 Welcome to this module 5 and lecture 5 of the course Aspects on Western Philosophy and this lecture will focus on Aristotle's criticism of Platonic idealism and Aristotle's own concepts of form and matter. So, the topics which we are roughly going to cover include Aristotle's intellectual contributions, refutation of Plato's idealism, then again Aristotle's theory of form and matter which actually is a supplementary to the rejection of Platonic idealism because he has to now provide his own theoretical explanation to this problem. So, before we go to the details, let us see some interesting quotations from Aristotle's work. So, what Aristotle says about certain things, knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom. So, I am selected this because anyone who reads this knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom is reminded of Socrates because Socrates again is one person who said that is one and only teaching is that one should understand oneself, one should know oneself and that is eternally been philosophical quest from the very beginning both in the west as well as in the east. So, particularly in India if you read Indian philosophy you can see that the quest for knowing one self is so central in all Ubal Nishadik wisdom. So, in one sense the ancient thinkers share a lot. So, Aristotle also says that knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom, then again happiness depends upon ourselves. So, there is a concept of happiness which Aristotle's philosophy presupposes or rather aims it and this is not a kind of happiness what by we understand by the term in the in our daily conversations like we are happy. It is nothing to do with the sensual happiness or something which is which can be equated as sensual pleasure. It is a kind of more a kind of intellectual happiness a happiness which you experience as a result of certain kind of a satisfaction in life, experiencing the whole meaning of life or ability to see life in its totality the term which Aristotle uses is Eudaimonia. Then again happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life the whole aim and end of human existence. So, all these concepts the concept of Eudaimonia or happiness is related to ethical living and ethics is related to philosophy or metaphysical principles like what is reality etcetera. So, in that sense Aristotle is again another great Greek philosopher who tries to present a comprehensive philosophical wisdom a comprehensive philosophical system which would explain the inter relationships between these concepts the concept of good life the concept of right life and the concept of right in its knowledge. Then again I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who overcomes his enemies. So, I have selected these quotations from Aristotle's work because to show that what he aims it unlike today's professional philosophy professors Aristotle aims at a very practical task the experience of happiness in life the experience of Eudaimonia in life and here this is the last point I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who overcomes his enemies. So, physically overcoming your enemy is not very important as far as a philosopher is concerned what do you gain from that you gain by conquering your enemy physically you gain probably a kind of momentary happiness a feeling of a momentary joy, but overcoming oneself one's own desires that is more important philosophically than anything else. So, this is a context the ethical the philosophical context in which we should try to place Aristotle when you try to understand his philosophy. So, I will begin with a quote from Bertrand Russell in his history of western philosophy. Russell says I read he came at the end of the creative period in Greek thought and after his death it was 2000 years before the world produced any philosopher who could be regarded as approximately is equal towards the end of this long period his authority had become almost as unquestioned as that of the church and in science as well as in philosophy had become a serious obstacle to progress. So, Bertrand Russell so beautifully summarizes the importance and relevance of Aristotle's Aristotle's contributions both in philosophy and in culture and in human civilization. So, with his work it is the human the western world had to wait almost 2000 years to get another philosopher who could equal it in excellence, but most importantly is that Aristotle's thinking or the world view which Aristotle propagated as almost become a dogma like church and dominated the entire European milieu which unfortunately or paradoxically we can say prevented further growth of critical thinking. Now, coming to Aristotle a little bit about his personal life he was born at Stadura a Macedonian city in the Greek world in the year 384 B.C. as a son of a physician. So, it was quite famous that Aristotle was the son of a physician from Macedonia and interesting information here is that his father was a royal physician he was the physician to the king Philip who is the incidentally the father of Alexander the great and since Aristotle was so fortunate to have such a rich and such a powerful student like Alexander. And then naturally being born as the son of a physician his initial training was in the science of medicine and he also became acclaimed as a physician during those days and then he studied under Plato for several years afterwards that is another thing he did. So, his mind was he could have like any other he could have settled down with his comfortable life of a physician, but Aristotle's curiosity curious mind philosophical mind was not satisfied with that. So, he was in search of an ideal guru a person who can teach him the real wisdom philosophical wisdom and he joined academy Plato's academy and there he became a very famous student of Plato. Plato himself acknowledged Aristotle's intelligence and his abilities as a philosopher and, but what happened was though Aristotle is no doubt the most celebrated among Plato's students he became he later became a critic of Plato most ardent critic of Platonic philosophy and he used to often say that wisdom will never die with Plato there is more wisdom philosophical wisdom to be sought. So, Plato is not the last word in everything and he later on what happened was after Plato's death he moved out of academy and he established his own school called Lysium though he he he spent a lot of time considerably long years in academy with Plato, but when he established his own school Lysium it was not modeled after academy, because in academy the emphasis was on mathematical knowledge speculative wisdom more abstract thinking was encouraged and Plato as I mentioned in the previous lecture has famously rotted down in front of his academy that no man ignorant of mathematics should enter, but here Lysium was a place where natural sciences particularly biology was encouraged and we can see that eventually Aristotle became a father of many of these sciences. Now, when you talk about his intellectual contributions they are immense intellectual contributions from from Aristotle particularly in the world of natural sciences and biology Aristotle's contributions are immense. He is the one who started the kind of systematization of I mean which which became very important in scientific analysis this this species denorah kind of thing. Then to supplement his investigations in natural sciences Aristotle almost we can even say invented though it is not correct to say invented though, but major contributions of Aristotle we can find in in logic. So, logic as an art and method of correct thinking was primarily developed as a systematic discipline by by Aristotle though there were there were philosophers prior to him were also employing logic. So, it was developed as a as a systematic discipline for correct thinking art and method of correct thinking it was primarily done by Aristotle. And Aristotle has also written extensively on ethics is Nicomachian ethics is a book which is even today referred by experts in many fields. Nicomachian ethics basically talks about it is also known as virtue ethics because it deals with virtue human virtues which and Aristotle it was one person who emphasized a lot on the cultivation of virtue. So, this contribution in in the world of ethics is still reckoned with lot of respect again aesthetics in which his idea of tragedy is considered as one of the the most unique contributions in aesthetic theory in the world. He talks about this concepts like tragedy for example is most sublime form of art and there is an objective of tragedy the ultimate aim of art is catharsis for him which is again related to his conception of edimonia or happiness. Here again I invite you to a quote from Bertrand Russell his history of western philosophy. Aristotle as a philosopher is in many ways very different from all his predecessors. He is the first to write like a professor even like a modern professor of philosophy his treatises are systematic his discussions are divided to heads he is a professional teacher not an inspired prophet his work is a critical careful pedestrian without any trace of patching enthusiasm very interesting and a very relevant observation by Bertrand Russell. So, he is a so this is one thing where Aristotle is distinguished or Aristotle is different from his predecessors that is a first one to write like a professor with more systematic approaches. He is not just a person who is who is inspired by or rather what Bertrand Russell says inspired prophet not an inspired prophet to some extent even Plato is an inspired prophet we can see lot of mystical elements in Plato and Plato though he opposed poetry often Plato refers back to a poetry the importance of poetry in the pursuit of truth in human life. So, this is when you talk about the intellectual contributions of Aristotle we should also see that Aristotle was not just an individual philosopher he was an institution and institution probably the longest the longest survived institution in the west where whose influence even today it is in there he influences human thinking immensely, but he almost survived he existed as an establishment till probably you know the modern philosophy modern period. Now, when you talk about against Plato there are certain as I already mentioned certain anecdotes certain quotes wisdom will never die with Plato there is to be explored further then again Plato is dear, but truth is dearer, because Aristotle it seems was once asked by someone that you are supposed to be the great master Plato's greatest and the dearest student why do you oppose your teacher like this then Aristotle says that Plato is dear, but truth is dearer see here you can see the professional approach of a philosopher that what is important personal relationships are important, but more important is truth as a philosopher he should be interested more to explore what is truth while academy was dedicated to speculative and political philosophy Lyceum took biology and natural science seriously I have already mentioned this on the one hand in Plato you can see a lot of emphasis on mathematics and abstract speculative philosophy metaphysics, but Aristotle would rather emphasizes more on concrete explorations in the natural world particularly in the biological sciences you might be remembering about that greatest painting where Plato and Aristotle where Plato pointing his hand up and Aristotle pointing it down Plato an abstract speculative thinker who is always interested in the world of ideas eternal ideas abstract ideas which are not part of this world, but Aristotle a practical man who is interested in this world what is happening in this world and the objects in this world. Now refutation of Plato's idealism the idea of universal essence we have already discussed this concept in the previous lecture the idea of universal essence and for Plato they are universal and objective realities. So, that is what distinguishes Plato's position for Plato these ideas are universal realities they are objective realities they have their own ontological space where they exist as reality objective realities they definitely exist independent of the objects according to Plato because even if objects perish these ideas exist according to them and they are eternal and in perishing. Now, when you come to Aristotle, Aristotle considered them as common nouns. So, this is again an observation by Bertrand Russell. So, you can see you know it is a common noun see when you talk about man instead of individual human beings when you when you say man for Plato it stands for the universal human essence and for, but for Aristotle it is just a common noun any name capable of universal application to the members of a class can be treated as this. So, what is important here is that they are not objective realities and and objective objects or things as Plato thought, but they do exist they are eternal even Aristotle to accept that these ideas are eternal, but they are not just they are not objective realities as Plato thought they they are. And here there is a very interesting argument which which Aristotle initiates against Plato's idealism this is called the famous third man argument which says that if a man is a man because he resembles the ideal man there must be a still more ideal man to whom both ordinary men and ideal man are similar and this will go on ad infinitum. So, the celebrated third man argument is expected to unfound Plato's idealism theory of ideas which which says that which categorically asserts that objects in this world are basically unreal copies and their reality depend on the way they partake in their ideal objects which are imperishable eternal ideas. So, third man argument says that if a man is a man because he resembles the ideal man there must be still more ideal man to whom both ordinary men and ideal man are similar and again the notion of imitation or copying used in the theory of forms runs into logical difficulty here. So, this is what Aristotle was trying to highlight because Plato was emphasizing these concepts that the world of objects are imitations or copies. But here this same metaphors which Plato used ultimately turns against his own theory thus to explain the similarity between a man and the form of man one needs a third form of man and this always requires another form it goes on like that to infinity. So, we never settle the problem, but we actually pass it on to the next level against theory of ideas again whether the ideal man is an ideal animal that is a very interesting question which Aristotle raises. So, because man according to Aristotle is rational animal man is a rational animal. So, man partakes in two ideas the idea of rational creatures and the idea of animals. So, now the question is whether the ideal man is an ideal animal or not if it is then you run into several contradictions. If he is there must be as many ideal animals as there are species or animals. So, it is not just one ideal animal, but as many ideal animals as there are species of animals and how the perfect and the eternal world be held responsible for the imperfect and perishable world of material objects that is a very substantial criticism argument against Plato's idealism. Because if you say that these ideas are responsible for this world which is perishable ideas eternal how can something which is eternal be responsible for something which is perishable. Now, again if you see the context of this argument we can see that mathematical and physical sciences treat of the quantity quality and relations of things. So, this is the context in which this entire discussion on ideas on forms and the refutation of Platonic idealism and subsequently introducing his own theory of ideas or his own theories of forms and matter form and matter is introduced. So, here Aristotle from the very beginning says that he distinguishes first philosophy or metaphysics from physical sciences which deal with quality a quantity and relations of things. Where first philosophy is the it deals with the category of substance that is the object and studies the causes of things the ultimate fundamental causes of things that is the objective of philosophical a investigations for Aristotle and it enquires into the nature of being as such that is why the most fundamental cause of everything regardless the inquiries into the nature of being as such regardless of all relations of time place etcetera. So, first philosophy does it or metaphysics does it the absolute and necessary being is the object of metaphysics and the eternal essence of things as opposed to the relative contingent and accidental is naturally a very important concern in metaphysics and Aristotle to shares it though he refuses or though who rejects Plato's idealism he never rejects this whole idea of eternal essence that is very important in metaphysics, but only thing is he is trying to argue or rather he builds up this argument from a different perspective he only says that you cannot be an absolutist like Plato. You cannot say that only ideas exist and these world is only a copy because the logic of copying will be counterproductive. Now again for Plato ideas as real beings existing apart from the individuals which express them. So, that is the there is a kind of independence the ideas exist independent of things and Aristotle says that this is not correct. If the general idea is the substance of the particulars or the essence of the things how can it exist apart from that of which it is the substance and essence that is a question which Aristotle writes. So, I repeat in the general idea or the idea the essence of the is the substance of the particulars or the essence of the objects the particular objects. So, there are objects and this idea is the essence of that object now the question is how can it exist how can this idea this essence exist apart from that of which it is a substance and essence and here we can see a rejection of the Platonism the general cannot exist outside of an alongside of the particular. You cannot conceive of a universal essence or an abstract essence outside the particular object you will have to find it in it it is not something which exists outside or alongside it, but it is something which is which exists in it. So, this is the point which Aristotle tries to make. So, ideas considered as such and apart from the things are not real beings or substances according to things and again the phenomenal world is not unreal for Plato it is an imperfect imitation of the ideal world or a mere copy of the ideal world or even a mere shadow of the ideal world, but here Aristotle categorically asserts that the phenomenal world is not unreal it is it is as real as anything else form and matter coexist in the world. So, this is the most celebrated among Aristotle's concepts Aristotle's theories the eternal coexistence of form and matter this world is real and hence an object of science see the rejection of Platonism amounts to saying all these things form and matter coexist and this world is a world where we can see their coexistence which is a real world. Since it is a real world it is worth analyzing it and studying it. Genuine scientific knowledge is not a mere acquaintance with facts knowledge consistent knowing the reasons and causes of things what they cannot be other than what they are. This is the objective of Aristotle's philosophy or Aristotle's metaphysics value. Now, when you consider Aristotle's view idea do not and cannot exist apart from things. I have already mentioned this the idea of a parent for example, cannot exist independent of concrete parents. The idea of computer cannot exist independent of concrete computers like these things which we use. So, ideas do not and cannot exist apart from concrete objects that exist in the world which we can experience through sense organs. The idea is inherent or imminent in the thing this is the point. It is inherent or imminent and idea is its form and cannot be separated from it except by abstraction. So, if at all you need to sort of isolate it separate the idea from the object. It is impossible to do that except in your thought where you abstract it artificially. Just because in thought you are able to abstract it does not mean that it exist independent of objects. It is the essence of the particular and with it constitutes an indivisible hall. So, you cannot separate it there is an indivisible hall. The idea and the object form and matter they cannot be separated. The moment you separate them then the object cease to exist. So, here I have a pretty long quote from again from Bertrand Russell. I will read it because I thought this is this would be interesting in this context to understand Aristotle's view. I read it. So, officially Aristotle's doctrine is plain enough. Suppose I say there is such a thing as the game of football. Most people would regard the remark as a truism, but if I were to infer that football could exist without football players I should be rightly held to be thinking nonsense. Similarly, it would be held there is such a thing as parenthood, but only because there are parents. There is such a thing as sweetness, but only because there are sweet things and there is redness, but only because there are red things and this dependence is thought to be not reciprocal. The men who play football would still exist even if they never played football. Things which are usually sweet may turn sour and my face which is usually red may turn pale without ceasing to be my face. In this way we are led to conclude that what is meant by an adjective is dependent for its being on what is meant by a proper name, but not vice versa. This is I think what Aristotle means. His doctrine on this point as on many others is a common sense prejudice pedantically expressed. So, this is again gradually Bertrand Russell again in his analysis of Aristotle tries to say that Aristotle finally takes us to a commonsensical perspective. Though on the one hand he does not want to leave Plato completely on the way. He takes Plato along with him to some extent, but at the same time he takes us to or he does not want to completely sort of do away with a commonsensical perspective. Now, in this context one may wonder what is what happens to matter, because in Plato we can see that when he introduces his theory of forms this is done with a clear separation of forms from matter. Essences are separated from matter, but then when Aristotle says that such as any such separation is unwarranted and counter predictive and not correct. Then what about Aristotle's matter? So, Aristotle says that there are different ways to understand Aristotle's conception of matter. Matter anyway is that material stuff to which all these qualities are attached to definitely that is a concept of base matter, but when we try to understand it from different perspective we can see this the individual, the particular, the concrete everything is referred as matter. Again something it changes, because as in the code which I just read out from Bertrand Russell we had seen that something which is sweet today might turn out to be so tomorrow. So, things change. So, that is material things change each concrete instance of matter has an inner purpose. This is a very typical Aristotle in India. An inner purpose, a purpose is inherent in each concrete instance of matter material object it is destined to become something. See for example, a wood, a wood is destined to become a chair for example, or a seed is destined to become a tree. So, this inner purpose which is inherent is technically termed as potentiality which will refer which will discuss in our next lecture, but at this moment you know we have to see that this is being referred to as potentiality which is inherent in matter. And Aristotle also says that when you if you if you if you understand if you try to understand matter as something which is absolutely independent a reality that is not correct. Aristotle will never accept that separation of form and matter. Matter has no reality apart from the form and again matter without the idea also is an abstraction like idea apart from particular object. So, you cannot separate idea from object similarly you cannot separate matter from its idea. Movement again you know when you talk about movement because we are talking about material world the world of objects. And the world of objects is we can see that it is under constant motion change is so universal. And movement presupposes subtractive and does not exist by itself you need an object to move and that object. So, then again neither the idea nor matter nor movement has real or substantial existence. So, they are all interrelated in that sense. So, let us take a very concrete example to understand it further. Let us take the example of a ballpoint pen. This is a ballpoint pen which I have and here you can see a ball this is called a ballpoint pen because there is it is technology such that there is a small ball over here and there is a pointed nib inside that there is a ball which rolls and it is designed according to a kind of unique technology. And from form of the ballpoint pen is constituted by the properties of this pen. So, it has several properties. For example, I mean I am talking about substantial properties see there are non substantial properties like red in color made up of metal and made in this particular place this company these things are not very substantial about it. What is more substantial it is as I mentioned it has a ballpoint and again it has ink in it by means of which we can write then again can be held by the hand. So, that you can write it is not something which is very huge. So, that you cannot you would not be able to hold it in your hand it can be held by the hand. So, these are things which make it a pen the ballpoint pen and matter is the material stuff to which these properties are attached to. Matter is the material stuff to which these properties which I have mentioned are attached to. And the material by which the pen is made is what Aristotle understand as matter. Now, when we see Plato's influence we can see that the form and matter distinction is typically platonic and every object is a combination of form and matter. So, you can see that the distinction which Plato maintains is not maintained, but these two categories are sort of maintained by Aristotle. And form is primary to matter according to Plato, but form and matter coexist according to Aristotle. And Aristotle's method is we can see very interestingly Aristotle is a master compromiser. Aristotle method is to avoid extreme view points and try to arrive at a middle point a middle path. Plato considered the material world as illusion and only essences as real as we have already discussed this aspect. And he denied all change as an illusion, because in this world we can see the world is always under constant motion. It is it is as Heraclitus said you cannot step into the same river twice, but according to Plato this these changes are illusions they are not real. And in this context it is interesting to see the contribution of the atomists who are who are actually materialist who emphasized a lot on the material aspects of reality and definitely Aristotle was influenced by them. So, the atomist propagates a unique form of materialism they held that everything is made up of atoms and also ultimate reality is constituted of atoms. So, the atomists like democraters epicures and all these people they are the classical materialist in one sense, because they held that everything is made up of atoms they are material atoms. And again nature of reality and the world can be explained in quantitative terms the these atoms are quantitatively different they are not qualitatively different according to according to these atomists. So, everything in this world can be explained in terms of these this this in terms of quantity the quantity in which atoms are combined explains the nature of a particular object. This is a very important point that according to the atomists atoms have no natural properties which is not agreeable to Aristotle. For Aristotle everything has a nature potentiality and that takes that object to actualize it is it is real nature. So, democraters and epicures are the best non atomists their theories have serious ethical implications I am not going to the details of these things in this lecture, but just to refer to them these two people they are the atomists the famous atomists. Epicures is one person with whom that hedonistic philosophy is attached to eat drink and be merry man you will die tomorrow. So, that is associated with epicures, but Aristotle on the other hand rejects this this atomism for him or rather his concept of matter is unique it is not it is not developed out of this this theory of the atoms of or atomists which emphasizes a lot on quantitatively different atoms being quantitatively different from each other. For atomists everything can be explained in quantitative terms all qualities and nature of objects are results of combination of quantity. If qualities and properties are not actually there, but are only illusions then the sensible world cannot be trusted. So, this is a very important implication of atomism. If qualities and properties are not actually there, but are only illusions we it is our our experience such as that there are, but that is illusion then the sensible world cannot be trusted. So, this may have very serious ethical implications now Aristotle's matter on the other hand is explained in terms of substantial material elements like earth, water, fire, air and either the five basic elements material elements. According to Aristotle like any classical doctrine on this five material elements they have qualities distinguishing qualities like the like the Vaiseshi Ghaz of Indian philosophy again the five five material elements which each one is distinguished from the other by means of a distinguishing quality. Hence things have definite nature. So, because they are qualitatively different they have definite nature qualities can transfer through the matter this is what Aristotle says. And here we can see a very interesting comparison democratist on the one hand you have democratist and may other other atomist those who emphasizes on on on material atoms the entire reality world and reality can be explained in terms of this this this materialistic atoms. On the other hand you have Plato who talks about transcendental ideas and Aristotle tries to avoid these two two extremes and a middle path has been has been arrived at. So, he his philosophy is a compromise both form and matter are real all change is an evolution. We will discuss this this concept of change in the next lecture and when you talk about form and matter we arrive at this this very peculiar theory that form and matter eternally co-exist. They cannot be separated I have already mentioned this they cannot be separated they constitute a composite hall according to Aristotle. And form of an object changes when it evolves into another thing the classical example given is when a seed becomes a tree there is a whole process of evolution there are different stages in which the seed undergoes certain modifications certain changes. The material content undergoes several changes in this process of evolution and matter remains more or less the same though matter is differently designed different forms design the matter differently at different stages of its evolution matter more or less remains the same though there is a change of course, but at at the moment we need not have to worry about it Aristotle presents a teleological explanation of the world the functioning of the world. So, there is a purpose behind every change that takes place in this world. So, this explanation this teleological explanation makes the role of ethics very important in in life again forms are eternal and changeless like like Plato, but not transcendent. Aristotle agrees a lot with Plato by saying that forms are eternal and changeless, but they are not transcendent as Plato made in that for Plato they are separated they are different in in this sense we can say that Aristotle brings forms from heaven to earth. So, they were according to Plato they were there in a third third world in a in a in a world of abstract universal objective realities which is not part of this world, but Aristotle brings them to this world and forms are not apart from things, but in them as I already mentioned they are inherent in the objects or imminent in them forms are not transcendent, but imminent matter is not not being, but dynamic. So, these are and again matter realizes the form or idea of the thing in this process of evolution and every stage there is a moment of realization, because new forms design matter differently. When we talk about the material world the material world changes as and this change has been rejected by Plato, but Aristotle says it is not a complete change there is a purpose there is a teleology and only some aspects of the form of a thing changes it is not that the entire object changes, but only some aspects of it and as long as the thing remains in existence its essential form must retain remain the same. So, the essential form of an object remains the same see for example, an apple seed will evolve into an apple tree and not to a mango tree or anything else. So, this suggests that there is something there is a guiding principle there is a teleology built into the entire process of change in the material world and the form of the matter changes in those ways that are necessary for it to become an apple tree. So, that is what I meant there are there is a certain guiding principle that takes along with the object to change into another thing the form of the matter changes in those ways that are necessary for it to become an apple tree to become an apple seed and apple tree. But there are certain other implications as well before we really go to the next topic we have to see certain other implications of this rejection of Platonic idealism and introduction of Aristotle's unique theory which basically argues that form and matter eternally coexist. So, Plato rejected the world as illusion, but for Aristotle it is real. So, this world is a real world it is not a mere illusion or a copy for Aristotle and the world is not just an imitation or a shadow, but real studying is it is therefore, not worthless see there is an image of philosophers that they are not interested in this world of day to day world this day to day life they are. So, sort of people who are not interested in this world they are always lost in their own dreams they do not consider this world as very important for them something else a higher truth is more important and scientific and other kinds of other sorts of investigations are treated as worthless meaningless because ultimate objective is to know the truth which is which lies outside this world and this world is a mere shadow if this world is a mere shadow or a copy there is no truth in this. So, what is the point in searching anything trying to understand something in this world if this is a mere shadow. So, let us concentrate on reality that is the philosophical approach, but Aristotle has argued that this world also has substantial reality it is real like any other world. So, studying this world is therefore, important it is not worthless it is important he encouraged the growth of natural sciences because since the study of this world is important you need to devise a methodology by means of which the study of this world is initiated and that methodology is a method of science. So, encourages the growth of natural sciences and we can see that the systematic study of natural sciences in fact began with Aristotle. So, I have already mentioned this Aristotle since Aristotle student was very powerful man like Alexander. Alexander has appointed people to collect specimen and other things from different parts of the world for his teacher. So, Aristotle was maintaining a huge library during those days of course, a library of manuscripts along with several specimens of animals, barns, this and that all kinds of things he was collecting and analyzing, studying and systematically exploring them. So, the systematic study of natural science in that sense began with him and again classification of species and genre I have already mentioned this then the birth of logic because you cannot have a science and natural sciences systematic study of science without a logic a discipline called logic which is an art and science of thinking. And again when you talk about logic, logic involves two types of inferential operations induction and deduction. Induction is where you infer something from several particular instances of something you infer a universal principle. Socrates is mortal, Aristotle is mortal, Plato is mortal from this you infer that all men are mortal. Then again the other one is from the universal principle all men are mortal you infer that since Socrates is the man, Socrates is also mortal. So, this both induction and deduction which are integral part of logic that developed by Aristotle and the Syllasistic logic which is very celebrated very famous is again another invention of Aristotle. And there are very significant ethical implications Aristotle's philosophy as or his theory his principles have several very important ethical implications the purpose of life is Udemonia as I already mentioned. So, to be experienced in this world something which is not to be experienced after your death, but this has to be experienced this kind of an objective of life Udemonia happiness needs to be experienced in this world. And ethics is a very important science and it deals with actual human behavior it is not something which needs to be cultivated or ethics the objective of ethics is not something which is extravately or otherwise, but it is something which is important to live in this world a meaningful life. This world and life in it are therefore, extremely valuable and, but it is not a mere materialism as we have already seen. A teleological conception that adds purpose to all our actions and a higher purpose to life itself is inbuilt in Aristotle's philosophy. So, we will end with this code from Bertrand Russell Aristotle's metaphysics roughly speaking may be described as Plato diluted by common sense. He is difficult because Plato and common sense do mix do not mix easily. So, this is a very interesting observation by Bertrand Russell because you can see that Aristotle begins his theory his metaphysics with a rejection of Platonic idealism. What is Plato's idealism? It basically says that ideas alone are real and rejects the material world. Aristotle rejects it and introduces his theory of form and matter which says that forms and matter eternally coexist, but this theory is metaphysics does not deny the fact that form or essences or ideas are eternal. So, he retains Plato to a very great extent, but at the same time he does not want to do away with the world and make it an unreal a kind of near shadow. So, he wants to accommodate both. So, he tries to that is what Bertrand Russell says Plato diluted by common sense and all the difficulties in understanding him and appreciating Aristotle is due to this that he was trying to mix something which will not easily mix Plato and common sense do not mix easily. Thank you.