26. Wisdom, Causes, and Axioms in Aristotelian Philosophy

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Four Causes and Their Distribution Among Sciences #

• Matter and Mover: Natural philosophers and modern physicists discuss these causes
• Form: Mathematicians and geometers focus on this cause
• End/Purpose: Moral philosophers concentrate on final cause
• Central Problem: No single science appears to discuss all four causes, yet wisdom should consider them all
• Question: Which causes should wisdom properly study, and in what order of importance?

Axioms as Objects of Wisdom’s Consideration #

• Definition: Axioms are self-evident statements known to themselves (σαφά), known by all men, and foundational to all reasoned knowledge
• Examples:
  • “A whole is greater than its part”
  • “The same cannot both be and affirmed and denied at the same time”
  • “Nothing is before itself”
  • “Nothing is the beginning of itself”
• The Objection: If axioms are known by everyone, why must wisdom consider them?
• The Response: Some people deny axioms in words and give reasons most cannot answer; therefore someone must defend them

Equivocation and Axioms #

• Central Insight: Axioms contain equivocal terms with related but distinct meanings
• Consequence: Most people have only confused knowledge of axioms; distinct knowledge requires distinguishing the meanings of equivocal terms
• Purpose: Understanding equivocation becomes necessary both for holding distinct knowledge of axioms and for answering objections based on equivocal usage

Immaterial Substances (Separated Substances) #

• Question of whether immaterial substances exist will influence what wisdom studies
• If all things are material, matter becomes a universal cause
• If immaterial substances exist, matter is only a particular cause of material things
• This question emerges as an exception to the general division between second and third readings

Key Arguments #

The “Animal/Man” Objection to “Whole Greater Than Part” #

• Argument: Man = animal + reason (animal is part of man’s definition); yet animal includes dog, cat, horse, elephant (so animal includes more things than man); therefore sometimes the part is greater than the whole
• Resolution: Confuses two distinct meanings of “whole” and “part”:
  • Composed whole: A whole put together from its parts (man is composed from animal and reason)
  • Universal whole: A universal said of more particulars (animal is said of more things than man is said of)
• Key Distinction: When I say “animal is part of man,” I mean part of the definition (composed whole); when I say “animal includes more things,” I mean the universal is predicated of more particulars (universal whole)
• Lesson: The axiom holds true when you maintain the proper meaning of its terms

The “Chaucer/Shakespeare” Objection to “Nothing is Before Itself” #

• Argument: Chaucer is before Shakespeare in time; Shakespeare is before Chaucer in excellence; therefore Chaucer is before Chaucer (violating the axiom)
• Resolution: Confuses temporal priority with priority in excellence
• Key Point: The axiom holds in each sense separately, but fails when equivocating between senses

The “Foundation of House” Objection to “Nothing is the Beginning of Itself” #

• Argument: The foundation of a house is the beginning of the house; the foundation is part of the house; therefore the beginning is part of itself (violating the axiom)
• Resolution: Distinguish between:
  • Intrinsic beginning (a fundamental part like the keel of a ship or foundation of a house): here the distinction is between part and whole
  • Extrinsic beginning (like one’s father): here the distinction is clearer since the beginning is not part of what it begins
• Key Point: The distinction between “beginning” and “that of which it is a beginning” operates differently depending on which meaning of beginning is intended

Important Definitions #

Αἴτιον (Cause) #

• That upon which something depends; that which is responsible for a thing’s existence or coming into existence
• Four kinds: matter (ὕλη), form (μορφή), mover/efficient cause (κινοῦν), and end/final cause (τέλος)

Ὑποκείμενον (Substance/Fundamental Thing) #

• The fundamental things that wisdom studies; the primary subjects of predication
• Contrasted with accidents or modifications of substance

Separated Substances (χωρισταί οὐσίαι) #

• Immaterial substances existing apart from matter
• Known in classical Greek philosophy; equivalent to angels in Christian theology
• Their existence crucial for determining what wisdom properly studies

Composed Whole (Totum Compositum) #

• A whole put together from its parts
• Example: man = animal + reason
• The parts are ordered toward constituting the whole’s essence

Universal Whole (Totum Universale) #

• A universal predicated of its particulars
• Example: animal is said of man, dog, cat, horse
• The parts (particulars) are not what constitutes the whole; rather the whole is what is common to all

Examples & Illustrations #

The Animal/Man Example #

Berquist illustrates equivocation using the predicate “animal”:

• First establishes: animal is part of what man is (man = animal + reason)
• Then notes: animal applies to more things than man (dogs, cats, horses, elephants)
• Shows how students are led to conclude the part exceeds the whole
• Resolves by distinguishing composed whole from universal whole

The “Before” Example #

Demonstrates how the same preposition operates in multiple senses:

• Temporal: Chaucer before Shakespeare (chronologically earlier)
• Evaluative: Shakespeare before Chaucer (superior in quality)
• Shows how mixing senses creates apparent violations of axioms

The “Beginning” Example #

Illustrates how different senses of a term require different applications of an axiom:

• Foundation as intrinsic beginning: distinction between part and whole
• Father as extrinsic beginning: clearer distinction since father is not part of child
• Same axiom (nothing is its own beginning) applies to both but in different ways

The Dinner/Car Example (Ad Hominem) #

Berquist describes a rhetorical response to someone who denies “whole greater than part”:

• Give him a part of his dinner rather than the whole
• Give him a part of the car he bought
• His reaction proves he actually does know the axiom, despite verbal denial

Notable Quotes #

“Everybody knows that a whole is more than a part” — Berquist, referencing universal knowledge of axioms despite verbal denials

“Therefore, they think they don’t know what they do know” — Berquist, describing how clever equivocal arguments create false doubt about axioms we actually possess

“Maybe the words in the axioms are equivocal by reason” — Berquist, capturing the key insight that axioms contain terms with related but distinct meanings

Questions Addressed #

First Question: Which Causes Should Wisdom Consider? #

• Difficulty: Different sciences appear to study different causes (natural philosophy: matter and mover; mathematics: form; ethics: end)
• Problem: If no single science studies all four causes, how can wisdom study all causes?
• Partial Resolution: Wisdom must consider all causes, but their importance and prominence varies depending on what is being studied
• Further Complication: The question of whether immaterial substances exist will affect the importance of material cause for wisdom

Second Question: Should Wisdom Consider Only Causes of Substances or Also Axioms? #

• Objection: Axioms are known by all; studying what is obviously known seems unnecessary
• Counter-objection: People sometimes verbally deny axioms and provide reasons most cannot answer
• Primary Response: Distinguishing the equivocal terms in axioms is necessary for:
  • Achieving distinct (as opposed to confused) knowledge of axioms
  • Being able to answer objections based on equivocation
• Conclusion: Wisdom must consider axioms, precisely to defend them against confusion and verbal denial

Third Question: Do Immaterial Substances Exist? #

• Significance: Determines the scope of what wisdom studies
• If all things are material: Matter becomes a universal cause of all things; natural philosophy becomes wisdom
• If immaterial substances exist: Matter is only a particular cause; wisdom must study both material and immaterial substances
• Note: This question emerges as an exception to the general structure of second-reading questions (questions about what wisdom is about), because it must be answered before properly understanding what wisdom is about