This article focuses on the Metaphysic, a concept that is crucial for understanding the reality of life. I hope this article will provide you with a comprehensive understanding of the metaphysic; to fully grasp this concept, you must read the series on the metaphysic.
The Concept of Social Justice
Every modern democratic state’s constitution includes a half-sentence stating that the state’s basic duty is to provide for its citizens. The state has a responsibility to establish avenues for the attainment of social justice or to uphold the concept of social justice for the populace. However, according to the hundred-foot theory or principle, each state government has its own definition of social justice.
Aristotle Described Matter
Then some states, especially the governments of the modern developed democratic states of the West, have given this term the same kind of wrong meaning, which has nothing to do with rational or moral reasoning, according to the governments of these modern democratic states. The governments of these modern democratic states have interpreted the term “social justice” in a way that prioritizes the interests of the powerful, thereby defining it as a universal concept of justice, just as Aristotle described matter and its attributes. Aristotle also presents another criticism that, for example, properties or qualities of matter are universal.
Two Terms Universal and Particular
This, in turn, gives rise to a universal understanding of matter. Without these attributes, the universal concept of matter would completely vanish and remain a particular thing. Similarly, removing a man’s unique qualities that define him as universal will result in his complete loss of universality, leaving him a mere individual, a “particular.” Therefore, of the two unique terms we are discussing here, one is “universal” and the other is “particular.” Aristotle says that the particular, and not the universal, is the original material, or “substance.” Despite the difference in words, his theory appears to be similar to Plato’s theory.
Difference point of Aristotle and Plato
He disagrees with Plato on the notion that the universal is inseparable from its particular, which represents its true essence. That is, if the substance is particular, then this is the original material, that is, the tension, and its attributes are universal, which makes the material also universal, so the universal does not exist separately from its particular, which is the original tension. Can Aristotle only want to correct Plato’s theory of ideas? He agrees with Plato that universality is the original and ultimate reality. The difference is that the universal cannot exist apart from its particular. For example, Plato holds that a universal concept can exist without a material object like itself.
Beauty Exists Without Beautiful Things
As Socrates said, “Beauty exists without beautiful things. And when Aristotle says that the universal is not the original substance but the particular is the original substance, he simply means that the substance is the original substance, which has some specific properties, and these properties of the substance give the substance a universal or omnipresent character. But still, these attributes cannot sustain their existence without their original substance. Therefore, substance or particularity is the original or fundamental thing.
Challenging Language to Express His Ideas
The distinguished author asserts that despite Aristotle’s use of challenging language to express his ideas, the original intent of his theory remains unambiguous once comprehended, ensuring clarity. To understand this encounter with Aristotle, it’s essential to grasp the definition and context of these three terms. The three terms are: (1) particular; (2) original material or substance; and (3) attributes of original material. Meaning “-“Universal.Â
Aristotle Further Develops His Theory of Metaphysics
After that, Aristotle further develops his theory of metaphysics and presents the Doctrine of Causation, which means “the doctrine of nationhood and reason,” according to the distinguished author. The author has previously explored this philosophy in the study of the universe’s creation theory, highlighting the distinction between the causality of an object and water at a specific temperature. According to the author, an event’s reason does not necessarily explain why it occurred. Put differently, there exists a distinction between “cause” and “reason.”
Comprehensive Explanation of the Situation
We have now identified the cause of the glass breaking. However, this does not provide a comprehensive explanation of the situation. For example, why did the glass fall? Why didn’t someone intervene to prevent it? Why does a glass of water fall onto the floor? The distinguished author asserts that “reasoning” holds the key to answering all these questions. The “reason” will also appear under the philosophy of cause and effect; it will not have to stop at just one cause; it will have to set a long stage of cause-by-cause.
The Formal Case of the Aristotle
Aristotle also mentions specific types of addiction. Whose names are as follows: Material Cause Efficient Cause, The formal cause Aristotle describes the final cause, known as the material cause, as the process of creating a statue from materials such as gold or silver. Therefore, the first step requires the use of basic materials. And this is the material cause. Thus, Aristotle’s “formal cause” corresponds to Plato’s universal concept. The fourth cause, also known as the “final cause,” signifies that a purpose, such as the one a stonemason used to create a statue, guided all this work. So the main purpose is to create and complete a human community, but according to Plato, this fourth cause means a universal concept of something based on its ultimate definition.
Acceptance Cause of Material Cause
Thales declared water to be the material cause of the cosmos, or world. Aximenes believed that air was the material cause of death. Similarly, he declared fire to be the material cause of the universe. While doing so, work was done with four elements. However, the eminent author asserts that the key point is this:Â Since everyone has accepted the material cause, Thali did not even name it Cause. Instead, Thali referred to it as the basic or absolute principle.
First Source Is Material
But I am actually a very material source of Aristotle’s first material. Even the early philosophers understood, recognized, or described only one material cause. However, as other thinkers and intellectuals came forward, they also understood and mentioned the remaining three causes. Simply put, Aristotle’s four causes refer to the use of four elements in the creation of something. Then, the maker’s skill became the second cause. The concept or form that guides the production of the thing constitutes the third cause. The fourth cause refers to the specific objective that shapes the formation.
Aristotle Discussion about Universe
Now, let’s reflect on the conclusions we have reached. Following our study, we need to consider two key points. We will demonstrate and discuss these concepts using examples from Gores, Plato, and Aristotle, with a particular focus on Aristotle’s discussion of the creation of the universe. Therefore, we can observe that the first cause is the substance, to which the craftsman’s skill imparts a specific shape.
The views about Democritus
While we have heard Democritus say that there is no mind or mind behind the creation of this material universe, all phenomena are due to the natural potential or creative potential within the material, and it is blinding. It is the involuntary potential that exists in matter as a natural potential or in some capacity that appears to give different forms or “forms” to the matter involuntarily, and all these material manifestations have the same blind and involuntary nature. It combines the mind’s power or ability with the unconscious.
Democritus Rejected Aristotle’s efficient cause
In this sense, Democritus rejected Aristotle’s “efficient cause.” that Aristotle’s style implies a willful, purposeful, and mind-conscious force that shapes the stars, planets, and material objects in the universe. The other aspect of Aristotle’s theory of four causes is that a formal cause, which is a form or explanation, is not Plato’s idea. If the answer is yes, then Plato’s theory, which holds that universal concepts existed before material objects came into existence, is correct. From these universal concepts, the material objects derived their form.
Aristotle Countered Plato’s Idealism
This is what made Plato an idealist. Aristotle countered Plato’s idealism with his materialism, arguing that matter doesn’t originate from concepts but rather that its general idea or concept emerges from the existence of material objects. In fact, Aristotle’s point is correct because it is based not on myth but on rational reasoning, also known as “reason.” What I mean to say is that, compared to Plato, Aristotle is an opponent of idealism and a materialistic scientist.
Efficient Cause
When Democritus, a genuine scientist, brings Aristotle before him, he aligns himself with idealists such as Gorey. He initiates a discourse on self-perception and mythology, and asserts that he has refuted a myth. If he refuses assistance, he should provide an explanation for his alternative cause, known as the “Efficient Cause.” Who is this expert force or craftsman? What is this? Why is that? What is his own cause?
Aristotle Presents the Existence of Causes
However, if we look closely, Plato has also mentioned four causes. 1- Matter 2- Creator. -3: Universal concepts, which led to the creation of material objects, and 4: purpose, which Plato interpreted as virtue and justice, signifying goodness. Aristotle acknowledges that his predecessors were already familiar with these concepts, but he went on to provide a comprehensive explanation of this theory. Aristotle presents the existence of causes as a law or regular principle, which imposes certain limitations.
Four Causes Involves Reducing These Four Principles
The next step in Aristotle’s description of the four causes involves reducing these four principles to a single, concise principle. He then gives them the names of matter and form. He provides a rationale, suggesting that the initial four nations merge and ultimately assume the role of “form.” In the beginning, both the formal cause and the final cause are the same thing. The origin, or the formal cause that imparts form, encompasses all concepts, explanations, and general ideas of the entity that emerges. The final, objective cause is for someone who possesses a master concept of a particular thing to assume its material form or existence.
Concept of a Particular Thing
In the beginning, both the formal cause and the final cause are the same thing. The origin, or the formal cause that imparts form, encompasses all concepts, explanations, and general ideas of the entity that emerges. The final, objective cause is for someone who possesses a master concept of a particular thing to assume its material form or existence.
Realization of a Universal Concept into Actuality
According to Aristotle, the main purpose of a thing’s existence is to express its form. That is, then Aristotle also says “realization of a universal concept into actuality,” which is the second cause, i.e., the skillful or efficient cause that is also a part of the final cause with the original purpose, because the original purpose of this cause is also that matter has to be given a form. Aristotle explains what all this “being” signifies.
This is the series about the metaphysic. If you want to learn more about epistemology, read my article on it https://scienceresearchs.com/epistemology-in-social-science-historical-perspective/
The first part of the metaphysic is here. To learn more, please read
https://scienceresearchs.com/metaphysic-the-unseen-world-understanding-part-1/
Regards
Dr. Abid Hussain Nawaz
