 Welcome viewers, this lecture on Aristotle's philosophy will concentrate on basically on two themes. The first one is his theory of causation and the second one is concepts of potentiality and actuality, but while discussing these concepts, we may have to discuss certain very significant contributions of Aristotle to the world of philosophy. In the previous lecture, I have already indicated is one of the most profound contributions he has given to the world of philosophy, the world of science and the world of human thinking as well. But as a philosopher, Aristotle has said certain benchmarks for future philosophers. There is a famous saying by Alfred North Whitehead that the rest of western philosophy is nothing but footnotes to Plato and Aristotle. In my previous lecture, I have already mentioned this and here in this lecture, we will see how this concepts of firm and matter which he has taken up from Plato, modified in a radical manner rather changed in a radical manner to accommodate certain certain concepts like change, motion, etcetera what happens in the world and to present his own comprehensive philosophical view. So, let us begin with firm and matter. This slide is something which I am reproducing from my previous lecture. This basically deals with the dynamic interrelationship between firm and matter, the two most important metaphysical categories in Aristotle's philosophy. So, form of an object changes when it evolves into another thing example seeded to a tree. So, I will explain this subsequently. This is just an introduction then again matter remains more or less the same because it is only the form that I mean even the form does not change, but the forms keep on changing matter differently or different forms shape the matter differently. And this is what happens when an object change into another object or rather when an object evolves into something else, when a tree evolves into a chair or when a seed evolves into a tree what is an artificial process a change is inflicted or rather which is done by somebody the in other in the other example. This when a seed evolves into a tree it is a natural process which happens in the biological world. Different forms design the matter differently and change is not blind, but meaningless. This is precisely what makes Aristotle different and distinct from all other philosophers. Though it looks a bit idealistic this is what makes Aristotle a great great philosopher that he tries to explain the changes that happen in this world the entire changes that happen in this world which many other philosophers have explained as blind flux meaningless flux as something which is significantly meaningful and all changes evolution. So, these are our things which we have already discussed in the previous lecture in this way Aristotle is trying to provide a teleological explanation for the change that happens in this world. Now, when we come back to the question of reality from this context let us try to address this problem the question of reality form and matter reality entire reality is constituted of form and matter. We can explain the entire world the entire reality around us even our own destiny even our own being in this world everything can be explained with the help of these two fundamental metaphysical principles form and matter. And it is in this context we have to appreciate that Aristotle here agrees with Plato his teacher to a great extent because the general idea is the essence of the particular this is what Plato says, but at the same time he radically differs from his teacher because for Plato these two things are different and the the the object the particular object is actually a shadow it is basically unreal, but for Aristotle as we have seen in the previous lecture both form and matter are real both the universal and the particular are real actually the universal inheres in the particular that is what he opposes Plato ideas do not exist apart from things idea is inherent or eminent in the thing it is its form and cannot be separated from it except by abstraction all these things we have seen in the previous lecture in a different way. Now, I am introducing one more term to understand Aristotle's philosophy apart from form and matter which we have already discussed movement the motion the changes that takes place in this world. So, this has to be accounted for reality is constituted of all these three because what we see around us is a world which is constantly under motion everything changes everything changes there is nothing in this world that is permanent. So, without accounting for such a conception of change you cannot have a complete picture of reality and you know that many philosophers have done it in their own ways and here we can see that Aristotle also says matter has no reality apart from form this is Plato because Plato would say that matter is fundamentally unreal, but Aristotle would agree with that he would say matter has no reality apart from the form, but matter without the idea is also an abstraction and it is the other way round as well the form without matter is also an abstraction. So, now when we talk about motion or change that takes place around changes in this world movement cannot exist by itself and presupposes a subtractive the change we know that we can always say that the world is under constant flux everything changes, but there is something which changes there is a subtractive that is the logic behind a Aristotleian explanation of change what he says is that it cannot exist by itself and it presupposes something a subtractive that undergoes change that is matter it rather acquires different forms. Again form, matter and movement have no real or substantial existence they are always interdependent you cannot understand or you cannot say that only one of them has substantial existence and the other two are unreal like Plato. Consist of all these taken as a all. So, in order to explain the world in order to explain reality we may have to account for all these three concepts or rather with these two concepts of form and matter we can explain everything even movement motion is not really independent from this dynamic interrelationship between form and matter it is basically this relationship which is responsible for motion that we experience in this world. These constitutive elements of reality can only be separated in thought all these things you know even with regard to the concepts of form and matter we have said in the previous lecture that we cannot separate them we can separate them only in thought they eternally coexist. Now, we will come back to the problem of change because this is a very important issue which Aristotle takes up and accounts for and in that process builds up his unique philosophical position. So, we could see that the problem of change is a unique problem it is a philosophical problem in many civilizations example for example in India there are many schools like in Indian philosophy or in Chinese philosophy they have all tried to account for a conception of change see here is also related to the question of the nature of reality because unless you explain change you cannot explain what reality is. For example, let us take Indian philosophy Buddhism Buddhism the Nyaya Nyayagas the Nyaya philosophy the Sankhins and the Vedanta they all these people have different conception I will just give an example Buddhism believes that everything is changing they have a theory of momentariness Chenigavada everything is momentary nothing has an existence for more than one moment. So, since everything is momentary there is constant flux in this world and there is nothing that connects one moment with the other there is in between that these two moments you have you have nothingness Shunya. So, that is Buddhism's Shunyavada on the other hand Vedandins for example I will I will take the example of Advaita Vedandins Shankar as Advaita Vedanda it explains that there is a fundamental concept of Brahman which is changeless which is the never changing reality of the ever changing world. So, it is the basis of the entire universe which is under constant flux. So, though there is a world which is under constant flux there is something which is a fundamental subtractive that never undergoes any change. So, similarly Aristotle also speaks about something, but it is not of course it is not the Brahman of Vedandins for Aristotle the entire process can be explained with two principles form and matter. Aristotle brings all these problems into a single framework and presents a comprehensive conception of reality which we are going to see and in this endeavor he takes middle path where he avoids the extremes avoids the vices of the extremes and takes the golden mean the middle path which Buddhism also did in a different way. Now, let us see Aristotle's view. So, I have already mentioned that Aristotle has in a very emphatic way he has introduced a teleological conception of world reality and life. So, everything that happens has a purpose there is nothing which is purpose there is nothing which is blind every change that takes place in this world is a purposeful change. So, that is what precisely teleological conception of reality means. So, there is a higher purpose what is that we will see that gradually to understand anything one needs to understand this purpose. So, when you talk about change that takes place in this world to understand that change you have to understand towards what it is changing because there is a higher purpose which every object that undergoes a change craves to attain what is that higher purpose what is that higher goal of life. So, here in in order to understand this Aristotle again introduces two other concepts potentiality and actuality basically fundamentally what it says is that every object has a potentiality to be something else. For example, a seed has the potentiality to be a tree in a sense we can say that the seed is potential the tree is actual. So, there is a entire process a movement from the seed to the tree the process of evolution it actually moves towards a direction in order to attain in order to realize a purpose to become to actualize it potentialities. So, here to understand the correlation from a teleological perspective Aristotle introduces the distinction between potentiality and actuality what is it bare matter is potentiality of form. So, again the dynamic interrelationship between matter and form is problematized what he says is that bare matter is potentiality of form it is it is something now it is in the process of becoming and that process of becoming as I already mentioned is directed by or it is regulated by or it is controlled by or it is even guided by a higher purpose. So, every bare matter is a potentiality of form and in change different forms shape the matter differently I have already mentioned this again at every stage of evolution the thing in question will have more form than before. So, you take the example of carpenter making a chair from wood. So, at the beginning there is a wood which is apparently no shape now the carpenter cuts it into different shapes gradually joins it and then in that process every stage of its evolution it acquires different forms or it is being shaped by different forms and every stage of evolution the thing in question will have more form than it had before. Finally, when it really becomes a chair it attains its purpose the potentialities are actualized now the form is actualized it is then more actual or a more advanced stage of existence and the interesting thing is that Aristotle applies this principles to the entire universe not just to natural biological processes, but also to artificial changes we human beings make in this world. So, every change can be explained in terms of this principle of potentiality and actuality form and matter. Now, in this context we have to sort of introduce or rather discuss very important principle the theory of causation to explain the process of becoming that things undergo in this process the process of becoming the process of evolution. So, what is it? So, let us consider that there is a seat and now the seat evolves it moves towards what it becomes is happening that is the second stage now or the next stage then again it does not stop there it evolves further into a tree. So, you have in between several other stages I have just mentioned three important stages in its evolution. So, in each stage matter is being shaped by different forms in the first stage here it is the form of the seat shapes matter in this stage the form of the sapling shapes at the matter and finally, it attains the form of the tree which is its final purpose. So, again you know it goes to the fruit. So, the cycle the biological cycle continues from fruit there is a seat then that again sapling, but this entire process of becoming has a purpose to realize there must be something that changes. So, this is what Aristotle proposes to ascertain the reality of matter which is teacher Plato denied emphatically denied. Now, something that persist in all these changes. So, here again in this context we need to discuss theory of causation or matter the conception of matter from the light of theory of causation. So, what persist is matter? Matter persist matter cannot disappear on different occasions it has different qualities and different forms we have already seen it in with the example of the seat becoming evolving into a sapling and from there a tree then again a fruit. So, on all these process the matter does not disappear, but it acquires different qualities. So, this is what in other words to say object changes its form. Now, when we try to understand the concept of form from the perspective of theory of causation form itself does not change. So, when we talk about form itself it does not change forms are changeless they are eternal here he agrees a lot with Plato it does not become anything different. See for example, the form of a pen will never become something else it remains as the form of the pen forms are changeless then they are essences and here we can see a Platonism this is precisely what Plato also mentioned forms are essences and now again when we try to understand this interrelationship from the perspective of the theory of causation. We see that as I have already mentioned matter assumes different forms there is a series it is a process of becoming and different forms have always existed and neither matter nor form come into existence or disappear this form and matter are eternal principles of things and change presupposes a peculiar interrelationship between these two fundamental philosophical categories and matter is the principle of possibility form is the principle of reality or actuality. So, we have to understand this and this dynamic process to understand what reality actually is matter form their interrelationship which needs to be understood in the in terms of concepts like potentiality and actuality possibility and actuality matter is the principle of possibility and form is the principle of actuality or reality. Now, let us see the process of evolution things evolve towards stages of existence that will have more and more form than before that is what something which I have already mentioned sometime back that every stage of its evolution it will have more form than what it had before. So, things evolve towards stages of existence that will have more and more form than before and this process continues till change becomes unnecessary when does change become unnecessary when an object attains its actuality when it becomes actual. So, in that stage change becomes unnecessary till all the potentialities are actualized and this presupposes a concept of pure form and pure actuality from here onwards Aristotle becomes to the core metaphysical and a little mystical as well because what he basically says is that his own logic the logic of teleological explanation in order to explain evolution change to understand changes evolution and then to again explain this in terms of potentialities and actualities now he says that change continues till all potentialities are actual which means that there is a stage where an object actualizes all its potentialities a concept of pure form or a pure actuality. So, what is it that is something which was very interesting concept a very interesting aspect of Aristotle's philosophy it is here he introduces God because something which is a culmination point of all evolution something towards which everything craves and evolves that is what the concept of God is. So, God is pure form and pure actuality change presupposes pure actuality because change is possible because there is potentiality and actuality and that ultimately culminates in a conception of pure actuality there is a concept of unmoved mover which I have already mentioned in my previous lecture, but I am going to explain it a bit more today. So, to understand Aristotle's teleological conception we need to understand all these things now. Now, we have one more very important metaphysical category called God God as the supreme being as the pure form and pure actuality God is never changing. So, something all changes in this universe presuppose something which never changes change presupposes permanence that is the logic otherwise how can you understand change how can you explain change otherwise. So, there are only two ways either accept change and say that change is blind changes no purpose and it culminates in chaos or to accept that change as a purpose change is not mere blind change it is meaningless it is teleological there is an order in the universe to explain this order in the universe he connects it with a conception of change and says that it culminates in a purpose or rather it craves to attain certain higher purposes and that is what the culmination point is the concept of God which is never changing. So, you have a concept of unmoved mover this is the code from Bertrand Russell what Russell says is that it will be seen that this doctrine is optimistic and teleological the universe and everything in it is developing towards something continually better than what went before. So, it is optimistic and teleological everything is evolving towards something which is better than what it was previously. So, the concept of God in that sense is extremely important and one thing which we have to keep in mind is that Aristotle's God is not a religious God it is not the God of religions of course later on we could see that Christianity particularly Catholic Catholicism one school of Christianity adopts Aristotle's framework and develops it is own versions of theology it explains the entire Christian theology in the light of Aristotle's philosophy Aristotle conception of format matter and also Aristotle's conception of unmoved mover which is God. But for Aristotle at least it is not a religious God it is the first cause the eternal substance and actuality of the universe. So, it is in that sense the culmination point of a logical process of becoming it is not a religious theological concept, but it is a logical entity something which originates motion which itself is unmoved this is the concept of unmoved mover the object which never moves but is responsible for all motion. So, let us see now we have God at the center if you see this picture you will understand the entire kind of explanation which Aristotle was trying to provide. You have God at the center which is the first cause and you have potentiality and actuality every object is potential and in order to actualize it is form then all change is evolution theory of four causes and form and matter. So, far I have not explained the theory of four causes which I will be doing now. Now, before we do that let us reframe the question. What are the generative causes of real being? We are talking about change we are talking about evolution we are saying that you know everything evolves to higher purpose the question is what are the generative causes of real being and here the causes of all things in nature everything in nature has a cause what is it or what is that principle of causation? This principles of causation that produce change and result in the production of objects of art. So, Aristotle is now endeavoring to understand this process this principle the principle of causation that produce change and results in the production of objects of art in this universe in this world even in the case of human beings even man. So, you have this picture it broadly tells you that there are four causes four principles that that determine the entire theory of causation in Aristotle's framework there is a concept of formal cause material cause efficient cause and final cause. Now, to understand this theory of causation let us take the example of a statue a sculptor is making a statue and the sculptor definitely would be having an idea of the statue which is going to make. So, this is called the formal cause the idea or plan in the mind of the sculptor according to which he makes the statue that which is in the mind. Now, the second one is called the material cause the wood or the marble or the metal of which the statue is made. So, you need a material cause from where that from which the statue is made the third one is the called the efficient cause which involves the arms hands and tools as motive forces and efficient causes used by the sculptor or we can say that through which it is made and the final cause is the final product the statue itself which is the purpose that set these forces in action and effected a transition from potentiality to actuality that for the sake of which it is made. So, these are the four principles of movement principles of causation according to which Aristotle was trying to explain the workings of this universe. So, to summarize that which is in mind is formal cause that from which it is made is material cause that through which it is made is efficient cause and that for the sake of which it is made is the final cause and we can see that on some occasions at least the formal cause and the final cause coincide particularly in the case of nature they coincide. So, I have taken the example of a statue which is an artificial process done by a human being. Now, let us take Aristotle is does not stop it there he applies the principle of causation in this universe as well the natural world as well. So, what happens in nature when you when you try to apply the theory of causation in nature to understand the workings of nature what happens in nature the artist and his product are not separate. So, this is what makes nature different the the object of art the artist nature itself is the artist and again the product what is it nature itself is the product they are not actually separate the former plan and the end of purpose coincide in nature. Purpose of the organism is the realization of its form any organism in nature the objective of that organism is the realization of its its form the actualization of form. Form is the idea of motion hence fundamentally there are only two causes form and matter this is what I said sometime back though to to explicate the process Aristotle introduces certain other concepts like potentiality actuality movement etcetera. You can fundamentally explain everything the entire reality entire process of reality with the help of these two concepts of form and matter. Now, again when you try to understand this process by seeing the principles of potentiality and actuality matter evolves into what it is potential of. So, in the case of a seed into a tree would into a chair I am just taking two examples from two domains matter evolves into what it is potential of the potentiality represents its purpose. So, the potentiality of the seed to become a tree represents the purpose of the seed potentiality can also be equated with the directing force inherent in matter. So, you can see where in that process of a seed becoming a tree there is some force which is inherent in it there is something which is dormant in it which is the directing force which actually enables the seed to evolve into different stages and finally, into the tree. And it is the directing force inherent in the seed makes it a tree and it then cannot become anything else. See for example, if you have a banyan tree seed of a banyan tree it cannot become anything else, but only a banyan tree a mango seed can evolve into only a mango tree it cannot evolve into something else. So, this force that directs that shapes or that determines the process of evolution and also the moment of actualization that is form that eternally invites the matter or the potentiality to actualize it potentiality is determined by form which is actuality. Now, this is where you know you can see that there is a visible rejection of some existing theoretical frameworks Aristotle's during Aristotle's period particularly democrat's who introduces the theory of atomism, democrat's believes that or he propagates that everything can be explained in terms of atoms the principle of atoms. So, their combination the combination of atoms would determine everything change and everything in this universe, but Aristotle rejects it rejection of the mechanistic and atomistic conceptions of the world change is not blind or purpose less all motion is teleological I repeat this is this is very central to Aristotle's philosophy nature is dynamic and teleological and not mechanical not merely mechanical. And now I will revisit the concept of God which I have mentioned sometime back I have already mentioned that this is a very important concept in Aristotle's philosophy. As a philosopher it is this conception of God which gives a fundamental unity or I would rather say a metaphysical unity to Aristotle's framework. I have already mentioned that to understand change is illusion in terms of a conception of teleology you need conception of fundamental actuality a point where all change becomes unnecessary that is God. So, in order to explain teleology you need a concept of God who is an unmoved mover to establish the unity of the universe that is another very important role which the conception of God plays in Aristotle's philosophy I will explain it later to account for the beginning of motion because God is conceived as a unmoved mover. So, these are all the purposes the roles of God the role God plays in Aristotle's philosophical framework. Again when we talk about God and teleology motion enables the actualization of the potential matter has an inherent tendency to move towards its potentials all these things I have already explained see it as the tendency to move towards the tree matter has a desire for the form. Now we can explain this entire thing with the help of this picture. So, here on the one hand you have eternal matter and on the other hand you have eternal form on the one hand eternal matter and eternal form and there is a movement towards forms different forms shape matter differently. So, there is an eternal motion also takes place here eternal motion which actually presupposes what eternal unmoved mover. So, eternal matter is potentiality eternal form is actuality and eternal motion presupposes eternal unmoved mover which is God. Now matter and form are eternal as I have already mentioned and they eternally coexist this is something which we have discussed in the previous lecture in a very detailed manner the coexistence of form and matter eternal form and matter eternally coexist. Hence motion is also eternal since they are eternal and since they eternally coexist motion is also eternal. Eternal motion presupposes an eternal unmoved mover which is God which I have already mentioned the ultimate cause of motion which is unmoved. So, all motion in this universe presupposes a beginning of motion which itself is not under motion if that is the case then it will lead to add infinitum which is absurd. So, it presupposes an unmoved mover motion begins there the eternal unmoved first mover I have already explained this. So, I am going to the next concept the fundamental ground of all vital forces in nature that is God. So, here Aristotle comes up with a different interpretation of God or a different perspective is actually presenting a different perspective of God. God has a fundamental ground of all vital forces in nature it is a pure form without matter. So, at least at one point form and matter are separated there is pure form without matter that is God because God cannot be materialized in this universe it is the absolute spirit. So, you have a conception of absolute spirit which is pure actuality matter is not pure actuality matter is always potentiality it is in the process of becoming in the process of actualizing its form, but God is pure actuality it is the absolute spirit the highest purpose or highest good of the world and it is the highest motivating force of the universe. So, everything in this universe everything living non-living everything in this universe is fundamentally motivated by this principle of unity this principle of absolute spirit it is the highest purpose highest good highest motivating force and again all beings crave for the realization of their potentialities because of this motivate ultimate motivator God gives the universe a higher purpose which causes motion. So, the purpose of life the purpose of universe I mean life in the sense not of human life alone the purpose of life in this universe is God and God gives that purpose in that sense God is the directing force God is the highest good all actuality pure intelligence God is the unifying principle of the universe every possibility realizes in God. So, in one sense we can say that it is the sum of all it is the highest good it is the unifying principle everything in this universe craves to actualize that highest goal that highest purpose. So, in one sense Aristotle actually even moves out limitations of his own philosophical frameworks and goes out of it and says that there is a higher purpose to which everything in this universe sort of moves. So, God has a unifying principle which even suggests that there exist nothing but only God as a pure form as a pure absolute spirit the principle of all order and unity in this universe. And now in this context to conclude before we conclude let us see the place of man and we can see that Aristotle gives a very unique space very unique place for man in his philosophical framework. It is being stated that the anthropocentric conception actually begins with Aristotle though it is a little unfair to blame Aristotle for that even Plato we can find was a very staunch anthropocentric thinker. But Aristotle makes a very sharp distinction between human beings and other creatures other living beings by his type corporate conception of reality. He defines man as rational animal which is a very celebrated definition of man because man shares animality with animals but something which is unique in man is the rationality the rational reason the final goal of nature. So, in one sense man has a special place because as far as nature is concerned forget about God as far as nature is concerned man is the final goal because human soul can conceptualize which nothing else in this world can only the human mind only the human soul can conceptualize. And when you talk about body and soul body is only an instrument and hence presupposes a user who uses it the soul. So, an instrument to be used by someone else an instrument cannot exist independent of the person or the agent who uses it that agent is the soul body is the instrument soul is the agent of motion in the body and motion is not mechanical that aspect we have already discussed it is the principle of life. And again it is a controlling principle that guides all motion everything that moves and it is the highest good all human actions have some God which itself is a means to a still higher God and so on and on and on. So, let us consider this you know when you talk about the place of man in this universe every human action has some God and that God itself is a means to something else see if I have a fever I go to the doctor and take medicines. So, that action has a purpose to get rid of fever, but then again why getting rid of fever I sort of crave to attain something else a more peaceful life then again that itself is a means for something higher. So, it goes and on and on and ultimately there is a supreme end or purpose. So, Aristotle talks about that the supreme end or purpose of human life the ultimate good for the sake of which every other good is sought. So, what is that ultimate objective of human life the ultimate objective for which every of man action actually every human action can be understood in the light of that and here he says that the realization of its specific nature you consider any object format that matter the realization of its specific nature is its goal that which distinguishes it from other objects. So, if you consider from that perspective man is not a mere vegetative existence like plants for example or animal functions like perception desire pain pleasure which all these things we share with other animals, but man has a life of reason. So, the rational aspect of man is highlighted which is more important than anything else it is the highest good of man is the realization of this life of reason. So, he starts with this idea that the any object the fundamental purpose of any object is the realization of its specific nature if that is the case then what should be or what ought to be man's highest purpose what is that specific nature of man the specific nature of man is the life of reason and that is what man is man seeks to realize and this is called eudaimonia the highest good for man human soul has irrational parts as well as we have already seen reason needs to coordinate all of them to attain the final goal. So, reason plays a very extremely significant role in the life of man to attain the highest goal. So, reason plays a very important role in coordinating all these things and the right relationship between reason feeling and desire that is what is to be attained by avoiding the extreme. So, I have already mentioned that Aristotle was insisting that a golden mean a middle part needs to be adopted and here comes the importance of acquisition of virtues. So, it is very important the concept of virtue is very important in Aristotle's framework as far as eudaimonia is concerned it is not a passive internal feeling something like you know one way in which eudaimonia is being described I mean it is being translated as happiness I do not know how the Greeks would actually pronounce it eudaimonia is in English translation is happiness which is not a very satisfactory kind of translation, but because it is not a passive internal feeling it is an experience it is an active feeling an experience of a better life the best life rather the best life is a rational life as far as man is concerned a life where all of one's functions are fulfilled and to leave a virtuous life that is what is more important for Aristotle. And it is in this context I have already touched upon this the type prototype conception of human soul is important. So, which has got a nutritive vegetative that which causes nutrition and growth which is fundamentally irrational then you have the appetitive which is attentive to reasoning and finally, you have the intellectual rational in itself. So, eudaimonia presupposes a life of reason as it is superior to the other two and the distinguishing feature of man. So, what is the distinguishing feature of man is that man is capable of a life of reason and it is in this case he emphasizes the importance of virtues he says that virtues are not to be sought as the best guarantee to the happy life they have to be sought as the best guarantee to the happy life for eudaimonia. So, without virtues without the acquisition of virtues one cannot attain a daimonia or the highest good in life it is the mean between two voices avoidance of excess as well as deficit it is a trade that contributes to a person functioning well as a human being it is which means you know the realization of life of reason and learn it disposition to reason and act in a certain way. So, virtue is nothing but a learned disposition to reason and act in a certain way which is rational which is virtuous. So, I will not be discussing this in detail there are two kinds of virtues intellectual and moral intellectual can be taught directly, but moral virtues the result of habit and must be lived to be learned. So, it is something which you learn by living and this is more important for Aristotle the intellectual virtues are to a very great extent inherited by us, but moral virtues are not. So, they have to be learned by living and there you one has to adopt a golden mean a mean of intermediate between two extremes between excess and deficiency which I have already mentioned. For example, bravery is the mean or intermediate between cowardice and rashness have to be learned through practice. So, Aristotle emphasizes on this it cannot be learned on a purely intellectual level at all. Now, to summarize Aristotle's philosophy I am going to conclude my discussion on Aristotle's philosophy here as I already mentioned is one of the most significant one of the most influential thinkers in the whole history of western philosophy is he has a metaphysical theory which describes the peculiar interrelationship between the dynamic interrelationship between form and matter. Then his he has a very unique conception of ethics which is not as virtue ethics which highlights the importance of virtues the cultivation of virtue is more important the character is more emphasize in ethics and he has a conception of world which he highlights or rather underlines with a teleological notion and not with a mechanical conception. And he emphasizes that life as a purpose and God as the pure absolute actuality and eudaimonia as the ultimate objective of human life with this we will wind up. Thank you.