Aristotle used a systematic method for drawing conclusions from empirical observations. His concept of reality revolves around the idea of “substance,” which actually means “entity” in the sense employed by Aristotle. Every entity, he taught, is composed of matter that takes a certain form, configuration, or shape.
For Aristotle, it is the “form” what characterizes each entity, what defines the nature of an entity, what makes it what it is. A material (“matter”) such as wood can take different forms. For instance, it can be an element in trees, but also in furniture, in a building, etc.
In addition to speaking about matter and form, Aristotle employed the concepts of potentiality and actuality. He argued that most entities have the potential to become something else, and reach actuality when it fulfils its potential.
Modern psychology employs the term self-actualization to denote the process of human achievement. A man who pursues goals that fulfil his potential is driven by self-actualization.
For plants, a seed has the potential to become a plant. When a seed grows into a plant, it attains actuality, but psychologists don’t employ the term self-actualization for plants and animals due to their inability to formulate complex goals.
Key concepts in Aristotle’s views on the nature of reality
Aristotle’s theory of potentiality and actuality helps us grasp change and causality. The world is driven by entities that try to achieve their full potential; they generate relationships of cause and effect. Plants grow. Animals look for food. Human beings build homes and roads.
Aristotle only managed to outline his philosophy of reality after he had abandoned Plato’s theory of forms. Plato believed in a mythical realm populated by perfect, immutable ideas or “forms.” According to Plato, the objects we perceive are just a reflection of the realm of forms.
After rejecting Plato’s theory of an invisible realm of perfect forms, Aristotle simply pointed out that “forms” are part of the entities themselves. Each entity is made of matter and form. You cannot have one without the other.
By using reason, humans can identify relations of cause and effect between several entities. There are four different types of causation, according to Aristotle, that is, four possible types of cause-and-effect relationships.
Aristotle named them the material, the formal, the efficient, and the final cause. Let us take a bed as an example.
What is the material cause? The wood employed as material to make it. What is the formal cause? The carpenter’s design or idea of a bed. The efficient cause is the carpenter himself. The final cause is the purpose of the bed, that is, a place to sleep.
By employing the Aristotelian concepts of matter and form, potentiality and actuality, and the types of causation (material cause, formal cause, efficient, and final cause), we can assess reality systematically, draw conclusions and gather knowledge.
Aristotle’s views on the nature of reality compared to Heraclitus’
Aristotle’s views on the nature of reality represent a gigantic step from the views of prior Greek philosophers. For instance, Heraclitus (around 500 BC) had been defending the doctrine that “everything flows.”
For Heraclitus, constant change is the main characteristic of the world. He illustrated his theory by saying that “you cannot step twice into the same river” because the flowing water is constantly reshaping the river.
Heraclitus theorized that the universe is made of opposites such as life and death, day and night, hot and cold, etc. Those interact with each other all the time, keeping reality in constant movement.
It is obvious that Heraclitus’ theories are wrong. They fail to explain the inertness of elements such as metals and minerals, or the essential stability of human personality. Compared to the philosophy of Aristotle, Heraclitus’ ideas can only be regarded as childish.
Aristotle’s views on the nature of reality compared to Parmenides’
One generation later, Parmenides (around 450 BC) argued that change is an illusion. Reality is unchanging, eternal, and driven by “the one,” a mythical entity that governs the world.
Parmenides’ concept of “the one” is profoundly obscure and his explanations don’t make sense. I think that he just made up his theory in order to contradict Heraclitus and look clever in the eyes of his contemporaries.
It is obvious that Parmenides’ theory of a static, unchanging reality is nonsense. His dismissal of sensory perception turned him into a fiction writer, not a philosopher. Aristotle’s theory of the nature of reality is vastly superior to Parmenides’ ideas.
Aristotle’s views on the nature of reality compared to Socrates’
Socrates (469-399 BC) did not propose a comprehensive theory of reality because he primarily focused on ethics and on the right method for acquiring knowledge.
The Socratic method consists of asking probing questions to challenge assumptions and beliefs. The purpose of questioning is to stimulate critical thinking.
Plato (429-347 BC) recounted how Socrates used to engage dialogues with other people to question their beliefs and lead them to self-reflection. The Socratic method aims at helping individuals to reach better conclusions.
Although Socrates never developed a systematic philosophy on the nature of reality, his method of inquiry was far superior to the ideas of Heraclitus and Parmenides. At least, Socrates never preached that “everything is changing all the time” nor spread the idea that “the world is governed by the one” without providing any proof.
Aristotle’s views on the nature of reality compared to Plato’s
Plato, a student of Socrates, invented the theory of forms. I have already outlined its basic concepts but I want to underline the mythical elements in Plato’s philosophy.
For Plato, reality consists of the world of forms (or abstract ideas) and the physical world. The latter, he argued, is a mere reflection of the world of forms.
Since Plato never provided any proof that the world of form exists, I can only imagine that he made up his theory because he did not know any better.
He knew that Heraclitus and Parmenides had failed to give proof of their assertions. He wanted to come up with improved explanations, but he proved unable to develop a systematic and realistic approach. Until Aristotle, no philosopher had done so.
Plato asserted that the mythical world of forms contains the ideal forms of everything we encounter in the world. There are ideal forms of a perfect square, a perfect triangle, etc. What we perceive are just imperfect imitations of those ideal forms.
Since only forms constitute true reality, the physical world is untrustworthy as a source of knowledge. No wonder that the followers of Plato fell into deep mysticism, while Aristotelian thinkers went on to create science, invent machines, and build modern civilization.
If you want to improve your life here and now, you should embrace Aristotle’s views on the nature of reality. If you are interested in applying those principles to solve real-life issues, I recommend you my book “Thriving in difficult times.”
Related articles
Aristotle’s views on natural philosophy
Aristotle’s view on friendship
Aristotle’s perspective on the purpose of human life
Aristotle’s concept of practical wisdom