 Every philosophic mind knows that grand illuminating masterpiece composed by Raphael in the sixteenth century, the School of Athens. Here is Pythagoras, Diogenes, Xeno, Heraclitus, Parmenides, of Aeroes, Carnades, and Epicurus, all working diligently at their craft, but walking above them all, as to say that these two shaped the age was Plato, pointing upward to his perfect state, and the philosopher of our interest, Aristotle, holding out his hand with downward palm, as to bring his master soaring idealism back to earth. He was born in the year 384 before the common era, in the Macedonian city of Stegyra, and as if guided by Providence, the environment in which he grew was rich with opportunity to develop his encyclopedic mind. We are not certain as to the age at which Plato welcomed the reckless youth, but it seems most likely that by twenty, he had already begun the molding process under the roof of the academy. If our assumption is correct, then we can estimate that he stayed with the master for upwards of twenty years, and though they had their differences, the genius of Aristotle did not go unnoticed by Plato. By the year 344, Aristotle had married one of the wealthiest women in Athens, and by 345 was en route to tutor one who was destined to be ruler of the known world. It speaks volumes of Aristotle's merit as a scholar, if the king of Macedon, seeking the best for his son Alexander, decided that Aristotle would fit this mold. There was at first a disconnect between our philosopher and the youth as there was between Aristotle and Plato, though he would eventually find success, for a brief time at least, then Alexander would come to see in Aristotle a figure resembling a second father. If we were to believe the words described to Alexander by Plutarch, then though he had received life from the one, the other had taught him the art of living. This lasted all of two years before destiny called, and Alexander left Aristotle to the task which would bring them both immortality. It would be in his 53rd year that he was to form his school, the Lyceum, named for the athletic field with which it shared its domain. It was a well-funded school owing to Aristotle's relationship with Alexander. Its focus was more so on the biological rather than solely on philosophical digest. One of the great achievements of the Lyceum was the vast zoological collection which it boasted, it being the most magnificent the world had known in its time and for centuries thereafter. While the collection which he maintained was vast and without comparison, the tools which he had to study them hardly surpassed those natural to his own body. He was compelled to fix the time without a watch, to compare degrees of heat without a thermometer, to observe the heavens without a telescope and the weather without a barometer. These limitations would be apparent by the copious errors, some more obvious than others, which are scattered throughout his manifold works. The number of works attributed to Aristotle is estimated in the hundreds and by some up to one thousand. It is not without cause that he would gain the moniker, the encyclopedia. While Alexander was off conquering the known world through violence, Aristotle set out to do it through truth. In letter 12 of Voltaire's letters on the English, there comes to us a quote meant for Isaac Newton, but I think it applicable to our philosopher and his student. It is to him who masters our minds by the force of truth and not to those who enslave them by violence that we owe our reverence. The scope of his achievement is magnificent and can be separated into four categories, the scientific, logical, aesthetic, and strictly philosophical works. It is also reported that he too composed literary dialogues, though not one has survived to our own day. What might also be mentioned is that much of what we attribute to Aristotle are instead works likely composed and stitched together by students and followers, but we can be sure that Aristotle is the spiritual author of all these books that bear his name, that the hand may be in some cases another's hand, but that the head and the heart are his. Like so many of the great minds throughout history, Aristotle did not end his life as fortunately as it had begun. When Alexander had ordered the execution of Aristotle's nephew, he protested, finding himself as successful as ever in convincing Alexander to change his mind, he was rebuffed and warned that he too could be sentenced if his protest continued. The Athenians who surrounded him too found the philosopher as intolerable as they had found Socrates. When Alexander died suddenly, 323 BCE, these Athenians seized the opportunity to rid themselves of Aristotle in much the same way as they had with Socrates. They accused him of blasphemy, more specifically for teaching that prayer and sacrifice were of no use. Though our story deviates here from that of Socrates' when instead of allowing the people of Athens to make the same mistake twice over, he chose exile and fled to Causus. It was not soon after arriving here that Aristotle, alone and no doubt disappointed by the turn of events, became sickened and without the will to carry on, died here, 322 BCE. We must start our review of his academic contributions with the field of which he near single-handedly started, logic. While most of the time dull, it is likely the most important discipline for one to adhere to within the field of philosophy, as without it one may be led astray by any charlatan or snake oil salesman. We should begin with Aristotle's work concerning definitions, since it is the definitions which make up the core of any argument. He would have us separate each definition into two parts. The first, being the group to which it belongs. Take the word canine, for example. Its group may be that of mammal. Second, we must determine how a canine differs from the other members of its class, such as a human, cat, or horse. We could say that canines tend to be slender, long-legged animals which bark, how, or yip. With this, we may gain a clear distinction between a canine and other members of its class. And in so doing, come to a common definition which satisfies each party participating in the argument. Next, and perhaps the most well-known of his contributions to logic, comes the syllogism. The syllogism is a trio of propositions of which the third, the conclusion, follows from the conceited truth of the first two, the major and minor premises, e.g., Frank is a canine, canines have four legs, therefore, Frank has four legs. As can be seen above, by canceling out the common term, canine, from both premises, and combining what terms remain, we have our conclusion. However, the difficulty is clear, this being that the major premises takes for granted the point to be proved in the conclusion. For a Frank does not have four legs, it is not a universal truth that canines are four-legged animals. We can assume with some confidence that Aristotle would point out that this is not an issue of any significance. For as long as the object in question has a multitude of traits which link it to that specific class, then we can presume it's belonging. We should think of the syllogism not as a tool for discovering a universal truth, but rather for the clarification and exposition of thought. There can be no doubt that here we have a man who, through his own power of mind, started a science which would stimulate all those who came after, few of which could add profoundly to the very logical works of Aristotle. Before an investigation into the metaphysics of Aristotle, I think it appropriate to review, if only briefly, his thoughts and findings regarding the very life sciences he dedicated much of his time accumulating. We can be sure that before Aristotle, the varied sciences of which he observed and recorded were hardly present in any organized manner. I would like to make known that I am not forgetting Thales, who hypothesized the sun and stars to be balls of fire, and Petticles, who told of life as the survival of the fittest, and of course, Democritus, who contemplated the atom. I'm only stating that the beginning of organized science starts here with these works. First, he gives us a magnificent treatise on meteorology. He paints us a strikingly modern picture of our hydrological cycle. When looking toward the species which populated the planet, he believes them to be near identical to their predecessor. When taken in the large, a link could be formed to the beginning of life on earth. Nature makes so gradual a transition from the inanimate to the animate kingdom, that the boundary lines which separate them are indistinct and doubtful. He falls short of evolution and does not believe as in Petticles did, that these small variations come about through the survival of the fittest. He classifies man as mammal and thinks the monkey a fitting intermediary between man and those predecessors who roam the earth on all fours. Embryology too finds its origin in Aristotle. He who sees things grow from their beginning will have the finest view of them. Though it is true that Aristotle was not the first to think these thoughts, he was without question the first to catalog his findings with careful observation and experiment. As for his errors, we can forgive him that. We must keep in mind that the tools which were used were archaic and the previously established body of knowledge which we rely so heavily on today was for the most part undiscovered. When we search the depth of Aristotle's metaphysics we find two principles which establish the basis for his chain of reasoning. These two things are form and matter. Form we may picture as the inner necessity and impulse which molds mere material to a specific figure and purpose. It is the realization of a potential capacity of matter. It is the sum of the powers residing in anything to do, to be or to become. All matter has its antecedent form of which this form too has its own antecedent and so on until we arrive at matter without form. Perhaps an example would help to clarify. If we begin with an adult man we may say that the child is its form from which the embryo is its form. Then the ovum the form of this. All guided and designed from within to become what they were destined to be. When we arrive at matter without form we have arrived at the question which all children will ask when discovering the eternal nature of God, which is, but where does this matter come from? Aristotle would answer that matter itself as but the possibility of future forms can be eternal though motion must have a beginning. Here is where he inserts the prime mover unmoved a being of infinite and incorporeal nature. This being is the driving force within and without each individual thing as well as the whole of nature. This God has no desires, no purpose behind its action and certainly has no personal preference for man in particular as he is but a part of the whole which God is the vital principle. For Aristotle the will is free and so far as we can choose our environment such as the books we read or the friends which we employ but we cannot directly will to be different from what we are. The use of praise and blame he believes presupposes more responsibility and free will in this way. The soul according to Aristotle is not unique to human beings but it is present in all animate things. Plants for instance, their soul can be thought of as reproductive power while in man it is the power of reason and thought. We may define it as the vital principle of any organism, the sum of its power and processes. In man there is the active and passive aspect of the soul. The passive being his individual power of reasoning while the active comes to us in the form of universal thought and is independent of man's body and individual characteristics such as memory and personality. Such are the metaphysics of Aristotle. After some time collecting and observing the natural world around him Aristotle turned inward to man in his perfection. Within the ethics of Aristotle Santiana tells us the conception of human nature is perfectly sound. Every ideal has a natural basis and everything natural and ideal development. Happiness to begin was the end goal of human conduct. We choose happiness for itself and never with a view to anything further whereas we choose honor, pleasure, intellect because we believe that through them we shall be made happy. This is of course obvious and its revelation would do nothing for man without a clear path to its achievement. This is what his ethics endeavored to clarify and solve. The clearest path was through that which separated man from the lower animals, clear judgment and rational thought. Man's reason is his key to happiness. With the tools of clear judgment and self-control he may rise from the very slums to the heights which befit the rational individual. The golden mean is the method by which right reason is acquired. The golden mean is that quality of character which meets the particular circumstance of each situation. The math is simple. One who has in excess what is required to meet the situation and one who has too little to meet the situation are both equally faulty. It is he who has just the right amount and just the right time who rises to excellence. It is no matter which can be settled without patience and diligent practice. Excellence is only one through the development of right habits. In other words, virtue cannot be obtained through a few great deeds but must be something cultivated through the consistency of one's right actions. The good man is a working of the soul in the way of excellence and a complete life for as it is not the one swallow or one fine day that makes a spring. So it is not one day or a short time that makes a man blessed and happy. Material and external goods too must be acquired if one is to be called happy. We must first have what is necessary. Happiness is difficult when one is poor and starving. Something else which Aristotle recognized as important to the wise man's search for happiness is friendship. Friendship being something which requires duration and equality. We must not think of friendship as something to be one easily or bought and we should be a suspicious of those who boast of countless friends. But we must not forget that happiness is something which comes from within and no amount of material goods would suffice to make an individual happy without the development of knowledge and right reason. The operation of the intellect aims at no end beyond itself and finds itself the pleasure that violates it to further operation. And since the attributes of self-sufficiency, unwearyness and capacity for rest plainly belong to this occupation in it must lie perfect happiness. In short, the wise man of Aristotle is happy in solitude finding no pleasure in speaking without good reason. In fact, he finds no significant pleasure in anything nor does he experience undue mental strain from his misfortunes. He is not ostentatious in anything and has a level character which feels neither vehemence nor reverence. If death calls, he is a good cheer and understands that life, in some circumstances, is not worth living. Like many of us, Aristotle's political ideals were heavily shaped by the circumstances of his life and of course by the environment which he laid. These were troubling times and with the rise and fall of Alexander the political climate was as if it changed with each season. We can say confidently that the strain of his political thought was thoroughly conservative much like his master he too was well acquainted with the disaster which was the Athenian political experiment of democracy. He believed that to change the fundamental structures which uphold society, though well-intentioned, will almost certainly be to the detriment of those involved and to the generation unfortunate enough to follow their blunder. He placed the utmost value on societal customs and traditions and to alter or disrupt them he thought would have an effect equal to weakening the inmost essence of all law whatever. For this reason he believes revolution to be a destructive method of transformation which, while achieving some success in each areas, comes at the cost of unintended destruction. As it is said, the path to hell is paved with good intentions lost along the way. In short, we should not be so quick to discard customs which history has judged to be worthy of perpetuation without strict contemplation and arduous trial. He was opposed to communism stating that which is common to the greatest number has the least attention bestowed upon it. Everyone thinks chiefly of his own hardly ever of the public interest. He is not so naive to believe that all will befriend all and understands that the evils of the state are not the result of accumulated wealth and property, but arise from quite another source, the wickedness of human nature. In his view, inferiors should be ruled by their superiors. No amount of communism would suffice to create equality among unequals. Monarchy, if power was bestowed upon the most virtuous such as in Rome under Marcus Aurelius has potential to become the best of governments, but as history has shown this is not typically the case and power eventually falls into the lap of the greatest flatterer. A snake oil salesman rich in rhetoric, but poor in action. The fate of monarchy is underlined by that famous quote from Lord Acton. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men. Aristocracy has many benefits and ranks far superior a form of government than its predecessor monarchy. A government ruled by the wisest and most honorable of citizens, free from the destructive forces of the many, voting with uninformed zeal for the greatest despot which tells them what they want to hear. At least this is what an aristocratic utopian would say of aristocracy. But Aristotle knew full and well that aristocracies were destined for that inevitable fate of degrading into plutocracies ruled by the wealthy. When money beats out ability, there can be no true aristocracy since the plutocratic ruling class will be overthrown by the common citizen in favor of democracy. Love of gain in the ruling classes tends constantly to diminish their number and so strengthen the masses who in the end set upon their masters and establish democracies. Like all polities democracy too has its unique benefits and risks. He thinks that it has the advantage of being incorruptible with this simple logic that the many are more incorruptible than the few, but its fatal flaw is that it arises out of the notion that those who are equal in one respect are equal in all respects and he who seeks equality between unequals seeks an absurdity. Now that all forms of popular polity have been given their due Aristotelian treatment, what qualities does he think make for the greatest likelihood of success in government? Our state will be likened to that of a constitutional government. It is not the best but it is the best the common citizen can be convinced to accept willingly. First we must begin by having in mind such a life as the majority will be able to share and a form of government to which states in general can attain. He begins by opening the road to political office for all those who demonstrate the aptitude. No citizen who has not demonstrated the skill required to hold office will be permitted to attain it and though all are not welcome in the political theater, they will be present to help determine the end which these qualified individuals are to strive for. Education will be front and center of our government that which most contributes to the permanence of constitutions is the adaptation of education to the form of government. The citizen should be molded to the form of government under which he lives. The laws provided by the polity will be strictly inculcated so that every citizen pays them do mind. A citizenry which does not respect the law of the land is a citizenry doomed to tyranny as people will not long tolerate the intolerable chaos associated with lawlessness. To ensure proper quality and quantity of the populace, mimicking Plato's Republic, the state will be the matchmaker so that the best may be with the best. He believes women to be out of place within the political theater and has been by many accused of misogyny. This may be the origin of those countless paintings of Aristotle being written embarrassingly by Phyllis, the mistress of Alexander, to satisfy the philosopher's own lust. This we might suspect was likely to say that the man who believes women to be beneath him is now beneath them. But we may give to him that he considered equally the happiness of all people and his ethics. His legacy and influence have been almost without comparison in the history of European philosophy so much so that deviating from his thought during the Middle Ages would have been met with animosity and ridicule. His reign of over a millennium of intellectual history came to an end only with the audacious irreverence of Ockham and Rammus, the experimental science of Roger Bacon and the innovating philosophy of Francis Bacon. The critic will point out that Aristotle is replete with errors and short-sighted hypotheses but we must remember that he was very much a product of his environment meaning that the tools at his disposal were next to none and the knowledge that we rely on today was not absent. We must recognize the greatness of his achievement and pay our respects to his rightful place at the shrine of great minds. As always thank you for talking philosophy with me. Until next time.