-In Raphael's fresco The School of Athens (1511), Aristotle and Plato are featured prominently (among the other famous Greek philosophers).
-Plato's hand is pointing up towards the heavens (thought to be a reference to his abstract theory of Forms), whereas Aristotle's hand is facing palm-down towards the ground (thought to be a reference to Aristotle wanting to focus on the "here and now" and a more "scientific" approach to philosophy and logic).
-Of course, this is, as always, kind of an oversimplification and popular misconception when comparing these two.
-So, while people sometimes get confused about how much they differ, they definitely have a clear difference of opinion regarding the concept of "substance" (ousia), i.e. that which is.
-This isn't really a term that's associated with Plato because Plato didn't seem to care very much about using specific terminology and shit because he only cared if the concepts were clear. However, Aristotle cared very much about terms and definitions and ousia is a term that is central to Aristotle's teachings.
-According to Plato, the Forms are the only thing that's really real and everything else is an object of opinion. However, according to Aristotle, the Forms don't exist and that what is truly real are the concrete objects around us.
-Two of his works that discuss ousia explicity are Categories and Metaphysics.
-Categories
-Every "thing" that can be observed by humans can fit into at least one of 10 categories (in order of importance)
-Ousia (Substance)
-The most fundamental of the categories; every "thing" falls into this category because something has to exist in order for it to "be"! THIS is where "being" starts; things are NOT derived from the Forms (like Plato argued). Objects (in the philosophical sense) are "primary", not derivative.
-For example, "beauty" comes from beautiful things. If beautiful things didn't exist, then we wouldn't have a concept of "beauty".
-Plato also argued that "true beings" are eternal and unchanging; Aristotle, of course, refutes this by arguing that everything is subject to change and that these changes just correspond to different categories.
-The nine other different categories are all predicated on the first- ousia.
-Aristotle argues that if the Forms are truly separate from the things that they're associated with, then Forms can't really have an influence on these things.
-Aristotle also attacks the theory of the Forms by pointing out that Plato's implied that the Forms are both universal AND particular, which doesn't really make sense.
-Aristotle also argues in Ethics that Plato's "goodness" Form doesn't make any sense, either, because there are too many ways that things can be "good"! There is no one idea of "goodness" that the Form can embody.
-Metaphysics- Aristotle's most complex and difficult work.
-Unclear as to if this is a collection of some of his other works or that it was intended to be a single, unified work.
-It envisions an entire field of "science" devoted to ousia.
-It's worth noting that Aristotle never actually called this concept "metaphysics"; instead, he calls it "first philosophy".
-Gets into Artistotle's concept of "the soul" (to be explored at a later time).
-Aristotle thinks that Parmenides has kind of the right idea in terms of ousia ("something can't come from nothing; something can't become nothing" or something like that), but that Parmenides' conclusion ("nothing ever really changes") is wrong.
-According to Aristotle, it's obvious that categories change in respect to their primary substance.
-Everything that changs involves two components- something that changes because of its nature or property ("form"), and something that takes on the change and becomes something different ("matter").
-For example, a table is constructed from pre-existing matter (wood) and imposing the form of a table upon it. Therefore, the wood that's been turned into a table is still wood (because it's "matter"), but its been changed into a table ("form").
-Another example- a baby is born because pre-existing matter was formed in the mother's womb in order to create a new human. Over time the matter (that is the baby) grows taller, it takes on a new form ("tall"). Thus, just about everything is a composite of matter and form.
-However, this creates a dilemma- is, for example, Socrates primary, or is it just his matter that's primary? Or are his forms primary as well?
-While it makes sense that just the matter should be primary, Aristotle argues that forms can be primary too. For example, Aristotle argues that ousia must be "intelligible" and that it is only through forms that ousia can be intelligible.
-Aristotle tries to explore this concept further by saying that what we're looking for when we examine an object is its "essence"- it is something's essence when we're trying to understand what that thing is.
-Aristotle associates essence with form, not matter.
-Aristotle explores this idea in great technical detail.
