in an 0 ~onsl ered to be som econtrary to his true teaChings 0 ull:"adrd~y popular forma t
.
Ulne Int
40
learned 10 use words e1cgan.!!Y.J;>ul added _to this skill profound philosophical content.. initially drawn rrom none
other than Plato. True. today many people fmd it very hard
to believe in the brilliance and elegance of Aristotle's
speech.
down
la
:e
43
,,
45
,
.
k
I
S IS armony.
B ut th IS IS SIC ness, weakness and ugl,nc Th h
ss.
en armony
. h Ih
f
IS ea t , strength and beauty The so I .
U IS nOne 0 these.
'
.
.
F or even H omer s ugly warnor Th .
There.fore the soul is not harmony.
ersltes had a soul.
ThiS second proof nows directl f
man and his division of human viri ro.m Plato's theory of
tain to the soul or the body. Pla~e,s In~ofar as they persponding opposi.tes. If the virtues re~~dVlrtues had corremetry), then their contraries were foundon har~ony (sym(asymmetry). Plato borrowed the e I e~ on disharmony
or sickness as an asym metry in th XP~ahon of weakness
e
y's particles fr om
46
47
PI
. I
~to~c ~ cments and
direct reminiscences, but tbe c1ose~~'rc ~ Idargumentation in the dialogue lacks the ftnalli - t cl eas as rthey
, PI t ' Plloroo Yel all the other e ements 0 the
appearm aos
.
.
h h
r h
ProtrepticIIs
10
49
After painstaking philological investigations it. was established already over a century ago . th at. considerable
Aristotle's piece arc contamed In the Protrep[
PI
.e h't
[ragmcoIso ru
(iellS of the fourth-century AD ncO- alOt I? t osohPlhc,
lamblicbus, where the pronouncements 0 vano~s p I as"mcluding Plato, were gathered for homilettc purapers,
' d
"
h Tbe protreptiCus was CIte,
poses.
as pr,oo[ [~A
_ [.Ist.otie's
adherence to Plat,onism. The major portion o~ la~blichus'
Pro/rep/iells consists of excerpts from Plato 5 dlalogu~s.
But approximately half-way lhro.ugh, I~cse ext ra~ts are mterrupted by quotations from An~totle 5 Protrept~cus.
The use of Aristotle's Protreptlcus by such philosophers
of latc antiquity as Ciccro, Saint Augustine. Proclus and
Boethius assisted in the identification of citations fro m it.
The only question is whether lamblichus integrally quoted
these passages from Aristotle or whethe r he himself con\ structed proofs on the basis of Aristotlc's material. First of
all it must be noted that whereas the extracts from Plato
arc connected externally and often haphazardly, the theses
borrowed fr om Aristotle ale internally connected. But all
that can be concluded for sure from this fact is a similarity
between Aristotle's and l amblichus' methods of constructing proofs. Most probably l amblichus merely used mate rial from Aristotle (though in a very thorough-going way),
and. ~ne can scarcelr s'p<:ak of a strictly Aristote lian comPOSlt,IO? hel e, even If It 15 beyond doubt that it was Aristotle s Ideas that .formed the basis of many o f Iamb lichus'
arguments. Particularly rich in borrowings is C h apter
Sevc.n, wh~ r c a great many arguments can be qua lifi ed as
commg dllectly fr om Amtotle as is
fi
d b
I
comparing them wlth som
'
con ume
y a so
dealing with strict scicnt~~~~~ls from the Metap!tysics
Melaphysics these ide .
ed~e, although IR the
T here arc quile a fe~ eappear only 10 the introduction.
chaptcrs of lamblichus' p;~rpt~ from Aristotle in o ther
the ninth, tenth, eleventh a~d':CU~tS well, for instance in
these references allow One t we lh. Taken togethe r all
the content and philosophica~ reco
d nstruet to some extent
ProlrepliClls.
ten ency of Aristotle's own
The point and meaning o [ A "
.10 .It he d oes not examine partic
nstatlc'. s Prolreplicus is t hat
the most general problcm_ h ular ISSues but deals with
t e essence [ h"
50
0 p Ilosophy, its
51
/'
.e,
st ri ct theoretical science
hounded on experiment and
.
mteP,,
'
'
ponent of phtlosophy in P I
otrepllcus. When the op
. h
f I
rorepticu'
IS arm u because it only hinder S pr~c1alms that theory
An stotle (although the cones s pr.acllce, we expeetthal
been preserved, the tendency oh?dm~ ~ragmcnt has not
IS thinking can be reoon-
52
.
.
me d late posllton between pure Platonism
.
,
own later teachings The I f
and AnstotIe s
,
rea m 0 Ideas abo h
Id '
still admitted here in a def! 't
d
ve t e wor IS
IDl e an confid
gh f
insofar as the work advances the
. I ent en~u
orm
orphic philosophers on the t
ancIent teach 109 of the
ransmlgration f
I
,
,
least the necessity of liberating th .
0 sou s, or at
mortal body," At the same time ~ Immortal soul from th e
his conception of pure intellec'tu ~ver, Anstotle builds
a speculation with the
54
n-
macus.
which
cs!
lea VlC,WS
r~~ur
d at theIr ongms
\
e=
57
pass nce
' of a god but to prove his existence as well. Aris
prcsc
.'
.
totlc created what much late r, past antlq.Ulty, was given the
name of philosophy o~ religion. In the d,al~guc On Philo~.
ophy he for the first time grounded the eXIstence of a divinity in logical deductions. He says in fragment 16 that in
every sphere where lher~ is a series of steps, ,where there
f
. I other
. than the religious c
onSClousness
0
PI ato s .lSCIP es &lven more
, . articulate fo rm b y A
n stot Ie
an"
d rrestmg
on. a recogmtlOn
of force s 'InaCCCSSIble to
.
h
~clenl1 ll c cogrutlon -a t ~t not at II -=- k
. ----;
the mature- Aristotle's scientific aspa t~n eepmg ~lth
.
I h
. h1
ora Ions Followmg
Anstot C, t e StOIC p I osophcrs viewed f . h .
.
tive emotional expe rience of the huma "'It a~':JubJec.
n sou ano tne result
58
59
SI. AuguSotine, "The Confessions" (Ill 4 7' VIII 7 17) Great Books
oft/~c Western World,18: 14, 54.57.
' "
"
,
~Pcripalc/ics: cr. pp. 79.&1.
JPlutarch, "A LeUer la Apollonius" (CXV 27) M
/ ' , 16 V. I
"'
orQ
/Q
0 '" n4' I lam elnemann Ltd_, London 1971 2' 117
Lyceum: cL p. 109.
', .
.
W',, ".
, ,
III
37. s"The Dialogues of Plalo", Great Books Of Ihe Western World, 7: 135.
'
ge, 958, I: 3n
'
So-called exho natory speeches
. :
ad mo nito ry and persuas ive charael" or prol7r!PIICI, whieh had a didaClic
11
r, were Wldesp d '
'.
'
rea In anllqulty.
Pla to, "!he Republic", 1'10/0 in 12 V.
Pre~, Ca mb ndge. 1980, 6: 435, 44 1, 44749 :;lIm cs, Ilarvard University
.
7he myt hica l sage and musician 0 ' 9.51,457.59.
1n3to r o f t he orph ic leachings..
rpheus was COnsidered Ihe orig.
10
60
"_ , ~
37.
""
,<}
IV
From the Academy to the Lyceum
(348/1-335 BC)
i~seription
62
cer~:i'o
63
65
66
fIl
We would also
tcrest in
speak in more
creased during
19).
court, and
aCter the
them a.
damage
AIInndc' f . . . .
cd
the enrwsed
.. 2: _ _1_ OIi(iZ
~
--
Tbe
shows tbat the
talks with
in the depths of
and ordered tbe
some; who
many oC the
and some
Philoxenus".'
In the same
it was to Aristotle
to the theory
medicine. For
often prescribe
proper 10 their
was naturaUy a
reading; and
I
I
Sinopc.
If onc turns from the earlier to later historians, Plutarch
72
r
\
73
, \~
-.; or
"
i
,
" ......
1/4
"
)"
",
),
'\
,)
E S
~)lularch.
of Plalo.
"Aulus Gellius, Th~ Attic Nighu UI 3 VofwfI(,s (IX, 3), William l!cinemann Ltd", London, 1968, 2: 159-61.
,
I
75
"
>
76
latter's character.
Xenocrates was always "dignified and grave of demeanor" (Diogenes Laertius, IV, 6-10) and was distinguished for his truthfulness, integrity and sclf-possession.
Wilbout being haughty, Xenocrates neverlheless was hard
to approach, quite incorruptible and really too dignified.
Even the then-renowned and irresistible courtesan Phryne
was unable to tempt him. Xenocrates was famous for his
enormous self~conlrol and could even endure cauleri/a
77
78
Fro~ oaY' of
.....
_,_dle_.-
...
ol~._
stro\IiD&. .,..........
for
10
discus~lOns m. gen~.
me...
for ;,;:e:; m
T.......
I
,
Acaoemy
teachings.
were many difference s which cmphasi/cd the rivalry between these twO ~ChllOls. In the Lyccum, linked fr om
ancient times with the name of the god Apollo, there was a
templc to Apollo Lycius. In the Academy, there was a
sanctuary of Athcna, the muses and the hero Akadcmos,
and an altar to Promcthcus. The Lyccum had an ancient
gymnasium; the Academy also had onc, which was even
older. At his Academy Plato conducted scholarly conversations while strolling around the peripa(. The Lyceum had
its own peripat, where Aristotle, following ancient tradition, also conversed with his pupils. The Academy was located to the northwest of Athens, six ... tadia (a little over a
mile) away, beyond the Dipylon Gate, while the Lyceum
hlY 10 lhe cast of Athens near the eity wall by the Gate of
Diochares, where there were springs with wonderful
drinking water. And quite close to the Lyceum another of
Plato's students, the cynic Antisthenes, founded his own
school, the Cynosarges, also with a gymnasium andperipat .
The road to the Academy passed through Ceramicus,
where funerary stclae were erected to famous Athenians.
The Lyccum was situated near the road to Marathon, famous from the Greco-Pe rsian war. From the Academy
o~e could sce the hills and ol ive groves of Colon us, the
birthplace of Sophodes. From the gardens of the Lyceum
th ere was a view of Mount Lycabellus,linked with the god
Apollo. The site of the Academy was Plato's private
propcrty. But lhe Lyceum, founded in 335 BC was not
legally Aristotle's right up to his death.
'
From the momen t it was formed Plato's Academy can
be called a school. One can refer to the Lyceum as a phil?sophical scho?1 in the proper sense of the word not start109 In 335 BC, If onc is to be precise but only from 322 BC
w.he~ Aristotle died and the head of the school, his closest
dIsciple ThcophraslUs, a lawful Athenian ciLizen finally
became the ow.ne r of the Lyceum. Plato spent all his life in
.A:thens, returmn~ from h.is trips to Sicily to his own home,
h~: Aca~emy. A~lstotle dId not live all that long in Athens,
\\, as always consIdered an alien and his life was noL very
serene.
'
Ar.istotle worked indefatigably in his Lyceum In the
IS
80
1",11
Ihroll'h the appCJrance of new features alien to
l
1$n1.
"'
.
I'latn's philosophy
and through the retent~l)n
an d even f ur-
82
\
I
.
the dilY he dicd..
As wc saw earlier. Aristotle appeared althc Academy
in 367/6 BC. Is it of no significance that the Academy had
arisen in approximately 387 BC, at lea~t twenty years be
fore Aristotle entercd it and met the sooy-year-old Plato,
already wise with experience? Can it be that the brilliant
Plato had not gone through a certain cou~se of development up to that time and thatlhc young Anstotle, who was
also to bc a philosophcr of genius, did not find the Academy at a definite historical period of its existence, at a definite stage in its spiritual development?
By then Plato had already produced his main. philosophico-mythological works. He had already wnltcn the
Plwctims, SymposiullI, Plwcdo and Republic. Moreover, a
shift had hecomc evident in Plato's approach from mythophilosophic and artistic constructions toward much more
theoretical, often ahstractly dialectic and systemalic:llly
complete structures. The dialogue 77teaetecus, written
around 369 BC, or ahout two years before Aristotle's .enrollmcnt in the Academy. can be seen as such a tu rlllngpoint.
Of cOllfse admiration of Plato's earlier works never
faded at the Academy nor, onc can say, in all of ancient
philosophy up to the last centuries of its existence. Nonetheless at the Academy Aristotle not only cncountered
philosophico-rcligious and mytho-artistic problems but
also the actual tcachings on the dialectic of concepts.
For already in the Tllcoetcllls purely gnoseologicai i~ues
(i.e., relating to thc theory of k?owledgc) w~re. raised
and grnpplcd with, tasks essential to estabhshmg the
logic of cognition.
.
.
771('llCic/llS is grounded on the asserlton of .the .eontmuous Ouctuation of all that exists; and the quesllon IS posed:
Ci.tO the philosopher remain within the limits of uninte~
/
rupted and chaotic Ouidilr? It appears. that human tfO&,nltion is possible only provided that the~tab.le~.I~~a$l.eXlst,
through the help of which onc can comprehend nUld re-
83
Eudoxus of Cnid os
84
85
86
rClur~
c~aotic
87
be-
h.'
88
89
90
hwe
read thal "what is long estahhshed seems akin 10 w at
. hy..
n'Irc ..' what appears 10 have becn always what
eXists
91
92
93
stance, .he speaks a,l I~ngth. of ~hc need to ,study not only
the subjects of onc S investigation, but (hcu opposites as
~cll (I, 14). This ':leans that onc should examine the opimons of former philosophers who do nol concur with each
other, i.e., truth is reached no longer through shared opi.
I, 3).
,sc"
i f
the highest virtue; and Ihis will he tha! of the heM thing'
In
I . c Ise that is this c1e.
us. Whether it be reason or somclllng
ment which is thought to be our naturill ruler and guid
and to take Ih~u.gh( of things noble an? ,divine, whether i~
be itself also dIVine or only the most dlYmc clement in Us
the activity of this in accordance with its proper virtue \Viii
be perfect happiness."
94
Aristotle's Positive Teaching on the Identicalness of Reason, Happiness and Pleasure. Not onc of these views he
presents suits Aristotle. The supre~e go~d and s~preme
reason for him are not some dead Immobile rock In comparison with which only sense experiences could afford
pleasure. No, the abstract constructions of reason have
their own attraction; and the more profound, the more detailed the work of reason, the more onc attains the good
and the sweeter, the more blissful is this good. Therefore
the contemplative experiencing of all these reasonable and
rational forms offers hope for their o\'erall scrutiny, and
the entire practice of detailed scientific analysis of an object does not exclude a contemplative attitude to it but, on
the contrary, pure contemplation is precisely the blissful
inclusion of all details, now bereft of all agitation and fuss.
.
Hence in another part of the Nicomacheoll Ethics Anstot le arrives at this remarkable conclusion: "And we think
happiness has pleasure mingled with it, but the activi~y of
philosophic wisdom is admittedly the. plca~a~test of virtuous activities; at all events the purSUit of It IS thought to
offer pleasures marvellous for their purity and their endu.ringness, and it is to be expected that those who k?ow :"'I~!
pass their time marc pleasan~ly than those who mq.Ulre
(X, 7). This is quite natural, smce knowledge of ~.he Ideas
is beautiful. It is no wonder that Anstotle wntes: The a~
parent good is the object of appet:,te, and the real good IS
the primary object of rational WIsh (MetaphysIcs XII, 7).
95
perishablc plants an? ani~als .we have abundant inlOrmation, living as we do an thclr mld~t, and ample data may be
collected concerning all their various kind~, if only wc arc
willing to take sufficient pains. Both department!;, however, have their special charm. The scanty conceptions to
which we can attain of celestial things give us, from their
excellence, more pleasure than all our knowledge of the
world in which we live: just as a half glimpse of persons
that we love is more delightful than a leisurely view of
other things, whatever their number and dimensions. On
the other hand, in certitude and in complcteness our
knowledge of terrestrial things has the advantage. Moreover, their greater nearness and affinity to us balances
somewhat the loftier interest of the heavenly things that
arc the objects of the higher philosophy" (I, 5),
a~d
co~plete. and (he first thing is not seed but Ih pnor and
96
n11S.
97
98
either. "The poet had in mind here only the horror evoked
by the Gorgon, ~hich was conveyed to those gazing upon
the goddess' aegls (fragment 153).
.
.
Further on Aristotle takes u~ th~ questIOn of why. ~lax
told the Trojan Hector of AC~llles wrath and unwil~g:
ocSS to join in baUle, thus openmg the way for the Trojans
nslaugbt. After all there was no need for sueh slep, and
~sides a reasonable man should not inform. his cn~mi~s
of his side's calamities. Arisl~tle unt~ngl~s this seemmg.1llogicality: Ajax had to proclrum Achilles wrath, olheTWIse
Hector would have thought that Achilles did not enter t~e
fr<iY out of cowardicej but Hector had to know that Achilles and the other Achaeans were stronger than he (fragment157) .
"And the tall spears are planted by their sides," says
Homer (Iliad Ill, 135). But it is bad to thrust spear-shafts
into the ground; and if onc of the spears thus plan~ed
should fall down at night it would make a lot. of nOIse.
Aristotle explains this seemingly strang~ expression as follows: in his poetry Homer always d~plct:d what was the
practice in his day, and in those ancient tu~es the Greeks
did as the Barbarians still do; many Barbanans thus plant
their spears (fragment 160).
. '
""Therewith the goddess spread a table With ambrosla
and set it by him, and mixed the ruddy nectar," says
Homer of 'he nymph Calypso (Odyssq V, 90): If ,he gods
drink nothing but nectar, why. did .Ca~ypso gwe some to
H e rmes " mixed"? For if she miXed It With water, then they
drink water as well as nectar. Aristotle resolves the c?nfusion in this way: the word.tra!,sla~ed as "m~: (cer~sal) ~n
mean either "10 mix one liqUId Wlth anothe.f or Slm~ly to
pour". for the word has both th~,s~ ~eamngs; and iD the
phrase "mixed the ruddy nectar It iD fact means not to
mix but merely to pour (fragment 170).
..'
Sometimes A ristotle gets too bogged down iD ~Ist~r~cal
fact s and their diversity even begins to hinder ~IS cnllcal
judgment, as one can ascertain from his ~ppralsal of the
Pythagoreans. In his account he tells of miraculous occurre nCCS in the life of Pythagoras, for example, how a god
greeted pythagoras by na~e. (frag~ent. 191), and relays
the ancient division of all hvtng bctngs mto gods, people
and creatures like Pythagoras (fragment 192). On the
99
are
as,
fights !n which they kill ea~hagamst, ea~h other and get in I:
~o~etJmes they even bauledot~e[hr, AT/stotie also said that
elence and n [ . '"
WI
eagles Ih
h >
Ih I
0 lnUlatmg the figh
"oug In selfI
t. Aelian g
a swans are co
he has not h
mmonly famed for their . ?Cs on 10 say
body h b card them sing and rh ' k Singing, although
10 s that perh'
as ul that eve
and that their song is
faith that
aUllful and mellifluous
p7r~~CeUI:~ye~ o~
100
~t;y ~o~
>
>
101
>
\.
Aristotle's Letters
. Interested in the most diverse sciences, the natural
sCiences no less than the humanities, as well as different
t~es Of. art fr om both i~eologica l and formal points of
VIew, Afl stotle was also directly engaged in literature himsel f, particularly poetry. A t the beginning of this book wc
already had occasion to say th at AriSlotle was far from
pursuing only abst ract constructs and that he was also the
author of a nu mber of poetic works. Some letters known
as A ristotle's in antiq ui ty, have also Come dow~ to us'
from them wc can assess his epistolary skill. At that tim;
the art of le~te r-wri t ing was valued no less than the art of
el.oquence, smce a letter was the same sort of conversation
wltb another, and revea led the personality, frame of mind
and thoughts of those who were exchangi ng epistles.
~~Ology,
102
I
I
103
A Le/ler 10 Afexolldcr,
}ou~~e~
sev~r~1
nOlabl~
arc striking rlrst of all for thcir noble scntiments and atmpt to defend the oppressed and appcalto thc humanc
~e clings of the Macedonian potentates. We shall dCfoCribe
c e of them. Although somc doubt its authenticity, it is in~~cativc that a letter of the kind should havc been linked
,,/th Aristotle's name. The letter states that many sagcs
h~ve proved that doing good gives onc access to.t~e lot. of
godS, because the life. o~ huma~s rests. on .r~ceIVlng gifts
and giving them, C?~slstmg as It does m .&I.Vlng away, .receiving and again &lVI.ng ~ortb. :berefore It IS rlne .a~d lust
to shoW pity-for Pity IS a Sign of. a meek Splflt, and
cruelty, of an ill-bred one-and ~eheve an who arc u~
descrvcdly unfortunate, and espeCially good people; [or It
is disgraceful and cruel to scorn virtue stricken by misfortune. Hence Aristotle approves of Theophrastus when he
says that showing pity never leads to repentance. He tells
Alcxander to try to be prompt to do good and slow to
anger, for the former is .regal and ~erciful! while the lattcr
is repulsive and befittmg B~bafla?s. Fm~lIy. h~ urges
Alexander to do as he thinks right WIthout dlsdalntng useful advice.
.
It would be hard to imagine a letter by a great philOSopher distinguished by a loftier content and more pronounced humane feelings.
A Letter to 11leopllroslUS. In this conne~tion it is expedient to mention onc other letter from Aristotle addressed
to his student Theophrastus and marke? ?y t?e ~ame lofty
temper. In it Aristotle says that sudden mjUSIl~e IS unquestionably better than injustic~ of 10~g duratiOn; for the
memory of it and the harm It occaSiOns last .0~ly .a short
time while long-standing and deeply-rooted Inj.usltce creates' eternal halred; and reconciliation often foHows tbe
.. former aner one kind word, whereas wc can rmd nO way
out of the latter even after much a~itation. and t~rment.
Therefore one should not behave unjustly W1th onc s associates in the first place-there ar.e no reason~ble grounds
for doing so-but if it is impoSSIble to abstam.. after one
has unwillingly acted unfairly, onc should rapidly put an
cnd to the hatred. After all it is beyond human power to
lOS
104
also full of a multitude of different fact s reflecting the con fused even ts of the tim e, For example, everyone usually
knows that Aristotle asked King Phi lip to restore his native town of Slagira, which was located near the city of
Olynthus he had destroyed, The king was not at all averse
to granti ng Aristotle's req uest. But there were spies and
informers about who got Philip not to reslore Olynt hus
and to leave Stagira in ruins. Aristotle was criti ca l-m ind ed
enough 10 see through these kinds of intrigu es, but he
cou ld do nothing to aid his native town , This is what the
late writer Dio Chrysoslom has to say on the subject: "And
I us~d to envy, Aristotle at times because, being a native of
Staglra - Stagt~a was a village in th e territory of Olyn thus- and haVIng become the teacher of Alexander and an
106
107
educa ted person. He almOSI nevcr uses new, unprecedented or complicaled terminology, although he is literally e namored of the most suhtle theoretical discourses
and Ihe inexorable logic of thought. He is somclimes very
difficull to read and requires conce nlrated atlcntion,
Bul at the same time Aristotle unexpecled ly emerges as
a true arlist of the word, Cicero, for onc, remarked on the
obscurity of his language. Bul also none understood better
than Cicero Ihe profundit y of Aristotle's a rtistic devices
when he spoke of his golden flow of eloq ue nce and the unbelievable sweetness a nd richness of his la nguage, as well
as the "ornate style" of Pl ato, Aristotle and T heophraslus
(Ow or XIX, 62).
Reading Aristotle, one senses that he is speaking to a
whole audilorium, trying to explain every detail a nd by no
means pronouncing calegorical judgme nts. H is speech is
filled with all kinds of supposit ions, conjectures, of searching aft er what is nol unde rslood, establishing the prob
ability of Ihis or thal argument , of repetitions of what he
has already said and of elucidations.
The cont enl of Aristotle's lette rs is quile helerogeneous, almost always noble, a nd attests to his courage and
lofl y human sentimenls. Indicalions of all kinds of inIrigues and squabbling surrounding the philosopher are
also not lacking in his letters. But if we sai d previously th at
Aristotle is the oUlslanding encyclopedist of the ancient
world, this judgme nt applies not only to his theoret ical
ph ilosophy, but also to his everyday inte rests, refers to his
cheerful and courageous altitude to surrounding reality.
Aristotle loved pure thinking in all it s most abstract constructions. But he also loved life, loved playing a big role in
it and by nature happily combined theoretical purposefulness and a very active political spirit. But this is where
A ~istotle co!lided with. the tragedy of life and ended up
bemg vanqUIshed despIte all his phil osophical wisdom and
his everyday practicality. We shall see as muc h whe n wc
turn to the great philosopher's last years.
N OT E S
lOB
h~ns)
le~dle ~Ives,
protectors of
~U:::he7:~od~
"'r
\
I
VI
Aristotle'S Lasl Years
110
and when she hau got ht'r there, skw her, togethcr with
her sister, threw their /lodic!'; intn the wdl. and filkd the
, ..dl ";th earth" (ibid .. 77. p . ..f.H).
.
After such goings.on. ho~. (:ould Amtollt:,. a Greek
through and through and tradlllonal oppllne.nt 01 anY.kind
of barbarity, havc regarded Alcxander? AmJlmgly
enough, despite such hcha,jor t~n Alt.:xander's part the relationship between him a~d ArIStotle, though 1.1 may have
dimmed somewhat. remain ed fundamentally Intact. The
Iwo great men still conlinu~d 10 com'!lunicate: Even an
episode that was frankly painful to AnslOtle did n,)t destroy their friendship.
The Killing ofCallisthenes
so that all who were prc.~cnt not nnl~ appLtm.kt!. hut threw
their \\<Tealhs at him, the king then ordaed him (0 Uller a
speech against the \1accdoniitns. And C..Jli..,thc:nc:s pronounced it with such ardnr that Alexander kit him 10 he
his most dangerous cnemy. He said thal Callisthc:nes had
shown nol so much the force of his cloquem.:e as the fon.c
of his hatred for Macedonians. Alexander's malevolent
feelings intcnsified slill furl her hecausc on leaving the
fcast Callisthencs scveral times repealed on his account
Homer's famous phrase, "Palroklos too is dead, who was
better far than Ihou" (Iliad XXI, 107), an allusion 10 the
fact thal Alexander, lOO, was mortal If better heroes than
he had died.
On learning of this sort of bchavior, Aristotle said Ihal
Callisthenes was a fine orator, but a foolish man. Not only
did Callisthcncs refusc 10 fall face downward in front of
the king as was the custom in the East, he even tried to
comince him 10 renounce such homagc. Once at a banquct when all Alexander's retainers fell face downward
before him and then went up to kiss him, Callisthenes direclly wenl up to kiss the king, who angrily turned away.
Such actions aroused Ihe halred not only of the king bUI
also of many of his attendants, who slanderously began lo
accuse Calhsthcnes of inciting the youth against the king.
Therefore when a plot of young Macedonians against
AlcxJ?der was disclosed in 327 BC, and when none of the
conspirators, even undcr frightful torture, named Call isthene~ as a participant in or organizer of the plot, Alexander did not yet execute the philosopher, but already announced that he would punish not only Callisthencs but
also those who had sent him to him and those who received conspirators against the king in their cities. In his
threats Alexand~r was undoubtedly alluding lo Aristotle.
Th~re were varymg reports of Callisthcnes' death (in the
sJ.JfIng of 327 BC). Some said that Alcxander had ordered
him to ~ h~ngcd, others, that he had died after suffering
greatly m pnson for seven months.
. It goes without saying that Callislhenes' fale could not
fall to dampen the friendly relations between Aristotle and
Alexander.
,
,
I\
116
117
120
have been more notahle for these qu.alities than Europe ;1'1
rep resented .hy ancie~t Greece, which early (~n nc~a~ t:'
manifest qUite definite germs of democrallc thmklfl)!.
which blossomed forth in Athens.
But what is trul y induhitable i... the Greeks' ~rt.:at courage and spirit an~ at the same time enormou~ propensity
ror the arts and SCie nces.
Aristotle was quite ramiliar ""ilh the history of Greece
and was a very int elligent socio-historical observe r in
general. The combination of strength and beauty in Lh <:
popular ethos of Greece could not rail to strike him. And
he could speak loudly and openly of this ama:ling unity ,
backing himself with thousands of well-known facts.
Finally, the extent to which the political unity of the
Greek people had been weakened by rragmentation did
not escape Aristotle. Each city in Greece. even small ones,
claimed independent and entirely sepa rate statehood .
Ancient Greece was not onc big state. Only the polis could
be a staLe, a city in which everyone knew eve ryone c1~c.
saw what anyone else was doing, where any undertaking
was discussed and carried out jointly on the spot. The passage from Aristotle's Politics quoted above indicates that
such a fragmented cou ntry can nou rish only under a se rious and intelligent leader.
121
I-,vc 11 ill 11 j" 011 I im(~ I he pi <tU Ice !lf hero~\\ rship was
;I!--I) qllllC lkvc1I)PC4! 10 {,rccu,;:. An 0utstlndins person
122
123
W.I'5
125
strong pOIson.
The orator lI yperides, a student of Plato and Isoc rates,
wa s close to Demosthc m:s in his political \~ews and shared
a similM fate. lie spoke out ag.ainst Macedonia after
Philip's death and miraculously escaped being turned over
to hi~ enl'l1lit:~. After Alexandcr's death, he, like other
127
anli_ j\l accdon ian G reeks. tnnk p;lrt in thL' ~tru~k to free
G reece. Th is struggle. as wc know, prow:J um,uLt:es~ful: in
Th cssa lv at (he hattle of La mi;l in 3::!2 BC the Grccks Wcre
rout cd bv the sc\,cnty-c ight-ycar-nlo An(ipater, who had
bccn a g~ n c ra l alrca dy un de r Ph ilip and h'lo thcn served
Alcxa nde r. Aftc r the defeat Hypcr ides fled to (he island of
Acgin a, where he hid in the tcmple of Aec us, dedicated to
the hero Ajax. along with Ariston icus and H imeraeus, his
co mpanions in th e struggle. All three we re seized and exec ut ed by ord er of Antipat er.
Even Acschin cs, the long- time defender of Macedoni ~Jn hege mony, did not fare we ll either: after his fail ure in
the trial of Demosthenes in 336 BC, he withdrew fr om political life and went into vol untary exile on th e island of
Rh odes, wh ere he died in obscurit y.
O ne ca n well im agine the di fficult and tangled situation
Aristotle found him self in after his arrival in Athens from
j\lacc donia in 335 BC. As we have seen, his d e parture
fro m the Academy for the no rth had already been hard to
expla in as motivated merely by phil osophical considerat ions or the death o f Plato. Philip's destru ctio n ofStagira
in 3-19 BC and of O lynth us in 3-l8 BC was a pparently of
much greater significance. It would have been quite da ngero us at that poi nt for somebody close to the Macedonia ns to remain in G reece and make himself out to be a
G rce k patriot. It was bette r to leave, as Aristotle in fact
d id, head ing north in 347 BC with the hope o f influencing
th e Ma ced onian government.
In Ma cedonia Aristotle became the kings' intim ate adviso r and th e defend er of his beloved Greece . He was un do ubtedly close to Philip and stili had eno ugh weight with
Al exand er to innuence him in his treatm ent of Greece. It
is at hi s in sistence that Ol ynthus and Stagira were resto red , and at his request aft er the battle of Chaero nea in
338 BC that Philip spared Athe ns, altho ugh many othe r
G ree k cities were razed to th e gro und. In 335 BC Aristotle
ca me to Athe ns not for the sak e o f a ple asant trip to the
land of~hil oso ph ers and poets, but undo ubtedly fo r serio us po htl cal purposes. Some contempo rary historian s said
o ~t"ght that he had come to Ath ens as a person invested
With Al exander'S and Antipater's political trust and secretly acting in th e interest of Macedo nia.
128
lilude to Ari~lOlk. On lhe onc h.tnd, a medieval Arab biog.raphy of Ari~lotlc reports ahout a de~ree o~ the ~thenian
popular assemhly to erec~ a c.()I~mn 10 An~lo~1c 5 honor
with a highly respectful IOscnpllOn where Anstotle wa,c;
proclaimed almost the savior of Athen.c;. On the other
hand, the dycd-in-thc-woo~ Greek. patriots, alw~ys overflowing with anli-Macedoman ~e~ltment, s~w ~nstotle as
an enemy and found liule to rejoice ~~out m his. return to
Athens, which they viewed ~s hYJ>O.Cntl~l. ~ut smcc o~n
conflict with Aristotle was Imposslb~e m View o~ gr?wmg
Macedonian power, a trial against him could be tnsutule~
only after Alexander's death i~ ?23 BC, and e~e~ so this
trial was conceived not as a political but as a rehglous onc.
The priest Eurymedon, according to Diogenes Laer~ius
(V, 5-7), accused Aristotle of impiety, as a result of which,
as we shall sce, Aristotle was forced ~o flee f:o~ Athens to
Euboea.s It is clear that the underlymg motIvation for the
charge was not so much a religious as a political onc.
There was no impiety on Aristotle's part. It was only an excuse lO seule accounts with a prominent Macedonian sympathizer with the help of a~cusations that wo.uld sound sufficiently weighty for the uninformed populauon.
It seems lO us that one can see clear in all this mess only
in the following way. On account of his poli.tical sympathies Aristotl e was an alien in the Greek envlTonment: The
Greek p atriots nat urally perceived him as a secret If not
open enemy, with whom they had to square ace~unts. On
the ot her hand, Aristotle was \ink~d to Macedoma only by
place of birth . H e was so firmly linked to Greek culture,
knew and loved G reece, its past and present, so much, that
he could in no way h ave been its enemy or a secret ~g~nt
and spy for its enemies. A ri stot le dreamed only of umfymg
fragmented and weakened Gree~e into onc mighty ~nd
united nation, and it seemed 10 him that the Macedoman
rulers could furt he r this cnd.
Yet after witnessing cou nt less bloody ~oings ~l. the Macedonian court and the crim inally aggressive pohllC:S of the
Macedonian kings toward G rcece, knowing of.thelT preparations for conquering the Orient and op~oslOg A~e.xan
der's pClsian campaigns, Aristotle tur ned toto a cnllC of
Macedonian autocracy and in fact p roved much more of
129
130
addressed to Apollo.
This was all the morc true of Aristotle's other pocms
ho no ring Hermeias, his accusers assert~d. Diogen~s Laer
tiu s also cites this hymn commemoratmg the slam ruler:
"0 virtue toilsorne for the generation of mortals to
ach ievc the fairest pri'lc that life can \\;n, for thy beauty,
virgi~, it were a doom glorious in Hellas even to die and
to e ndure fi e rce, untiring labOTs. Such courage dost thou
implant in the rnind , imperishable, better than gold, dearer
than parent s or soft-eyed sleep. For thy sake H~racles, son
o f Zeus and th e so ns o f Lcda endured much m the tasks
whereb; th ey pursue d thy might. And yearning after thec
ca me Achilles and Ajax to the house of Hades, and for the
sakc of thy dear fo rm thc nursling of Atarneus ~oo was bc
131
(0
Or
132
133
mc n(al or E USl3lhiu5 MacrcmblllilCS and thl' Italian hu manist o f Ihe fo urtee nth and fiflccnlh lTnluril' S Lconiln..l ~l
Arc lino. Consequently, th e {alc [X-'TsistL'lJ righl up 10 Ihe
Re naissance.
We won't go after historica l effects. BUI theTl' evide nt ly
was something enigmilt ic ahoul Arislol lc's ck ..Hh. And
wh ether he drank some aconite as a medicine 10 relieve
slomach pains (for Aristotle had a stomach ailment) or
whet her he took a large dose to sc ulc his account!'. with
life, the secret will always re main sca led.
Diogenes Lacerius is conside red by ma ny to be a rather
authoritative source for knowledge about the a ncient phi).
osoph crs. But he evide ntly vacill ates on the q uestion of
Aristotle's suicide, referring himse lf to the historian
E umcl us, according to whom the sui cide supposedly took
pla ce. He does not mention the third -ce ntury BC Aristoteli an He rmippus, who as fa r as wc can judge fr om surviving
reports, liked to discuss philosophe rs' suicid es wh ile
ga th ering fa cts for their biogra ph ies. It may be that
D ioge nes Laertius borrowed his ve rdict on Aristotle's
suicide from this He rmippus, although in this insta nce he
says nothing about him.
O nc can neverthe less affirm, it seems, tha t many more
hi storia ns wrote of Aristotle's natural death tha n disputed
it. Very im port ant a nd a uthoritative a ncient so urces speak
de finit ely of Aristotle's na tural death: Apo llod orus, a historian, rhetorician and grammarian of the second century
BC (incidentally, Di ogenes Laertius also refers to him in
counterpoise to his basic view), Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a rhetorician and historian of the first century BC, a nd
Censorinus, a grammarian of the third century AD.
Various doubts and conjectures concerning both Alexander's poisoning and Aristotle's suicide are possible in
view of the contradictoriness of the sources. Yet in reviewing. th e philosopher's last years we see that there were very
sohd grounds for Alexander's poisoning by Aristotle and
Aristotle's own suicide, although these two events rem ain
on the level of hypotheses.
H must not be forgonen that Aristotle 's philosophy was
to a high degree one of action and courage. No t witho ut
reason did Ari~totle himself declare: "If you take away
from a hvmg belflg action, and still more production, wh a t
134
rn
Aristotle's Wil l
We have yet to discuss Aristotle's testa~c~t. in whi~h
he expresses his last will. The text of It IS found. In
Diogenes Lae rtius (V, 11-16). Scholars who have studied
it drawing on various other sour~s, gen~ rall.y concl~de
that in this case Diogenes Laerttus' verSion IS pl ausible
enough and corresponds to Aristotle's life principles. The
will is brief and businesslike. It is supposed that othe r versions which have not been p reserved were more detailed .
T he first thing that strikes the eye is that Aristotle
named Antipater as his main executor. Whatev~r ~ne ~~y
say of Aristotle's moods in the last days of hiS hfe, It IS
clear that pro-Macedonia n sentime nts to some degree or
othe r still fli ckered in the heart of onc who had once bee n
close to the Macedonia n kings, both fathe r and son. True,
A nlipate r as Alexander's vicc~oy and successor in Greece
was loo highly placed for Artstotl e to be able to entr~st
him directly with executing his will. The refore ,he desl~
nated a few more pe rsons who we rc to .see to It that h~s
last will was carried o ut. At the same time he made hiS
135
136
.
. of Aristotle one gets from .this
The overall Imprc~StOn not only sensible and praeltcal,
will is of a man who ~~sd and eager for peaceable and
but also very noblc, m
I all this at a time when
friendly rclati?DS tmo~~sht;Pa~bitious, cruel pas~ion~
political, natlOna.' se onetheless he invariably bcliev~
seethed arou?d him. N d' . the highest degree a pnn
that "in all things the gOOd ;s IDd. "the world refuses to he
. lc'" and it is he who ce arc .
c.p
' d b adiy" (Metaphysics XII, 10).
govcrnc
NOT E S
VII
Aristotle's Philosophy
~ommentators ~nd
a~quired
han~~qUf~~ly
~ho SO:~li~~~nt~,:~~~e~~;
~:~~~~I~~s~~~ltya~~shisnto ~t~nsideration
1. 11 (hings really erist thell tI'd
co~~:~
if'
.t
tlrely by Aristotle. If onc un~ ,was adop.ted almost cnerstands thiS category in
Plato, onc will also basicall
cir1c of Aristotle's own hI co~prehend the main prinnew interpretation.
P IOSOp y, although he gave it a
Each thing, according to Plat dn
.
from any other thing, th
f
. 0, I crs In some way
essential
a d er~ ore It. possesses a number of
the . n. U e t OI '"ly of all these essenli.al
.
I IS nothmg other th
h d
thing. Indeed denying t h '
an t e I ea of
,
e cXlstence of the idea of a
139
138
evoked: let us nOI forget thallhey were all mack two and
half Ihousand years ago.
140
,
Jitillllic and varidy of things. The poetie raptures of
mte nH I I. I sunt. the remote nthefWorlJly realm of the
rlaw, w \0 htl no
.
I 'nAris.
'f I . le'IS were ahen to the ~nher y reason! g
.
hea~\I;u/~hi.~~ Ari!.tnllc would put up with dealing W1~h
totlc.
..d philosopher-poet he could not tolerate to
the e ntrance
. 11
d con
f his pupils who began ,-ystematlca y an
it
, .
1 t'on with re
thomcd.
Nevertheless AristotehaOlsm was a rev? U I
ard to Plat onism which recognized the eXlste.nce of a sep
garate heaven Iy w
Id o
of idr
eas
Aristotle admitted that
. d the
h
idea 'of the thing could be anywhere, e~en OUtS1 e ~ e
thing. However, whatever function s of the I?ca of the thlO~
. volved the most important for Aristotle was pre
(
\~ere 10
,
f the idea within the thing itself, the
' - clsc1 the presence 0
h h'
'I If
" g of the idea of the thing within I c t mg I se ,
f unCl10mn
the two and
b
i.e., th e complete absence of any gap c tween
.
of
of an dualism. This thesis of the prese~ce. of th~ Idea
the tI;ing within the thing itself is the ~rmcIP~. ~tTe;e~~~
between Aristotclianism and PlatOOlsm.
I~OU A .
.
r hin else we arc going to say here a ut flS~~~I~S:i~~ :Ccon~c ~ncsided, not purely Aristotelian, and
simply incorrect.
141
of all, although Aristotle stresses the existence of particularized ideas, the ideas for him are something fundamen tally and necessarily general. The idea of Ihe thing, according to Aristotle, ne(:essarily is an aggregate and
universal of some kind.
I ndeed, any thing consists of its parts, whatever they
may be. If we understand each such part to be fully isolated from the other parts of the thing and from the thing
as a whole, it will be impossible to conceive what a part of
the thing is. The part will end up being a kind of independent thing without any relation to the whole to which it
belongs. In that case the whole would simply become fractioncd into a number of independent things and cease
being something integral. A part of a thing bears the entire
thing as a whole; and if there are several such parts in the
thing, then all of them express the integrity of the thing in
different ways. Wc can speak of some part of a house, for
example, of its individual rooms, hallways, living and auxiliary accommodations only if we know what a house is in
general. A part of a house that is not generalized as the
bearer, albeit only partial, of the idea of the house is in no
way a part of the house. Likewise all the parts of a house
arc generalized in the whole which wc call a house. A
house taken as a mechanical and chaotic collection of
parts is n~ hous~ at all., A .h?use always is this or that aggregate With whIch the mdlvldual parts of the house enter
into rclation and in light of which the parts of the house
thcmselves interrelate.
Thus a house as a kind of idea, or the eidos of a house
?Iw~~ necessa,rily is some general aggregate to which th~
mdlVldual parual elements of that house are subordinated
_A ristot le never tire~ of sayiTJgJh~!..!5cie[llific knowledge i~
p~s~ltile. only as s.pence of the general and universal. If
sC,lcnce st~dles only mu.tually isolatcd and tOlallyungcneraIJ7ed objects, there IS no science. Scientific thinking
142
5. The totality of (he thing necessarily exists in each indiv.iduol part ?f the thing, and exists ill a dIfferent way each
tlfll~; but tillS meat,s tha~ the totality of the thing comprises
ol/lfs separote parts alld ,s therefore tlte integrity of the thing.
?e
whole.
Thus, wherever we turn , there are always agg~cgates,
there are always particulars and th~re ~re always tntegral
wholes. In other words, all that eXIsts IS defined, shaped
and knowable only because it is an eidos or at least contains its eidos within itself.
6. TIle tenus "idea ", "eidos ", ''jonll'', a~,d <ltlli~g". ll. is
proper to note hcre that the Greek word eldos whl~h Anstotle uscs is traditionally translated by th~ Latm wor~
fonn . There is some sense in such a translation because It
But the maller goes far beyond this train of reasoning. The
144
I..
145
Ill-Ill});
Irans~aled
Ih~;
Orgallisl~
w~ys
c?~e
al~
ter~nologi
146
147
each indi\idualliving creature, and each individual historical ~ra, and fi~ally the v.:holc univc.rs~ in its entirety is such
an mtegral th,~g 10, Anstotle: This IS not simply a sense
l~at the .w?~ld IS, 3mmatc, whl~h humans have always had
since pnmltlVe times. The entire mythology and after all
t~e entire poetry,of the .ancie~ts is ~o~nded in
anima~
l~on of all that CXlstS. Wlt~ ATlslotl~ It IS not simply a question of nature and l~C uOlv~rse being animate, but a carefully thought-out philosophIcal theory in which what is im _
portant is nol the animation of the universe which nobod
"""
, y
dbtd
?u. C. 10 antiqUity,. but the logical structure requisite to
dlstm~~Jsh a mechamsm from an organism and extend this
orgaDlclly to the entire cosmos.
the
tr
....... -,"",.lce
148
~
or"~~
benc~
~idn'l d~ b~d
:~ d~ct ~o
ei~~e~
Philos~;~~r~
..
c ecm It necessary to d 11
will be most helpful 'n 5 wc, on onc morc aspect, which
i:~~;~fio~i~~iSlotlc'S
philosophy
mcaning and hc
lOS, I.C., a~y rcallzatlon outside
possiblc. Thc eidOSn~~n ~vcn ~can~n~lcss ~calization, is
mattcr will thcn bccom c rcah?-e~ In Its cntlrety - and the
But thc eidos can
c a p~lnelple <;,f ,?aterial beauty.
tially, contradietor~;~n~c realize? ~ot In Its entirety, parter will then becom
. ev~n miSS ape~ly-and the matintegral reali7..ation ~~ ~~I~clple o f ~aten~l deformity. The
mos which is both
ti e world !deas IS a beautiful cosutter y mate nal, for we perceive it
ISO
hon
~f the thmg.
a.nythmg ~t all. But the form of a thing is not yet its m~1~:e
since a thmg can also
motion at re s.
t SI
.be without
I
Irnl arly'
. Ifle IS
.'
. f at. h mg IS aso not yet the thmgltsc
the .m a t, ero
not Its mOtion, smee
wc imagine
matter pr,m1
" ,"
'
an y spatially
c fmm
0 f a thmg.
can
' "m It-.
ThIf'
.
' be In motion ' b ut conceIVed
~c It I~ not yet, motion, Just as the matter of a thin can
motion hut IS not mol ion itself. Motion is a :ite be
Cl fie category ,:hich cannot be reduced to anyq
must be rccognl7..cd as such ,ono
a par
with
f
t
r
m
an dmatler.
I~
othe:~
as:
e~use
construet"~
~hfn;o:~. ~nd study the question of becoming and' p:~.
g burned before there can be a prohc'f~re t~~~~ b:arnnc~, and something capable of burning
VIII, 1).
c a process of burning" (Physics
cess of b .
Thus,
la ATi Stoll c, motion
. .IS as fundamental
a cat
ego according
y
r as malleT and form M
cumstanccs come' t
I
: oreovcT! two other cirnumber of
.
In 0 P ay. First, there IS an unlimited
vanous lypes of
1" . d
.
ani as
T1S
al c
appro~chcs
no~
lh/phil~s:a~~~~ls~~en(ls(,
bolll ~lso as a p~ilosopher. And
araelerl/ahon of mollon leads to ..
h
w h IC go far bey d h r
IS
understanding
f
.on I ~ ImllS of a natural-scientific
of (he ver
~ ~.ollono Anstolle addresses the question
already d~~~:t~li~ o~ the ~ate~ory of motion. Plato had
cent
to IS Issue In hiS day. But we shall conra~e on how Aristotle tackles the problem of the or,.;
o-n
of motion.
Sues
155
,
\
'
''
, '..~
,
..
,t
~)
......
'
,
,
'
'"iIlK'
, of mcowrc.
AI th
.. point
W. 771e t/oclnl/(,
.1
- . . we must . at
least brien y d isl.:u<;<; a general aesthetIC prmc.lple of antlquit ' which, although Ari!.tollc does nOI. set It forth ,S~~l~'
m1tica lly in o nc place, can hc sy~tematleally sum~am.c~
under onc head ing once onc has conside!cd .all Ar.,st~tle s
,
o n thc subjcet. It seems to us that If thIS tOpIC IS not
views
d I h
t
ry of mea s ure
presented 100 gcnc rally and ry y, t e ca ~o ' h
f
will p rove a neecssary eonsequen~ o f ~ ns~.tle S t ~or!t is
the fo ur principles of life and hemg Ju-~t . ISCus.S~ .
cosy '0 p rove th .. t for Aristotle measure IS ~ot .slmpl~ a
pnn, 'I e an d no ' s;mply a .qualitatIVe
q uantit ative p nnclp
'
11 as
ci le but first and foremost an eidetic pn.nelple~ as we .
a ~a~sal-pUrpos i\e principle, to say nothmg of Its maten-
h'rh
,57
'
156
'/
,
,.
.
.. . hut in the hnu. it~lf Thl'> mcan<; that the
lIon proce, 'I '", ')\Ion CII!Se OInd i\ not 8 caUM: at all. It
hnll~ 1"!lO Oil Y
,.
. hi,
' .'
, . irn What Cx;.H liy i.. an aim? Onc ml~ t say a 0
l\ltill'An.l,
., I
h' ofathlngl'i
un the .. uhjcl.:l. hut onc thlOg I.. C ca~, t e aIm
.,'
'I
"form nor iti malta, nnr Its cau<,c. The tum I'> a
n\:lt ler I ' i ,
1._
d
d I'
other
<; 'cific (illegory which C<lnnnt lie re uce ,0 any
,
,, ,
, ,'
\,
,"
,
\\
"
"
,.
...,-
,
,
',
, 'J
')
,/,
'.
"
'~
ISR
.,
1
,
,
,
.....
, ,.
,
Y,
, -
.' , ,
, ''
,,
"
l
, , ,
'\l
,
159
"
;,,
,
,\
"
"
,. - '
I '
I,
I ),I;.
I' .
,.
'.
,.
.I
. .,
., -
'. ,
\~
,
I
...
,,
\,
).
~,--
~,
. ,
sha
of whichatthwas
k Iv.ng
J'
and out
e ennel was made, but the kennel itself.
SO
ar~hned:e~
i~
160
,.
.'
, tl'
... I
--
,
\
\,
., .
,.'. ,
"
.,..
':l
.'.
.\.. -.\
yr-
'. I
...,
~\:\l
:"',
161
.
.,
,, (I, . . , r
,
) "Jt
..", ,-:;. ~
'-,
.'
0' _.'
.-
'
,
r'1 ,
j )1,1'-
-/ ..,.
"
.~
..
"
,"
1/
"
ff
\j
.
l'lle
.")....- ....,
.,
162
'.
,
11
......
~
,
I
,
,
Y.
,
/ \
, ,
"
.
, '\l
,
but simply \In the ('h lir .tnl! the~_forc ~hc "est~~lic.ity r"J1
the lhair i. . al ) 1 fM:: c.,. Ih:.lr; cl category. 1.1 IS IhlS a~.
"Iracti(," in his. lonSlruc.;t of Ih4 thlOg that AtlStotle ob~lt.
,-.r;lte5 hy hrin~in!phc o~iRln. an(llhc ~nd re'wlt ''If,the thing
. \0 it'\ con~tru("tlon . 1 he mtrodll.l..llon or the ,laller two
IDrinciplel make s Ih( Ihin~ both .JClually operallV(; ;1D~ e~
~dicntly directed. In ulher wMd'!. the latte~ two pn~cl.
pies Iran .. rfJml the Ihing illto Ihe pr.ocen or hfe, m~~e .t a
Ihing (Jl"J.:anbm, 01" a rc .. ult or ","Iu(;h the ~e~thetlcJt~ or
Ihe thing is utterly identical. If) it ... material ~rfechon .
Therefore a beautiful dj~h whICh we u~ for food pr~vcs ~o
!le ooth vcry bcautilul and very stu~dy; and a bc~u~,rul hat
which wc wear Occomes both a plCce of creative craf~s
manship and a durahle hcadpiecc made of good q.uallty
material, comfortaole 10 wear, and ~enerally, eqUipped
with all the features of optimum and qUite practical usdul-
wd
questions.
. . I AI lotle
It is important to note that the f?ur pnnclp es
IS
an be embodied in a thlDg In the mosl perfect
spea ks 0 r C
.
that is con
wa in which case they create an organISm
.str~~ted not only expediently. but well and evcn beautlfull too Thus the existence of a work of art.depends
u ~~ the'degrce of perfection in th.e integra.' umtr: of the
P pnnclp
' . , .cs. If the degree of thClr embodiment IS lackfour
,.
..
surc is insufficicnt or on the contrary exceSSl\e,
Ing In mc~. m "il he characterized by defectiveness, conthe orgaOls WI
.
r,
se uentl it will lack aestheticlty, beauty, .use u ness, exqcl
y , .. cl w',1l be an example of somethlOg bad, unsucpc lency a..
.
h d
1
f 1I 'xecuted ugly and inexpedient. All t e nersl y
cess, Y
,H;r1d is based on \arying cor~'ations or
ortlema,
. h'
,
.
.
rf
ide'l)
and
matter
10 1 elr causa -purposne
ell/os orlll,
U C,'""" ,
163
.,
.-,
,\
I
4
I i',
, I'
'd
C
C
I I 11 '" actuali/ation
of the Idea- orms, It IS eVl ent
WItIlOU
'
that they would not exist at all. Later '."e shall sce that even
the highest, supreme levels of cosmic development. have
thcir specific matter. The gods, in the eyes oft.he a~ctents,
must keep 111 mll1d that
1 material bodies; only one
~reasO
I
'
.
h
this matter was very fine and al -pervaSive, I.e., t ey were
ethereal bodies.
165
b) Nature as a work
0/ art
~ ..
"d
rf'
am. nCltucr tlm '
I "
crcnt, IOfinitc black hole f A ' c nor space arc
have their physiognomy alw s or n~t.otlc, but always
In
and always have some v~luc ays seethe WIth vital strivi ngs
theory of nature.
w~om
nature
I cas, an
a ove a~1 ~atter itself, arc aclive in Arislotle'~
naturc. T~eref~re It IS much closcr to the truth to speak
nol of An~lOtle ~ te.l~ology but of his aesthetic philosophy
of na~~re, I.e., hiS \%Ion of na.ture as an integral organism
creatl\7ly constr~ct cd accordmg 10 his four principles. It
goes '.'-'I.thout saying that as a result, the entire cosmos is
aesthellcally shaped for Aristotle.
. Let us new ascend o nc step higher in the hierarchy of
eXIstence.
c) The 50.111 is IIo~"illg otller Ihall the pn'f1ciple of a filling
body. After I~orgamc a.nd or~an i c nature we pass on 10 the
realm of am mate b~lOgs, mcluding the whole human
worl.d. Here, too, Anstotle's four principles of structure
arc lO the foreground .. W?at is specific to Ihis level is the
sphere of the soul, w~lch IS also understood quite diversely, from the propagatIon and growth of living beings to Ih
presence in them of a highly developed psychology. Let e
n?t. be
that Aristotle views the soul as an
n\Zln~ diJectlOg and even commanding principle. For th
50ulls also a s"TI of eidos. Only it is not eidos in gcner
hut' substance in the scnse of the form leidosJ of a
s~rpri~ed
org~~
~
nat~~
t66
ral body having life potential within it" (On the Soul 11, I).
In (lther word,;, according to Aristotle, the soul is simply
the life of the body, only understood in a particular sense.
Aristotle's analytical and more minutely articulated manner of expression lead!> him to speak not merely of life, but
of "life potentials", and not merely of "life potentials". but
of thl; "physical possibilities" of life as well. This is why for
Aristotle, as for many ancient philosophers, the soul gOY'
erns the body. If one does not take this nolion too literally
and 100 absolutely, since often it is not the soul that governs the body bUlthe body the soul, but if one understands
it eidetically, in the sense, for instance, that the multiplica
tion table "governs" all our quantitative computations,
then Aristotle's definition of the soul is quite comprehensible. The soul's governance of the body is not logical or
mechanical or ethical but vitally creative or, we would say,
aesthetic. According to how the body of an animal behaves, we can determine the essence of this animal. 10 ob
serving a human body we observe its inner causal-purposive direetedness in giving meaning to the vital element in
onc way or another. This means that for Aristotle the soul
is primarily the principle of a living body's aesthetic shapIng.
Generally speaking, Aristotle distinguishes three types
of soul: vegetal, sensitive (animal) and rationa.l. Aristotle
examines the four principles of acsthetic shapmg at each
of these levels and ascribes a specific charactcr to them in
each case. A rational soul also has its eidos and its matter
and its causal.purposive directedness. In this respect it is
entirely analogous to living nature. The only difference is
that in nature the creative and created elements are one
and the same, whereas in man the creating subject differs
from t~e work of art ~e ~realcs. He nce thos~ who. foreground the merely imltallve .charaet.er of art m Anstotle
have an incorrect understandmg of hIm.
These scholars say that for Aristotle art is the imitation
of nature. Abstractly speaking this stat.ement ~akes some
sense. But in actuali.ty nature f~r Anstotle IS al~eady a
work of art in itself msofar as cldos and malter, I.C., the
'nner and outer, are fused inlo one indivisible whole in it.
~herefore from Aristotle's point of view, one could say
that natur~, tOO, is an imitation of ar!. True, there is some
t67
)(
5
cal~f~rr: ~~~I:~!~ ~~~o keep in mi~d that the idc~, whal~
13. The aestltelic alld crealh'e principle ill ils cll/m illatiol!.
a) Every malerial body is somelhi/lg, i. e., has a certaill
cidos, or mea/lillg. 77,e eidos of a fil'ing body is ils life prillciple. i.e., its 50111. Bill allY 50111 1II01'llIg a body also has its
own eidos, which Aristotle calls Mind. And so Ihe 5011/, according 10 Aristotle, is nothing bill Ihe ell ergy or actllolily of
Mind or Ihollghl. Bill "IIIe aClualily of thouglrl is life" (Metaphysics XII, 7), hellce all that Ijl'es is allimote, i.e., "as its
eidos.
Thus, every soul, every type of soul as a result of its
fourp rinciple structure is first and foremost an eidos. But
a human sou l actually existing in life is, according to Aristotle, a mixture of various souls, mainly a vegetal, sensitive
and rational sou\. The value of these souls differs greatly.
The vegetal and animal aspects of the soul arc eternally in
a process of becoming. This means that vegctal life can
originate. bloom, wither and, most importantly, die.
Therefore from Aristotle's point of view it would be very
difficult to speak of the immortality of an individual
human soul. Its vegetal and animal aspects can reach completion and end, and thus does an individual human soul
die, too.
But here is the hitch. Every soul is first and foremost an
eidos, actualized or shaped in a certain way. But the eidos
itself, however we approach it, is as unsusceptible to
change, including death, as the multiplication table, which
does not admit of spatial and tcmporal categories. It
would make no sense to say that a onc or a two or a three
etc., have some odor, are somehow tangible to Our finger~
a whole.
.r If Id
Thus in existence there
b) Mind is tile Idea oJ a . cas.
h' n Mind Aristotle
01\"/1
168
,
\
d) Other properties of absolute "'h,d following from An"stotle's gelleral fOllr-principle sinlcture of all that exists: im~
'./lobile prime mo\'cr, absolute regulanty of existellce "tJrink/II~ ~~I tJrillking", coincidence of subject and object i~ olle illd,v,s,ble pO!/II,. absolute supra- and intra-cosmicity. Finally,
the four-prmclple formula of life and being contains as we
kn~w> the aspects of cause and aim. Applied to Ari~totle's
Mind; these concepls lead to his splendid theory of Mind
as pnm.e mover and absolute expediency. But one must
n~t, as IS often done, separate the four fundamental princlpl:s too much. Na~urally, each onc of them is somethin
~arlicular and specific, and ea.ch deserves special allen~
lion. But, as we have already said several times th
f
~se our
principles are absolutely indivisible in the"Ir eXIstence
T here fore onc cannol too literally separate the Mind of
170
the ~osmllS from thc co.~mOS itKif, j~st ~~ any eidos of.a
Ih in~ cannnt he "kt;u hed from the thing Il"l~. Th~ COS~IC
Mind, ur /itlm (If the cosmos., is at the same time Identical
hi the Ct,:-;nltlS. And if the cosmos moves. then in that sense
the coc;m ic Mind abo moves or, more exactly, is the cause
(If all motion, is the aim (If all motion. The identity of eidos
and matter. as wc said above. is the reason that a thing is
an organ ic;m, hence the entire cosmos i5 a beautiful, eternally living organism. But the cosmos is the only possible
form of existence and the only possible universal object of
thinking. Consequently the Mind of the cosmos i.~ also the
sole and absolute mind comprehending itself, since it ba~
absorbed everything. It is thinking on thinking. its thinking
is its activity, and its inherent activity is thinking. In other
words, the subject and object of thinking ~ineide in a
single indivisible point, just as, generally speaktng, the four
fundamental elements of the four-principle structure of all
that exists also coincide in 'his thinking as in a single point.
11, 1).
172
nowr C
.
1'1
wise than the qucstion of Anstol e s re Iglon.
',
..
''
,,
, '.l
-,
')
"
b) AristoLle's \';ew of rCOSOII is /lot at ollllonowly ollesided. Of course, reason for Aristotle is not o nly the highest a<;pect of the soul, but the highest aspect of all of reality, the ultimate degree of its expediency and the system
of its regularity. But he well knew that the actual human
soul is not only full of rational aspirations. And what is
more, some of its irrational faculties are useful and absolutely necessary as well. While we say that Aristotle loves
rationalist constructions, we affirm at the same time that
he loves life as well, and his rationalistic constructs are inseparable from his vital, passionate love for life. Generally
speaking, this is a very broad topic.
Onc could cite a lot of examples to characterize Aristo tle's personality in this respect. But we shall confine ourselves here to his discussion of the usefulness of anger and
its necessity in various circumstances.
According to Seneca, '''Anger,' says Aristotle, 'is
necessary, and no battle can be won without it - unless it
fills the mind and fires the soul; it must serve, however, not
as a leader, but as the common soldier"'; and "Aristotle
174
.,
'. 1
!! I
......
-
~
, ,.
, "
"\
.,
)'.
,
,
:, ,
,
.\
.'
,
,
,.\ l ,
, \)
'.
) Aristotle always remaillcd 0 SOli of 'Iis people ol\d 1lI1,~ (d patriot To him /lIC ancient beliefs of the Greek
millgo e
.
.
.
.
bl
eoplc wcre parr of I,is IlCntoge~ w,se olld ,"efuto . ~.
p A 'stotlc lived in an environment of traditions connect~~ with the cult of Asc1epius. and even th~ught h.imIf to be his distant d escendant. It would seem Impossl~le
~e combine strict philosophy and mythology, But for Anst~tle philosophy, like any knowledge, arises from wonder
"
,-
''
175
,-
,
.,. ,
,\
,I'
,
,-
I )/,i'
-,
:;-.
..
p/lysics I, 2).
Aristotle does ~ot see myths as the delusions of ignor~nt people. In thw own language they speak as it were of
Important problems, for instance the first substances or
ideas, and are even practically useful: "Our forefathers in
the m~s.t Tc":,ote ages have handed down to their posterity
a tradition, m the form of a myth, that these bodies arc
gods, and that thc divinc encloses the whole of nature. The
rest of the tradition has been added later in mythical form
with a view to the persuasion of the multitude and to its
legal and utilitarian expediency; they say these gods are in
the form of men or like some of the other animals, and
they say other things conseque nt o n and similar to these
which wc have mcntioned. But if onc were to separatc the
first point from these additions and take it alone - that
they thought the first substances to be gods, onc must regard this as an inspired utterance, and renect that, while
probably each art and each science has often been de\'eloped as far as possible and has again perished, these
opinions. with others, have been preserved until the present like relics of the ancient treasure. Only thus far, then,
is the opinion of our ancestors and of our earliest predecessors clear to us" (ibid., XII, 8).
Thus, Aristotle makes no use of myths in his own philosophy based on pure reason; but he respects the ancient
myths of his people, seeing them as the result of collective
popular wisdom.
176
\,
spirit.
A god is thought to be eternal, and Aristotle's cosmos. is
also eternal ; a god is thought to be uncreated, and, An stotle's cosmos is also created by nobody a?d no~hmg. A
god is thought 10 ~e almighty and always !n act~on, and
Aristotle's cosmDS IS also all-powerful and Its actIOn continuous and unending. God ,is completel,y self-mo,:ed an~
his motion de pends on nothmg exce pt himself; A~I~(Otle s
matter is also automotive, and so is the cosmos ansmg out
ofiL
.
fh
'
'd
The self_sufficient regularity 0 t e cosmos IS co~tame
',I' " Hence it must be de pendent upon nothmg and
WllInl.
. If( d
h'
absolutely free, comprehending only Itse . an not 109
I
for it has already enveloped everythmg else), and
~:~~e self-satisfi ed and ut~erl'y bl~ssf~1. In his Ml't~pllysics
Aristotle writes: "And thmkmg I.n I~sclf. de,als ,Wlth that
hieh is best in itself, and that which IS thmkmg m the fulsi sense with thal which is best in the fullest sensc. And
t~ought thinks on itself because it shares the nature of the
c~nllng mto cont act with and thinking its objects s~ Ith~n
t . o.ugh.t and obj ect o f .t~ought arc the sa me. 'F~r th~:
\\hlch IS ~apable of rece lvmg the object of thought' th'e
e~ence, IS tho ught. But it is actil'c whe n it poss~;~~' (h
?bJ~ct. The.r?fore the possession rathe r than the recepli~~
Ity IS the dwme cle ment which thought seems to cont ai
and the act of cont,emplatio~ is what is most pleasant an~
best. I.f, then, God IS always m that good stale in which we
so.mel1mes ar~, this compels our wonder; and if in a better
t~IS compels It yet mOTe. And God is in a better state. And
hfe also b~longs to God ; fo r the actuality of thought is life
and. G?d .IS that actuality; and God's selfdepe nde nt ae:
tuahty IS hfe most good and eternal" (Metaphysics XII , 7) ,
c) Aristotle's philosophical dlmlIg. Aristotle's prono une~ ment ~ o n ~i~? a.s prime mover and o n the soul
so.me tlmes give an lmtmllmpression of some confession o f
faIth. B.ut our preced ing acco unt has indisputably shown
that ,Amtotle r~ach e d conclusio ns having the form o f the~lo~leal.tenels m the course o f scientific philosophical in\estlgallOn. What co uld have been simple r than to h3ve
ma.de use o.f the traditional belie fs of his own people? But
Aristotle. did nothing o f the sort . He reasoned and con
ducted hiS scholarly philosophical investigatio ns in such a
w.ay that he absolutely did not need any mythology. And if
hiS theorr could then be interprete d mythologieally that
had nothmg to do with him. Although he loved the Greek
myths and understood them profoundly, Aristotle did not
use them anywhere in his scholarship.
. It thus becomes clear why Aristotle was accused of im piety at the e.nd of ~is life and a trial instituted against him.
:ro~ the pomt o f view of the people of his time the charge
I~ qUit? understandable, He was religious and at the same
~Ime did not need any religi,on. People wanted to tr him
Just as Socrates had been tTled a few decades ca r y S
crates, too, had been religious. Neverthelcss h. r ler. 0mind and his critically oriented philosophy h I~ v~.ry a:~
ma~y people. An~ th~ Athenians decided it :oul~:rbc _
ter If Socrates With hiS too critical m'nd
t
than for the old faith and piety to be s~ake:ere no I.onger,
. But Aristotle,
like Socrates, was quite fearless in th'
IS respect. The critical
178
179
ISO
Young mln have !.trong p.:t ~ '0', and tend to gratify them
indi ~l'rimin<ltdy. Of the bodily desires, it is the sexual by
which they arc mllst swayed and in which they show a?
scncc of selfcontroL They arc changeable and fickle In
;hcir dc!-.ircs, which arc violent while they la\t, hut quickly
over: their impulse" an: keen hut not decp-rooted, and are
like !>ick pcopk'g allacko:i of hunger and thirst. They are
hot-tempered, and quid-tempered, and apt to give way to
their anger; bad temper often gets the better of them, ~or
owing to their love of honor they cannot bear being
slighted, and arc indignant if they imagine them~lves u~
fairly treated. While they love hono~, t.hey love VlctOry SI1I\
more; for youth is eage~ for superiority over others, and
victory is onc form of thIs. They love both .more than t~ey
love money, which indeed they I.ove ve:r htt~e,. not haVl.ng
yet learnt what it means 10 be WIthout It -th iS IS the POint
of Pittacus' remark al:tout Amphiaraus. They look at the
good side rather than the bad, not having yet witness.ed
many instances of wickedness. They trust others readily,
because they have not yet often been cheated ..They are
sanguine; nature warms their blood as though WIth. excess
of wine and besides that, they ha\'~ as yet met ~th few
disapro'intments. Their lives arc mainly spent not to memor but in expectation; for expectation refers to the futur~,
m~mor to the past, and youth has a long future tx:fore It
and a short past behind it: on the first day of one's bfe one
has nothin at all to remember, and can onl~ loo~ forv.:a.rd.
They are e~si1Y cheated, owing to the sanguine fd~s~SIIIO~
ust ment ioned. Their hot tempers and hope u IS~SI
J
h
ore courageous than older men are. the
tions make t em m fear and the hopeful disposition crehot tem~~ pre.~e;~s(,3~n~t feci fear so long as we are feelexpectat ion of good makes us conft?tes con 1 en~e"
Ing angry, an ~ny ccepting the rules of society in which
dent. They are s y: aed and not yet believing in any other
.
be
' have been tralO "
t h ey,
h
They have exa lted notIOns,
cause
standard of o,n~ 'n humbled by life or learnt its necessthcy .ha~e ~ot ~e~lor~over, their hopeful disposil ion makes
Ives equal to great things-and that
ary hmltatlOn~,
them thin~ t e;;~~ed 'notions. They would always rather
c
uscful ones their lives are regulated
means haVlng I
..
bl dee ds Ilan
do no e
I feel ing Ihan by reawning; and whereas reamore by mora
ISl
I' 10 Kct
.
'
"
.,I
, \1
J
' I
"
..
,
,
....
-
'\
-
,
were opened and they were able to escape from their hidden abode and to come forth into the region.'i which we inhabit; when they suddenly had sight of the earth and the
seas and the sky, and came to know of the vast clouds and
mighty winds, and hcheld the sun, and realized not only its
size and beauty but also its potency in causing the day by
shedding light over all the sky and, after night had darkened the earth, they then saw the whole sky spangled and
adorned with stars, and the changing phases of the moon's
light, now waxing and now waning, and the risings and settings of all these heavenly bodies and their courses fIXed
and changeless throughout all eternity,-when they saw
these things, surely they would think that the gods exist
and that these mighty marvels are their handiwork'" (Cicero in 28 Volumes, 19: 215-17).
Such reasonings are only natural for a philosopher who
deems eternal and pure Mind to be the prime mover of
the universe. At the bottom of the scale for him is matter,
which is not yet the being but the possibility of any being,
and at the top is divine Mind, which although immobile itself moves absolutely everything down to the least trifle;
moreover, separated though it be from. matter, Mind
.pours itself forth into matter and. creates lis many gradations while matter does not remam only at the bottom but
is al;o the principle of the endlessly varied actualizations
of divine Mind. The result is unquestionably a complete
unity, or a kind of moo ism, where the topmost gr~dually
passes into the lowest and.the lowest gradually and 10 endlessly varied ways passes m~o the. supreme. The a,~parent
simplieity of this scheme gives flse to so-called eternal
,
questIOns.
.
As we have seen, Aristotle is a merciless reailst, who
keenly and fundamenlally ~"perlences liFe with all .ltS Imperfections, with all its ugliness a~d even monstrosity. No
lion arises where nature and hfe arc full of beauty: su~~~~e reason with all its Ideas. is simply embodied to its
full extent in matter and there IS no g~oun~ for ~ny du~l
ism here. But su~h is only. the cosmos, IR whle~ Mmd at I~S
ost is materially realized and matter at Its utmost IS
u~;;(ca/lY shaped. There arises the eternal and beautiful
Cl C.' n of the sky with ils regularly rising and setting lumimo llO
185
.,1
I'
1\
.,
.'
.\
,
~
'
>
'
~
"
.'
I I,
,
,
,,
,
,
,
,
-,
,
"
, ~~
,
"
, , I , . '--
'86
", t
, ,
""-
/! '
,
'
",
,
,,
-.\
,
\\
I
I
It is worth recollecting here what wc said earlier concerning the corrcl[ltion of eidos and matter. On the one
hand they arc quite different aspects ofbcing. And on the
othc; hand, thcy arc completely identical. Not only a.rc
they identical, but out of their identity is born ~hat Ans- )
totlc calls life. Hence it becomes clear why the Imperfection of life is quite justified by the eidos of life: they are
after all one and the same-materially realized eidos and
eidos itself. But one more step is now necessary to conclude our description of the complete material and eidetic
unit y of life.
..
..
If eidos, as the ~upreme foundatIon of .lrfe which Justifies all its imperfections, becomes all the rrcher for t.hem,
then any imperfection of life only confirm.s the plenrtude
and variety of life. Life!s a tragedy.. For In a tragedy all
sorts o f mistakes and eVils are committed and all so.r~ of
failures and downfalls arc depicted, but all these tragIc Imperfections and the death of. thc her~s only <:<>nfirm ~n,d
reveal the lofty meaning of hfe. TragiC purgatlo~ con~lSs
in the heroes' death arousing in us a sense of a hIgher Justice. The heroes die, bUI thanks 10 their dcath wc fe.ellhe
breath of the laws of life manircsling themselves m the
fates of the heroes. Thus, the identicalness of eidos and
maller is not just simply a r ation~1 inf~r~~ce on ~ur part. It
is the tragedy of life itself. A~d I.f we Imtlally saId that the
identity of eidos and maller IS life and ~hen sho~ed th~t
life is a work of art, the .
accordln~ to Arrstotle, IS
10 recognize that
.
I
I
!:I.nl~ersally huma.n..
work of
i
us that this is the ulphilosophy viewcd as a
timate
whole.
187
,
,
.'
,
''
, -' ,
"
",
"
I ,
I
I i
"
j;'
,
,
NOTES
1lle tJnan~~rrtd,
but Mo.,t Imporlitnt Question
1949 2' 10
'
" ,
i4:J9'.a
190
hCM Jlu~iht... oni Ther" Can 'le )nly onc answer 10 thi.\
'1Uco... t;'.n. Ali~tot1c, c)I.lmp1c L'I far from .being the only
possible I1m: IOf U' Ind C3n h.lrdl), he con!.lden:d the he...t.
Bul hl/w j !IlK to liv!"' where is mu; 10 seck the meaning of
life. how i" unc 10 Ihml':! \{c"li'Y i .. full of rontradictions.
Wh;lt is (mc In du, Vih n Ihese C :'11 ,Jiclions Item pc:rpetu .. I'!
All we Gill say III " sp' ,I, ~ IS th t Ihe point of our bou~
j ... hI put Ihi'o quc.... ti"n j,oldly "nd t:incuely. If the readca
h,lve 'aken it ~cri()u~ly, Vie have achieved our goal.
For us Ari\totlc rcprescnh un unt'Hmpromwng and
courageous am,weT to thc que!.tion (If th~ meaning of Ii~e.
But it is c1c;.lr that everyone has to ~~ck hiS own way. Anstotle said that Plato was his friend, hut the truth wa...
dearer to him . Ari~wtlc is our fritnd. As for what route to
take in sea rching for the truth and, surmount i~g life's contradictions, everyone must figure Lt out for ~Imself. Each
person must find the meaning of life by hi!. own effort,
through suffering.
Nl.lme Index
Achillcs- 20,67,99
Aclian - 23,30, 100, 132
Aclius-103
Acschincs-34, 125, 128
Acschylus-69
Ajax-99,I28
Alexander of Aphrodisias-40
Alexander of Maccdon 16,20,22, 34, 52, 65-73,
75, 77, 81, 82, 10001,
1O~-06, 110-19, 121-130,
Hl-35, ]89, 190
Alexander, the Iyr<lnl or
Phcrac -45
Alcx.inus-71
Ammonius-33
Amyntas 11 -20, 21
Crates of Thcbcs
Cratylus-91
Cronus-20
Artcmon -103
Asc1cpius-17-20,175
Athcna-l36
Athcnacus-12,81
Attalus-l26
AuguSlus-124
Aulus Gc11ius-73
8
Bias -61
Bion - 78
Bocthius 40,50
Cal1isthcncs,
Aristotle's
ncphcw- 78, 111, J 14-J7
Calypso-99
Capaneus - 18
Anaxagoras- 54, 87, 91
Carncades - 34
Anaxarchus-114,115
Cassandcr-65,118
Ccnsorinus-l34
Anaximandcr-M
ChcrnYlohcvsky, NikolaiAnaximcncs-91
Andronicus of Rhodcs-40
163
Antigonus-ll0
Chilon-61,182
Ant;patcr-22,77, 118, 122, Chiron-18,20
128,131,135
Chroust,
Anton
Hermann- 37
Antisthcncs-80
Aphroditc-84
Chrysippus-40
Apollo- 17,18,78, SO, 131
Cicero, Marcus Tullius Apollodorus-75,114
40,42, 43, 45, SO, 60, 79,
Arccsilaus-34
98, lOS, 121, 175, 184
Arimncsla, Aristotle's sis- Circe-77
tcr-21,23,I36
Cleanthcs-4O
Arimnestus,
Aristotle's Clcobulus-61
hrother- 21
Cleopatra, Philip of MaceAristoclcs-26, 30, (;2
don's wifc-l26
Aristogiton - 135
Climent of Alexandria-72
Ari~tonicus-l28
Clitus-114
Arislophancs-18
Coriscus - 64
Arrian-JII,115
Coronis- 17, 18
192
40
Cyrus- 71
o
Demetrius- 102,103
Demochares - 35
Democritus -86, 87, 91,
lt4
Demosthenes-35,65, 125,
127, 128, 133
Dio Chrysostomus 68, 73,
106
E
Elatus-18
Empedoc1cs - S6 ,89,91
Eos - 122
Epicurus - 26,79
Epione - 18
Erastus - 63,64
EratosthcncS- 73
.
Eubuiides of Mllet us - 30
Eudcrn us - 45 .
56
Eudoxus of C01dos - 28, ),
84-91
Eurnclus - 134
Euripides - 69
Eurymedon - 129
Eusebius of Caeseria - 26,
30,34
Eustathius
Macrembolites- 134
Evagoras-48
Fa\"orinus-137
G
Gaea 20
Ganymede-122
Gigon,Otto-37
GhlUcus-18
Gohlke, Paui-37
Gorgias-25
Gorgon -98, 99
H
Harmodius-135
Harpalus-69,127
Hecate-133
Hector-99
Hcgcl, Georg Wilhelm
Friedrich - 9
Helios-l22
Hcphacstus-l64
Herac1cs -122
Hcrac1itus-89.91
Hcrmcias of Atarncus-21,
35, 63-66, 102, 114, 13033
Hcrmcs-99
Hcrmippus- 134
Hcrmodorus - 56
Hcrpyllis, AristOlle's wifc64, 136
Hcsiod-49,164
Hcsychius of Alcxandria12
Himcracus-l28
193
-,
,
-of,
"
"
Hipparchus - 135
Hippocralcs -20
Hippolytus-18
Homer-lB. 77, 98, 99, 116
Hygieia-18
Hypcrides-133
I
,
, ,
\j
{
. i:
. ..
. '-
'-'.J
Nelcus-64
Nicanor,
Aristotle's
nephew -21, 64, 65,136
Nicoclcs-48
Nicomachus Ill, Aristotlc's
father, son of Nicomachus 11 -16, 17, 20-23,
Oncsicritus-69-72
Orpheus-60,177
Macedon's tutor-72
Leucippus-91
Loscv, Alexei-13
Lycurgus - 78
Lydus,
Joanncs
Laurcn
tius-IS3
Lysimachus of Acarnania72
M
Machaon -18, 20
Marsyas of Pella - 71
Mcdca-133
MclissllS-91
Mcmnon-65
Midas-40,47
Minas-IS
Mnaso-30
",
I
I
,
\
Kanl,lmmanuel -59
Lenin, V.I.-9, 10
Leonardo Aretino - 134
Leonidas, Alexander of
- "
126
Jacgcr, Werner-37
Olympias, Alexander of
Macedon's mother-72.
49,68,70,125,127
J
68
lamblichus - 50
Ischys-18
Isocrates - 24, 25, 41-43, 48,
Panacca - 18
Parmenides-54, 91,139
Palroklos-1l6
Pausanias, bodyguard-l26
Pausania'i,
hIStorian - 20,
75,121
Periander - 61
Pericles- 78
Phaestis,
Aristotle's
mother-16,21
Philip of Maccdon-16, 20,
21, 34, 35, 42, 62, 65, 66,
68, 71, 73, 75, 77, 78, 81,
106, 107, 114, 115, 118,
119,121, 123-28
Philiseus-40
Philislus-69
Philo of Alexandria-40
Philoctctcs-42
Philodemus of Gadara-41
Philoponus - 33
Philoxenus - 69
Phrync-77
194
,
,
-)
,
,
11'
....
-
,-' ' ,,
Phyllis -62
Pindar-18
Pisistratus-78
Piuaclls-61
Plato-B, 9, 21, 23-25, 2735, 37-48, 50-60, 62-65,
67-70, 72-73, 76, 7980,
82-91, 102-03, 108, 128,
138-42, 146, 150, 152,
154,171-73, 189, 190
Pliny the Elder-81-82, 110
Plutareh-40, 56, 68-70, 72,
73,110,111
Podaleirius-18
Praxiteles - 84
Proclus-40, 50, 56
Proeopius-130
Proxcnus,
Aristotle's
tutor-21, 23,65, 136
Ptolcmy-12.131
Pythagoras-54, 99, 100
Pythias, Aristotle's wife64,136
Q
Ouintilian - 43, 67, 72, 73
R
Rose, Valcntin-61
Roxana-113
s
Saint Augustinc-40, 50
Saint Justin Martyr -108,
130
Scncca- 44,174
ScxtuS Empiricus-21
Silcnus- 47
"
J
, ,
\'
,',,.-
--
)\
, ,
'\
'
.'
\.,
-- \l
I
Takho-Godi, Aza-13
Tclestcs-69
Thalcs-86,91
Thcilcr, Willy - 37
Tbemison-49
Thcodcctes- 70
Thcrsitcs - 46
Tithonus-l22
Tyrtamus
(Tbeophrast05)-64, 67, 68, 79, SO,
102, 105, 108, 115
U
Uran05 -18, 20
x
Xanthus-56
Xcnocrates-29, 30, 33, 34,
63, 68, 72, 76-78, 131
Xcnophon- 71, 78, 91
z
Zeno of Citium-40
Zcus-1S, 19, 122. 123, 136
Zoroastcr - 56
'-
, ,
. '
.
",
-..
'
.,
"
-'
(
), I
Subject Index
Chaos ofbcing-174
Cognition - 53, 95
Contemplation-I34,135
Cosmos-8, 57, 59, 86, 87,
97,150,151,166,170.72,
176,179,180,184,185
Courage-157,175
Creativity-l34, 135, 162
Customs of Baroanalls,
tIJe-lOl
Academy, Plato's-23-25,
27,79-81,83,189
Activity_92, 93, 134, 135,
178
Aeconomicus - 98
Aesthetic philosophy of nature - l66
Aesthetic principle -I64_
68. Sce also Pnnciple of
universal aestheticity
Aesthetics - 179
Aim (of a thing) - 157, 163
Alexander the Great and
Aristotle-67-73,121-25
An~er-181
Ammate-l48
Aristotelianism (Aristotle's
134,
philosophy) -82,
135, 141 , 142, 146, 173,
174,184,185
Art-8,167,168
Death-47
Ddormily-151
Dialectical materialism_
152, 153
Dialectics-83
Dialogues-38,39
Disharmony - 46
Divinity, God-58
Dualism - 140-42
Barbarians-111-14
Basic principle of Aristotle's philosophy -7
Beautiful -8
Beauty-l71, 184, 185
Bliss-95,96
Body-I66-68
c
Categories- 46, 92
Cause-163
- opcrativc- 159,
162
Chancc- ISO-53
161,
196
_ Plalonic-l40
Ideas, theory of - 53, 54
Infinitely small -9O
Infinity-59,60.
.
Integralness,
iOlcgnty142,143,145,146
K
Knowledge - 47
_ empirical-89
L
Lctlers, Aristotle's-102-08
Life-9, 10, 47, 48, 97, 16668, 178, 183-85, 187
Logical structu re-l48
Lyceum- 41,78-82
M
Maccdonia-15-16
Mogian -43
Mag1la Mora/io -91, 153
Mantis-ISO
Mattcr-149-54,
158-61,
163, 165-67, 169, 170,
ISO, 185, 186
_ and chance - ISO, 152
Jl
- and form-149
Meaning of life-183, 184,
Happiness, bliss- J87
189-91
Harmony -45.46
Mcasure - 157-58, 163,164
Hero worship-I23
Medicine, Greek - 20
Historia Allimaiillm - J04
Mcgara School-l40
Historical Notes - 101
MCllexelles - 39
Historicism - 91-92
Metaphysics -31, 32, 44, SO57, 91, m, 168, 173,
I
175-77
Mcthod of exhaustion (exIdea -8, 9
haustive method) -87Idea of the thing -87, 89-91
91
Ideal and material -87
Mildness-l75
Ideal ism-9
197
I'
Pagan
186
philosophy,
ancient 15,1
Part and whole 142
Particular 142. 144
Peculiarity 145
Pi'plos --IO I
Perception, sensory 1".1
Pc rip:ltc tics - 40
Philosophy-50, 53, 54, 95,
175,177,178
- and life-IO-l2, 35, 36,
69, 190
- as \)c<l uly-95-97
Phroll esis-5 1, 52, 55
Physics- l04 , .154
Plat o and Aristo tlc-28-3l,
- three conceptions of
171-73
- and personality 172,
I73
Motion - 1S1-5S,172
- dircctc dncss of - 155,
156
Mythology - 175, 176, 178
N
Nature - l66-68
Necessary and
c hance-
37,40,41,140
143
135,157,186
Nonsense - 18-'
o
Old age- 182-84
Olympiad - 16
011 the Good - 33, 92
011 lite Heal'ells -92, 10 1,
152, 172, 180
011 lit e Ideas - 33
011 Jllstice - 39
011 Magic - 43, 44
011 ti,e PaffS of Allimals%
011 Philosophy -39-41 , 55-
60, 184
011
Sophislical
Re/I/faliOllS -96
011 Ihe SOIlI- 32, 99, 166,
167
011 lite Virtues alld Vices-
180
Organism-147, 148
80
198
I,,"
Rhetoric
24,"1,"2,4'),91'1
s
Scholasticism 9,10
S(.:ience, scholar~hip 97,
141, 144
Selfmobility- 155
Sensations 93,94
SCI'ell Sages - 56
Sky, heaven 164, 1/,5, 179,
180, 186
Sophisl -- 39
Soul- 45-48, 54, 166, 16R,
169
_ immortality of 47,4R
Stagira-16
Suhstance-147,14R
Suicide, Arislot1c's-133-35
Symposium-39
T
aeslheticity
162,
163
four-principle structure
of 147-50, 158-63
Thinking- 170, 171, 177,
178
Topics - 24, 92, %
Tragedy of life- 187, 190,
191
v
Value of life - l64
Virtuc-46, 47, llB, 119,
131, 186,187
W
T e1cology-l66
Thing
of
Youth-lSI