The concepts of potentiality and actuality occupy the central position in Aristotle’s metaphysics. They supply an invaluable intellectual tool to assess people and events for what they are, and for what they could become.
They prompt you to assess not only what is self-evident, but also the latent capabilities and threats; they let you forecast the future by using causality and logic, not magic and divination.
Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality and actuality encompass three key ideas. Each of them has been proven by history, but was harshly attacked by its opponents. The attacks showed the will to obliterate critical thinking and replace it by propaganda. Let us explore these three key ideas in detail.
Machiavelli and Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality and actuality
The first key idea in Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality and actuality is that they possess a strong ethical component. They are meant to encourage people to become a better version of themselves, not to commit crimes or promote evil projects.
When Aristotle says that person A has the potential to do B or become C, he is implying that person A will display virtuous behaviour in the process. Aristotle’s philosophy is optimistic and ethical. He is encouraging self-actualization by means of honest, steady work, not through manipulation and theft.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) completely distorted the Aristotelian idea of potentiality by decoupling it from ethics; in order to further his own career, Machiavelli gave convoluted arguments in favour of becoming a worse version of oneself.
Aristotle regarded self-actualization as a process in which a person can set virtuous goals, make plans and carry them out to achieve (“actualize”) something that is objectively good.
He never said that “if you can get away with it, you should take advantage of other people” or that “as long as you grow wealthy, it doesn’t matter what you do.” Moral subjectivism is profoundly anti-Aristotelian.
In his book “The Prince,” published in 1532, Machiavelli is defining potentiality as opportunism. “As long as it works, it is good.” For Machiavelli, potentiality means taking determined action to secure power, without paying any attention to ethics.
He argued that one should be willing to use ruthless means to achieve one’s ends. The only thing that counts, he said, is to achieve (“actualize”) power. He considered virtue and morality as irrelevant in this respect.
Aristotle viewed self-actualization as the path to flourishing and happiness (“eudaimonia” in Greek). The path requires the practice of virtues such as temperance, self-control, steadiness, and benevolence.
In contrast, Machiavelli encourages his readers to assess the potentialities of situations and act decisively to actualize their objectives. If a situation calls for virtuous behaviour, great. If not, that’s too bad. Evil actions will do fine, said Machiavelli, as long as they get the job done.
It’s not difficult to predict the kind of world that results from Machiavelli’s ideas. It’s a treacherous, murderous world which makes human flourishing and happiness impossible.
Francis Bacon and Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality and actuality
The second key idea in Aristotle’s concept of potentiality is that self-actualization is linked to purpose (what Aristotle was calling “final cause”).
Making plans and carrying them out is a complex process. It requires goal-setting and motivation. Achievement doesn’t take place automatically.
Human behaviour goes far beyond random causation. Cause and effect rely on thinking, not just on observation. Grasping a societal or individual decision requires ethical considerations.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) gave potentiality and actuality a meaning decoupled from purpose. He judged Aristotle’s idea of “final cause” (purpose) outside the realm of scientific inquiry.
Bacon emphasized observation and experimentation but had forgotten the subtleties of Aristotle’s metaphysics. He wanted to “move beyond abstract speculation,” but wrongly removed all considerations of purpose.
For Bacon, scientific inquiry should rely on experiments. It is not something you can achieve through deductive reasoning, as Aristotle had postulated.
In his work “Novum Organon” (1620), Bacon regarded the actualization of knowledge as simply measuring and tabulating the data from experiments without any reference to purpose. In the name of science, he discarded Aristotle’s “final causation” (purpose).
In doing so, he committed a dire mistake because he made it impossible to understand human action. The accumulation of experimental data becomes meaningless if you cannot perform an evaluation in terms of purpose, ethics, and happiness.
Aristotle had grasped that scientific inquiry and all kinds of learning and artistic production only make sense in the context of the overall human purpose of achieving happiness. If you do not place science in this context, it will rapidly be reduced to a tool of oppression.
Galileo and Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality and actuality
The third key idea in Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality and actuality is that they are objective. They do not depend on who believes what. Truth is unrelated to popularity, social pressure, and power structures.
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) challenged Aristotle’s errors in the field of physics. Aristotle had believed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones, but Galileo’s experiments proved that all objects fall at the same rate, regardless of their mass.
However, in other areas, Galileo reaffirmed the Aristotelian concepts of potentiality and actuality. Like Aristotle, he stated that those concepts are objective, and that one should evaluate people and events on that basis.
Galileo’s empirical observations had led to conflict with the Catholic Church, which defended a literal interpretation of the errors in Aristotle’s work on physics. In particular, they pointed to a quote affirming that “the Earth is unmovable and occupies the centre of the universe.”
Despite Aristotle’s error in astronomy, the position adopted by the Catholic Church was profoundly anti-Aristotelian. It is Galileo who had rightly applied Aristotle’s potentiality concept in order to figure out the movement of planets.
Aristotle had never asked to hide the truth to protect power structures. If he had read Galileo’s “Dialogue on cosmological systems” (1632), he would have acknowledged his errors and congratulated Galileo for his discoveries.
The concepts of potentiality and actuality constitute crucial tools for assessing reality and drawing correct conclusions. Do not let anybody lead you stray by ignoring the key Aristotelian aspects of morality, purpose, and objectivity.
If you are interested in applying Aristotelian principles here and now to improve your life, I recommend you my book “The 10 principles of rational living.”
Related posts
Aristotle’s philosophy of mind and consciousness
Aristotle’s four key contributions to philosophy
Aristotle’s pursuit of knowledge and truth
Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality and actuality
Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success compared to Kant’s
Key ideas in Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success