Journal Home

Much of this was taken from Jason Costanzo’s lecture on YouTube. Thank you for providing the free content. I’m providing my notes from the lecture here.

Aristotle’s philosophy introduced a framework of categories that help describe and analyze the nature of reality. These categories serve as fundamental ways to classify aspects of the world, focusing on different dimensions of being and understanding. Below is a quick summary of some key categories, including Action vs. Passion, Time and Place, Quality, and Relation.

Words as Signs

• That which is vocally transmitted are signs (symbola) of passions in the soul (en te psyche pathematon), and that which is written are signs of that which is vocally transmitted. (On Interpretation 1.1)

Aristotle on the Soul / Perception

• The Soul (psyche): At birth, the soul is like a tabula rasa (blank slate).
  • Compare to Plato’s Ideas before birth.
  • Sensory experience involves passive reception of impressions (phantasmata).
  • Impressions consist of a compound form (eidos) and matter (hyle), endowed with various properties.
  • The form (eidos) is sealed upon the soul akin to wax.
• Words as Signs: Mental signs or symbols of sensory experience, including vocal and written utterances.
• Realism: Words denote real things and their relations to things, including universal concepts such as “animal” or “color.”

The Organon (= The Instrument)

Aristotle discovered the laws of logic, compiling them into texts later referred to as the Organon:

• The Categories: On terms.
• On Interpretation: On judgments.
• Prior Analytics: On arguments and syllogisms.
• Posterior Analytics: On scientific knowledge.
• Topics: On dialectic.
• Sophistical Refutations: On fallacies.

The Categories

• Category: A ‘term of predication,’ e.g., “Socrates is human.”
• Categories are the highest genera (classifications) of things:
  • Substance: Material substance → living thing.
  • Ten Categories:
    • Substance (ousia): “Man, dog, tree.”
    • Quantity (poson): “two feet long, three feet deep.”
    • Quality (poion): “white, grammatical, sharp, bitter.”
    • Relation (pros ti): “double, half, taller.”
    • Location (pou): “in St. John’s Hall, in the parking lot.”
    • Time (pote): “yesterday, today, tomorrow.”
    • Position (keisthai): “lying down, sitting.”
    • Possession (exein): “has shoes on, has a hat on.”
    • Action (poiein): “cutting, burning.”
    • Passion (paschein): “being cut, being burnt.”

Relations among Terms

1. Homonymous / Two Types:
   • A. Equivocal: Same terms, but distinct in sense.
   • “pen” as writing instrument and pig “pen.”
   • “date” as fruit and “date” as meeting. - B. Analogical: Different terms, but similar in sense.
   • “healthy” said of body, medicine, exercise, food.
   • “animal” said of Socrates and a picture of Socrates.
2. Synonymous (or Univocal): Same term, same sense.
   • “human” as applied equally of Peter and Mary.
   • “color” as applied to Red and Blue.
3. Paronymous: Things sharing common terminological roots.
   • “grammar” versus “grammatical.”

Other Categories

• Action vs. Passion: Action involves the activity of an agent, while passion involves being acted upon by an agent. For example, when I lift a ball, I am the active agent, and the ball is the passive agent.

• When: Concerns time and temporality.

• Where: Refers to locality, place, and space.

• Position: Indicates the orientation of a thing.

• Possession: Involves the appropriation of an object by a subject, e.g., “my body,” “John’s hat.”

Relation

• Real Relation: Involves an actual relationship between things, such as cause and effect.

• Logical Relation: Exists within reasoning and thinking. For instance, “All humans are mortal” is logically related to “No human is immortal” as a contradiction—if the first is true, the second is false.

Quality

• A. Alterable Qualities: These are qualities that undergo change, usually sensory, such as hot, cold, smooth, hard, red, or green.

• B. Shape and Figure: Refers to the outer limits of a body, like a shadow.

• C. Powers: Distinguishing capacities that enable a subject to perform specific acts, such as thinking, willing, walking, or running.

• D. Habits: Stable qualities related to skills or perfections in a subject, like speaking, drawing, or driving.

Quantity

• Continuous vs. Discrete: E.g., a straight line vs. a broken line.
• Indefinite (potentially infinite) vs. Infinite: For example, 1, 2, 3… (indefinite) vs. (infinite).
• Substances have size and may be counted, but quantity is distinct from substance:
  • This small bird & that small bird = two small birds.
  • However, “two/small” + “bird” are distinct.

Substance vs. Accident

• Substances: These are “bearers of properties.”
• Accidents: Such properties are called the “accidents” of substance.
• Substance:
  • Examples: Socrates, God, this tree, “3”, etc.
  • Self-subsistent.
  • The underlying subject of properties.
• Accident [Property, Attribute]:
  • Examples: “Quantity, quality, relation, etc.”
  • White haired, perfect, 15ft tall, odd, etc.
  • Subsists in and through another.
  • That which inheres in a subject.

Aristotle’s Categories is a scheme that classifies entities into ten groups like substance, quantity, and relation. It shaped Aristotle’s thought and influenced medieval and modern philosophy. Scholars study it historically and analytically, situating its arguments in broader metaphysical contexts.

Approaches to Categories range from basic overviews to advanced, textually detailed analyses. While beginners focus on Aristotle’s main distinctions, advanced scholars engage with the Greek text and compare categorialism to modern systems. The study demands a balance of clarity and rigor, keeping its insights relevant today.

In Categories, Aristotle outlines ten categories: Substance (ousia, essence or substance), Quantity (poson, how much), Quality (poion, of what kind), Relation (pros ti, toward something), Place (pou, where), Time (pote, when), Position (keisthai, posture or attitude), State (echein, condition or having), Action (poiein, doing), and Affection (paschein, being affected). Substance is primary, as it cannot be predicated of or exist within something else. Quantity deals with extension, quality with characteristics, and relation with the way objects interact. The remaining categories further articulate the conditions, positions, and changes objects undergo, showcasing Aristotle’s detailed approach to categorizing reality.

At the heart of Aristotle’s Categories is the concept of substance, which serves as the foundation upon which all other categories depend. Substance, for Aristotle, is what exists independently and underlies change – unlike qualities or relations, which must inhere in something else. This primacy of substance anchors his metaphysical framework, offering a stable ground for understanding identity, change, and the nature of being itself.

Aristotle distinguishes between primary and secondary substances. Primary substances are individual entities, like Socrates or a specific tree, that exist concretely in the world. Secondary substances, such as ‘human’ or ‘tree,’ are the species and genera to which primary substances belong. These categories allow Aristotle to bridge the gap between particular instances and broader concepts, maintaining a robust structure for analyzing existence and categorization.

Epinomis, an appendix to Laws and traditionally considered spurious, extends the question of what knowledge is necessary for governance. The Athenian Visitor (who, in my view, is a stand-in for Socrates) argues that while people desire wisdom, they lack clarity on how it is attained. This concern echoes throughout Laws, but in Epinomis, it sharpens into a specific inquiry: how does one come to know something in a way that transcends mere reasoning? The dialogue suggests that true wisdom is inseparable from understanding the divine and the cosmic order, particularly through mathematics and astronomy. The study of the heavens, it argues, reveals the rational structure of the universe and aligns the soul with divine intelligence. This mystical and almost religious view of wisdom presents it as an intuitive mastery – like the efficiency of good reasoning in chess – where understanding emerges without the need for explicit rational formulation, bringing one closer to the gods.

Plato’s praise of Minos grounds law in divine authority, not human deliberation. Minos, as Zeus’ intermediary, ensures laws remain immutable and universal. Praise in the dialogue is profound, tied to true virtue and divine hierarchy. Unlike shifting human laws, divine laws remain constant. Plato asserts that good laws derive from divine wisdom, not cultural evolution or debate. Compared to bronze mirrors the Ten Commandments in stone, signifying resistance to alteration, law’s materiality is symbolic. Wilde’s juxtaposition of love and materialism parallels this concept; just as his letters shift between passion and financial concerns, laws operate within both divine and material realms, binding human behavior to an immutable structure. Marxist analysis might see this as the codification of class power, where divine law legitimizes social order, while Žižek could argue that belief in immutable laws is an ideological construct masking legal fluidity. With laws rooted in the divine, their principles must be universal, transcending culture and history. Plato’s vision suggests justice aligns with cosmic order, not human consensus. Today, the challenge is not just creating laws but preserving them. However, Žižek might argue that the very act of preserving laws as inviolable is an ideological fantasy, masking the contradictions within legal structures. If laws are positioned as divine and immutable, this ignores their historical contingency and the power dynamics that enforce them. The belief in an eternal foundation of justice, rather than questioning its underlying ideological framework, risks becoming an obstacle to true social transformation. If laws stem from the divine, they should remain inviolable, etched in the foundations of justice itself.

It’s interesting that in the rhetoric of the philosophy of political theory there is a common motif where luxury leads to corruption. I can find this thread in modern arguments on whether a country should “become rich” from its resources, as it “corrupts.”