Metaphysic: Reality in Imagination (Part-4)

But the question here is that, according to Aristotle, form cannot exist without matter. While it is evident from Aristotle’s phrases that when the shape or form underwent a process of change, it existed without any substance, the second point, or question, is: Who initiates this process of change? Or does this change happen automatically? Aristotle is unable to fully explain the principle of motion, but he asserts that a specific purpose creates motion in matter. Our question is: how will the wood become a bed or a chair by itself? Here, Aristotle also seems to resort to pure myth, and instead of scientific explanation, he begins to work with poetic allegory.

Indeed, Aristotle aims to assert that matter and form are merely labels for the same entity. He distinguishes between “form” and “shape,” asserting that the former represents a minor or insignificant component, while the latter represents the actual entity. Which form constitutes both a form and a substance? This is the point where it becomes clear that Aristotle is simply repeating Plato’s ideas by changing the words. Plato also posits that the true essence of a thing lies not in its specific form, but rather in a universal understanding of it or its equivalents. This is why many have stated that Aristotle aspired to break free from Plato’s sphere of influence but was unable to do so. Instead, he finds himself compelled to rephrase Plato’s concepts.

Figure 1: Metaphysic, Distinguishes Between "Form" And "Shape, — Figure 1: Metaphysic, Distinguishes Between “Form” And “Shape,

Table of Contents

The Nature of the Matter

According to Aristotle, form represents the true essence of matter, providing an explanation for its reality. In other words, form serves as the universal concept of matter, providing an explanation for the nature of matter. According to Aristotle, form, also known as appearance, refers to a material that exists within itself. It also encompasses the purpose for which the object came into being.

That is, Aristotle is gradually coming to accept Thales’ and Democritus’ theory that matter has the ability to move or change innately or a priori. In other words, matter is inherently characterized by the quality of motion or change. Aristotle’s description of Plato’s ideas only modifies the language, while Thales and Democritus’ ideas also alter the language. He recognizes the fundamental principle of motion or change in matter as the “end”.

According to Aristotle, “form” contains all of matter’s attributes, and all of them are universal, i.e., they are the same everywhere and at all times. In this sense, “Matter and its Qualities” and “Matter and Form” are two different aspects of the same thing.

Form Is One of the Attributes of Matter

To put it another way, “form” is one of the attributes of matter. On the other hand, Aristotle asserts that form is universal and that matter is the true reality, serving as its explanation. This implies that matter is a universal concept. Despite the claims of his material and scientific theories, Aristotle has unwittingly embraced Plato’s theory and succumbed to “idealism.”

Now, Aristotle, like Thales’ student Anaximander, refers to matter as indefinite and formless, stating that it is essentially a formless material “substratum” of every material thing that has a “form.”

The basis of According to Aristotle, matter is essentially “characterless” and “featureless,” meaning it lacks any special attribute, character, or specific copy. Therefore, the character is what characterizes the featureless matter and provides it with these attributes. “Form” refers to the combination of a special attribute with a universal attribute such as “classification.”

Figure 3: Matter Have Different Attributes

Attributes Can Separate or Distinguish One Thing from Another

Only attributes can separate or distinguish one thing from another. Since matter is essentially attribute less, it is the “form” that characterizes matter with one or more attributes. Therefore, the true entity is the form itself, as it possesses all the necessary attributes. Therefore, the difference between iron and gold, or clay and wood, is not in the material qualities, but rather in the “form”. In this sense, everything is possible. Whereas in reality, it is nothing.

And that it becomes something only after acquiring form. According to the distinguished author, Aristotle establishes a contradiction between potentiality and potentiality. The distinguished author then asserts that matter is merely a form of possibility, capable of transforming into various forms without possessing any specific characteristics. In other words, substance is essentially the capacity to become something, but the “thing” that converts this importance or potential into something else is known as “potentiality.” In other words, the uniqueness of “form” lies in its significance.

We have observed that Aristotle consistently perplexes us with his own perspective, presenting “sonnets” of worldly wisdom and eloquence. He is constantly trying to hide the truth from our eyes. He believes in “capacity,” meaning ability.

Figure 4: Attributes Can Separate or Distinguish One Thing from Another

Matter Can Be Equally Activated

However, we’ve inserted another term, such as “ability” or “possibility,” or “potentiality,” to keep our concept from settling in one spot. Now, upon reflection, we understand that “form” originates from matter. Therefore, the transition from “form” to “matter” does not fully describe the motive force that animates or transforms matter. Instead, I attempted to demonstrate that the “Final Cause,” also known as a specific purpose or end, is what activates the substance, and that this “End” or purpose is also present within the “Form.” Because each form has a specific purpose, all types of matter can be equally activated.

Here, he attempts to refute the unique principle of the reduction of natural capacity, mirroring Fitus’s desire to eliminate the distinction between justice and injustice, good and evil, or just and unjust. Consequently, Aristotle seeks to celebrate this distinction. Subsequently, in the course of elucidating his political beliefs, he acknowledged the disparity in mental and physical abilities among humans and defended slavery based on this distinction. Here, he asserts that the purpose invigorates the matter, and since the purpose is genuinely inherent in the form, it follows that every substance undergoes equal enlivenment or transformation when it incorporates the essence of form.

Figure 5: Matter Can Be Equally Activated

Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory: Survival Battel

We challenge the aforementioned Aristotelian theory by presenting “Darwin’s” evolutionary theory. We will keep it very short due to a lack of space, but we will try Darwin’s theory of evolution, also known as the “Theory of Evolution,” summarizes that these material objects in the world were not like this before, but gradually evolved to their current state through evolution. He tried to maintain himself, but there were different “species” of plants.

Therefore, plants that were better able to maintain their gender or species, or adapt to their environment, survived the extinction process. However, other types of plants, which lacked this ability, failed to preserve and perpetuate their species and became extinct. In this way, animals also struggled to maintain their gender and species, but creatures or organisms with better abilities survived and organisms with lesser abilities perished. Darwin also says that man was not the same from the beginning. Instead, humans’ ancestors were monkeys.

There were many types of monkeys; all of them tried to develop their species, but only one of the four or five types of monkeys had the natural ability to eventually transform into humans.

Figure 6: Darwin's Theory of Evolution — Figure 6: Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Differences in Properties between Living and Non-Living Matter

Considering Aristotle’s theory, we can assert that the instinct for survival and growth propels plants or other living organisms in a specific direction. However, it is also a fact that not all species of plants have the same natural ability to adapt themselves to the environment and continue the physical evolution of their species. Therefore, less capable plants gradually disappeared. Plants with superior capabilities prevailed in their battle for survival and development.

Similarly, all species of monkeys also struggled for survival and evolution, but those with better abilities succeeded in their goal. Only one species of monkey was able to continue its physical and mental evolution, and after millions of years of continuous struggle, it finally reached the level of humans. The discussion above demonstrates that all types of plants and animals possess a specific purpose, demand, or desire, which motivates them all. But not all “species” of plants or animals can be equally successful in their purpose. The inherent mental and physical capabilities of animals were not uniform. Plant species differed only in their physical capabilities.

However, it’s important to consider the differences in properties between living and non-living matter. The purpose of saying this is that objectivity means living matter.

Figure 7: Properties between Living and Non-Living Matter

Transformation of One to another Element

For instance, how can a tree’s life naturally transform into a cart or a curry? According to the distinguished author, Aristotle solved the problem of existence and non-existence of “being and not being,” created by Parmenides, by proposing the theory of “potentiality and actuality,” which had troubled the Greek thinkers. According to Aristotle, “potentiality” is similar to the “not-being” of Parmenides. However, since it is not absolute non-existence or non-existence but has the attributes of potentiality and possibility, it can come into “form” and become reality at any time.

In this way, Aristotle assigns a higher status to form than to meter. This is because, after undergoing transformation, “indefinite and formless matter” no longer remains indefinite and formless, but instead becomes clear. It is the original or superior state. Thus, the initial substance is lower than the form, but in terms of time, the indeterminate substance that first exists in the state of “potentiality” finally comes to the form. When we refer to the indefinite article as being in a state of possibility, we are referring to the potential for something to happen or come into existence. Therefore, it is already a possibility. It exists in a state of potential.

A mango tree, for example, already has the potential to produce mangoes. Although initially there was no mango fruit on the young plant, the mango plant’s fruit has potential, too. A cloud possesses the capacity to produce rain. However, the special point is that sometimes a mango plant emerges barren or produces unripe fruit prematurely.

Or not every pregnant woman has the ability to support the pregnancy for the whole nine months and give birth to a normal baby, but some women’s child ends early or prematurely. This implies that even entities of the same kind possess varying natural abilities. Therefore, it’s crucial to take into account this variation in natural abilities. In the context of social justice in human society, the significance of natural ability differences is paramount, as individuals with varying levels of natural mental and physical abilities can earn a living alongside those with superior or better natural abilities. Today, they are far behind. Unquestionably, everyone shares the same basic needs.