Aristotle and the Form
Aristotle was Plato’s student. Plato had argued that a person has prior knowledge of the physical world through knowledge of the world of the
Form.
§
§
Aristotle argued that there was no concrete evidence for Plato’s claim.
Instead Aristotle argued that knowledge of the form of a thing came from experience .
However, there is no direct evidence for Aristotle’s claims either. He argues that we can have true knowledge only through direct sense experience.
Empiricism
Empiricists believe that the world is knowable through sense experience.
Rationalism
Rationalists believe that reason
(without the support of external experience) is the only way to acquire knowledge.
To understand the Empiricists better, look up Hume, Locke and Berkeley in Sophie’s World. A good quotation to illustrate the empirical point of view is from Hume:
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning containing quantity or number ? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact or existence ? No. Commit it to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748 )
This means that any statement that does not contain:
1.
Abstract Reasoning – mathematics or logic (e.g. all bachelors are unmarried)
2.
Experimental Reasoning – sense experience and evidence is “sophistry and illusion”.
Contrast this with Descartes , who wanted to see what knowledge he could trust, and concluded that the only thing that he could know for certain was that he was thinking.
Aristotle is an empiricist. He believes that knowledge is a posteriori .
However, the History of Philosophy is littered with battles between
Empiricists and Rationalists. Neither has won! While Aristotle may have a point about Plato’s theory about Forms, there are many different claims about knowledge.

Aristotle – Criticisms
Aristotle and the Final Cause
Aristotle’s “Four Causes” appear to be sensible. He offers a useful way of thinking about the chain of causes and effects that lie behind the existence of a thing. However, Aristotle’s Final Cause is less certain!
§ He argues that everything has four causes:
Consider a statue. It has four causes:
1.
The Material Cause – the marble that it is made from.
2.
The Efficient Cause – Auguste Rodin.
3.
The Formal Cause – the Thinker.
4.
The Final Cause – aesthetic enjoyment?
Aristotle argues that everything has a reason for existing. However, there are many people who would argue that the universe is entirely random, and there is no reason or order.
§ In a famous discussion with Frederick Copleston on BBC Radio in 1948, the Philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell argued that there was no reason or design in the universe at all.
I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause whatsoever. ...what I'm saying is that the concept of cause is not applicable to the total.
Well the word 'gratuitous' suggests it might be something else; I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all.
http://www.utas.edu.au/docs/humsoc/philosophy/ccc/slides/3g.html
Aristotle and the Prime Mover
While the sheet-and-football demonstrated that a large object could cause a small object to move without moving itself, this does not necessarily follow in the “real world”. For the Prime Mover to remain “Prime” it has to initiate movement without being moved itself. For many philosophers this remains an impossibility.
§ For Christians the Prime Mover’s unmovability is a problem, since they believe that God can be affected in some way by prayer.
§ The Prime Mover’s status as “Pure Thought” seems to contradict
Aristotle’s empirical view of the world. Only Uri Geller is claiming that pure thought can move physical objects!
Aristotle’s explanation is that the Prime Mover is absolute perfection – the movement of the physical world is an imitation of the perfect spherical motion of the Prime Mover.
§ Often people use the analogy of iron filings being attracted by a magnet – empirical science has explained how magnetism works, but cannot demonstrate how “imitation” by a planet can work!
2