Julius Caesar (Greece and Rome Live) Book

J. L. Ackrill undertakes to examine the highlights of Aristotle's thought and use them to springboard into philosophical inquiry. Ackrill begins the book with a brief biography of Aristotle and an introduction to his thought. Ackrill aims to clear up misconceptions concerning Aristotle's methodology and to see that criticisms that are raised against Aristotle should actually be leveled against his followers who had different interests, and less ability, than Aristotle (81). The major themes of Aristotle that are presented in this book are the analysis of change, formal logic, the mind-body problem, metaphysics, ethics, and philosophical logic.



An Examination of Aristotelian Themes



The Analysis of Change. Ackrill begins illustrating Aristotle's thought on matter and change by referring to Aristotle's response to the problem raised by Parmeninedes and his school, the Eleatics; namely, "What is, is one and unchangeable"-making predication and distinctions in thought and communication impossible. Aristotle deals with this as an absurdity based on deliberate misunderstanding. He makes two simple points: he attacks the Eleatics' central thesis by showing their equivocation of the verb "to be." Aristotle deals with this problem by stating that all logical communication assumes the qualifications of its terms. Secondly, he attacks their unwarranted dismal of ascribing characteristics or saying that things cannot change (25). Ackrill then outlines the three important aspects of Aristotle's analysis of change-"x comes to be by y," "y comes to be from x," and "y comes into being" (27, 28).



Explanation of the Natural Sciences. In the previous chapter Ackrill used the analysis of change to show that in any changeable object matter and form can be distinguished. In the same way he shows that changes of life in nature depend upon its material make-up; namely, a thing in nature's behavior will be determined by what it is made of and how it is put together. This would seem to present a problem for Aristotle were it not for his asking the nature of the thing being changed (35). Ackrill then begins to examine Aristotle's inquiry into the nature of causation. Aristotle notes four types of causality for gaining knowledge, all of which may contribute to the "cause" of a thing. In doing so, Aristotle is seeking to ask the "why" of a thing, not just the "what." Ackrill first notes the material cause, that from which a constituent thing come to be. He then notes the formal cause; the form or mode is the cause. Ackrill locates the source of the change in the efficient cause. The end result of an action is its final cause (37).



Logic. Ackrill's chapter on logic is the most difficult to comprehend in the book. One does not suggest that Ackrill's material his factually wrong, nor that he does not understand Aristotelian logic, but he does not go to great lengths to communicate the material clearly. In speaking of Aristotelian logic Ackrill means formal logic manifested primarily in the syllogism (an argument containing two premises and a conclusion). This is where Ackrill begins to lose his audience. Traditional logic textbooks state, for example, "All men are mortal;" Ackrill, going upon the natural reading of the Greek, turns it around saying, "Mortal belongs to every man" (82).[1] He proceeds to justify his unique formation of syllogistic reasoning by saying that it has certain advantages, although he never says what they are. He then spends five pages describing moods, forms, and figures-much to the confusion of the reader. He notes, correctly I believe, that syllogistic logic has its limits and would fall under heavy criticism by the philosophers John Locke and Immanuel Kant (80, 87).



Ironically, one of the most interesting chapters is the one on scientific analysis. ALthough Aristotle has been discredited in the realms of science, many scientists operate on the same basic epistemological framework that Aristotle does (ie, sensory perception is the root of knowledge). It makes one wonder if thirty years from now they too will be embarrassed, their dogmatic claims notwithstanding. Ackrill did a good job on this claim.