The first thing to say about Aristotle’s metaphysics is that its very name has become misleading. The original Ancient Greek text is using the term “metaphysics” with the meaning “principles of physics” or “principles of reality.”
In Aristotle’s writings, “metaphysics” has nothing to do with the supernatural, the occult, or hidden forces of nature. On the contrary, Aristotle understood metaphysics as a method for the analysis and understanding of reality, a method devoid of any magical elements.
I deeply regret that his “metaphysics” are regarded by some people with the same distrust as magical incantations, occult secrets, and random intuitions.
Unfortunately, Aristotle himself contributed to discouraging people from reading his work on metaphysics by defining it as “the study of the being qua being.” Instead, he could have defined the term simply as “the study of the principles of reality.”
What is Aristotle’s metaphysics?
The truth is that Aristotle’s work on metaphysics constitutes his second most important contribution to philosophy. Only his theory of causality takes precedence in terms of significance.
Metaphysics studies the principles underlying the world and all its elements. Its principles apply equally to minerals, plants, man-made objects, animals and human beings.
Like his theory of causality, metaphysics place Aristotle far above all other ancient philosophers, in particular far above his teacher Plato, who had concentrated on the search for abstract, unchanging ideas.
Instead of looking for otherworldly abstractions, Aristotle’s metaphysics rely on empirical observation; they rely on inputs from our senses and in our intellectual capacity to assess those inputs.
Contents of Aristotle’s metaphysics
Aristotle’s work on metaphysics is organized in sections that philosophers in the Middle Ages had named according to the letters in the Greek alphabet, namely, alpha, beta, gamma, etc.
In fact, Aristotle’s metaphysics can be summarized in eight simple, straightforward ideas.
First, the idea that every item and creature in the world are made of some kind of substance. Every item or living creature consist of matter (“hyle” in Greek) and form (“morphe”). This idea is known as Aristotle’s “hylomorphic theory.”
Second, that substances can be categorized as primary (e.g., pure minerals) and secondary (composed of primaries).
Third, that all interactions between items and creatures take place according to the principle of causality, and specifically in accordance with four causes. Relations of cause and effect are determined by an object’s substance (material cause), its shape (formal cause), the forces that move it (efficient cause), and the purpose it pursues (final cause).
Four, that items and creatures often possess the capability of transformation. They can change themselves from their current status (actuality) into a future status (potentiality). The changes will take place according to the four causes I just mentioned.
Five, that there is a single root cause for all movements in the universe. Aristotle theorizes the existence of an “unmoved mover” or “prime mover” as the ultimate cause of all motion. The prime mover is eternal, unchanging, and responsible for having set the universe in motion.
Six, that items and creatures in the world operate according to consistent, non-contradictory principles. If we ever perceive events as illogical and contradictory, it’s because we don’t have enough information or because we are employing faulty logic.
Seven, that items and creatures possess essential and non- essential or secondary characteristics. Aristotle called essential features “primary substance” and secondary ones “accidents.” The capability to reason belongs to the primary substance in humans, but the fact of some people are taller than others shall be regarded as an accident, as a non-essential characteristic.
Eight, the concept that each item and creature in the world possess a consistent identity, which Aristotle names “unity.” It would be better to call it “integrity” rather than unity. Each creature pursues goals that are in line with its identify, with its characteristics; there can be no contradictions between identity and causality. In fact, causality is just identity in action.
Aristotle’s metaphysics and Plato
Plato believed that supernatural, transcendent ideas or forms rule the world; in contrast, Aristotle postulated that the world is self-governing. It operates according to a consistent causality. Items and creatures will play a role according to their identity and drive causality in one direction or another.
Aristotle’s metaphysics are rooted in the tangible world and empirical observation; they apply to all branches of knowledge and all human endeavours. The same principles apply to ethics, natural science, art and politics. We just need to learn to find the patterns in each case.
Aristotle’s principle of identity
According to Aristotle, substances (items and creatures) in the physical world constitute reality. It’s the only reality we can perceive through our senses. Our task is to analyse those items and creatures, identify their identity (their characteristics), and predict or influence their causality.
The fact that item and creatures possess an identity does not mean that they are forever immutable. A fundamental aspect of Aristotle’s metaphysics is the distinction between actuality and potentiality. This concept plays a central role in understanding change.
Aristotle’s potentiality and actuality
Actuality refers to the state of something as it exists in the present (for instance, Jack is a twenty-year old male). It states what something or someone is at a given moment.
Potentiality, on the other hand, is the inherent capacity of something or someone to evolve in the future. In the case of Jack, his potentiality is the capacity to become a physician, an attorney, a bar tender, a stand-up comedian, etc.
Aristotle sustained that, to a certain extent, every entity has actuality and potentiality, and that this distinction explains how change and development take place, if they do. In our example, Jack may opt for developing his potential or for doing nothing.
Aristotle argued that change is a transition from potentiality to actuality. For instance, when Jack transforms himself into a medical student and graduates as a physician, he evolves from being potentially a physician to actually being one.
Aristotle’s metaphysics and self-actualization
By employing Aristotle’s terms, modern psychologists such as Abraham Maslow and Wayne Dyer describe Jack’s evolution as self-actualization. Jack himself has taken the decision. He wants to become a physician and takes the steps to attain his goal. He has identified his final cause and acted accordingly.
Aristotle’s concepts of actuality and potentiality also affect ethics and the pursuit of happiness. They imply that happiness is the outcome of achieving one’s potential as a rational, moral being. It is only by leading a virtuous life that human beings can flourish and attain happiness (eudaimonia).
Aristotle’s metaphysics and the prime mover
The weakest idea in Aristotle’s metaphysics is the unmoved mover or prime mover. It is a purely fictional concept to which Aristotle attributes the ultimate cause of all motion and change in the universe. The concept is unnecessary for the workings of Aristotle’s philosophy and only serves to create confusion.
Since Aristotle had observed that there are many changes in the world, he argued that they all must share an ultimate cause. He believed that causality chains cannot extend infinitely into the past and that they must share a point of origin; this point of origin is what he called the unmoved mover or prime mover.
In the Middle Ages, philosophers such as Tomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus conflated Aristotle’s concept of unmoved mover or prime mover with the Biblical concept of God.
For Aristotle, the unmoved mover is an eternal, unchanging, incorporeal entity that serves as ultimate cause of all motion and change in the universe; this mover is not subject to change, but sets everything else in motion. In a way, the unmovable-mover concept brings Aristotle back to Plato’s realm of perfect ideas or forms.
No wonder that the prime-mover concept created confusion in the Middle Ages and beyond. Aristotle elicited the confusion by giving the prime mover a contemplative nature, similar to Plato’s perfect ideas or forms.
Aristotle’s definition of the prime mover
Aristotle describes the prime mover as an entity engaged in eternal contemplation of perfect truth, but not driven by desire, need, or external forces. The prime mover, he said, is already perfect in all aspects. It is self-contained and self-sufficient, like a pure thought.
With this poetic language, Aristotle was imitating the weak theories postulated by Plato. What a pity that he couldn’t resist the temptation of inventing a concept for which there is no real trace in the tangible world.
Not content with inventing a worthless idea, Aristotle went on and linked the unmoved or prime mover to final causation. He argued that the prime mover is the ultimate purpose toward which all motion in the world strive.
This argument is so speculative that I’ve serious doubts that it came from Aristotle. I would not be surprised if it has been interpolated in the Middle Ages by some monk, who found it convenient to attribute the idea to Aristotle.
The prime-mover argument sustains a religious belief in an pre-ordained, god-driven world. The prime mover is the source of the orderly immobility of politics in the Middle-Ages.
The concept of unity in Aristotle’s metaphysics
Aristotle’s metaphysics places significant emphasis on the notions of a consistent (non-contradictory) identity. Aristotle called this consistency “unity,” but he meant “integrity.”
Every item and creature possesses a consistent identity that makes him unique and establishes him as a unity. It makes him a single, coherent entity rather than a collection of parts. This unity allows us to describe the precise characteristics of items and creatures, rather that generic abstractions.
Identity is closely linked to unity in Aristotle’s philosophy. Each entity has its own identity, determined by its essence and secondary characteristics. Identity allows us to recognize and differentiate one thing or creature from another, and say that Jack is distinct from other humans and has its own nature.
For each entity, the identity must be consistent. Aristotle formulated the principle of non-contradiction, which states that contradictory ideas cannot be true simultaneously. Jack cannot be tall and short, thin and fat, etc. at the same time.
An item or creature cannot possess contradictory features simultaneously. This principle underlines the importance of consistency and rationality in thought and action. You cannot have your pie and eat it, etc.
The categories in Aristotle’s metaphysics
To describe the identity of items or creatures, Aristotle came up with a list categories. Those can help us classify and grasp different types of entities.
He named ten categories, which included amongst others substances, quantities, qualities, relations, and time. He also pointed out that entities can be studied as part of a peer group (multiplicity) or as unique individuals.
The key concept of Aristotelian metaphysics is the concept of identity. It’s closely link to the theory of causality. Once you identify the identity (characteristics, features) of people, items, or events, you can confidently predict their future; you can also achieve major goals and improve your life by using this logic.
If you are interested in how to apply Aristotelian ideas to all sort of real-life situations, I recommend you my book titled “Rational living, rational working.”
Related articles
Aristotle’s theory of the soul
Aristotle’s concept of teleology
Aristotle’s theory of the four causes
Aristotle’s theory of causality