However, this is still a rather broad, though still important, comparison between these three philosophers’ modes of thought when it comes to sense perception and knowledge of the world. Therefore, it would be apt to delve more deeply into each brand of thought while noting changes along the way. First, then, one should consider Aristotle and start by clarifying the stage upon which Aristotle’s thought is set. Prior to Aristotle, change was considered to have not existed since something cannot come to be from nothing, yet it cannot come to be from what is since it already is. Yet, Aristotle determined that another possibility existed, being that things can be one in number, yet many in form. Thus, it would then be possible for an underlying
…show more content…
For instance, when it comes to what was then the four elements, earth, wind, fire, and air, Aristotle deems that their core attributes are: the cold and dry, the hot and wet, the hot and dry, and the cold and wet, respectively. This is also made distinct from what is considered natural of such substances, and thus in accordance with nature, such as “travelling upward belongs to fire” (193a 1). One should also note that Aristotle distinguishes between things that are natural and things that are due to other causes. What is key about things that are natural is that “each of them has within itself a principle of motion and stability in place, in growth and decay, or in alteration” (192b 14-15). Simply from this language in and of itself one can clearly conclude that such distinctions are made through observation of things within the world and the conclusions reached from these observations. Even further emphasizing the role of sense perception in attaining knowledge of the world is the fact that what is considered a thing’s nature is a combination of both matter and form. Once again, these aspects of things are those which can be determined simply through observation with the senses. Therefore, when it comes to Aristotle, the core of any given thing can basically be determined through one’s sense …show more content…
For instance, one does not call a seed a tree since it does not yet have the form of a tree. Yet, one would concur that the seed could potentially be a tree and thus refer to the seed as that of the tree it will be once the form of tree is fully actualized. It is this distinction between a substance’s potential being and actual being that gives rise to the importance of form when considering a substance’s nature, for without such a distinction seed and tree would be treated as one and the same, which would not be precisely true. Again, note how it is through sense perception that a thing’s fully actualized self (and thus its initially potential self) can be
For instance, when it comes to what was then the four elements, earth, wind, fire, and air, Aristotle deems that their core attributes are: the cold and dry, the hot and wet, the hot and dry, and the cold and wet, respectively. This is also made distinct from what is considered natural of such substances, and thus in accordance with nature, such as “travelling upward belongs to fire” (193a 1). One should also note that Aristotle distinguishes between things that are natural and things that are due to other causes. What is key about things that are natural is that “each of them has within itself a principle of motion and stability in place, in growth and decay, or in alteration” (192b 14-15). Simply from this language in and of itself one can clearly conclude that such distinctions are made through observation of things within the world and the conclusions reached from these observations. Even further emphasizing the role of sense perception in attaining knowledge of the world is the fact that what is considered a thing’s nature is a combination of both matter and form. Once again, these aspects of things are those which can be determined simply through observation with the senses. Therefore, when it comes to Aristotle, the core of any given thing can basically be determined through one’s sense …show more content…
For instance, one does not call a seed a tree since it does not yet have the form of a tree. Yet, one would concur that the seed could potentially be a tree and thus refer to the seed as that of the tree it will be once the form of tree is fully actualized. It is this distinction between a substance’s potential being and actual being that gives rise to the importance of form when considering a substance’s nature, for without such a distinction seed and tree would be treated as one and the same, which would not be precisely true. Again, note how it is through sense perception that a thing’s fully actualized self (and thus its initially potential self) can be