What is Aristotelianism (Aristotelianism)?

(Os. Aristotalism, Fr. Aristotelism, Al. Aristotelismus, Eng. Aristotelianism).

Aristotelianism is a philosophical tendency that develops in parallel with Plantonism. It is not surprising that Renaissance philosophy turned to Plato and  Aristotle in search of a new world view  . Both were the most powerful thinkers of the classical age, and in one sense their work was aimed at establishing the first philosophy.

Aristotle also had a very important role in medieval philosophy; A form of aristotelianism takes shape in this historical period. Aristotle’s philosophy was the main premise of this period, especially in Scholastic philosophy. The philosophies of this period, which aimed to base Christian dogmas with philosophy, found Aristotle as an important source. Aristotle is also called  Scholastic philosophy . Since Renaissance philosophy developed in the struggle with scholasticism, it initially developed a reactive attitude towards Aristotle; however, since this philosophy of the period tended to reevaluate the idea of ​​the Antiquity in general, it is not totally denied to Aristotle.

The relevance of Renaissance philosophy to Aristotle is linked to its fundamental orientation, humanism. Humanism primarily aims to put the original texts of ancient philosophy and evaluate them as such. In this respect, the contributions of the medieval philosophy to Aristotle were tried to be extracted. Aristotelianism in Renaissance philosophy, we can say that the Middle Ages and Scholastic philosophy occurred in the form of extracting additions on Aristotle. Theodorus Gaza (1400s) is a Byzantine scholar who was one of the initiators of Aristotelianism.

Thought sources of Aristotelianism

Aristotleism did not have a particular academy, in that sense it had different orientations than Platonism. In addition to humanists, the so-called Ibn Rüştü (Avveroists) and Alexandrists are worth mentioning. The first was based on  Ibn Rushd ‘s interpretation of Aristotle, where Plato influence was involved in the Middle Ages. The latter were based on Alexandros of Aphrodisias, who was considered the greatest Aristotle commentator in the late antiquity  . These last two tendencies were not based on the Aristotelian sources, but on the interpreters. During the Renaissance, conflicts and conflicts arose between these Aristotelian orientations.

The center of Aristotleism was Padua, which was influenced by Ibn Rusticism since the 14th century. All Aristotelian cadres are gathered here. The greatest philosopher of this period was Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1524). Pomponazzie, who has worked at many universities, has developed an advocacy of a naturalist-materialist thought about the immortality of my soul, the central debate of Aristotelianism. With the idea of ​​ak double righteousness mış he tried to distinguish between the mind and the divine, but he could not escape being excommunicated by the church. The difference of Aristotelianism in Renaissance philosophy from the Middle Ages is that it evaluates Aristotle philosophy in an irreligious orientation.

Aristotelianism in the Renaissance

The important humanist orientation of Renaissance in philosophy was to rediscover Aristotle. When Aristotle’s works were read and examined from the Greek originals in accordance with the spirit of humanism, it became clear that there were serious differences between the Aristotle interpretation of the Scholastic world and the real Aristotle. Sistem The system, which is regarded as the most solid foundation of the church, was found to be separate from it at many fundamental points, and in contrast to official peripatethism, an Aristotle school of freedom, most of which consisted of secular elements meydan (Weber, 1993: 187).

The most famous of the Renaissance Aristotelians is undoubtedly Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1525), also known as Petrus Pomponatius. In his 1516 Tractatus de immortalitate animae, he argues that the belief in the immortality of individual souls is incompatible with Aristotle’s principles. However, St. Thomas argued that this basic dogma of religion was consistent with Aristotle’s philosophy. In this case, it can be said that Pomponatius opposed both St. Thomas and this basic dogma of religion in its origins. Pomponatius rejects the idea that all people are capable of mental competence, but rejects the idea that moral competence is an ideal that cannot be realized on earth. Everyone can do the tasks required by his / her own work, which can be understood as competence. Bir A conscientious and honest judge, it is able to use the term ‘absolute’ in this field; absolute competence is unique to absolute being.

He finds it wrong to propose the immortality of the soul based on the ideas that virtue’s worth is an eternal reward, that it is going to heaven and that a punishment awaits evil. Because virtue cannot be realized by waiting for interest or provision. Virtue must be realized because it is a real value. Evil already holds its own punishment in itself. Thus, it is a mistake to give them existence due to an external condition. As Aristotle expresses in a precise language, if the soul is a function of the body, it is clear that without the body, the soul cannot exist. It follows from this that the soul is not immortal. If the soul does not die, all religions are mistaken, and humanity is deceiving itself. Plato, doesn’t he say that in many things all people are the toys of the same prejudice? Doesn’t it reduce the value of evidence from the consensus gentium to a little? Finally, when it comes to the appearance, resurrection of the dead and the ghouls, this kind of evidence in favor of future life does not prove anything other than the extraordinary power of imagination helped by naivety (Weber, 1993: 189). As a result, things like sorcery, summoning of souls, supernatural powers become completely meaningless and superstitious. In the light of these views, Pomponatius, in his work On Magic, has rejected all kinds of miracles due to the natural order of the goods.

Although he seems to accept the miracles of Jesus and Moses in order to get rid of the rage of the Inquisition, he tries to explain these in natural ways, and in doing so, he applies to Aristotle’s authority. Thus, these are indirectly denied. In his book On Destiny, he tried to show that the doctrines of moral freedom are contradictory with God’s knowledge of all things beforehand. Because if God has foreseen everything, then it cannot be said that people have free will; but if people have free will then God will follow people’s movements from behind and be subject to what has been created in a way. This does not seem to be compatible with the infinite power and wisdom of God. In fact, he goes on to implicitly declare all of this and has to say, “logic favors the pre-determinism of God adına in order not to disintegrate with the church. Thus, he himself seems willing to be dragged into a contradiction. In this context, he opposed scholastic nominalism by saying that both good and evil are from God. As we have seen, Pomponatius, with a humanist and innovative spirit in accordance with the Renaissance period, has attempted to refute the irrational dogmas of Skolastics in terms of their incompatibility with Aristotle’s original philosophy.

According to Pomponatius, even if absolute competence is unique to absolute existence, any person who does the tasks required by his work can attain moral competence.

During this period, the works of two groups who tried to introduce Aristotle through the interpretations made in the Middle Ages were also very effective. The first was Averroists who followed Ibn Rushd, and the other was Alexandrists who followed the comments of Alexandros of Aphrodisias. Although these two groups competed with each other, they agreed on some issues. For example, they disagreed with the idea that the individual souls posed by dogma were immortal; both groups objected to the idea that the souls of human individuals were immortal and that this world life was nothing more than a preparation for life in the afterlife. Within this movement, an opinion emerged that tried to reconcile Aristotelianism and Platonism. Mirandola led the Platonist section of this initiative and Caesalpinus led the Aristotelian section.

In ancient Greek thought, Aristotle was the first scholar in the contemporary sense. He gathered all the information before him, separated, intertwined, classified, criticized and tried to integrate. Specifically, his later work, Metaphysics, Prote Filosofia (The First Philosophy) is a very successful summary and most reliable source of the history of philosophy from Thales to him. He sought a scientific method of thinking to measure the accuracy of the information he collected and tried to determine the rules of correct thinking in detail. He has given the name organon, which means instrument (instruments of right thinking). Aristotle’s rules of correct thinking were later called logic. The logic called formal or formal logic (Os. Suri logic) is these rules that Aristotle has determined. When the young Aristotle was a Plato student in Akademia, there were three views in his thinking (Yu. Theoria); Man’s view of the visible (nature), man’s view of himself (human), man’s view of the invisible (supernatural). The philosopher Aristotle found methodological tools and wanted to turn this primitive gaze into the correct one: to look at what is invisible (deductive “verification”) and to look at what is invisible (induction “research”)…

However, in order to realize this right view, thinking had to benefit from science, in other words, thought-natural dialectics. The sciences of that age were far behind thinking. Therefore, the philosopher Aristotle had to do the science himself which would respond to his thinking. This is the reason for their extensive scientific efforts in various fields of science, from physics and physiology to meteorology and economics. Physika under the name Fisika Akroasis, Peri Uranu, Peri Geneseos Khai Ftboras and also Peri ta Zoa Historia, Peri Psikhes and so on. His work is the product of this effort. From these scientific studies and during these studies First Philosophy (Yu, Prote Philosophia) was born. Now, with its age, it is necessary to search for the traditional big question: What is the first reason? as the latest and most advanced thought, it cannot be Plato’s Idea. Because Idea is within the countless real forms that appear – not as Plato thinks – and it has been obtained by being stripped from those forms, in other words by subtracting them. Moreover, Plato calls these Ideas the essence of objects, so how can the essence be separated from and apart from the formal object? There can be no self-form and no self-form. Plato’s mistake is to see the real being in the essence he distinguishes from real formal beings. So we have to look at what is invisible (induction, Yu. Epagoge), but we must also find what we find, and verify (deductive, Yu. Apagoge). We search Idea by induction, now we have to put it in the right place with deduction. Idea (abstract concept) is a substance. (Os. Jawhar), whereas every substance is an inner essence. Such an essence of course.

This essence (Yu. Ousia; Aristotle uses this to mean substance and Idea) is shaped (Yu. Eidos; Aristotle uses this to mean all the attributes of the object). The form, which is the appearance of the object, is not matter. The first matter (Yu. Prote hyle) is formless, it is only a force (Yu. Dynamis; Aristotle uses it to make sense), and it is the form that makes him perform (Yu. Energeia; Aristotle uses it literally). So what is the motive of the devim (Os. Movement, Yu. Kinesis) that makes it happen (Yu. Genesis): Aristotle here introduces a very bright concept with a unique intuition that transcends ages: Tel Unfortunately, as soon as this concept exists, Entelekeia spends bulunan in vain çıkmak to counter the completely correct doğru qualitative qualities gösteren that show the genius of Democritus, and does not deepen it where it needs to be deepened. rotating. The aim is now a research, induction. Such an induction will rise to the skies in an area as empty as possible and will not be controlled again by deduction. However, in the scientific necessity of his age, this is enough to express the admirable greatness of Aristotle. Such an induction will rise to the skies in an area as empty as possible and will not be controlled again by deduction. However, in the scientific necessity of his age, this is enough to express the admirable greatness of Aristotle. Such an induction will rise to the skies in an area as empty as possible and will not be controlled again by deduction. However, in the scientific necessity of his age, this is enough to express the admirable greatness of Aristotle.

In the final analysis, two concepts remain to explain the truth that Aristotle had in his hands: Hyle (matter) and eidos (form). The fabric which is out of shape with the gusset will be pants, jacket, curtain and table cloth. Are they the first reason? .. In a sense, they are very similar to the first reason: they cannot exist without them. Essence is the form in power (Os. Bilkuvve). Of course, the jacket (form) is the fabric (matter). The form is that the substance becomes the energeia. This is a kinesis (movement) business. Every matter is a dynamite, it takes a kinesis to make it energeia. So it must be a giant so that it does not exist before itself and it is the first giant (Yu Proton kinoun). This first motive is a noesis noeseos, the form of forms, and in one word God (Yu. Theos).

Aristotle here counts the attributes of the form of forms in more or less the terms in every doctrine or Divine doctrine: It is pure act, pure spirit, consciousness of consciousness, self-view, self-longing, and others… In the final analysis, the form is the one and the same thing with the substance (Yu. Aristotle, at first glance, seems to unite with Plato thought at first, but at the same time he reaches this superior and surprising thought with his own correct way of thinking. Each being carries substance and formality together. Because each form is the essence of the form at a stage superior to itself. Yarn, the shape according to the cotton in the field or the pest on the back of the sheep is the matter according to the fabric. The fabric is the shape according to the yarn to which it is woven and the substance according to the jacket. The mandatory result of this logic is that every being, and of course the supreme being, carries the substance and the form together. This necessarily leads to the following conclusion: The supreme being also has an essential aspect. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle insisted that the highest being to avoid this result was insensitive in order to avoid this result by complying with the necessity of his own logic, and saying that he had to say that he was e eskbate byle kai e morfe tauto. After entering into such speculation, the intellectual assumptions whose reasons cannot be proved are listed: The form of forms or the pure form is no matter. As such, he doesn’t want anything, he doesn’t do anything. He is not the one who drives the substance, The matter moves because of its longing for it. In fact, it is not the affect, it is the longing. He is attracted to him because he misses him. He is contented with himself, caring for, thinking for himself. It does not interfere with objects and people, it does not draw their destiny. Fate is drawn by the longing for the self. So it is not a direct cause, but a reason; the direct causes arise from the longing of the substance for this reason. There are four reasons for each being to exist. For example, a plan to make a table existence (material cause, Yu. Hyle), constructive (active cause, Yu. Arkhetes geneseos), plan showing how it is made (formal reason, Yu. To eidos), and the idea of ​​what to do (objective cause, Yu.To telos) need. He is contented with himself, caring for himself, thinking for himself. It does not interfere with objects and people, it does not draw their destiny. Fate is drawn by the longing for the self. So it is not a direct cause, but a reason; the direct causes arise from the longing of the substance for this reason. There are four reasons for each being to exist. For example, a plan to make a table existence (material cause, Yu. Hyle), constructive (active cause, Yu. Arkhetes geneseos), plan showing how it is made (formal reason, Yu. To eidos), and the idea of ​​what to do (objective cause, Yu.To telos) need. He is contented with himself, caring for himself, thinking for himself. It does not interfere with objects and people, it does not draw their destiny. Fate is drawn by the longing for the self. So it is not a direct cause, but a reason; the direct causes arise from the longing of the substance for this reason. There are four reasons for each being to exist. For example, a plan to make a table existence (material cause, Yu. Hyle), constructive (active cause, Yu. Arkhetes geneseos), plan showing how it is made (formal reason, Yu. To eidos), and the idea of ​​what to do (objective cause, Yu.To telos) need. the direct causes arise from the longing of the substance for this reason. There are four reasons for each being to exist. For example, a plan to make a table existence (material cause, Yu. Hyle), constructive (active cause, Yu. Arkhetes geneseos), plan showing how it is made (formal reason, Yu. To eidos), and the idea of ​​what to do (objective cause, Yu.To telos) need. the direct causes arise from the longing of the substance for this reason. There are four reasons for each being to exist. For example, a plan to make a table existence (material cause, Yu. Hyle), constructive (active cause, Yu. Arkhetes geneseos), plan showing how it is made (formal reason, Yu. To eidos), and the idea of ​​what to do (objective cause, Yu.To telos) need.

It is seen that three reasons other than material cause are unified in thought and peer. So matter and spirit, they turn around and come across in the Aristotle system. In Aristotle, the soul is identical to the form. Matter is body, form is soul. The spirit is three steps: plant spirit, animal spirit, human spirit… Each step is the essence of a higher one. In plants there is only the spirit of assimilation and reproduction, the animal spirit appears with the motive-desire-sensation and is added to the plant spirit, and the human spirit that appears in the mind contains all the souls that preceded it. The plant spirit is the substance of the animal form, the animal spirit that contains the plant spirit is the substance of the human form. At the base of these steps there is an amorphous matter, at the top and without an amorphous form. In the first form of matter, which is realized by longing for the form, it appears in four main forms: soil, water, air, fire (four main elements). These four main elements are diversified by displacement and collision and turn into innumerable forms to form the organic world. After establishing the organic world, Aristotle begins to process human values: Politics, ethics, poetics, rhetorica… Aristotle, who says that man is a social being (Yu. Zoon politician), now wants to determine his place and order in society. First, it indicates his personal certainty. Aristotle now wants to determine his place and order in society. First, it indicates his personal certainty. Aristotle now wants to determine his place and order in society. First, it indicates his personal certainty.

The aim of this tradition is happiness in accordance with the ancient tradition and this happiness is provided by wisdom. Wisdom takes place through thinking and attitude. It is necessary to distinguish between intellectual and attitudinal virtues: arete diamoetike and arete etbike tutum However, attitude must be based on thinking. Since man is a social entity, his mundane personality will also be formed within the state. The state has been one way or the other, it does not matter. The important thing is whether the state has properly developed this customary personality in the citizens. The competent state is measured by its success in this assignment. See. Logic, Kinesis, Formal, Induction, Cause, Transport. (Encyclopedia of Philosophy-Eris Pub.)

Prepared by: Sociologist Ömer YILDIRIM
Source:  Ömer YILDIRIM’s Personal Lecture Notes. Atatürk University Department of Sociology 1st Grade Giriş Introduction to Philosophy ”and 2nd, 3rd, 4th Grade Tarihi History of Philosophy” Lecture Notes (Ömer YILDIRIM); Open Education Philosophy Textbook

You may also like...