Aristotle's Complete Works (Volume 5)

Author: Chief Editor: Miao Litian
Publisher:
Publish Date: 1997-01-01
Features: Excerpt: If every animal and every part of it is determined by its shape and color, then what Democritus said would be correct. Clearly, this is his view. He says that everyone understands that a person is something similar to their shape, because it is through shape and color that a person can be recognized. However, a corpse has the same shape and color, but it is not a person. Furthermore, a hand made of copper or wood or in any other way cannot be considered a real hand except for a name. Additionally, the doctor in a painting or the flute in a sculpture cannot fulfill the function. Accurately speaking, any part of a corpse, which I mean the eye and the hand, are not true eyes and hands in the proper sense. He explains it too simply, just like a craftsman insists that the hand he made is a real hand. Similarly, the natural philosophers' explanations for the generation and reasons behind animal shapes are also overly simplistic. Through what potential is the hand or body created? The craftsman would say, through an axe and drill; the natural philosopher would say, through air and earth. Of these two answers, the craftsman's is slightly more reasonable. But for the craftsman, merely claiming that the operation of tools, making one part concave and another part flat, is not enough. He must explain why it is made this way, the purpose behind it, i.e., the reason why a piece of wood should ultimately be made into this or that shape. Clearly, the view of the natural philosophers is incorrect. We must show what the fundamental characteristics are that distinguish animals, how their nature is, and what their parts are, just as we described the form of the "bed" earlier. If the form of a living being is the soul, or a part of the soul, or something that cannot exist without the soul (then in any case, when its soul departs, what remains is no longer a living being, and each part, apart from its outward appearance, cannot retain its original state, as in mythical stories where animals turn to stone), if this is the case, then the mission of natural philosophy lies in caring for the soul and exploring it. If not the whole soul, at least the part of the soul by which the animal becomes itself must be involved. He must determine what the soul is, or what this part of the soul is, and also discuss the attributes that correspond to its essence. Because "nature" is interpreted and inherently has two meanings: as matter and as essence or substance①, the latter including the material cause and the final cause. It is precisely in this sense that the whole soul or the part of the soul constitutes the essence or substance of the animal. In the theoretical exploration of nature, the soul must be discussed before matter, because it is the soul that makes matter the essence or substance of the animal, not the other way around. A piece of wood is made into a bed and a triangular altar because, in the potential sense, it is such.