Page images
PDF
EPUB

those attributes of being which are immutable and separated from any material expression, nor like mathematic with those which while unchangeable are yet to a greater or less degree materially expressed: it investigates, upon the contrary, those which are at once mutable and inseparable from some material embodiment'. It relates particularly to those objects which possess an intrinsic capacity of movement: it is, we may almost say, the science of phenomena of movement. But the Aristotelian physic is not a hasty materialism which states nothing but the fabric out of which the organism has to be constructed. It has to do with all the four principles or 'causes' into which Aristotle supposed the existence of every object could be analyzed—the material as supplying the actual elements out of which anything is made, the efficient, or agency by which it is made, the formal as giving the shape or idea which any object expresses, and the final cause or the intrinsic end which any form of existence seeks to realizes. “The physicist,” says the sixth Book of the Metaphysics, “should possess knowledge not only of the material but also of the matter in relation to the definition which expresses its real notion, and particularly in fact this latter*.” And to the same effect the Treatise on the Parts of Animals maintains that a true physical philosophy must content itself with no mere abstract statement of the material elements of which a phenomenon is composed or of the stages through which an object must have passed before it reach its final form. Such an analytic and genetic science is, says

2

1 Metaph. Ε. 1, 102613, η μεν γάρ φυσική περί αχώριστα μεν αλλ' ουκ ακίνητα, της δε μαθηματικής ένια περί ακίνητα μεν ου χωριστα δ' ίσως, αλλ' ώς εν ύλη η δε

PÚTN kai nepl xwplotá kal åklinta. Cp. Metaphys. K. 4, 1061630; Id. K. 7, 1064*15.

Metaphys. K. 7, 1ο64830, η μεν ουν φυσική περί τα κινήσεως έχοντ' αρχήν εν αυτοίς εστίν. .

3 Phys. ΙΙ. 7, 198822, έπει δ' αι αιτίαι τέτταρες, περί πασών του φυσικού είδέναι, και εις πάσας ανάγων το διά τί αποδώσει φυσικώς, την ύλην, το είδος, το κινησαν, το Čveka. So also 200°32 and 194*6.

4 Meta. Z. 11, 1037°16, ου γάρ μόνον περί της ύλης δεί γνωρίζεις τον φυσικών αλλά και της κατά τον λόγον και μάλλον. .

Aristotle, little better than would be the carpenter's explanation of a wooden hand: nay, indeed; Aristotle with quiet naiveté remarks, the carpenter would give the better explanation of the two, because he would not content himself with an enumeration of the hammer strokes which made a hollow here, an elevation there, but would also state the reason why he aimed the blow in such and such a manner, and for what end his movements were directed. And therefore in attempting to explain the facts of animal existence, physic must not fail to take account of mind as the constitutive form (eidos) in all living things'.

Metaphysical and teleological however as is the natural philosophy of Aristotle, it does not itself exhaust the explanation of the soul. Were soul never anything but active, never more than a principle of movement, physic might indeed claim to be competent to discuss it. But so far as soul cannot be so described, so far it ceases to fall within the region of the physicist'. It is in fact only these phenomena of soul 'which are not independent of matter' that physic is competent to investigate. And besides, were physic able to deal with all psychical phenomena, there would be really no philosophy beyond a philosophy of nature.

The truth is that soul cannot according to Aristotle be adequately discussed by either the metaphysical transcendentalist or the physiologist separately. The psychical side of human nature is of so peculiar a character, so independent on the one

1 De Partibus Αn. Ι. Ι, 64130, λεκτέον είη τα περί φύσεως θεωρητική περί ψυχής μάλλον ή περί της ύλης, όσω μάλλον η ύλη δι' εκείνην φύσις εστίν η ανάπαλιν. The whole chapter is valuable for the light it throws upon Aristotle's method of studying nature. Cp. De Motu An. 2. 704'13, where we have the expression μέθοδος φυσική, of which one principle is ή φύσις ούθεν ποιεί μάτην.

2 De Part. Αn. 1. Ι, 641°Ιο, δήλον ούν ως ου περί πάσης ψυχής λεκτέον ουδε γάρ πάσα ψυχή φύσις. .

3 Meta. E. I, το265, περί ψυχής ενίας θεωρήσαι του φυσικού όση μη άνευ της ύλης εστίν. .

De Part. 1. 1, 64134, ει γαρ περί πάσης (της ψυχής λέγει η φυσική) ουδεμία λείπεται παρά την φυσικών επιστήμην φιλοσοφία. ο γαρ νους των νοητών. ώστε περί πάντων η φυσική γνώσις αν είη κ.τ.λ.

side of physical surroundings, so connected on the other with physiological processes, that it can only be fully understood

through the combined labours of both orders of inquirers. The > feelings for example are materialized ideas (Córyou čvuloi) and

can only be understood when their supersensuous aspects are taken in connection with their bodily antecedents. Metaphysic and Physic must in fact be brought together if we would rightly understand the phenomena of mental action. This two-faced character of psychological inquiry Aristotle illustrates for us by a concrete illustration. “Suppose,” he says “the question should be what is anger? The transcendentalist (dialektikÓS) would define it as the effort after retaliation; the natural philosopher would describe it as a ferment of the pericardial blood or heat.” But, the writer goes on to imply, the true physicist will take account of both these aspects of our mental states. Just, he explains, as it is an insufficient description of a house to enumerate the stone and timber out of which it is constructed, unless we note as well the cause and reason of its existence as a shelter against injury from winds and rains: so also the true psychologist will recognise the fact that the subjective state and its physical counterpart are only different sides or aspects of one and the same phenomenon-a phenomenon therefore which is only rightly comprehended when its two sides are considered in their mutual influence upon each other'.

It is but another phase of this same standpoint when Aristotle insists on the need of uniting two modes of psychological investigation which correspond in part to what have since been known as rational and empirical psychology. To grasp the mind in its full meaning we must not, he holds, know it merely as a substance: we must add on a knowledge of the attributes and actions which belong to it. “The truth," says Aristotle, “seems to be that it is not only a knowledge of the generic character of anything which helps towards detecting the causes

1

403*29, διαφερόντως δ' αν ορίσαιντο φυσικός τε και διαλεκτικός έκαστον αυτών, οίον οργή τι εστίν... τίς ούν ο φυσικός τούτων και... ή μάλλον ο εξ αμφοίν.

of the properties of substances—as in mathematics the knowledge of straight and curved or the generic character of what is a line or a superficies assists us in seeing to how many right angles the angles of the triangle are equal—but even conversely the knowledge of the properties contributes in great measure to a knowledge of the “what' or the generic notion.” Without in fact this knowledge of the actual manifestations, the varying phenomena in which the soul displays its action, our psychological studies will leave us with the mere empty phraseology of Transcendentalism (διαλεκτικώς είρηνται και κενώς άπαντες)'.

Aristotle would seem then to take the same view of the study of mind as Hegel has done in a passage of the Encyclopædia. If we propose to think the mind," we may suppose Aristotle saying with the latter, “we must not be quite so shy of its special phenomena. Mind is essentially active. But if the mind is active, it must, as it were, utter itself. It is wrong therefore to take the mind for a processless ens as did the old metaphysic which divided the processless inward life of the mind from its outward life. No good will be done unless the mind be viewed in its concrete reality, in its action: and in such a way that its manifestations are seen to be determined by its inward force?"

The Method of Psychology, as conceived by Aristotle, is, it will now be evident, not to be summed up in any shibboleth of induction or deduction. Assuredly Aristotle's study of psychology is preeminently inductive. Here, as in Ethics, it is the fact which forms the starting point?. Mind and body are, he reasons, X X 7 intimately as matter of fact connected, and soul must therefore be explained by such a concrete method as will fully recognise its environment. But, at the same time, the real character of any object of investigation is to be found in the consideration of its end : and, so far as this is the case, psychology goes beyond the

[blocks in formation]

immediate fact, the simple datum. A natural history of the mind, which traces it in its progress from more elementary to more developed forms, is undoubtedly, Aristotle would have us to believe, a valuable contribution to the theory of psychology. But the whole precedes the part', the substance the attributes, and a well-established Science of the Soul must as little fail to account for a something to which these attributes shall be referred as for the attributes themselves which observation registers.

III. THE PRE-ARISTOTELIAN PSYCHOLOGY.

The historical retrospect of previous psychology which occupies the greater portion of the first book of the main treatise illustrates further the comprehensive nature of Aristotle's conception of the science of mind. Here, as in his other compositions, the aim of Aristotle is to shew that the thinkers before him had been too one-sided in their attitude and had thus identified soul with some one characteristic, which was really only a single factor in psychical operations. Just in fact as in the Metaphysics Aristotle shews how his predecessors had identified now the matter now the form with real being or true substance, or in the Ethics how previous moralists had mistaken virtue or prosperity for the happiness of which they were only sides or aspects : so in the Psychology we find him engaged in pointing out the degree to which previous students had confined their attention now to this side, now to that, of psychical phenomena.

Two ways especially of regarding mind are recognised by Aristotle amid the somewhat naive views of previous psychologists. Some of them had emphasized its perceptive and cognitive faculties, others had laid stress on its powers of movement

1 Polit. 1. 2, 125320, το γαρ όλον πρότερον αναγκαίον είναι του μέρους.

« PreviousContinue »