 Today we are going to discuss Aristotle's philosophy of mind. As you know Aristotle was contemporary of Plato and Plato's discussion on this concept of soul is giving an impression of transcendental theory of mind. The soul in Plato is transcendental because it is not composed by the body, it is the essence of life, it is the essence of motions, it is transcendental because the soul is responsible for causing various kinds of emotions. These motions represent voluntary actions and as we have seen in the case of Plato, Plato is comparing the soul as a kind of a seriator who is controlling all kinds of actions, who is deciding things, who takes a decision, who makes a choice. So soul is rational so far as its activities are concerned. The platonic notion of the soul or the mind gives a teleological interpretation. It is not only transcendental, it is not only transcendental. But this notion of transcendence is associated with the notion of talus. As if there is a transcendental, it is a transcendental, it is a transcendental. So soul is rational so far as its activities are concerned. The platonic notion of the soul or the mind gives a teleological interpretation. It is not only transcendental but this notion of transcendence is associated with the notion of talus. As if there is a purpose behind this whole activities of the soul or the activities of human existence. So the human engagement with the world is not necessarily a kind of a finite, historical engagement. Rather the being or the or the person transcends its historicity and tries to search its destiny. So there is a divine, there is a transcendental. This sense of divinity associated with the soul. The soul is a spiritual being. It is a spiritual phenomenon that causes all kinds of actions. With this interpretation of Plato, let us look at what is Aristotleian view and how does Aristotle explain the nature of soul or the nature of mind. Now the Aristotle's philosophy of mind that I will be going to discuss today is particularly with reference to Fred D. Miller's paper which was published in the review of metaphysics 1999 where Miller gives a very novel interpretation to Aristotle's theory of mind. He does not reject the usual interpretation of mind. Rather Miller is trying to show that how Aristotle is initiating the debates in philosophy of mind. And these initiations are very different. In the sense that Aristotle tries to show a naturalistic thesis on philosophy of mind. So if naturalism has come to the forefront today in the discourse of philosophy of mind, Miller's attempt is to show how the present naturalistic theory of mind is based on the Aristotleian notion of mind. However, my understanding is that Aristotle proposes a transcendental theory of mind. And I will try to show how Aristotle proposes a transcendental theory of mind. Aristotle does it in his own way. What is soul? Aristotle says soul is the essence of life. It is the principle of life according to Aristotle. This soul is principle and acts as a metaphysical principle as we have seen in the discourse of the Greek philosophy, particularly the Greek philosophers were concerned with this idea that there is a principle of life according to Aristotle. The principle of life according to Aristotle is the principle of life according to Aristotle. Aristotle proposes a fundamental principle, understanding which we can explain the general structure of the reality. And this search is a search for metaphysics. Metaphysics becomes an ultimate source of knowledge. If philosophical explanations are based on some kind of metaphysical presuppositions, then Aristotle's philosophy of mind is the principle of life. Aristotle also presupposes the notion of soul as one of the metaphysical concept to explain the nature of reality. Now, therefore, in this connection, we will try to reflect on this idea of potentiality and actuality. Aristotle is using this idea of potentiality and actuality. In a very significant way, the body is potentially something. The body is potentially something. If there is a body, then this body is potentially something, let us say x. Now, the moment I say the body is x, I am trying to identify the body. So, I have already some kind of a knowledge of the body. So, I am trying to identify the body. Now, this identification or defining the body as something is what Aristotle calls some kind of an actualization. So, soul is actualized, whereas the body is a potential. The body represents a case of a potential, where soul is something which is an actualization. Why do we talk about this world? So, soul is an actualization. So, soul is actualized, whereas the body is a potential. The body represents a case of a potential, where soul is something which is an actualization. Why do we talk about the soul as an essence of life or the principle of life? Is it just a metaphysical concern of Aristotle? Now, as you know, as I have mentioned it, that the Greek philosophers were delving into the discourse of philosophy and trying to find the potential of the body. To find out what is the metaphysical basis of reality. So, hence this notion of substance as a fundamental principle is very much debated in the pre-socratic philosophy as well as by the socratic philosophers. Now, Aristotle is bringing this debate which was there in Plato. It is a debate about the dualism, which Plato encounters with reference to the epistemology and the ontology. According to Plato, matter and forms are to separate entities. They have two levels of existence. They exist in two different realms. Now, this notion, as we have seen, that is causing some kind of a dualism, where Plato asserts that forms are to separate entities, they have two levels of existence. They exist in two different realms. Now, this notion, as we have seen, that is causing some kind of a dualism, where Plato asserts that forms are to separate entities. Forms are logically prior than the existence of the particulars, the things in the world. Now, this primacy that is associated with the form is not acceptable to Aristotle. Aristotle argues that matter and form are not distinct phenomena. They are not two distinct phenomena. Rather, they are related. They share some kind of a logical relationship. They are necessarily kind of a logical relationship. They are necessarily kind of a logical relationship. They are not two distinct phenomena. Rather, they are related. They share some kind of a logical relationship. They are necessarily connected with each other. And that he tries to show in this case. Now, when we talk about reality, there is this reality called some kind of a stuff, stuff that represents matter. Matter in its pure form is something, but we do not know what exactly it is. So, the matter actualizes in the process. So, there is a process involved. So, this process, the process of actualization gives identity to the matter. So, that is what is something very significant in Plato and Aristotle. Plato talks about the existence of basic particulars in the form of the copies that these particulars are the copies of forms or ideas. Whereas Aristotle emphasizes that they are not the copies. Rather, they carry the form. It is the form which gives them some kind of identity. So, form and matter are not two distinct phenomena. They are related with one another. And it is through form it is being identified as this is a necklace made of gold, where gold could be a kind of a pure stuff. The way the gold is processed represents the process of actualizations, how the necklace gets its identity, how a particular ornament gets its identity. So, that is where it acquires the form. Similarly, that debate about the matter and form can be associated with the body and mind. The body and the soul. The soul is an actualization of the body. According to Aristotle, soul is as if something in platonic schema, you know, allegedly leaving in the body. Therefore, Aristotle tries to show us that no, this kind of fitting is not something very logical. Therefore, Aristotle tries to explicate what is the logical status of the soul and how it is the logical status of the soul. Now, we can explain it within this relationship that matter and form shares. So, the substance which is a metaphysical principle says, substance is composite of both matter and form. The matter, as I said, is the potentiality and the form on the other hand represents actualization. So, now, one can look at this notion of no air. One can also come to understand this, that matter and form. One can also come to understand that if soul is something which is in actualized and this actualization shows that, you know, the soul is aware of what is happening. So, human being has a no air in a potential sense of the term and in its actual sense is something need to be discussed. Now, in a potential sense, what kind of presence of the soul we have, in a potential sense, what kind of presence that Aristotle is thinking about and in an actual sense, what kind of presence Aristotle is talking about. There are two different stages in which the soul manifests. The stage of potentiality and the stage of actualizations are completely different. So, so, in a potential sense, what kind of presence of the soul as a no air must have two different states of existence and that is what we would like to discuss. There are two levels of actuality Aristotle is pointing to. One is actuality refers to the grammatical knowledge, this agreement between subject and the verb, the actual awareness of using knowledge. At one point, when you make a linguistic analysis, Miller is trying to make a kind of a linguistic analysis of this particular case of actuality, potentiality and actuality. Now, when you talk about actualizations, if soul is something that has been actualized by the body, then what are the two different levels of actualizations? At one level, we talk about the grammatical relationship, in which a sentence is actualized, where we talk about subject, predicate or subject and verb connections. The other level that somebody is correcting, somebody is aware of the what is going on. So, there are two processes. At one, you have a process which could be a kind of a mechanical process or which could be a kind of a spontaneous process, where you try to formulate the sentences, but this spontaneity needs to be noticed by somebody. So, self as a knower also notices what is happening and that he does at the second level of actuality. Miller has been very analytical, he has been very knowledgeable in his interpretation, that where he tries to correct the processes. Now, this awareness is something very important. One level, the first level, we are talking about a process which could be a mechanical process without happening, without the knowledge of the knower. At another level, you have a process which is intentional process, in the sense that the knower is aware of this fact that yes, it is happening. Like, I am conscious and I am conscious of the knower. At another level, you have a process which is intentional process, in the sense that the knower is aware of this fact that yes, it is happening. Like, I am conscious and I am conscious of the fact that I am conscious, are two levels of consciousness. Now, when I say I am conscious, it is a natural fact that I am conscious of something, but if I make a claim, a knowledge claim, then I must say that yes, I am conscious of this fact, that I am conscious of this fact. that axis there in the class and listening to my lectures. So, this is a kind of a second level consciousness. The similar kind of analysis Miller is doing here that at one level the subject, the individual is formulating sentences. At another level the individual has the power to correct those sentences, to evaluate whether sentence is a correct one or incorrect one. So, that reflective capacity of the person is something very interesting when you talk about the process of actualizations. Now, then look at this notion of potentiality, what is potentially there? Now, when you talk about natural substances particularly with reference to the nature in physics, things that exist in nature, there are many things existing in nature, animals, plants and simple elements. There are also things which are caused by the individuals, the human beings. Human beings have created those things several example, the clock, the television that you are there in the computers for nature, many such things are created by human beings. So, where there are two levels of causality at one level you will find that there is a natural causation, things are there in the world like animals are living beings, human beings are living beings, plants are living beings, they have the natural potentiality to create things, they grow and they also decay, they grow and they also die. So, growth and decay are the natural potentialities that are part of this biological system. Now, what is important here is to note that there is a process which is involved in the body, the process which is causing the growth and also causing the decay and there is also a process which is involved in the individual, in the human beings where they create new things, they create many artifacts. So, that is what is trying to show that there are natural substances and there are certain artifacts and artifacts are caused by human beings. So, you have living and non-living beings, the living beings have self-nutrition, growth and decay as I pointed out. Now, there is also a kind of a every natural body which shares life is a substance, this is there is totally an understanding of the substance that every living being which shares life is a substance because in this total you know that soul is the essence or the principle of life. So, there is an essence to this life. So, having this essence, Aristotle says that there is a substance in this living beings. Now, this relationship between the substance and the body is not a mechanical relationship, it is a natural relationship and what kind of naturalism Aristotle is advocating, we need to look at that. The other point which Aristotle is making here particularly with reference to the relationship is that the body and soul stand to each other as the matter and form stand to each other. I have already stated about it and that when I talk about a particular entity or a particular thing say chair, I already pointed out that yes that chair. So, this chair or this chair on which I am sitting and talking to you. Now, this gives some kind of identity to the particular thing. So, there is a form which gives identity or which brings the identity to the matter is intrinsically related with the matter. Cannot really isolate them, put them in the platonic world of forms. So, regarding the relation, Aristotle says I would cite this quotation from Miller, Miller writes for the body is a subject and matter and is not an attribute of the subject. Hence, soul is not an attribute of the body, rather soul is the substance in the sense of the form of natural body which potentially protects of life and God. Now, this notion of soul as a substance in the sense that it naturally takes the body. So, Aristotle tries to give some kind of natural relationship in which the soul is realizing its potentiality or the body is actualized in a particular way just by having the soul in it. Remember, the existence of soul is nothing but the essence of life. So, in the first level of actualization, so what you exactly have is this. So, knowledge is an actual state and the second level you have to be able to realize the existence of soul as an actual state and the second level you are being aware of the fact being awake. So, the existence as a living being and your existence as a living being and also being aware of this fact that you are living is something very important. So, the soul is the first level of actualization of a natural body which potentially protects in life where one is aware of this fact that there are no cases, there are activities which you are aware of. So, there are four things or four levels different levels in which you can talk about. The soul one is the intellect, perception, locomotion and rest, nutritive movement, growth and decay. Now, this is the fourth level where you will find every biological system, organic system has this capacity, has this power. Then little higher than this will have both the two that is the locomotion and rest, the body can move and control its movement, can self control its movement. Then there are organic systems which have perceptive powers, they have senses to receive information, to receive sense data. So, the power of sense organs associated with the body, then at the highest level you have the capacity to reason out, capacity to discern, capacity to identify things. So, the power of sense organs associated with the body, capacity to identify things as something that is where you place reason or intellect. So, human beings are with all the four lesser beings than the human where Aristotle calls only human beings are rational because they can formulate a normative world. Their normative world is far more superior than the normative world in which animals live. Now, this superiority is something to do with their complex form of life. Human beings live a very complex form of life. The knowledge systems in which humans live is much more complex than the knowledge systems in which or the normative structure in which the animals have their own form of life. So, that is the difference. So, there is totally a form of life where human beings are extraordinary capacity of rationality and intellect is something to do with the description of the soul, how soul is an important category there. So, as I said Aristotle was critical to Plato and Pythagoras. Now, this criticism is something very significant in the sense that as I mentioned earlier Aristotle thinks that soul is allegedly Plato has allegedly put the soul in the body. For Aristotle the body is constituted of certain organic systems and each system is interlocking and they are interlocked in the organic structure. So, systems subsystems are functioning within the structure of the body. So, this power and the power of interlocking relationship is something very significant when you talk about soul and its relationship with the body. Plato has given no explanation regarding the cause and the condition of the body. So, therefore, Aristotle tries to draw our attention to this fact that each body has a peculiar form. Each body is unique and soul must use its body in the sense that soul has the power of using its body. Soul must use its body in the sense that soul has the power of using its body. So, that is why soul has to use the body. Now, then let us summarize the nature of the soul. I would summarize like this. The soul is basically material in Aristotle. The body stands to soul as the matter stands to the form. Soul is everlasting and imperishable. Now, this is where Aristotle is not totally rejecting Plato. That soul is the body. The body is an organic system. Not only shows the symptom of growth, but also shows the symptom of decay. So, this process does not affect the quality of the soul. Intellect is different kind of power. So, the intellectual power, the rational power of the soul is not affected much by the decay of the body. What else the soul has? The soul has the power of contemplation. Contemplation is associated with soul. The power of reflection is associated with the soul. Now, when we talk about the soul and its relationship with the body, we must also see the Aristotleian explanation of this matter form relations more critically. Now, when we talk about the explanation of this matter form relations more critically, particularly with reference to Aristotle's causal explanation. Now, Aristotle gives four accounts of causations. One is the material cause, the efficient cause, the formal cause and the final cause. Now, these four types of the causal arguments, these four types of causations are important to talk about the matter form relationship or the soul form body relationship. Now, Aristotle is talking about the material cause. The material cause is part of the matter. It is the basic stuff as I said earlier. Now, the matter in itself cannot bring significant change. Look at Aristotle's famous example of port and the material cause is part of the matter. This is the example of port and the maker of the port. Now, port has got an identity and this identity is derived from the identity of mud or clay. So, clay represents the basic stuff. Now, how do we transform the clay to the port? Now, to transform this, to actualize this process, we need to talk about an agent. Now, this agency is called the agent. Now, this agent is what we call the efficient cause. It is the efficient cause in Aristotle. It is the agent which is making this transformation possible, where the clay acquires its identity, that it becomes a port. Now, if we say that can a port be made out of say oil? No, precisely no, because the effects must pre-exist in the cause, the pre-existence in the state of potentiality. The clay must be potentially so, so that a port can be made out of it. We cannot make port from oil. So, that is why we need to also see the other two notions of causation that Aristotle brings in to talk about the process of actualization. They are formal cause and final cause. In the case of formal cause, where the agent designs or contemplates on how to make it, what could be its possible form? When x is being designed, what could be its possible form? So, the logical possibility of making or giving an identity to a particular staff, it will talk about its formal cause and that is why the agent conceptualizes what would be its formal cause. Conceptualizes its existence. The port is already conceptualized by the agent and then between its conceptualized existence and existence as an identity. In my mind, I have conceptualized it something like this. In the mind, the port is conceptualized like this, but maybe I would like to change and make something different. So, in reality, it can be conceptualized by the agent. So, in reality, it can be conceptualized by the agent. So, in reality, it can be conceptualized or it may come out like something little different, not maybe significantly different, but maybe little different. So, there are external conditions in which you will try to see that the similar, two similar ports are not identical with each other. This may be similarly designed, formed, but they are not two identical objects. So, therefore, the final cause is different and also has certain specific explanation than its formal and the material cause. So, material cause represents the basic material out of which a thing is produced, whereas the agent who really makes this transformation, make this change possible. Now, the change, the notion of change or transformation is due to this fact that the agent is intentionally involved, the intention of the agent. The agent is thinking how to change it, how to make something possible. That is something which Aristotle is bringing and Aristotle tries to show that this intervention of the agent in the process of transformation of change is something very significant and that would explain the relationship between the matter and the form. How does the matter acquires its form? If there is no soul involved in it, soul as a principle of life involved in the matter, then the matter will never transform itself. The world has transformed, the universe has transformed because the universe is having an unmoved mover in it. So, the universal principle where Aristotle talks about an unmoved mover, the universe is moving, the universe is changing, the things in the universe change, but this change is possible because there is an unmoved mover and for Aristotle, it is the god who represents an unmoved mover. God is the principle of movement, but in itself it is not moved. God causes movement. So, like the individuals, the human beings cause transformations, they create things. Now, this creation of various artifacts is due to not there just having some kind of principle or substance, which is the principle of life, but this principle is also having intellect, that is which Aristotle calls the power of contemplation and it is a different kind of contemplation. Which is not there in the case of ordinary living beings. So, it is due to this power, somebody is able to make certain things, somebody is able to design certain things and produce certain things. So, that is what Aristotle's notion of soul is about, but as I said Aristotle is the father of materialism, what kind of materialism Aristotle is bringing. Now, two statements are relevant here and Miller draws their attention to these two statements. One, the soul is the most material component of the body. So, soul is not allegedly entered into the body, soul is not something which is outside the body and it has intervened. Now, soul is ontologically the part of the body and that is what is very significant in Aristotle. Though it has its independent function, that is different, but what Aristotle is trying to show that their logical relation and where soul is the most material component of the body, soul consists of some condition, dispositions and alternation of the material components of the body. So, this where now we can say that Aristotle is putting a foundation to materialism. The whole materialistic theory of mind that we are seeing in the case of eliminative materialism, physicalism, functionalism, behaviorism, etcetera, tries to draw their theoretical assumptions from this Aristotleian notion of body, mind, relationship. With this I would like to conclude that Aristotle is not purely a materialistic one, though he is talking about the soul is part of the body, but still soul has a logical function, the function which is independent of the function of the body and this kind of function is very significant when we talk about voluntary actions, voluntary rational actions. So, this is the rational movement that the agent makes. So, which is different from a pure materialistic understanding of the body, where body and mind are logically identical. Aristotle does not make this identity, Aristotle does not identify the body and the mind, rather he tries to show that the body has the mind and this position is a kind of a natural position, but does not mean that soul is perishable, soul is something which I would say it is not everlasting, rather soul has some kind of power and that is the power of thinking, power of rationalizing, power of reflecting and this is to talk about self-actualizations, self-knowledge, etc. With this I will conclude the discussion on Aristotle's notion of soul. Thank you.