Explication of the text
De Anima II (1) is arguably one of Aristotle’s most renowned explanations of philosophical thought. Aristotle’s explanations of form and substance are arguably amongst the most potent solutions to the body-mind problem. According to Aristotle, a student of Plato, the body and the soul are not one and the same thing. On the contrary, the body and the soul are independent of one another, and the combination of the two makes up an animal. What Aristotle says is that the body is the subject matter, while the soul is the essence. The soul is what makes a body be described as it is. For instance, Aristotle gives the analogy of the eye and the eye sight. According to Aristotle’s analogy, there would be no difference between an actual eye and the eye on a statue if both could not see. In his analogy, Aristotle explains that for an eye to be referred to as an eye, it must be capable of sight. Thus, an eye is the combination of the pupil and the eyesight. While this is the case, eyesight is the body’s equivalent of the soul. On the other hand, the pupil is the representation of the body. Essentially therefore, the two can exist in isolation, but in such a case, they will lose functionality or what Aristotle refers to as essence.
Interpretation of the Text
While many people, including the most learned scholars and contemporary philosophers have interpreted Aristotle’s explations differently, it is obvious that duality is at the core of the explanations. Duality is the concept that seeks to explain the relationship between the body and the soul. In point of fact, what Aristotle means by the form and substance explanation is that the body is merely a subject matter, and lacks function in its independence form. In other words, viewed in isolation, there is no difference between the body of a human being or an animal and a log. Apart from the appearance, the two bear one common characteristic. They cannot move, think or act. In explaining this, Aristotle uses the example of an axe and says, “As it is, it is just an axe; it wants the character which is required to make its whatness or formulable essence a soul; for that, it would have had to be a natural body of a particular kind, viz. one having in itself the power of setting itself in movement and arresting itself.” This can be interpreted to mean that the soul – that intangible factor – is exceptionally important because it is the one that sets the body in motion and helps such a body make decisions and function effectively.
Aristotle uses the candle and shape analogy to explain the concept of change with regard to form and substance. Change is a process with a starting point and a terminal point. Aristotle calls this terminal point as the form, understood not in the geometric sense, but as that, which determines the nature of the substance. The substantial form is the reality or perfection produced in any substantial change. Aside from the form, a substrate is also necessary to explain the reality of such changes since “change” implies the change of something into a different thing. It neither involves the annihilation of the previous substance nor the creation of a new substance from nothing. For example, in the combustion of carbon, ashes are produced. A substrate must exist, common to the starting point and to the term of change. This is not perceived by our senses, but is understood by our intellect. Aristotle uses the philosophy of knowledge to explain the essence of the soul. According to Aristotle, knowledge is a factor whose importance is only perceivable upon its employment. Where such knowledge is not put into use, it is useless.
A relevant topic to this is Plato’s take on the nature of reality. Plato was Aristotle’s teacher and master. However, Aristotle did not subscribe to Plato’s doctrine. Plato says there are two worlds, the world of ideas and the world of sense. Plato claims that it is the world of ideas that is real because it is immutable and eternal. On the other hand, the world of sense is temporary and ever changing, a mere facsimile of the world of ideas. Furthermore, the world of ideas is responsible for whatever occurs in the world of sense. His problem here is to explain how something permanent and unchanging affects another that is temporary and ever changing. To solve the problem, Plato introduces an agent or a divine creator that exists between both worlds. This divine creator takes forms from the world of ideas and introduces these to the world of sense. This doctrine serves as Plato’s philosophical foundation, which Aristotle deviates from.
For Aristotle, everything in the world is made of matter and form. Prime matter and substantial form are not real beings or substances but intrinsic principles of the substance. This means that all sensible realities are composites of matter and form. Moreover, since no matter can exist without a form that determines it, corruption and generation are correlative phenomena: where one is present the other is simultaneously present. Matter and form are intimately related to each other as constitutive principles of material being. This doctrine, is referred to as the form and substance doctrine, and has been interpreted by contemporary philosophers as the duality concept or the body mind-problem.
Aristotle’s ideas of the body (subject matter) and the soul (substance) are based on essence, and can be used to explain the concept of actuality. Unlike Platonic philosophers, Aristotle’s ideas are based on duality, and can be explained through the candle shape analogies. His definition of the soul is authentic and it goes thus, “the soul is the substance in the sense which corresponds to the definitive formula of a thing’s essence” .As formulated by Aristotle, the hylemorphic doctrine was an original discovery. Its originality lay in conceiving prime matter as a real potential principle, acting as the determination of an actual perfection. Furthermore, this doctrine is of much importance to Aristotle’s philosophy, for it serves as his foundation for his latter theories. In addition, this view is just as removed from the position of the pre-Socratics – who thought of matter as the only principle of corporeal being, as it is from Plato, who regarded matter as simple and pure privation. As regards the form, Aristotle regarded it as the determining principle of the individual substance; it is the principle of actuality par excellence. The form inheres in the substance and gives it a specific nature. As the act of prime matter, the substantial form determines corporeal being to be what it is; there is therefore only one substantial form in every corporeal being.
The argument
The argument in De Anima II (1) is a primary element in explaining the wider topics such as duality in religion and philosophy. Most religious institutions, such as Hinduism, explain that the body and mind can exist in isolation, but much like Aristotle’s theory, they teach that the body and mind must work together. Perhaps the main weaknesses in religion can be addressed by Aristotle’s views. For instance, the immortality of the souls as explained by ancient religious philosophy, is one of the factors that Aristotle’s theory answers albeit indirectly. By explaining that the body and mind work together, he basically meant to say that the soul, just like the body, cannot function in isolation. In conclusion, it is clear that Aristotle’s central argument is that the body and the soul come together to form a functional being because the soul is the substance and the body is the subject matter. Aristotle’s argument is placed at the end of the text and such placement is quite effective as it comes after the explanations and analogies on which it is founded.
Work Cited
Aristotle. “Metaphysics.” Trans. W. D. Ross. Great Books of the Western World. Ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins. Vol. 8. Chicago: W. Benton, Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.Print.
