IX.

Notwithstanding the radical error of Aristotle’s philosophy—the false abstraction and isolation of the intellectual from the material sphere in Nature and in human life—it may furnish a useful corrective to the much falser philosophy insinuated, if not inculcated, by some moralists of our own age and country. Taken altogether, the teaching of these writers seems to be that the industry which addresses itself to the satisfaction of our material wants is much more meritorious than the artistic work which gives us direct aesthetic enjoyment, or the literary work which stimulates and gratifies our intellectual cravings; while within the artistic sphere fidelity of portraiture is preferred to the creation of ideal beauty; and within the intellectual sphere, mere observation of facts is set above the theorising power by which facts are unified and explained. Some of the school to whom we allude are great enemies of materialism; but teaching like theirs is materialism of the worst description. Consistently carried out, it would first reduce Europe to the level of China, and then reduce the whole human race to the level of bees or beavers. They forget that when we were all comfortably clothed, housed, and fed, our true lives would have only just begun. The choice would then remain between some new refinement of animal appetite and the theorising activity which, according to Aristotle, is the absolute end, every other activity being only a means for its attainment. There is not, indeed, such a fundamental distinction as he supposed, for activities of every order are connected by a continual reciprocity of services; but this only amounts to saying that the highest knowledge is a means to every other end no less than an end in itself. Aristotle is also fully justified in urging the necessity of leisure as a condition of intellectual progress. We may add that it is a leisure which is amply earned, for without it industrial production could not be maintained at its present height. Nor should the same standard of perfection be imposed on spiritual as on material labour. The latter could not be carried on at all unless success, and not failure, were the rule. It is otherwise in the ideal sphere. There the proportions are necessarily reversed. We must be content if out of a thousand guesses and trials one should contribute something to the immortal heritage of truth. Yet we may hope that this will not always be so, that the great discoveries and creations wrought out through the waste of innumerable lives are not only the expiation of all error and suffering in the past, but are also the pledge of a future when such sacrifices shall no longer be required.

The two elements of error and achievement are so intimately blended and mutually conditioned in the philosophy which we have been reviewing, that to decide on their respective importance is impossible without first deciding on a still larger question—the value of systematic thought as such, and apart from its actual content. For Aristotle was perhaps the greatest master of systematisation that ever lived. The framework and language of science are still, to a great extent, what he made them; and it remains to be seen whether they will ever be completely remodelled. Yet even this gift has not been an unmixed benefit, for it was long used in the service of false doctrines, and it still induces critics to read into the Aristotelian forms truths which they do not really contain. Let us conclude by observing that of all the ancients, or even of all thinkers before the eighteenth century, there is none to whom the methods and results of modern science could so easily be explained. While finding that they reversed his own most cherished convictions on every point, he would still be prepared by his logical studies to appreciate the evidence on which they rest, and by his ardent love of truth to accept them without reserve. Most of all would he welcome our astronomy and our biology with wonder and delight, while viewing the development of modern machinery with much more qualified admiration, and the progress of democracy perhaps with suspicious fear. He who thought that the mind and body of an artisan were alike debased by the exercise of some simple handicraft under the pure bright sky of Greece, what would he have said to the effect wrought on human beings by the noisome, grinding, sunless, soulless drudgery of our factories and mines! How profoundly unfitted would he have deemed its victims to influence those political issues with which the interests of science are every day becoming more vitally connected! Yet slowly, perhaps, and unwillingly, he might be brought to perceive that our industry has been the indispensable basis of our knowledge, as supplying both the material means and the moral ends of its cultivation. He might also learn that there is an even closer relationship between the two: that while the supporters of privilege are leagued for the maintenance of superstition, the workers, and those who advocate their claims to political equality, are leagued for its restraint and overthrow. And if he still shrank back from the heat and smoke and turmoil amid which the genius of our age stands, like another Heracleitus, in feverish excitement, by the steam-furnace whence its powers of revolutionary transmutation are derived, we too might reapply the words of the old Ephesian prophet, bidding him enter boldly, for here also there are gods.

FOOTNOTES:

[222] _Phys._, II., viii., p. 198, b, 24.

[223] The late Father Secchi, for example.

[224] _Phys._, II., iv., p. 196, a, 28; _De Coel._, II., xii.

[225] _Phys._, II., viii., p. 199, b, 14.

[226] _Metaph._, I., iii., _sub in._; _Anal. Post._, II., xi., _sub in._ Bekker. (cap. x., in the Tauchnitz ed.); _Phys._ II., iii.; _De Gen. An._, I., i. _sub in._

[227] _Metaph._, VIII., iv., p. 1044, b, 1; _De Gen. An._, I., i., p, 715, a, 6; _ib._ II., i., 732, a, 4; _Phys._, II., vii., p. 198, a, 24 ff.

[228] _Phys._, II., iii., p. 195, a, 32 ff.; _Metaph._, IX., viii., p. 1049, b, 24.

[229] That is, according to the traditional view, which, however, will have to be considerably modified if we accept the conclusions embodied in Teichmüller’s _Literarische Fehden_.

[230] _Parmen._, 130, A ff.; _Tim._, 28, A.

[231] As we may infer from a passage in the _Rhetoric_ (II., ii., p. 1379, a, 35), where partisans of the Idea are said to be exasperated by any slight thrown on their favourite doctrine.

[232] Repeated in the _Metaphysics_, I., ix., p. 993, a, 1.

[233] This may seem inconsistent with our former assertion, that Hegel holds in German philosophy a place analogous to that held by Aristotle in Greek philosophy. Such analogies, however, are always more or less incomplete; and, so far as he attributes a self-moving power to ideas, Hegel is a Platonist rather than an Aristotelian. Similarly, as an evolutionist, Mr. Herbert Spencer stands much nearer to early Greek thought than to Aristotle, whom, in other respects, he so much resembles.

[234] Zeller, _Ph. d. Gr._, II., b, 297 f.

[235] _Metaph._ IV., iii. and viii.

[236] _Ibid._ VI., ii., p. 1026, b, 21.

[237] _Metaph._, VI., iv., p. 1027, b, 29.

[238] _Ibid._, VI., iv.

[239] _Ibid._, VI., ii., _sub in._; VII., i., _sub in._; _Topic._, I., ix.

[240] These are τί, ποιόν, ποσόν, ποῦ, ποτέ, and πῶς. Τί is associated with πρός in the question πρὸς τί, which has no simple English equivalent. Apparently it was suggested to Aristotle by ποσόν, how much? in connexion with which it means, in relation to what standard? If we were told that a thing was double, we should ask, double what? Again, the Greeks had a simply compound question, τί παθών, meaning, what was the matter with him? or, what made him do it? From this Aristotle extracted πάσχειν, a wider notion than our passion, meaning whatever is done or happens to anything; which again would suggest ποιεῖν, what it does. Finally, πῶς, taken alone, is too vague a question for any answer, but must be taken in its simplest compounds πῶς διακείμενον and πῶς ἔχον, which give the two rarely-occurring categories ἔχειν and κεῖσθαι, for which it is on one occasion substituted (_Soph. El._, xxii., p. 178, b, 39). Διὰ τί does not figure among the categories, because it is reserved for the special analysis of οὐσία.

[241] As Grote has shown in his chapter on the Categories.

[242] _Eth. Nic._, I., iv., p. 1096, a, 24, where six are enumerated.

[243] _Metaph._, VII. _passim_.

[244] _Metaph._, VII., vi., p. 1031, b, 18 ff.

[245] Zeller, _Phil. d. Gr._, II., b, 309.

[246] For the general theory of Actuality and Possibility, see _Metaph._, VIII.

[247] Grant’s _Aristotle_, p. 176.

[248] _Metaph._, XII., viii., p. 1074, a, 36.

[249] Grant’s _Aristotle_, p. 176.

[250] ‘The rational attitude of a thinking mind towards the supernatural, whether in natural or revealed religion, is that of scepticism, as distinguished from belief on the one hand and atheism on the other.’—Mill’s _Essays on Religion_, p. 242.

[251] Grant’s _Aristotle_, p. 177.

[252] τὸ δ’ [252] τὸ δ’ εἶνα οὐκ οὐσία οὐδενί· οὐ γὰρ γένος τὸ ὄν.—_An. Post._, II., vii., p. 92, b, 13.

[253] _Metaph._, XIII., x.

[254] ‘Non pensar oltre lei [la terra] essere un corpo senza alma e vita et anche feccia tra le sustanze corporali.’ Giordano Bruno, _Cena de le Ceneri_, p. 130 (_Opere_, ed. Wagner). ‘Non dovete stimar ... che il corpo terreno sia vile e più degli altri ignobile.’—_De l’Infinito Universo e Mondi_, p. 54 (_ib._).

[255] This conjecture of Empedocles deserves more attention than it has as yet received. It illustrates once more the superior insight of the early thinkers as compared with Aristotle.

[256] _De Coelo_, II., 1.

[257] Lewes, quoted by Zeller, p. 524.

[258] So Trendelenburg, Brandis, Kampe, and apparently also Zeller. Grote speaks of it rather vaguely as an intelligence pervading the celestial sphere. Schwegler vacillates between the theological and the psychological explanation.

[259] The last chapter of the _Posterior Analytics_ sets forth a much more developed and definite theory of the process by which general ideas are formed. We think that it was composed at a considerably later date than the rest of the work, and probably after the treatise on the Soul, to which we should almost suspect an allusion in the word πάλαι (p. 100, a, 14), did philology permit. The reference can hardly be to the first part of the chapter (as is generally supposed); nor has the subject under discussion been touched on in any other part of the _Analytics_.

[260] Grote and Kampe think that Aristotle assigns a portion of aether as an extended, if not precisely a material, substratum to the rational soul; but the arguments of Zeller (p. 569) seem decisive against this view.

[261] _De Gen. An._, II., iii., p. 736, b, 15.

[262] _Outlines of the Philosophy of Aristotle_, p. 45.

[263] The word θεῖον, at any rate, does not mean ‘almost God,’ for Aristotle applies it to the intelligence of bees, and also to the heavenly bodies (_De Gen. An._, III., x., p. 761, a, 5; _De Coelo_, II., xii., p. 292, b, 32).

[264] Principal Caird.

[265] _Outlines_, Preface, p. viii.

[266] _Metaph._, VII., xiii., p. 1039, a, 4.

[267] _De An._, III., ii., p. 426, a, 20; 425, b, 25 ff. What Aristotle means by saying that the εἶναι of object and sensation is not the same, appears from a passage in his tract on Memory (p. 450, b, 20), where he employs the illustration of a portrait and its original, which are the same, although their εἶναι is different.

[268] _Metaph._, IV., v., _sub fin._

[269] _De An._, III., iv., _sub fin._

[270] _De An._, II., ii., p. 414, a, 20.

[271] _De An._, III., i., p. 425, a, 13.

[272] See Zeller pp. 602-606, where the whole subject is thoroughly discussed.

[273] _Anal. Pr._, I., i., _sub in._; ii., _sub in._; _Top._, I., viii., Bekker (in the Tauchnitz ed., vi.).

[274] _Anal. Pr._, I., xxiii., 41, a, 11 (in the Tauchnitz ed., xxii., 8).

[275] This point is well brought out in F. A. Lange’s _Logische Untersuchungen_.

[276] _Anal. Pr._, I., xxxi.; _Anal. Post._, II., v.

[277] _Metaph._, IV., iii., _sub in._

[278] _Anal. Post._, I., x.

[279] ‘Die Wissenschaft soll die Erscheinungen aus ihren Gründen erklären, welche näher in den allgemeinen Ursachen und Gesetzen zu suchen sind’ (Zeller, p. 203). ‘Induction is the method of proceeding from particular instances to general laws’ (Wallace, p. 13). ‘It seems to have been his [Aristotle’s] idea that after gathering facts up to a certain point, a flash of intuition would supervene, telling us “This is a law”’ (Grant, p. 68). _Apropos_ of the discussion whence this last passage is extracted, we may observe that Sir A. Grant is quite mistaken in saying that Aristotle ‘omits to provide for verification.’ Aristotle is, on the contrary, most anxious to show that his theories agree with all the known facts. See in particular his memorable declaration (_De Gen. An._, III., x., p. 760, b, 27), that facts are more to be trusted than reasonings.

The emphasis laid by Aristotle on concepts as distinguished from laws is noticed by J. H. v. Kirchmann, in his German translation of the _Metaphysics_, p. 13.

[280] _De An._, III., vi., _sub in._, taken together with _Anal. Post._, I., vi.

[281] _Anal. Post._, I., xxxiv.; II., ii.

[282] _Anal. Post._, II., xii., p. 95, a, 36.

[283] Wallace’s _Outlines_, p. 14.

[284] _Ibid._, Preface, pp. viii.-ix.

[285] As if Mill wrote exclusively for Oxford tutors, and as if other philosophers had not constantly elucidated their arguments by concrete examples. One does not see why the village matron should be more deserving of contempt than Aristotle’s Thebans and Phocians.

[286] That is, knowledge which has never been actualised.

[287] It is a mistake to translate νόησις, as the Germans do, by Anschauung. The Nous does not intuite ideas, but is converted into and consists of them.

[288] For Analogy, see _Top._, II., x., _sub in._; Disjunction, II., vi., _sub in._; Hypothetical Reasoning, II., x., p. 115, a, 15; Method of Differences, II., xi., _sub in._; Method of Residues, VI., xi., _sub in._; Concomitant Variations, II., x., p. 114, b, 37; V., viii., _sub in._; VI., vii., _sub in._ The Method of Agreement occurs _An. Prior._, II., xxvii., _sub fin._; and _An. Post._, II., xiii., p. 97, b, 7.

[289] It may possibly be urged that the fifth book of the _Nicomachean Ethics_ is of doubtful authenticity. Still the dilemma remains that Aristotle either omitted the most important of all moral questions from his ethics, or that he treated it in a miserably inadequate manner.

[290] _Eth. Nic._, V., iii.; _Rhet._, I., vi., p. 1362, b, 28; ix., p. 1366, b, 4.

[291] P. 753.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

LONDON: PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE AND PARLIAMENT STREET

* * * * * *

Transcriber’s note:

Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Other variations in hyphenation spelling, accents and punctuation remain unchanged.

Footnotes are placed at the end of each chapter.

Footnote 143: Zeller, 678-8. This appears erroneous.