Aristotle's Metaphysics Alpha: Symposium Aristotelicum

by Carlos Steel (Editor)

The volumes of the 'Symposium Aristotelicum' have become obligatory reference works for Aristotle studies. In this eighteenth volume a distinguished group of scholars offers a chapter-by-chapter study of the first book of the Metaphysics. Aristotle presents here his philosophical project as a search for wisdom, which is found in the knowledge of the first principles allowing us to explain whatever exists. As he shows, earlier philosophers had been seeking such a wisdom, though they had divergent views on what these first principles were. Before Aristotle sets out his own views, he offers a critical examination of his predecessors' views, ending up with a lengthy discussion of Plato's doctrine of Forms. Book Alpha is not just a fundamental text for reconstructing the early history of Greek philosophy; it sets the agenda for Aristotle's own project of wisdom on the basis of what he had learned from his predecessors.

The volume comprises eleven chapters, each dealing with a different section of the text, and a new edition of the Greek text of Metaphysics Alpha by Oliver Primavesi, based on an exhaustive examination of the complex manuscript and indirect tradition. The introduction to the edition offers new insights into the question which has haunted editors of the Metaphysics since Bekker, namely the relation between the two divergent traditions of the text.

Genres: Philosophy

552 pages, Hardcover

First published September 15, 2012

Reviews

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 5 out of 5]

Book 1: A Preliminary Outline of Philosophy

The Symposium Aristotelicum series is a splendid companion to have while reading Aristotle. This volume offers a chapter-by-chapter commentary on Alpha, the first book of the Metaphysics, along with comprehensive essays on various topics.

It is important to understand Alpha well. Here Aristotle presents what he means by philosophy and what is involved in the search for truth. Aristotle opens the book by broaching a topic which is to be of recurring concern throughout the work -- What is the nature of philosophy?

Aristotle tells us that we can tackle this tricky question by first exploring a few by-ways. He does this by inviting us to first figuring out what should be the proper object of philosophical interest. The simple answer is: Wisdom. But that only leads us to more question: What is wisdom? How can we reach it with our limited human capabilities? Can we?

What is wisdom? Aristotle tries to answer this by listing out the characteristics of ‘wisdom’ (philosophy) -- he claims that wisdom is a process with many constituent steps: we reach it by advancing from 1) sensation (or, sense-perception) through 2) memory to 3) experience, and 4) art, to 5) theoretical knowledge.

Once we are capable of applying this experience/knowledge of the particular to the universal, then we approach Wisdom. But it is not just any knowledge that is enough. Aristotle also ranks types of wisdom/knowledge. The that knowledge of universals is somehow higher or more valuable than that of particular things, and that kind of universal knowledge is the Highest, which tries helps to understand the fundamental causes and principles of all things. This is the Highest Science and since Philosophy is study of the Highest Science, it is thus proved that this is the True Domain of the True Philosopher.

True Philosophy is thus the search for the most fundamental causes and principles of the most general aspects of the world. And a true philosopher will demonstrate his wisdom by being able to teach and impart his knowledge to others. That is the final test, which apparently A was passing in flying colors even as he was delivering this very lecture!

The Doxographical K.O.!

Before he embarks on this himself, he catalogues and examines the paths taken by earlier philosophers, and surveys these previous philosophies,from Thales to Plato, especially their treatment of causes --There are four kinds of cause, or rather kinds of explanation, for how things are: (1) the material cause, which explains what a thing is made of; (2) the formal cause, which explains the form a thing assumes; (3) the efficient cause, which explains the process by which it came into being; and (4) the final cause, which explains the end or purpose it serves.

In this ‘doxographical’ survey, Aristotle condescends that the explanations of earlier philosophers have conformed to these four causes but not as coherently and systematically as Aristotle’s formulation. Aristotle acknowledges that Plato’s Theory of Forms gives a strong account of the formal cause, but it fails to prove that Forms exist and to explain how objects in the physical world participate in Forms. It is only fair to say that he takes them apart mercilessly.

Conclusion? Most tried to search for material causes, a few searched for efficient causes and a select few stumbled close to searching for the formal causes, but all of them without any systematic understanding about the objectives of philosophy, all of them stumbling in the dark... they were either naive, wrong or obscure in their formulations. To be of any use, they have to be integrated into Aristotle's system of thought. Thus he draws his survey of earlier thought to a triumphant conclusion, vindicating his claim that every serious attempt at explanation of the world must fit into one of his four approved styles. It is just that they did not know it yet!

By laying out the historical path/development of Philosophical thought in an organized way, Aristotle also pioneers a 'sense of development', as if whole of philosophy was developing, even if unaware of it, towards his grand synthesis. This conception (or conceit?) of science and knowledge is something that we moderns love to embrace with elation.

A Personal Note

To me Alpha was a fun read, to have demonstrated by the "Master' himself how it is done -- to challenge openly and without question all established doctrines, no matter how prestigious. Though the effect is spoiled a bit by Aristotle’s evident hostility towards anything remotely tending towards poor Pythagoras. It is a miracle that he still has a decent reputation.

But it also showed me an important contrast between Plato/Socrates and Aristotle. Plato shows a more lenient, accepting way of challenging conventional wisdom, while Aristotle prefers to tackle and reject, almost heedlessly. Current scholarly opinion seems to be of the view that Aristotle was slightly on the reckless side, perhaps reducing the arguments he was challenging into straw-men that he could easily knock down without acknowledging fully their importance or contributions to his own thought.

In any case, it is great that Metaphysics opens on such an entertaining and personal note. It makes the first acquaintance less intimidating than would have been expected.

[Endre Kornél · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent, almost sentence by sentence analysis of Aristotle's Metaphysics Alpha book. Each section receives an essay by an expert scholar. The book helped me better understand the general purpose and some fine details of Alpha.