Philosophical Dialogue: Defending the Aristotelian Worldview

My protagonist is a supporter of the Aristotelian worldview. (The following dialogue is written from my protagonist's perspective.)

Me: I understand that you hold opposing views to mine. To clarify, I will offer a comprehensive account of the main tenets of my worldview, one by one, each accompanied by supporting arguments. These tenets include the dual nature of objects as composed of matter and form and the nature of change as the realization of potential form. Together, these two tenets determine the essence of things.

Skeptic: You may proceed.

Me: To begin, I will discuss the tenet regarding the essence of objects. All corporeal objects are composed of both matter and form. Matter provides the substance, and form organizes it into a recognizable object. Form determines the external appearance and traits of an object, while matter serves as the carrier of the form. The world must be structured this way because it is the only way to reconcile the conflict between the continuity of existence and the constant changes we observe in our experiences. To be specific, the form undergoes change while the matter remains the same. Of course, form and matter cannot be separated, as it is impossible to find an amorphous object devoid of all properties or a shape devoid of the substance that holds it. Though they cannot be separated, it is still meaningful to discuss them as real, existing constituents of things because if either one were to disappear, the result would be something the world has never seen. For instance, a statue is composed of bronze (matter), but it is the shape given by the sculptor (form) that makes it a statue. Without form, the bronze would be formless and unidentifiable. Without matter, there could be no tangible object to hold that shape.

Moreover, matter is made of four elements: fire, earth, water, and air. Each element has its own properties: fire is hot and dry, air is hot and wet, water is cold and wet, and earth is cold and dry. These properties are evident in phenomena such as the rising of smoke or the sinking of stones. Furthermore, fire and air are considered light, while water and earth are heavy.This attribution also has clear real world roots: fire and air tend to move upward, while water and earth move downward.

Skeptic: Very thoughtful insights indeed. However, it seems that I still hold a doubt. From my point of view, the four elements themselves are good enough, and the guiding principle of form is not needed at all. It could also be proposed that everything and every so-called state of things are created directly by the combination of these elements. The problem of something coming from nothing would not be a bother at all because every new thing is merely a reconfiguration of things that have already existed in the past.  

Me: Well, that makes a certain sense. However, there is a seeming flaw. There are certain objects of completely the same composition but very different in many aspects. For instance, there are two objects made of the same piece of wood and thus could be said to be made from the same elements. However, one is carved into a desk, and the other is used as the haft of a hoe. The two objects are very different in their usage and in their shape. These differences cannot be explained by the elements alone. It is the form that distinguishes them. Without form, there would be no order or identity, only chaos.

Skeptic: This is very intriguing. Yet I remain unconvinced. It still seems redundant to separate matter and form.

Me: You may hold your view for now. I will proceed to discuss the tenets concerning change, a forceful reminder that would show you that the distinction between matter and form is not redundant. Instead, they are crucial preconditions for any changes to occur. For change to occur, we must consider the three categories of being: non-being, being, and potential being. When change happens, objects do not magically transform from non-being into being. Rather, they move from being and potential being, striving to realize their ultimate form. This perspective justifies change without invoking the sudden appearance of new properties. The idea of change as the realization of potential gives rise to teleology, which is the core of my worldview. Teleology refers to my belief that every object has natural goals it is meant to achieve, including reaching its destined place in the universe. These goals must exist, for without them, the world would descend into senseless chaos.

You may ask how these different states of being relate to form and matter, the basic constituents of objects. Well, matter represents potentiality — it can be understood as a root upon which countless vines of possibility grow. Form, on the other hand, represents actuality — the specific organization that gives an object its structure, texture, color, and identity. When changes occur, an object’s matter, the potentiality, remains unchanged while been actualized by the object’s new form.

Skeptic: Well, I don’t think your view of teleology is especially appealing. To start with, as you can see, the world is in consistent flux. Everything changes, and change is universal. Given this ceaseless stream of changes, it doesn’t seem very meaningful to speak of an end. Second, as one’s perspective changes, the way they perceive the world changes. Thus, it is impossible to speak of a place where the object is destined to go or to speak of their destined movement since all these things are relative.

Me: So, in your first rebuttal, you turned down my tenet by arguing that everything in the world is in a consistent flux of flow, and it is meaningless to talk of a temporary end. However, it should be noted that even though changes do occur, it is not reasonable to hastily conclude that there is no stability and everything is in perpetual flux. Change only occurs in form; the material remains forever constant and immutable. Also, if it were true that everything in the world is constantly changing, the phrase would be self-contradictory. To be specific, if everything changes, then there is nothing that could be counted as truth about the world, and this statement, of course, can’t be true.

Then, you argued that all movements are relative and that there is no such thing as a destined ideal position and state. Nevertheless, even though the apparent state of movement of objects could differ dramatically when one’s standpoint changes, it should be noted that it is not from these apparent movements that the tendencies are drawn. Instead, they are drawn from certain immutable positions that remain constant, whatever the viewer’s standpoint. For instance, objects formed predominantly by water and earth, the heavy elements, have embedded within them the natural goal of reaching the center of the universe, which is the center of the spherical planet we are standing on. The center of Earth is a specific place that doesn’t change from whatever viewpoint and is observed by whatever observer. Thus, it is clear that there are certain reliable and stable anchor points, and the natural tendencies based on these anchor points are also definite and unwavering.

Skeptic: Well, you have successfully persuaded me on that point.

Me: Finally, I will address the question concerning what makes something truly what it is. From my perspective, the answer lies in its essential nature, which consists of the formal cause (form), the material cause (matter), the final cause (teleology), and other necessary attributes. In short, the three tenets discussed above determine what an object is and, in themselves, can explain all the movements and attributes of that object.

Reflection:I think that one of my greatest gains from the project is that I have started to grasp the connections between the different tenets of the Aristotelian worldview and the resulting hierarchy of these basic ideas. I used to understand the tenets as individual points and never bothered to delve into their interrelationships. After writing this essay, I now understand that the form-and-matter differentiation is the basis of the Aristotelian worldview. Upon this basic tenet is the tenet of change, which places change between the passive potentiality (matter) and the reality (form). Additionally, based on the matter-form differentiation are the four elements, which are the basic constituents of matter. Finally, above them all and encompassing them all, there is the essential nature, which governs the movement and other activities of an object.    In addition to clarifying the relationship between these ideas, the project also offers me insight into other philosophers’ worldviews when theorizing possible refutations. For instance, Heraclitus' belief that everything is in constant flux is in conflict with the Aristotelian claim that every change happens for a purpose.