Aristotelianism

views updated

ARISTOTELIANISM

The question of what it means to be an Aristotelian—whether this requires adherence to a specific set of doctrines, a certain methodological approach, or the fulfilment of some other set of conditions—is a vexed one and has exercised the minds of self-professed Aristotelians and anti-Aristotelians alike over the course of twenty centuries. Like many problems of definition, it is best approached indirectly (as indeed Aristotle would likely have approached it). This historical overview starts from the broad assumption that one may consider Aristotelian all those thinkers who have either (a) considered Aristotle's texts a suitable point of departure for an enquiry into a given subject, or (b) thought themselves to be extending a peripatetic approach to a subject not covered by Aristotle himself. This assumption will have the consequence of making Aristotelians out of many whom modern reckoning would not readily count as philosophers. The result is not untoward because Aristotle's own enterprise extended far beyond philosophy thus narrowly defined.

The First Peripatos

Upon returning to Athens in 335 BCE, Aristotle founded a school in a grove consecrated to Apollo Lyceus. Hence the school was termed the Lyceum, yet it became forever known as the Peripatos for its covered colonnade. Indeed, in the annals references to "Peripatetics" greatly outnumber those made to "Aristotelians."

Aristotle's school was both a teaching and a research institution, with scholars pursuing interests ranging from musicology and the cataloguing of Greek forms of government to public lectures on popular subjects. The school survived Aristotle's departure from Athens and subsequent death in 322 BCE: Indeed, it flourished under Aristotle's successor and close collaborator, Theophrastus (372–287 BCE), who is reported to have presided over some 2,000 students.

Theophrastus expanded upon Aristotle's philosophical and scientific program. Theophrastus's botanical studies are pioneering works; the ancients especially valued his contributions to the categorical and hypothetical syllogistic. Theophrastus adheres to an aporetic methodology in the philosophical treatises while amassing observations in the scientific; this commitment to a peripatetic approach even leads Theophrastus to criticize Aristotle's Metaphysics Lambda in his own work on first philosophy. Theophrastus questions the extent to which teleological language, central to Aristotle's explanation of living nature, is applicable in a cosmic context: In effect, Theophrastus questions whether Aristotle is Aristotelian enough.

The Lyceum's independent spirit is further manifested in how its third head, Strato of Lampsacus (d. 269), departed from Aristotle on several important points, notably in natural philosophy. The diffuse activities and conflicting viewpoints countenanced within the Peripatos may have worked to its detriment in an age of intensifying competition between the philosophical schools. Strato's stewardship coincided with a decline in the school's fortunes, and within two generations it had all but disappeared from view.

The Imperial Age

The nascent Hellenistic schools found elements to their liking in Aristotle's now-lost dialogues, praised for their style by Cicero and plundered for their edifying materials. Through criticism and creative appropriation, the Stoa in particular remained indebted to the peripatetics, who in the second century enjoyed a measure of resurgence under Critolaus. Still, self-professed peripatetics are hard to come by before Andronicus of Rhodes presented the ancient world with his authoritative collection of Aristotle's school works c. 50 BCE. Thereafter appear figures such as the Augustan intellectual Nicholas of Damascus, whose self-portrait is a model of Aristotelian virtue and who is credited with writing a compendium of Aristotelian philosophy, and Alexander of Aigai, teacher to Nero.

Andronicus's epoch-making edition is as important for the organization of its materials as for its contents, which quickly became canon. Immediately the impression is one of a full-fledged curriculum: The acquisition of methodological tools—the Organon of reasoned argument—is followed by an account of natural principles and natural bodies. After this comes living nature, then first philosophy (now dubbed "metaphysics"), and then the practical and productive sciences. Aristotle's widely varied investigations take on the appearance of a system here and retained it thereafter.

In Andronicus's wake there are two signal developments. First, propounding Aristotelian doctrine comes to be viewed as involving the writing of commentaries, starting with the Categories and On Interpretation. Second, in the first century BCE the Academician Antiochus thinks to present Aristotle as belonging essentially to the Platonic tradition. This classification set the tone for much of the imperial period. The fundamental continuity of Plato's and Aristotle's projects was correctly ascertained by late ancient thinkers and seized upon with momentous consequences.

The most important late ancient philosopher of purely peripatetic persuasion was Alexander of Aphrodisias. Around 200 CE Alexander was appointed to Athens's imperial chair in Aristotelian philosophy: He expounded his master's teaching in a series of magisterial commentaries ad litteram. Alexander's commentaries remain unsurpassed for erudition and insight, taking on all comers in a spirited defence of the Aristotelian worldview. Alexander's sharp, down-to-earth observations—for instance his unflinching admission that Aristotelian psychology makes no provisions for an immortal soul—provided a sobering reminder to later commentators who approached Aristotle's texts with loftier aspirations and syncretistic leanings. Though Alexander's Aristotle is undeniably a system-builder—it is with Alexander that the Aristotelian program of "saving the appearances" becomes a desire to explain each Aristotelian sentence by reference to another—he occasionally advances different interpretations without feeling the need to come down on one side. Alexander also wrote new treatises where he felt a lacuna existed in the extant corpus; and from his circle derives the peripatetic genre of disputed questions.

A different approach to Aristotle's texts is offered by Themistius, a late-fourth-century senator and proconsul of Constantinople. Themistius wrote paraphrases rather than commentaries; aporias and scholarly disputes take a back seat to a clear exposition of the main points. Yet Themistius positions himself as a peripatetic: his works and Alexander's provided a touchstone for later scholars who sought a genuine understanding of Aristotle's meaning.

The Late Ancient Synthesis

Plotinus (d. 270) is credited with an impressive dismantling of Aristotle's criticisms of Plato, and with the subsequent triumph of (neo-)Platonism in antiquity. But in the process, Plotinus also consolidated the assimilation of central Aristotelian concepts into a Platonic framework: for example, the potentiality-actuality distinction and the notion of pure contemplation as self-reflective. Plotinus's pupil Porphyry (d. 309) went further, attempting to show how nothing in Aristotle's virulently anti-Platonic categorical scheme in fact speaks against the primacy of separate Forms. The Categories, in its own words, purports to detail how things are spoken of: its universals are those abstracted from sense-particulars. The suggestion, embedded in Porphyry's enormously influential introduction (Eisagôgê ) to Aristotle's Organon, is that Aristotelian science deals with substances prior to us, not with those prior by nature. This move made Aristotelian logic, and by extension natural philosophy, innocuous to ancient Platonists. It also set up the protracted Latin debate concerning the universals.

The Platonist appropriation of Aristotle was made complete in the fifth-century revival of the Athenian and Alexandrian schools. Aristotle was considered a largely reliable guide to the workings of the sensible cosmos: His works became positioned between those Platonic dialogues that were considered propaedeutic in character and those that disclosed the higher realities that Aristotle either failed to mention or knew nothing about. Though committed to the supremacy of the "divine" Plato over the "daemonic" Aristotle, late ancient Platonists were thus Aristotelians, too, in their fashion. The voluminous commentaries on Aristotle's logic and natural philosophy testify to the care and attention devoted to subtle points of argument and doctrine. In negotiating tensions between Aristotle's treatises and Plato's dialogues, notably the Timaeus (a prime target of Aristotle's but a treatise that the Platonists ranked high), both reconciliation and taking Plato's side could produce philosophically interesting work, as the examples of Simplicius (fl. in the 530s) and Proclus (d. 485) show. So could an unorthodox mindset coupled with a healthy self-image and a nascent Christian agenda, as witnessed by the groundbreaking work of John Philoponus (d. 574).

Opinion varied about how far harmony extended in the direction of Plato's supernal principles. Iamblichus (d. 325) came under fire for suggesting that Aristotle would have subscribed to Plato's Forms, while Ammonius's (d. 517/526) equally hyperbolic claim that Aristotle's Prime Mover was intended as a divine creative force was broadly accepted. Ammonius's project of harmonizing Aristotle with Plato thus made Aristotle more acceptable to monotheists both in the Arabic-speaking East and, eventually, the Latin Christian West.

As for the Eastern Roman Empire, after the decline of Alexandria, the next high point for Aristotelian studies came with the Aristotelian circle assembled by Princess Anna Comnena in early-twelfth-century Constantinople. This activity resulted in commentaries by Eustratius and Michael of Ephesus and helped secure the transmission of Aristotelian materials to the Latin world.

Aristoteles Arabus

Legend depicts Greek wisdom as passing from Alexandria to Baghdad: Although the chain of transmission is not as ironclad as Arabic-speaking Hellenophiles liked to pretend, the story contains a kernel of truth. The philosophy the Islamic world inherited, in particular, was Alexandrian and hence broadly Aristotelian. Aristotle's works were translated mostly through Syriac, by Christians. Many went through several recensions because the audience's growing scholarly acuity demanded progressively more exacting translations. By 950, all of Aristotle except for the Politics was available in Arabic (Plato's Republic replacing the latter), along with a host of commentaries. Creative reflection was underway among Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike, all of who wrote in Arabic.

A reliance on Alexandrian learning, which for the most part accepted the "lower" calling of explaining Aristotle, had the effect of making of Aristotle the preeminent sage of old. In the Arabic understanding, Aristotle had perfected, but also corrected, the views of other ancient thinkers, including his teacher Plato: The well-known adage of Aristotle considering "truth a truer friend" is traceable to al-Ghazālī (1058–1111), who can thus mockingly position himself as a peripatetic in spirit even when questioning the cogency of the Muslim falâsifah. But the Arabic Aristotle also manifested Platonic traits. This was due partly to the pseudonymous Theology of Aristotle and Epistle concerning the Pure Good (really Plotinus and Proclus in disguise), and mostly to a comfortable familiarity with the synthesis effected in late antiquity. The Peripateticism taught in the wake of al-Kindī (d. ca. 873) and al-Fārābī (d. 950) was both theist and emanationist.

The most powerful synthetic mind in Arabic philosophy, and the man responsible for tying the disparate threads of Aristotelianisms past into the service of a singular vision, was also the philosopher who eclipsed Aristotle in the East. Ibn Sīnā (the Latin Avicenna, 980–1037) progressed from traditional commentary to comprehensive philosophical encyclopaedias "presented in the manner of the peripatetics" to free-form expositions of his own views. Too Platonizing to be considered purely peripatetic, altogether too Aristotelian to be mistaken for a Platonist, lifting materials from the Muslim dialectical theologians as needed, Ibn Sīnā's philosophy constitutes an original achievement, one whose success is measured by the fact that in the East his works supplanted Aristotle's as the basis for study and philosophical reflection. It is thanks to Ibn Sīnā that mainstream Islamic philosophy to this day retains a broadly peripatetic vocabulary and orientation. Yet his substantial revisions to Aristotelian metaphysics, psychology, and logic, among other areas, were presented in such an attractive package that later philosophers rarely paused to consider whether Ibn Sīnā's philosophy faithfully reflected that of Aristotle. More important was that it conveyed truth. The subsequent period is consequently more rightfully called Avicennian than Aristotelian.

From this perspective, Ibn Rushd (Averroes, 1126–1198) appears a man out of place. Following upon al-Ghazālī's criticisms of Ibn Sīnā, Ibn Rushd advocated a return to an undiluted Aristotle, undertaking a massive commentary project worthy of Alexander or Themistius, both of whom he used extensively. This Cordovan commentator regarded Aristotle as a model of human perfection (In De anima III, comm. 14). For him, this faith in Aristotle's exemplary rationality and consistency held the key to settling any outstanding scholarly dispute. Sidelined in Islamic philosophy, Ibn Rushd became fabulously influential among Jews and Christians, who viewed him as the Commentator (in antiquity, Alexander was similarly honoured).

Aristoteles Latinus

The story of the Latin Aristotle begins with Boethius's (d. 525) stated intention of translating all of Aristotle's works. The project only got so far as the logical treatises; until the mid-twelfth century, of these only the Categories and On Interpretation circulated, making of Aristotle primarily a logician, and a curious one at that. A slow dissemination of the "new logic" (the full Organon ) occurred in the twelfth century: acquaintance with Arabic philosophy—above all, Avicenna's De anima and Metaphysics —helped raise interest in Aristotle's natural philosophy and metaphysics, which were then translated in short order, often concurrently from the Greek and the Arabic in a race to get to the heart of the matter.

The theologically suspect aspects of Aristotelian teaching, which the Arabic tradition helpfully pointed out, promptly resulted in the 1210 and 1215 bans in Paris, then the most prestigious of the rising universities. This did little to stem the tide. By mid-century, studying the entire range of Aristotle's works—often coupled with Averroes's commentaries—was commonplace in the arts faculties. Aristotle himself was so ubiquitous that writers could refer to him simply as "the Philosopher."

Thereafter, Aristotle dominated philosophical teaching in the Christian West for three centuries. Hundreds upon hundreds of commentaries were produced at the height of scholasticism; the list of the major commentators was a roll call of the best and brightest of the schoolmen: Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, William Ockham, Jean Buridan, and so on—for every major figure, there was a score more. As in ancient scholasticism, considerable philosophical ingenuity and innovation went on under a nominal exposition of the text (the quaestiones providing an even more congenial setting).

Especially going into the nominalist phase, the question arises: To what extent are some of these thinkers to be considered Aristotelian at all? Clearly, greater liberties were being taken; but this freedom would be expected following a period of assimilation. Moreover, adherence to a tradition need not stifle creative thought. The fallout from the famous condemnations of 1270–1277 spotlights the complex dynamic. For the most part, the condemnations were directed against the allegedly heterodox teachings of the so-called "Latin Averroists." But just because their radicalism was so resolutely Aristotelian—upholding the world's eternity and the unity of the intellect, and so on—the condemnations could be interpreted as an invitation to read Aristotle more creatively. And could the resultant bold conceptual and scientific inquiry not be considered more authentically Aristotelian than a single-minded adherence to the master's letter? "Radical" Aristotelians and radical "Aristotelians" were similarly drawn to the spirit of Aristotle's texts, in equal parts confident and intellectually curious. They merely took their admiration of the master in different directions.

The Modern Age

The Renaissance humanists' newfound appreciation for the breadth of ancient culture put an end to Aristotle's supremacy. With the intellectual scene splintering into multiple incommensurable paradigms, Aristotle was effectively demoted to the headmastership of one school once more after long representing Greek wisdom in its entirety. As the quality of texts and translations came under scrutiny, the very state of Aristotle's preserved writings was found wanting. What to make of this was less evident. The Ciceronian Mario Nizilio could claim that wrinkles in expression signaled confusion in thought, whereas others blamed Andronicus's editorializing. Yet others took refuge in the ancient tradition, so that by the sixteenth century any configuration of Alexandrine, Themistian, Averroist, and even neo-Platonist tenets could be combined in an attempted rehabilitation of Aristotle, as exemplified by the works of philosophers such as Nicoletto Vernia (1442–1499) Agostino Nifo (d. 1538), and Pietro Pomponazzi (1462–1525). The textual drive had other unforeseen consequences. Elegant new translations of works such as the zoological and elemental treatises excited new scholarship, and Aristotle's Poetics at last found an appreciative audience among the literati.

With the Reformation, new complications emerged. Martin Luther's attitude towards Aristotle was ambivalent, but Melanchton enthusiastically endorsed the teaching of solid scholarly materials (excepting the Metaphysics ). The Counter-Reformation likewise gravitated towards neoscholasticism. The late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries thus saw a resurgence in the fortunes of Aristotle's works, which for a time were studied with equal intensity in the Protestant north and the Catholic south. Of particular note are the efforts of Francisco Suarez (1548–1617) and the Coimbra commentators.

By comparison, the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries represent a true dry spell for Aristotelian philosophy. One may ask why; a tentative answer, if necessarily incomplete and hesitant, may yet tell us something about Aristotelianism as a historical force. Part of Aristotle's attraction had been the promise of a comprehensive, largely unified worldview, with pressure points doubling as the main locus for scientific advancement (discrepancies calling for new solutions). With the new sciences wresting fields of inquiry from the philosophers' hands, discipline by discipline, what appeared to be left of Aristotle was the barest husk of a system—in effect its extremities, logic and moral education. And of these, the nineteenth century threatened to supplant Aristotle's logic, long regarded as his lasting achievement. Antiquarian interest, it seems, could not of itself make Aristotelianism thrive. It could, however, help keep it alive, at least for a time.

The New Aristotle

The post-Enlightenment rise in Classical scholarship eventually brought about a renewed interest in ancient philosophy. But the philological and historical orientation of the new generation meant that Aristotle (along with Plato) returned with a difference. Instead of unity, the new scholarship sought signs of discrepancy, editorial interference, and intellectual development. Werner Jaeger's (1888–1961) studies mark a watershed, representing the culmination of a century's worth of textual work but also providing the launching point for countless philosophical studies sharing the same problem-oriented, if not aporetic, approach to Aristotle's works. An alternative to the genetic method would be to treat individual treatises as essentially closed units, examined closely but in splendid isolation. Twentieth-century analytic philosophy produced many such Aristotelian essays, while thinkers such as Brentano, Husserl, and Heidegger took more general inspiration from the Stagirite's writings.

Within the Catholic Church's sphere of influence, the nineteenth century witnessed the ascendancy of neoscholasticism, culminating in Leo III's 1879 encyclical officially endorsing Aquinas. Pius X further singled out twenty-four Thomist tenets to be taught in all Catholic institutions. This development injected a more systematic impulse into Aristotelian studies because Aquinas's Aristotle was the undisputed "master of those who know." Still, questions about Aristotle's perennial wisdom—as opposed to his historically conditioned contributions—persisted. The Thomist revival undoubtedly perpetuated a medieval understanding of Aristotle. But it also represented an important moment in the recovery of the medieval Aristotelian tradition as a whole.

Late-twentieth-century philosophers discovered in Aristotle new things again. As virtue ethics flourished, some proponents declared themselves neo-Aristotelians (Alasdair Macintyre, Martha Nussbaum), while others were so labeled. Philosophers of mind and biology found intriguing formulations in Aristotle's studies on living nature; even Aristotle's notoriously problematic modal syllogistic has garnered newfound respect as a philosophically sophisticated formalization of an essentialist metaphysics. In each case many have determined that Aristotle is best approached through an analytic engagement with his commentators—itself an ancient strategy.

This interplay of historical and systematic concerns prompts one final observation. Aristotle's works have been said to present a system in potentia. One possible history of Aristotelianism would accordingly unfold as a series of attempts by different thinkers in different ages to map out and explore the conceptual possibilities and limitations embedded in the texts received as Aristotle's. Such a story would span the history of Western thought, because no other philosopher has enjoyed such sustained attention (admittedly, Plato comes close). A welcome corollary is that the contemporary student has at her disposal a kaleidoscope of "Aristotelianisms" to aid in further understanding and exploration.

Bibliography

Barnes, Jonathan, and Miriam Griffin, eds. Philosophia Togata II. Plato and Aristotle at Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.

Blackwell, C., and S. Kusukawa, eds. Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: Conversations with Aristotle. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999.

Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. 23 vols. and 2 supplementary vols. Berlin: G. Reimer: 1882–1907.

Des Chene, Dennis. Physiologia. Natural Philosophy in Late Aristotelian and Cartesian Thought. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996.

Düring, Ingemar. Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition. Gothenburg: Institute of Classical Studies, 1957.

Gutas, Dimitri. Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988.

Kessler, Eckhard, Charles H. Lohr, and Walter Sparn, eds. Aristotelismus und Renaissance. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1988.

Kraye, Jill, W. F. Ryan, and Charles B. Schmitt, eds. Pseudo-Aristotle in the Middle Ages: The Theology and other Texts. London: The Warburg Institute, 1986.

Kretzmann, Norman, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, eds. The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Lohr, Charles. Latin Aristotle Commentaries. 2 vols. Florence: L. S. Olschki, 1988.

Moraux, Paul. Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. 3 vols. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1973–2001.

Olivieri, Luigi, ed. Aristotelismo veneto e scienza moderna. 2 vols. Padua: Editrice Antenore, 1983.

Pade, Marianne, ed. Renaissance Readings of the Corpus Aristotelicum. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2001.

Peters, Francis E. Aristoteles Arabus. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968.

Sandbach, F. H. Aristotle and the Stoics. Cambridge, U.K.: Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, Supplement 10, 1985.

Schmitt, Charles B. Aristotle and the Renaissance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.

Schmitt, Charles B. The Aristotelian Tradition and Renaissance Universities. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984.

Sharples, Robert W. "The Peripatetic School." Routledge History of Philosophy. Vol. II: From Aristotle to Augustine, edited by David Furley. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.

Sharples, Robert W., ed. Whose Aristotle? Which Aristotelianism? Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001.

Sorabji, Richard, ed. Aristotle Transformed: The Ancient Commentators and their Influence. London: Duckworth, 1990.

Wardy, Robert. Aristotle in China: Language, Categories, and Translation. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Wisnovsky, Robert. Avicenna's Metaphysics in Context. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.

Taneli Kukkonen (2005)

Encyclopedia of Philosophy