ARISTOTLE AND THE EARLIER PERIPATETICS vol.I by Eduard Zeller, B.F.C.Costelloe 1897

He
;
;
;
METAPHYSICS 303
*
The contributions which his forerunners had made
towards their solution, did not in any way satisfy Aristotle.
He 1
takes exception to most of the pre-Socratic
philosophies primarily because of their materialism,
which made it impossible for them to reach out to the
first principles of the incorporeal
2
and he further
objects that they practically took no account of ideal
and final causes. 3
The earlier Ionic school is criticised by him because
of the difficulties which beset every one of their presuppositions,
4 because of their tendency to overlook the
moving cause, 5 and because of. the superficial way in
which they erected
an .arbitrarily chosen element into
the universal basis of things, whereas the sensible
qualities and changes of bodies are conditioned by the
opposition of different elements. 6
The same criticism holds for Heraclitus, in so far as
he agrees with the Ionic school in
assigning a material
element as the basis. 7 To his peculiar doctrine as to
the flux of all things and the meeting of opposites,
Aristotle has other objections. . thinks that the
doctrine of the flux is on the one hand not accurately
thought out, while on the other hand it overlooks the
1
For what follows cf . Strum- ' See Be Casio, ill. 5, Metaph.
pell, Gesch. d. tlieor. Phil. d. i. 8, 988, b, 29 sqq.
Gr. 157-184; Beandis, ii. b, 2,
5
Metaph. i. 8, 988, b, 26 ; Gen.
p. 589 sqq. Aristotle's criticism et Corr. ii. 9, 335, b, 24
ofearlierphilosophersisheredealt • Gen. et Corr. ii. 1, 329, a,
with only in so far as it concerns 8 ; Be Coelo, iii. 5, 304, b, 11, cf.
their fundamental doctrines. ibid. i. 3, 270, a, .14; Pfoys. i. 7,
4
Metaph. i. 8 init. cf. iv. 5, 190, a, 13 sqq. iii. 5, 205, a, 4.
1009, a, 36, 1010, a, 1.
Aristotle, indeed, generally
7
3 Metaphj. i. 7, 988, a, 34 sqq. puts him along with Thales,
b, 28, Gen. et Corr. ii. 9, 335, b, Anaximenes, &c. ; see Zelleb,
32 sqq., Gen. An. v. 1, 778, b, 7. Ph. d. Gr. pt. i. 585, 1.
304 ARISTOTLE
fact that every change presupposes a substratum ;
under alterations of matter, the
that
form maintains itself
that it is not all kinds of change which could go on
ad infinitum, ; and that from the changeableness of
earthly things we ought
not to draw any conclusion as
to the universe as a whole. 1 The theory of the unity
of opposites he dismisses by the argument that Heraclitus
is in conflict with the Law of Contradiction. 2
The objections to Bmpedocles cover various points
of detail regarding his natural philosophy which cannot
be gone into here, but they reach also to the fundamentals
of his system. His assumptions as to the
immutability of the original matter are held to involve
the impossibility of qualitative change, of the passage of
the elements into one another as seen in experience, and
of their combination into unity in the derivative forms
of matter, and also of the doctrines, upheld by Empedocles
himself, as to the quantitative identity of the
elements and their co-existence in
'
the Sphere.' 3
Aristotle also objects that the derivation of these elements
is not shown, and that they are not carried back
to the original divisions of material being, 4 which are
only incompletely presented in the definite kinds of
matter known to us as fire, water, &c. 5 He remarks
that the opposition of heavy and light is
not explained
jh. iv. 5, 1010, a, 15 gives a detailed refutation of the
sqq.; Phys. viii. 3, 253, b, 9 sqq. atomistic reduction (by Bmpb-
2 See Zellbr, Ph. d. Gr. i. doclbs) of aWaiutris to Sicicpurts.
600 sq., and 483, I. * The opposites '
warm and
3
Metaph. i. 8, 989, a, 22-30 cold,' &c, on which Aristotle
Gen. et Corr. ii. 1, 329, b, 1, c. bases his own theory of the ele-
7, 334, a, 18, 26, c. 6 mit. ibid, ments.
i. 1, 314, b, 10, 3i5, a, 3, c. 8, 325,
s
Gen. et Corr. i. 8, 325, b, 19,
b, 16. In De Caelo, iii. 7 init , he ii. 3, 330, b, 21.