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

METAPHYSICS 313
•
to establish any metaphysical propositions, but to
combat the scepticism which brought all manner of
truth into question, and to prove the
of their sophisms. 1
untenable nature
The services rendered by Socrates
to philosophy are by no means minimised by Aristotle,
although at the same time he emphasises the limitation
of Socrates' achievement to the sphere of ethics, and
observes that in this connection Socrates did
not establish
any metaphysical basis. 2 Of the lesser Socratic
schools Aristotle criticised only the Megarians, for their
assertions about the relation of the possible and the
actual, 3 and the Cynics, in regard to their theory of
knowledge and ethics. 4
The attention which Aristotle pays, however, to
Plato and the Platonic school is as thoroughgoing as
his treatment of the other Socratics is slight. His own
system grew directly out of that of Plato. He was compelled,
therefore,^ to distinguish his views from those of
Plato exhaustively, and to set out the arguments which
led him to go beyond the Platonic school. Thus it is
'
The former in Metaph. iv. proving that it would not only
5, cf. o. 4, IQ07, b, 20, x. 1, lOo.'i, destroy all motion and change,
a, 35, xi. 6 init. ; the latter in the but also all possession of skill or
treatise on the fallacies. power : one who does not now
2
Cf . the passages cited, hear would be deaf ; one who is
Zelleb, ibid, at pp. 94, 2, and not actually building would be
1143 lhat even the Ethics of no architect.
Socrates are one-sided, is shown * The former are spoken of in
by Aristotle in Eth. Nic. iii. 7, Metaph. v. 29, 1024, b, 32, viii. 3,
1113, b, 14 sq. c. 11, 1116, b, 3 1043, b, 23 (cf. Zellbe, ibid..
sqq. 1117, a, 9, vi. 13, 1114, b, !>52 sq.), and in Eth. Sic. x. 1,
17 sqq. 1 172, a, 27 sqq. Aristotle attacks
s
Metaph, ix. 3 (cf. Zelleb, the exaggerations of the moral
ibid. 220, 1). Aristotle here con- doctrine of the Cynics,
i
futes the Megarian principle, that Supra, pp. 14, 56 sq., 162,
the merely possible is actual, by &c.
314 ARISTOTLE
in no spirit of jealousy or detraction that Aristotle
comes back again and again to discuss the Platonic
doctrines, and to set out their defects from all
view with untiring patience;
points of
for such a criticism of his
master was unavoidable if he was to defend his own
philosophic individuality, and his right to found a new
school, against the fame of his predecessor and the
prestige of the nourishing Academy. His main criticism,
leaving out of account incidental objections, is
directed against three leading points : first, against the
Ideal Theory, as such; secondly, against the later
'
Pythagorising statement of the Theory;' and, thirdly,
against the principles laid down concerning the ultimate
basis of things, Matter and the One. 1
The Ideal Theory of Plato rested
upon his conviction
that it is only the universal essence
of things that
can be an object of knowledge. This conviction was
shared by Aristotle. 2
So likewise did Aristotle accept
without criticism Plato's doctrine as to the mutability of
all sensible .
things (which for Plato was the second
buttress of the Ideal Theory), and the necessity to
pass beyond these to something stable and essential. 3
But when Plato
draws from this the conclusion that it
•
is only the Universal, as such, which can be actual, and
that it must exist for itself as something substantial
beyond phenomena, Aristotle parts company with him.
This, therefore, is the central point about which revolves
"the whole Aristotelian attack on Plato's Metaphysics.
For Aristotle holds as to this assumption that it is
Of. Zbllbe, Platon. Studien,
2
Vide supra, pp. 163,300, &c.
1
p. 197 sqq.
3
Vide tujpra, p. 300 sqq.