Now, in aU the foregoing reasoning, doth Aristotle's ^ ^ Aristotle's negative defence of Meta^ysics reside by implication; negative de- fer the completest answer to all objections is famished fence of on- in the proof of the reality and importance of its subject- to hf?pos?tive matter, and its bearing upon the most dienified portions defence, of Human Nature. His master, Plato, for example, in the Georgias, objects to metaphysical pursuits, in their iJj^JSSJfg®' *'*' tendency to incapacitate men for active life. And answered. Aristotle himself notices how sciences, akin to Meta- physics, were invented and cultivated amongst the sacerdotal caste of a nation,' merely from the fact of their not being engaged in active life, but their being allowed to live, by the liberali^ of the State, in the enjoyment of leisure. But, admitting this, is not specu- lation a hiflher region for the range and exercise of man's intellectual faculties^an action f It develops the more noble portions of his nature than can be done by the wear and tear of the world; it holds u]) to his contemplation the purest and most serene objects that the mind of man can rivet itself upon. And, accordingly, the more speculative, in the higher sense of that word, a science is — and what can be more speculative than Metaphysics P — the more entitled is it, as a science, to the respect and ap][)roval and genuine admira- tion of the world.' And as to the exclusive profession of knowledge by any one class in contradistinction to any other, no system of knowledge can be considered as the peculiar pKiSsession of any particular section of mankind: because ^stotle triumphantly shows (1) As he lays down in the Pontics, book I. chap. ▼.
(2) Thi< has been shown in chap, i- (3) Fid€ eh«p. ii \\y ANALYSIS OF ABISTOTLR'S METAPHTSTCS. [bOOK t &hat all men^ are actuated with the deeire of knowledge in and fof itself, and that the aspirations thus implanted by the Creator in all could not possibly be desired only for some. On the other hand* the science whicli^ like this Sophia,' or Wisdom, was a fall snpply to these natural yearnings and desires, ou^ht to command the attention of all who wish really to act up to the law of their being, and to march onwards towards that perfection of their social ari intellectual principles to which Nature points them and God calls them.
Now seeing that knowledge for its own sake is thus est «)Wect8 oV agreeable to man, and is held out to him by Nature as human know- a pursuit Suitable to his faculties and jeamin^, surely ledge the sub- that science which contemplates the highest oDJects of Metaphyslics. knowledge ought to be valued, and cultivated, and prized the more dearly, and to be esteemed amongst men as the most worthy of their study and veneration. And these highest objects of knowledge — the highest to which we can soar in this our state of probation — ^these form the subject-matter about which metaphysical science, is conversant, and may be contemplated under the neads of causes, universals,' entity, materiality, immateri- aUty, existence, from the most insignificant traces of it up to absolute existence, — that is, the Supreme Being. 1 K T*o ««w-«f And it is this very subject-matter which determines the matter deter- direction m which Metaphysics moves, and gives nse to ^^h? M those subdivisions of the science which Aristotle, it must be allowed, very confusedly* hints at in the present Treatise. From this subdivision, however, of the subject-matter of metaphysical science we derive its threefold division mto Theology, as it regards immateriality; into etiology,* or the First Philosophy, as it regards first jjrinciples; and, thirdly, into Metaphysics properly so called, that is, into Ontology, as it regards being audits seversd cour oomitants or species, such as unity, plurality, capacity, and actuality. 16 Ab t h t Having thus determined the setiological aspect of sort ofTames^ Metaphysics, that is, that its essential distinction as a Metaphysic* is scicncc cousists in its being concerned with the subject chapf'il*"'' of causes, Aristotle proceed to inquire about what sort of causes Ontology is conversant; and he lays down that the sort of causes about which it is employed are such as are primary and universal in the most eminent degree. 1 7; This shown And this Aristotle shows to be the case by an analysis from an ana- of OUT uotious of what the qualifications of the " wise (1) For the aim of Aristotle in these opening chapters, the student is referred to the expositions of Thomas Aquinas, and of Augustinus Niphus on the ProSmium.
(2) For the nature of the *' Wise Man " of Aristotle, the student should consult the remarks of Mr. Maurice in his Analysis on this <erm.
(S) Thomas Aquinas and Augustinus Niphus on the ProSmium.
(4) Thomas Aquinas explains this in his opemng remarks on the Metaphysics.
(5) This term is borrowed from Dr. Whewell.
BOOK I.] ANALYSIS OF ARISTOTLE's HETAPHTSICS. X% inaii" 9fe, as well as by a definition of *' wisdom." We lysis of the view the "wise man" as endowed with universal know- "wise man »* ledge, and the knowled^ which he has acquired we ««* of wisdom regard as difficult of attamment, and beyond the ordinary powers o« tiis fellow-creatures. Further, we regard his wisdom as evinced in his accuracy of reasoning on scientific subjects, and in his ability to )/ impart his knowledge to his ignorant brethren. And respecting " wisdom " itself, we must define it as a science eligible for its own sake; that is, for the sake of the knowledge that it mmishes, and not for the sake of the results that flow therenrom. And further, as ob- gerved above, the science of Metaphysics, such as this Wisdom is described to be, is fitted for pre-emmence above the rest of the sciences.
And to apply all this to the matter in hand, we must remember, according to these notibi;is of the ideal of the of these^ana-^° " wise man," that l£e science professed by him, that is, lyses to the Sophia, or Wisdom, or Metapnysics, call it which you ontoioRr'. may, must be a science conversant with what is uni- versal; for what, it may be asked, is there more difficult for men as a subject of knowledge than the universal P for universals are most remote from the common perceptions of sense. And as to accuracy of reasoning, which must neeos, it is expected, be found in Meta- physics, what can involve more accuracy and certainty than those reasonings that are connected with what is primary P And if this science is to be one which is to be capable of affording instruction to others, as sucl^ then, it must be a science of causes; for persons who understand causes are the persons that reallv can convey knowledge to their feUow-creatures. And what is true of persons in this respect, is true also of Metaphysics as an etiological science; for the know- ledge it can furnish is the knowledge of causes, and the knowledge of causes is Imowledge in the best and highest sense of that word. And, moreover, if one should define Sophia, or Wisdom, to be a science that is eligible for its own sake, notning is more worthy of the choice of the phiRsopher than the highest objects of scientific know- ledge: and the highest objects of scientific knowledge are universals, things primary, and first principles.
And from all these statements it is demonstrated that, 19. Metaphy- admittinirMetaphvsics to be an setiolo&ical science, that is, »ic8 therefore a science conversant with causes, that those causes must primary and needs be in themselves primary causes, and universal in universal the most eminent and strict acceptation of that term. ca^ises.
Now this conclusion that Metaphysics is a science 20. This deter conversant about causes and first prmciples, points out "/Seteiop-^**' «' the development of the science of Ontology in a direction ment. as showi contrary to the other sciences. For whereas the pri- »« c^iap. ii. mitive sciences rose up amongst men from wonder, that i^, in reality from an ig'iorance about causes, anr % desire to be rid of their per Xfi ANALTSIS OF ARISTOTL^S METAPHYSICS. [bOOK I plexity, and attain unto a solution of the phenomenal difiSpulfies; whereas this was the case with the primitive sciences, it is quite different as regards the science of the metaphysician. Ontology, or the science of Metaphysics, on the other hand, starts out from well« ascertained and admitted causes, and by leading men on to the yeir topmost heights of knowledge, fills them with wonder, as the resuU of their researches, and not as the stimulating motive to inquiry in the first instance.
21 Why Aria- Aristotlc havmg now shown that Ontology, or Wisdom, totie's fourfold scts out ou its investigations from the starting point of enumeration j^^ examination of certain well-ascertained causes, the adopted in the question immediately presents itself, what are we to Metaphysics; re^gard as well-ascertamed causes? And, in the first chap. iii. place, what do we mean, in a philosophic sense, by the phrase ''well-ascertained" causes? We mean, those causes that nave been generalized to the utmost, as far as they will go, and then classified under the highest genera to which they can be extended. This question leads Ajristotle to lay before his readers his fourfold classification of causes, which was adopted by his followers, and for centuries after was acknowledged amongst the Peripatetics as a scientific dogma whose authority dared not be impeached, and its reign lasted down to the very a^ of the Scholsustics. 22. What these ^^^ Aristotle, m the Metaphysics, makes the assump- four causes tion of the same four causes as he had arrived at, after ^^^' successive generalizations in his physical inquiries; namely, as the first cause he sets down the substance and the essence, rriv oviriav koi to ri ^v ilvai; the second as the matter and the { subject, Tfjv v\rju Koi t6 vTroKcifievov; the third as the origin of the ^ principle of motion, oScv i; apxrj rfjs Kiprja-tms; and the fourth is that which is opposed to this, namely, the good end answered by the existence of anything, TcrdprriP hi rrjv dvriKcifi^vrjv alriav ravrjg mu TO ov lv€K€v Koi TO dyoBov. Aristotle still has reason, now as ever, to express himself satisfied with this division of causes, which is based on the assumption of the completeness of the classification of them into those that are formal, material, efficient, and final. V But, further, the decision of this question, that view of^the'** Ontology, or Wisdom, is a science of causes, wo^d seem Greek phiio- to assimilate it as a science with the speculations of the d?ce5.*' "**™ ®^?y Greek philosophers, because the subject-matter of their inquiries was manifestly after causes of some sort or other. And independent of the kindred nature of the investiga- tions pursued in both cases, it will be of considerable service^ to Aristotle's present Metaphysicil Treatise, to take a review of the Greek Philosophy, because, after all, this may lead to ulterior and brighter discoveries; and even though it does not, yet it vrill afford (1) As is shown at the commencement of chap iii BOOK I.] ANALYSIS OF ARISTOTLE'S METAPHTBICS. ZUli the Stagyrite an opportonit^r, according to his custom^* 0/ emhracin^ whatever is tnie and nsefol in the scientlAc labours 01 others, and (n rejecting what is illasory and false.
In this review of the Greek Philosophy, — a review Qenermi that testifies how completely the Stagyrite nad mastered objection the details, and penetrated mto the spirit of the varions against the systems of his predecessors as well as contemporaries, — w^hy.^*^*'*' in this review, at the threshold of the inquiry, Aristotle states his conviction that the ancients entertained inade<][nate views in etiology, and that the impression that an examination of their works leaves on the mind is, that out of the fonr causes they merely recognised ike material one. This indubitably appears to be true of the very early philosophers; but is to be received, perhaps, with some modification m the case of those of more modem oate; for instance, the followers of Anaxagoras, the Pythagoreans, and the Platonists.
But to prove his position Aristotle brings forward 25. inductive an induction of particulars from the philosophic works proof of thi* of his predecessors, thus adopting tne most effectual ®^j«*'"®"5 mode of proof, quite in accordance with his experimental method. The first philosopher that he brings upon the stage is «.^. i^m the Thales of Miletus, one of the most ancient speculators works of that we have any account of, and, in fact, the founder Shales. of this description of philosophy.' Now, this Thaletian philosophy b decidedly materialistic, so far forth as its author endeavoured to fix on some primary element as the cause and original source of all things. But though there may be some foundation in Nature for the dogma of Thales as regards the rd vypop, yet Aristotle considers that it labours under a radical defect arising irom imperfect observa- tion; and that it is, after all, but a partial statement of the truth.
And to confirm this view, Aristotle brings forward ^^ the system of the old Thec^ny, which represented stance of Oceanus and Tethys as the parent of generation, and Thales con- made water as an object of adjuration amongst the xheogooSts. gods, which of course was selected for such on account of i1^ being the most ancient element amongst all. Passing over Hippo, who is not worthy of any notice, Aristotle adduces the* S stems of AnAximcncs, Diogenes, Hippasus of Metapontum, and eraditus of Ephesus, to demonstrate further the justice of this criticism on the Ancient Philosophy.
There were other systems, however, which almost ^^^1,^, might be classed amongst these materialistic ones, p^of from because although the germs of a wiser philosophy systems semi- might on a careful andysis be discovered there, yet SJp.'ui! they lurked in those systems undiscovered by their autoors, who put forward these ][rinciples seemingly without any (1) The eclectic spirit of Aristotle is erdenced in many passages in the Met*. physics. (3) 'o f'm Tuiol ttt u|Mi»i76t ^tXoao^ias* xyiii f VALYSis OF abistotle's metaphtsios. [book z, consciousness of tlieir importance, or of their legitimate consequences, but driven, as it were, into them from the nature of the subjects that they meddled with, and by the pure force of reason. Now all this applies to such systems as those put forward by Empe- eies and others, doclcs and AnaMgoras; the former in his theory oi Discord and Harmony, and the latter in his recogmtion of the necessity of Mind as an efficient cause in the formation of the Universe. And the case is the same with the Pythagoric doctrine about numbers, and the Ideal Hypothesis of Plato.
And the account of the matter is simply this. Wh^i bimyo?*the" these philosophers advanced in their systems, the continuance of observation otthe actual occurrence of so many physical materSism. chan^s naturally forced upon their consideration the question, why do these changes take place; what is the efficient principle of these changes P Tnese changes, it obviously appeared to them, must presuppose an ultimate substance or body as the subject of them; but yet this subject, they must have seen, -^uld not be instrumental in bringing about its own changes.
Notwithstanding this cogency of Reason and of age of Parme- Nature, vet Aristotle is inclined to think that the only Hides material- philosopher who dccid^y in this age recognised the check.^**^**^ * necessity of other causes besides material ones, was Parmemdes, and that, after all, not even were his perceptions very clear upon the subject.
Prom this philosophic age onwards. Speculation, however, appeared to take a dinerent turn, to flow in a different channel, and tne pure force of truth and reason evidently was dragging men into the proper paths of inquiry, as well as mto an acbiomedgment of the fact that any division of causes which would ignore the existence of the efficient principle of motion must be a ^ossly inadequate one, and adopted from ignorance as well as imperfect observation. Aristotle, at the same time, is constramed to admit that the dif- ficulties of forming any right judgment about the philosophy of the ancients were incalculable, consequent upon the obscurity with which they have unfolded their several theories.
so. The intro- Although Aristotlc seems inclined to award to Anax* ^fflT *? *" agoras the credit of a discovery of the existence in pie^ment^oned" Nature of an efficient principle, vet he states that, prior m chap. ir. to the Anaxagoreau philosophy, Hermotimus, a native of Clazomenae, was in actual possession of an sBtiological theory of this kind. Aristotle, however, does not expect that all may agree with him on this point, and therefore he mentions the surmise put forward by some as to the introduction of the efficient cause by the Hes iodic school, or that sect of philosophers which recognised the principle of Love^ (epcar) as the paramount principle in creation.
(1) The "Love" of the Theogonlsts is not the same as the "Lore" which Piatt introduces into hit Symposium.
BOOK I.] ANALYSIS OF AB1ST0TLFS METAPHYSICS. xll Be this as it may, it was impossible for these speca- j], what led tc iators to rest content with assigning one cause of the the recognition phenomena of the nniverse; that is, if they really ob- jfJJ** ^^^' served the phenomena which they professed to give^solu- * tions of. Now the existence of oppK)site and antagonistic phenomena, such as order and disorder, was plain to any observer; ana this led to the hypothesis of Empedocles, oia discord and harmony, the latter to account for the order, and the former for the disorder of the Universe. This, Aristotle maintains, is the true point of view from whence to regard all' systems of this kind; this duality of efficient principles was a<^pted in order to furnish a key to unravel the mystery of the actual existence of good and evU, and of the predominance of tho latter over the former.
But still the whole subject was awkwardly handled by.. ^ _ these philosophers, who iight be compared to undisci- IL^l^ S lined soldiers in battle. They, no doubt, professed a handled awk- uaHsm of causes, but they expanded their theories with ^ijS^JiSj^* obscurity; and the fact was tmit they did not appear to sophert. have broached their opinions on scientific grounds, and the efficient principle that they put forward in their theories, they, in reality, made use of but to a small extent. Witness, for instance, Ana^uigoras, who, though he brings into his philosophy the principle of mind, yet he practically robs it of its essential causalit^ by em- ploying it as a mere machine in the construction of this fabnc of the world. Witness, too, Empedocles, whose causes have activities assigned to them by their author which, in nature, they do not really possess. And the same mode of argument applies to unintelligible s;^stem8, such as those brought forward hj Leucippus and Democritus m their theories about fulness and vacuity, as oeing elements, and of the assimilation of the former to entity, and of the latter to nonentity. There is not much chronolofficml connexion between, «rx, v these philosophic schools and those two which Aristotle schools of pfatc next proceeds to examine; namely, those of the Pytha- and Pythaforeansa^dthePlatonists. The review of these systems, ^^edtoS? owever, is to proclaim the fact that the attention of speculators began to be attracted towards a consideration of thtf formal principle of thinss — ^the wa-ia Koi to rt ^v flvai — another cause tak^ from the fourfold classification already assumed.
The well-known school of the Pythacoric philosophv, 34. sonrce of in Aristotle's opinion, owes its theory siDout numbers to the Pythagorio the zeal witti which the followers of Pythagoras applied chap7v.*" themselves to mathematical studies. From their par- tiality for these pursuits, as well as their constant examination into the properties and relations of numbers, they transferred both to extemalthinffs, and in the phenomena of Nature t^ey began to fancy that they couM discern several numerical similitudes. A nd so bewitched were they with their favourite hypotheses, tha^ they endeavoured ttt XX ANALYSIS OF ARISTOTLE'd METAPHYSICS. [boOK X.
establish the same in the case of the heavenly bodies; in fact, thej were for generating the whole heavens out of number.
Now it will illustrate their system to mention the temuiustxated. grounds that they rested the last assumption upon; which was as follows, that the perfection of the decade was an a priori proof of the number of the heavenly bodies. And when this dogma seemed to totter from a want of verification in the case of the actual pheno nena» there being only nine apparent, they were foroed to throw in the Earth to constitute the tenth.
86. What the ^^^ *^® ^®^ ®^ things which these Pvthagoreans •ystem of the took, was t ) regard number as a first principle, and aa ^hagoricg constituting to tilings their matter and passive conditions, y waa. ^^ ^^ elements of numbers they consider^ to be the odd and the even; of the odd and even they regarded the one as finite, and the other as infinite; from both together they generated unity, and number itself they generated from unitv. There was another sect amongst the Pythagoreans that recognised ten principles, arranged according to a certain coordinate^ series. Aldn to these speciuations were those put forward by Alcmson of Crotona, who, by the way, derived his system probably from the Pythagoreans; for he had reached mature age when Pythagoras was an old man. Per- haps, indeed, the truth was that the Pythagoreans were indebted to AlcmtBon for their philosophy. Be this as it may, however, the latter expressed his sentiments m a manner similar to the former. ^ 87 Thephiio- Now, as already stated, this Pythagoric school waa so'phy of Py- an evidence of human investigation busying itself in an tha«orss an effort to discover the formal principle of things; but it human'hiquiry farther borc testimony to the truth of another assertion travelling in put forward by Aristotle, in regard of the duaHsm direction**' said to be inlierent in the efficient cause, and which manifested itself in the production of contrary pheno- mena; such as order and disorder, good and eviL As to the philosophy of Parmenides, which has been of Pumeni^s! &Uaded to above, Aristotle gives his opinion that it has no bearing upon an investigation the object of which is to discover the existence of some efficient cause, for it quite ignored the phenomenon of motion in its d(^ma about the immobility of the Universe.
89. Who was I* ^ hardly, however, quite correct to ascribe the the author of invention of tms dogma to rarmenides, though perhaps the t6^7 **' ^® ^^ ^^® philosopher to whom we are indebted for an y *' elaborate application of it to the phenomena of the Universe. Xenophanes (as Aristotle states) was the first person who introduced it; and the unity (to tv) thus introduced was viewed in the liffht of a rationalistic unity by Parmenides, and of a sensualistio unity Dy Melissus. This school, however, likewise labours under tho (1) This is the famous Zvaroixia of the J^thagoreans.
BOOK I.] ANALT8IS OF ABISTOTLfi'8 METAPHYSICS. xxi defect of an obscare elncidation of its theories; and none of its speculators can we regard as likely to ilhimine Metaphysics by reason 01 their researches, if we are to except Parmenides, who was more judicious, seemingly, than either Xenophanes or Melissns.
Again, we find Aristotle, at the termination of this review of the Pythagoric systems, asserting his con- of'thcnS^ viction, that, amongst the earliest philosophers, we can riaUsm of th» only discover a materialistic princime, the source of one UJhy^CTd of or more principles materialistic like itself; that, at a chap. v. subsequent age, we find speculators not merely pntting forward this principle, but along with it a different one, n;4mely, such a one as would account for the orisin of motion; and this efficient principle with some was considered as single, and with others aa twofold.. And this miffht be regarded as the extent to which the science of Metaphysics had advanced, in those ages, in the schools of those philosophers who had put forward the theories attributed to them; and some of these philosophers, on examination it will be founcC flourished up to the period of the Italic sects, and even inde- pendent of them.
The chief value, however, of the Pythacoric philo- 41, chiefraiuf sophy, as has been mentioned, consists in the specula- of the phUo- tions it sought to establish in rejgurd of substance — of ^^^^g^^ t6 ri •OT4— of the formal cause. They handled this sub- ject, however, as might be expected, with extreme simplicity: and the definitions which they framed of substance were superficial and fieur from penetrating into the depth of thines.