Natural Hearing (Aristotle's Physics)
30. Becoming, the General Before the Particular, and Why the End Is Better Than the Means
https://berquistcourse.com/course/philosophy/3-natural-hearing/030-becoming-the-general-before-the-particular-and-why-the-end/

[0:00] let's give you the next group of readings here, okay? And just kind of give you a little prologue to it, but we'll pass them around here. I got ten here. See, Aristotle is

[0:22] working his way from reasonable guesses and probability to some extent towards necessity, right? But he's gradually approaching this. Now, in the twelfth and thirteenth reading, which are the first two readings in this group here,

[0:43] Aristotle is going to do something like he did in ten and eleven. Okay. What's he going to do like what he did in ten, eleven? He's going to

[0:59] find a common basis, common thought, in other words, right? And he's going to become stronger. Okay. He's going to follow the advice of the central thinker of human thought. Yeah, a second time. Okay.

[1:27] Okay. Those who speak with understanding must be strong in what is common to all. Okay. So Heraclitus said, or he said, "Therefore, we ought to follow what is common, huh? " Okay, so you have to find what is common, and you have to what become strong. in it. actually here and in ten eleven too, he finds something that is common in two ways.

[2:08] He found what was common to all change, right? What is found in all change, and what is common to what the thinking of all the Greek natural philosophers and even the Chinese and we saw the moderns when they think about change, okay,

[2:31] okay. He became strong in that, right? Okay, we saw many steps he took. Even the tenth meeting, and then the greatest step here in the eleventh reading, huh? So he's going to do something like that here again, right?

[2:50] But there's going to be some differences here, right? Okay, and I might mention first of all he's going to find a common basis about becoming.

[3:12] Okay, in ten eleven I said he's found a common basis about what change change in general. He's going to find a common basis about becoming in general. Okay, and he's going to

[3:35] find it among all men, and not just among the natural philosophers. Okay, and third, he's going to become strong in it with complete necessity.

[4:00] Okay, so there's three differences there I'm touching upon, right? It's going to be very similar in a way you'll see to what he did in ten eleven. He's going to come to three things, right? Found in every becoming, right? Okay, like he found three things in every change, right? Okay, it's going to be very similar, and it's going to be

[4:32] a truth that is widely shared, right? Except here he's going to argue that this truth is in some ways seen by all men. Right there, he showed in a way this was seen by all the what, actual what philosophers. Okay. Um, but the word becoming here will be more the prominent word than the word change.

[5:01] And as you'll see, when you get to the thirteenth reading, he's going to determine the truth now with complete necessity, and he's going to correct something in what ten and eleven, right, as not being what altogether necessary, right? Okay. We'll see what that is when we get there. Okay.

[5:26] So sometimes I despair, you know, the students' minds being up to see the difference between these two, you know, because. You know, they see things at a distance, so to speak. You know, and at a distance, it might look like he's doing almost the same thing again, right? And certainly, is a continuity there, right? But there will be these three differences. There, the key thing was finding what's what.

[5:57] What is found in all change, right? Here it's what is found in all becoming, right? There, it was seen by all the natural philosophers, and we got it by the Chinese thinkers who wrote the I Ching, right? And by the modern physicists when we talked about change, and finally, we introduce complete necessity, right? He's moving as we go on. It's kind of marvelous the way he he follows the advice of Friar Lawrence too, right?

[6:29] Wisely and slow, right? They stumble that run fast, right? But he's very careful in these fundamental things to absorb them slowly and carefully, right?

[6:45] As what's his name said, um, Thomas Aquinas right? The dumb ox I spoke about that before, right? Now, let me first of all touch you upon the word becoming, right?

[7:15] Now, are are the words change and becoming? Are they naming a different reality? Well, notice, huh? Notice. If you speak of the change from being sick to being healthy, right?

[7:53] Isn't that the same as the sick becoming healthy? Aren't you talking about the same reality? You take the butter out of the refrigerator, right? It changes from what hard to soft eventually, right? Okay, the hard becomes soft, right? Are you talking about two different things? when you talk about the change from hard to soft and the hard becoming soft, or the butter becoming soft? Right.

[8:27] Okay. Now, are there synonyms in the full sense of the word synonym. Do they mean the same thing with exactly the same meaning? Right.

[8:44] I mean, ask the students sometimes. Are three feet and thirty six inches are they the same length? So is three feet and thirty six inches synonymous? Do they mean the same thing?

[9:04] Not completely. They seem a little different, right? Because thirty six and three are not the same, right? And a foot and inch are not the same, right? Yet you seem to be giving the same length, don't you? You see?

[9:20] Okay. Now, sometimes I approach this with something easier to see for the students. I say to them, "Are you going home for Thanksgiving or Christmas vacation?" And the student says, "Yeah, I'm going home, right? Okay. So you're going home. Meanwhile, your mother in conversation is saying that you're coming home for Thanksgiving or coming home for Christmas, right? Now, are you and your mother talking about different trip?

[10:00] No. What you call going home, your mother calls coming home, right? I say to them, "Now, is this because you and your mother speak a slightly different language? You have a different word for the same reality? " That's perspective. Huh? That's perspective or wherever you're at. Yeah, yeah. Because

[10:24] your mother might use the word what? She's going to Assumption College, let's say, right? And and you'd say she's coming to Assumption College, huh? Check up on you. Okay.

[10:42] So why do you say you're going home, and why does your mother say she's you're coming home, huh? Well, the trip is from Assumption College, let's say, to your home, right? And you are at the point of departure, right?

[11:02] At the beginning of where this journey is going to start from, right? And so that's why you say you're going home, right? Your mother is at the what? Point of destination, the end, right? And so she says you're coming home, right? Okay. So in a way, you're naming the same trip, but from the point of view you might say, or the point of departure, right? And from the point of what?

[11:33] Arrival, right? Okay. So you might say, "I'm going from Assumption College to my home, right? " Okay. But you say you're coming home from some college, right? Okay. So there's a little difference in the word. It's not just a synonym, because if it's a synonym, you, your mother would say going as much as you, or vice versa, right?

[12:06] So I see it's important over there to come here going, right? Maybe it's still so easy to know what the difference is. Okay. Now, given that distinction there, right?

[12:21] Becoming seems to be like coming. At least the word points to that, right? Okay. Then when you speak of coming to be, you're looking at it from the point of view of what comes to be, which is at the end of the becoming, right? See. So you can see in the word becoming, which you could change to coming to be if you wanted to, but

[12:50] you can see the connection with with like coming. Now you don't see that in the word change with the word going, do you? But is change differ from becoming something like going differs from coming? When you speak of change, are you since looking at it from the point of view of the point of departure?

[13:18] I think there's some truth to that. You can see it in this way. If I haven't seen somebody for some time, right? And I say, "My, he's changed," right? What am I thinking of? Just passed through. Yeah, he's departed from the way he was and the way I remember him. Do you see? So I'm in a way looking at it from the point of view of what departure, right?

[13:44] See. Do you see that? Yeah. So it seems to me in ten or eleven, at least I teach it, I don't know if I if I'm deceived myself. but when I teach ten or eleven, the key word to me seems to be more change, although it's not limited to that. I do use the word becoming too, right? Okay, especially in terms of the connection. But I seem to use the word change there more, right?

[14:14] Okay. Changes by contraries, changes between contraries, the one contrary to the other, right? Okay. But here the word will be very much becoming, okay? So I don't know if I understand fully the significance of that, but there's a little difference there, right? Okay. But notice, son, in both cases you arrived at there being three things.

[14:42] But maybe you'll see them a little bit differently. The three things, kind of, from the point of view of of coming rather than going, right? But in a sense, it's different. The mind to see it, right?

[15:03] It's like we see the same thing in going and coming, right? Yeah. Now, the second thing here, the second difference, uh? um As I say, he's looking for some common thought, what's common though to all men about becoming, right? Why before this finding was common to all the natural philosophers about change, right? Okay. Now that's going to be reflected in the way he proceeds, right? But how can he find what's common to the thinking of all men about becoming?

[16:08] He can't open up everybody's head, right? Look inside and say, oh yeah, he's got it. He's got. He's got it, right? See, he can't read them like he can have read all the great philosophers before him. See, what he's going to do, and you'll see that in the very second paragraph of the twelfth reading, when he says we say, when he says we say, that's not the editorial we, meaning we Aristotle, like we sometimes call the editorial we.

[16:47] It's not we as we the Greek natural philosophers, which he sometimes says, right? But we, meaning all of us, right? Okay. He's going to begin from the way we all speak about becoming. And why does he do that?

[17:10] Because the way we all speak about becoming is going to reflect a common understanding we all have of becoming. Okay. And then he's going to come down to the things themselves. Okay. It's kind of unique what he does here, right? He says at the beginning, anybody would say, of natural philosophy, and there's something that all men, to some extent, in a confused way that is to say, right, that they all see about becoming, huh?

[17:42] And he's going to bring that out the very way that all men speak about becoming. Okay. But it's in the thirteenth reading that you'll see him correcting something, right? It was very fundamental in reading ten,

[18:04] namely the changes between the contraries. That isn't altogether necessary. And when he determines the truth with complete necessity in the thirteenth reading, he will correct that. And. We'll see that. Okay. That's just kind of a little prologue, right? As you do this next time, okay? But as you start to read it, you'll see, as I say, something like ten and eleven. He does find what is common to all.

[18:36] In two senses, right? But it's common to all becoming in the thinking of all men, right? Okay. And he does become strong in it, but there will be those differences, right? Okay. Would there be something to the connection that all men would see it from the point of view of becoming, and all the philosophers from from point of departure? I don't think so. At least in my reading of it, huh?

[19:16] You know. But maybe it's more reflected in their in their speech about becoming, right? Okay. Okay. But since I come back to change and I illustrate what he's brought out here, right? Is there a different Greek word for the two? Yeah. Metabole is the word for change, right? Kinesis, motion.

[19:52] So, notice at the very first paragraph, he recalls what we learned in the beginning of the book. Let us speak, therefore, in this way: first, considering about every becoming, for it is according to nature, and this is the natural road. to state first the general, and, then to consider what is proper about each thing or particular. Okay. He recalls what we learned in the first reading, right?

[20:23] The general to the particular, right? Okay. But we saw that illustrated in in ten and eleven when he saw that they all agreed in general that change is by contraries, but they had some disagreement as to, which pair of contraries was the fundamental one, right?

[20:42] Okay. Okay. So, stop on that note, but I mean, again, I noticed in teaching even other parts of philosophy, the problems people get into because they they don't understand the general before the particular. They don't understand good in general. They don't understand better in general, right? I asked the students after, you know, we we give a kind of a Platonic dialogue on good, right? And Socrates asks, you know, the little boy, "What is good?"

[21:19] And the boy says, "Candy, pizza, vacation, bicycles, baseball." And Socrates would say, like he says to Meno and to Euthyphro, "Well, now these are all examples of good things, right?" What do these things all have in common that makes you call them good? See, the little boy would have a hard time coming up with what's common to pizza and vacation, bicycle, except these are all things that he wants.

[21:53] So the first definition he would come when he tries to what they all have in common, all the things that he wants is called good by him, right? So this is the first definition of good, huh? The good is what all want, what all desire. Okay, the good is what is wanted. Okay, and then imitating Socrates in the Yuthyfro, right? We'd say, well, is it good because we want it, or do we want it because it is what good, right?

[22:31] They say, well, did you ever want something which not other people but you yourself recognized later on was bad for you? My stock example in class is you're at the party and the host or hostess says you want another drink and you say yes, and as you drink this, I mean, you know, start to feel kind of lousy and you have to excuse yourself, Go out for a walk or something.

[22:58] Um, so even you yourself might admit that last drink was not what good for you, but yet you wanted it, right? Say, or the kid who wanted to drive his car 100 miles an hour down the street, right, and ends up in a tree, you know, his car is ruined and totaled and he's in traction, so on. Even he might admit to himself, right, that was not good for him to drive his car what 100 miles an hour, right?

[23:29] But he wanted to do it. Nobody was forcing him to do it, right? Okay, so we all have some non-controversial examples, right, where we wanted something that in fact we saw later on was bad for us, right, and not because other people say that's bad to do or something, right, but we ourselves saw was bad for us, right? Okay,

[23:52] so that would be on the side to say was not good because you want it, right? Okay, but now if you take the other side and say we want it because it is good, right, then someone might say, well,

[24:06] why is it that the good is not always wanted, right? And why is it that sometimes, as these examples show, what we want in fact is not good at all? It's bad, right? If good was the cause of wanting something, then since contrary causes of contrary effects, the bad should be the cause of aversion or turning away from something. But people sometimes want bad things, huh? Okay, so I kind of we see a duality in both sides, right?

[24:43] And then I say, well, which side do you think has more truth to it? You know, I think the arguments against saying it's good because we wanted are stronger than the difficulties of saying we wanted because it is good, right? But before I I try to then answer the arguments on the side that I think is true, right? Arguments against that, I give them a very simple induction, and I say, let's make a little table of fundamental goods and the desires corresponding to them.

[25:22] I put down food and hunger, and water and thirst, and reproduction desire to reproduce, and knowledge and desire to know, and basic goods. And I say, now,

[25:36] is food. Good for a dog or a man because of hunger. Does hunger make food good for them? Or can you see a reason why food is good for a dog or a man apart from their hunger? Everybody can see that, yeah. In the same way, can you see a reason why water is good for the animal apart from their thirst?

[26:01] So you can see in each particular example, right? That there's a reason why food or water is good for the animal apart from their desire for it. And it comes to reproduction. they say, can you see a good reproduction apart from the desire we have to reproduce? Yeah, that's the only way the species can stay in existence, right? Okay. And you see a good in getting your sleep, apart from your desire to sleep.

[26:30] You see, so you can see inductively, right, that these goods, like food and water, and reproduction, and sleep, you can see that they're good for the animal apart from the fact that he desires them. Therefore, nature didn't give the dog hunger to make food good for it, but because food is good, and in fact necessary for the animal. Nature has given the animal hunger so to pursue what in fact is good for it.

[26:59] The same with thirst and water, and desire to reproduce and to reproduce and sleep and desire to sleep, right? So inductively, I show, which is in proportion to them, that something is not good because you want it, but it's wanted because it's good.

[27:20] Okay. Then we come back to the objections, and we say, well, if then the truth is not that something is good because we want it, but the reverse, we want because it is good. Why is it? Excuse me. That the good is not always wanted, and why is it sometimes the bad is wanted? Right. Those are the two objections, right? Say, well, got to use your reason now, right?

[27:49] I've already given them what reason is. You've got to look before and after. I say, right? Is there something that comes after the good but before desire?

[28:02] And I say, take the example of Romeo and Juliet, right? Now, in the beginning, of the play, Romeo's in love with what? Rosalind. Rosalind, right. Now Juliet was beautiful at that time, right? Mm-hmm. But he had no desire for Juliet at all. It's over Rosalind. What happened?

[28:25] He went to the party at the Capulets to see Rosalind, and he saw what Juliet, right? So something comes after the good, but before desire, and what is that? Oh, the better. No, in this case it was his eyes, right? Okay. And there might be reason, right? See, the philosopher is a lover of wisdom, right? What comes after wisdom but before loving it? Knowing what it is, right?

[29:01] So the good is the cause of desire insofar as it's what known either by the senses or by reason, right? So the good as known is the cause of love, okay? That explains why Romeo didn't love Juliet in the beginning of the play. He didn't know her, right? Okay. But still, it's her beauty that aroused his desire for her, right? Yeah. Now that also explains why the bad is sometimes desired because the bad can what appear to be good, right?

[29:45] And so the eyes or the reason can be deceived by likeness, like the Italians who ate the poisonous mushrooms, right? Because they couldn't tell them apart from the good ones. And also, the knowledge of the senses or reason can be incomplete. I can know a drink is delicious and not know it's poisonous, right? So I drink the delicious poison because it's delicious, not because it's poisonous, right?

[30:12] I eat the poisonous mushrooms because they appear to be good mushrooms. I know people that happen to, right? Known people who've drunk the wrong alcohol got blind, huh? Okay. So it's the good as such that is what desired, right? Okay. It's got to be known somewhere. Okay. But now, if people don't stop and understand the good in general, they're not going to be what able to think about the more particular things.

[30:49] Now we go into the word better, right? And we say, is something better for me because I want it more? Well, if it's not good because you want it, it's not gooder, more good, better because you want it more. The ball game's over. You can't play that game anymore. You can't say this is better for me because I want it more. And that's better for you because you want it more, right?

[31:17] Once you see it's not good because you want it, right? You know. You know. So you have to elaborate upon the force, the reasoning there, right? I say, sugar is white and sweet. Now, is something sweet because it's white? No, everybody can see that, right? So if something is not sweet because it's white, white, is it sweeter because it's whiter? Right, but if you say it's sweeter because it's whiter, you're going to be forced to say it's sweet because it's white, but it isn't, right?

[31:52] So something is not good because you want it. It's not more good because you wanted more. Now you got to give me a reason. I say for saying this is better than that. Can't you say I wanted more?

[32:06] That escape is closed now. That door is closed. So what is better in general? What's better? More good. as such. What is better? Well, the, the most fundamental statement about what is better in general is that the end is better than the what means, huh? Okay. And you develop that inductively at first, right? Health is better than taking medicine, right? Knowing is better than studying, huh? And so on, right?

[32:45] Um. You can even syllogize to it too, if you know, how to write. Can. What about asking why was Juliet better than Rosalind? She's more beautiful, yeah. But what I'm trying to say is, when you're looking for a general proposition at first,

[33:04] the most fundamental one, or you could say if you wanted the perfect is better than the imperfect, huh? Okay. The one meaning of perfect is whole, and the other meaning of perfect is what has reached its end. Okay. It's still more concrete to say that the whole is better than the part, right? And the end is better than the means, huh? So you develop those, and then later on you can reason from them, huh?

[33:32] Okay. And so eventually you reason out the what the end or purpose of man, right? And then we use that to reason that the goods of the soul are better than the goods of the body, and so on, right? You see, a person who's never understood good in general can't understand better in general, right? And then they can't understand what's better for a man in particular, see?

[33:59] But once they see that the end is always better than what is for the sake of the end, then when you reason out the end of man, you know that's what's best, right? What's closer to the end is better. You reason in that way.

[34:17] See, when you get to the apology, right? In the apology, you find out that Socrates has been examining the Athenians about all the goods of human life, and examining their life, which seems to be based on the thought that the goods of the body and the outside goods are better than the goods of the soul. I say now you can't say that the goods of the soul are better for Socrates because he wants them more, and the goods of the body and the outside goods are better for the Athenians because they want those goods more, because we already admitted something not good because you want it.

[34:55] If you can't say it's better for the Athenians that because they want it more, So now you've got to give a reason for saying it's better. And. Then what I usually do is go back to the division into two, right? The goods of the soul and the goods of the body, are inside goods, And take that as opposed to the outside goods. I say now those two which are better.

[35:21] Well, then you proceed inductively to show that the outside goods are for the sake of the inside goods. Are your feet for the sake of your shoes? Your shoes for the sake of your feet? Are my glasses and nose for the sake of my? I mean, are my glasses for the sake of my eyes? or my eyes for the sake of my glasses, huh? You know, it's a book for the sake of my mind, and my mind for the sake of the book.

[35:45] See, you should know for the sake of, you know, is my car for the sake of transporting me to school, or am I for the sake of getting my car to school? Yes, sir. Are you for the sake of your clothes, your clothes for the sake of you? See, if you're for the sake of your clothes, you'd be one of those mannequins in the department store downtown, right?

[36:05] They're there to display the clothes. See, so you can show inductively that the outside is for the sake of the what? Inside. Are you for the sake of holding this chair down so nobody steals it, or is the chair for the sake of holding you up? You know, are you there for the sake of holding the mattress down, or the mattress there to help you sleep? You know, so you can show inductively that the outside is for the sake of the inside.

[36:29] And since you've already shown that the end is better than what is for the sake of the end, then you have to say necessarily the inside goods are better than the outside goods. So, as they say, we reward to the outside goods and the bronze medal, I say. Okay.

[36:45] And then we start to ask about the goods, the body, the soul. Of course, if they knew the body was for the sake of the soul, you could syllogize the same way, right? But they don't know enough about the soul and the body. But

[36:57] then we'll say, you know, we reason from the goods of the soul being more what? godlike, right? Than the goods of the body. See, so if you admit that God is better, right, then you have to say that the goods of the soul are better, right? Or the goods of the body we share with the beast. They already know man is more than the beast. So the goods man has that the beast doesn't have are the better goods.

[37:21] Okay, not the goods he has in common with the beast. Okay, but we've also we've also reasoned out the end of man. Then we can reason that the goods of the soul are closer to that, huh? But if people don't understand what is better in general, they have none of the premises to, you know. But then, you know, when Aristotle reasons out, or we reason out, the the end of man, the act with reason, you know, done well throughout life and so on, and then we sometimes substitute for done well by virtue, right?

[37:58] What's virtue? You know, I say, well, you know, people start off with too narrow a idea what virtue is. And actually, virtue should be understood in general first, and virtue is as broad as what? A thing's own act. Anything that has its own act, the act that it alone can do or can do better than other things, can have its own what? Virtue or vice.

[38:32] And so, what's the virtue of a knife? Yeah, virtue is what what makes its whatever good and its own act good, right? Well, what's the knife's own act to cut? What enables the knife to cut well? Sharpness. So sharpness is the virtue of the knife. What's the vice of the knife? Dullness, right?

[38:53] So obviously, if if man's end is to do his own act well, it's got to be according to human virtue. You want to investigate what virtue is, but you know kind of in general what virtue is, right? And then you say, what enables man to do his own act well? That's when you start to get to understanding the virtues. So even ethics, which is you know you know in human action, there you have to into the details eventually and so on.

[39:20] In order to act, you got to take into account circumstances and so on. But the ignorance of these things, these general things, makes it impossible for them to think well about the particular things. There's

[39:31] some truth even even there. You have to know the general before the particular. It's kind of interesting the way Aristotle began in Nicomarckian Ethics because he first does teach you what the good is and he does teach you what the better is, right? Before he even gets into the the very premium to Nicomarckian Ethics. You know you have to have a teacher that unfolds it; what's all there.

[39:58] So Aristotle's going to do the same thing here, right? He's going to you know, where is it according to nature? To state first the general and then consider what's proper, the right thing, right? And even Euclid does that to some extent, right? He'll define triangle before isosceles triangle, quadrilateral before square, right? Rectilineal, plain figure before quadrilateral, right?

[40:27] Can't really understand the particular without understanding the general. You understand the general without understanding the particular, right? You can see how that before and after in our knowledge resembles the before and after in being, right? You know this can be without that, but not vice versa. This can be understood without that, but not vice versa. I

[40:52] don't understand better. How can I understand what's better for man? I don't understand what virtue is. How can I understand what human virtue is? Aristotle, the rhetoric says, wealth is the virtue of money. How's that? Wealth is the virtue of money. Not the virtue of the man now. What's the money's own act to buy? If you have wealth, you can buy wealth. Poverty is the vice of money, not of the man.

[41:24] Can't buy poorly, right? My friend Warren Murray has a little plaque in his kitchen. It says, "Much virtue in herbs, little in men." But Lord makes that comparison. He compares the apostles to salt, right? Notice, the herb has its virtue and its seasons well, right? See, and sometimes you know, I you know, if you leave the you know have herbs in the kitchen there and you don't use it for a long time, they lose their what vigor, you know, so they become vicious, right?

[42:00] That's why we want like fresh herbs, you know, because they have some piquancy to them, right? But Lord compares the apostles to salt. You know, he says the salt loses its flavor, You know, you cast it out and trample it under. Tough words, right? I mean, it's kind of reflected in this plaque on the Warren Murray's wall there. Much virtue in herbs, little in men. You know, kitchen there.

[42:26] The herb is doing what it's supposed to do, but the man is not doing what he's supposed to do. He because the man doesn't have the virtue of man, but but the herb had the virtue of an herb, right? Made the food tastiest, part of the problem, I suppose. You know, yeah. So, when can you come next time then?

[42:52] I can't come next week. You know, I come the eighteenth. Is next? It's a Tuesday after next week. Yeah. Yeah. I won't be coming the twenty fifth, obviously. Yeah. I'll go onto the house and back today. But is the eighteenth okay or not? You'll be at something. I'm not going to be there. Oh, so that's okay. Nothing else gets you. That's okay. I mean, okay. Wait, wait, wait!

[43:17] Make up the eighteenth, everyone. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. You must have been here Christmas time too. Some some of the relatives come or not here or not here. Not too much. Parents can't visit at all.

[43:54] Maybe if somebody has them nearby, but usually. Yeah. Yeah. I see. Far away. they're with the rest of the family Yeah. Yeah.