In this passage Aristotle is comparing two different ways in which people can study things. The first way he describes is more a more personal approach. By this I mean that the object being studied is studied from the personal perspective of the person examining it. The second way of studying something is from a more literal viewpoint, as in the person studying it is reflecting on what they see simply from an observational stand point.
One of the examples Aristotle gives of the difference between these two types of studying is a house. One person, he says, would describe a house as a shelter that provides protection and safety while another would simply describe it as a construction of lumber, stone, bricks, etc. The difference between these two ways of thinking is that the first person regards the house with more emotional meaning where they have associated the structure with personal feelings, memories, or experiences. In comparison to this, the second person sees the house as what it literally is.
I found this specific passage interesting because Aristotle asks the reader "which of these is the one who studies nature?" as if only one of the two ways of thinking can be correct. I feel that in subjects like that of nature, which are so loosely defined and can have so many meanings, one has to look at them from multiple viewpoints- both emotional and literal. For this reason I believe that both people can study nature equally as fully and effectively as the other since nature can be looked at from both an emotional and literal perspective.
What is nature? Or natural? In our society today the terms are used so frequently and to describe so many different things that I feel like the meaning is different for everyone. Is an "all natural" granola bar the same type of "natural" as a forest of hundred year old trees? I think a subject this complex needs to be looked at from multiple perspectives in order for us to ever truly understand it.
I think you are right in thinking that nature as an object of our contemplation needs to be considered from as many perspectives as possible if we are trying to assess its value or our relationship to it. Aristotle also says that people studying other things, like math or carpentry or medicine, do not need to view nature from so many perspectives to accomplish their specific tasks though. But then he also says that "the attributes of the soul are inseparable from the natural material of living things" later on that page. I am not certain, but it seems like this quote might be saying that it is a mistake for people who are not even studying nature outight to incorporate only one of those 2 aspects of nature into their studying. For example, one might think that a person studying medicine might only need to see nature as far as its physicality. But doctors also have to take into account the meaning of these physical aspects that affect patients just as potently. So he might be arguing for a fusion of our understanding of nature's form and its soul.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of nature I think of the outdoors whereas natural is something pure and has not been tampered with. Yes you are correct in your saying that the term natural and nature are often confused with one another. Your example of "all natural" granola bar would signify that it is made of substances purely from nature. I honestly cannot distinguish the difference between the two because to me they are almost identical to one another.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a very interesting difference between the Aristotelian approach to studying nature and the commonplace modern understanding of the study of nature that should be discussed. After reading this post and then Erik's, it became clear to me that Aristotle would not view what we call studying nature to be virtuous and would probably think our approach is crude. Our modern science is undoubtedly motivated by pragmatic concerns and results. For example, we used polio vaccinations without having a very solid understanding of vaccine use and the consequences of it. We do not seek understanding; we seek an answer or a solution. If you are not convinced, consider how we advertise for health fundraisers. We don’t make slogans that say “Race for funding so we can research more and advance our knowledge”, we write “Race for the Cure”. Our priority is always what we can actually do with our study of nature. Is Aristotle justified in his criticism towards studies that do not seek knowledge for its own sake?
ReplyDeleteThe difference seems to be more of form verus material thinking. One defines the house according to its form or function, it provides shelter. The other defines it as what it is made of or the material that makes it up. I do agree that we have to understand that nature is a more complicated subject then he makes it out to be, mostly because nature constantly changes and so does its definition overtime.I think the discussion of nature is more important than the actual definition. The way we define nature manipulates the way we use it.
ReplyDeleteWell, I see what you mean by saying that nature is constantly changing becasue thats absolutely true. For example, animals and plants looks a lot different than what they were millions of years ago. But does that still mean that the defination of nature has to change as well? Nature in itself implies a natural existace of different things and these things change over time, but I don't think that the definition nature needs to be changed because at its core, it hasn't changed at all. Nature still serves as the same function that it did millions of years ago, the only real differences now are the species of forms and the advent of human manipulation of nature.
ReplyDeleteIn this passage, Aristotle presents both the normative approach and existential approach. The normative approach defines the house by the standard to which people define most things, by their functional purpose. In this situation the house is defined as a shelter. From an existential approach, the house is described through its most essential nature and being. In this sense the house is composed of stone and wood. The house only continues to exist as a shelter as longer as there are people that are using it for such a purpose. The nature of the house only takes on the normative stance under the conditions that its purpose for existence is defined by human understanding and necessity. When Aristotle has defined the nature of objects and beings in the past, he defines them in their most healthy and well defined standard. As such, the nature of wood is the tree and the nature of stone is the ground or mountains. And since humans have not always existed to give a house the normative definition of a shelter, then the true nature of a house is actually the combination of trees and earth.
ReplyDelete