Scorberg
A Perishable Form?
I figured I’d upload another philosophical piece again. I’ve been delving into Aristotle’s “Metaphysics” this summer and an he mentioned something that was extremely interesting. Now I drew a conclusion that I can’t say he hasn’t because I’m not even remotely into the book and I’m not sure if he concludes this later on at some point. He was commenting on Empedocles before him, who was a pre-Socratic philosopher, and his ideas on early philosophy and inquiries into the first principles and causes. Empedocles maintained that the first principles are perishable and said that the elements are imperishable. Aristotle states emphatically that the principles are definitely not the same and that they are different, but if they are different are they either imperishable or perishable? He says that if perishable principles exist, then the elements exist because things that perish, perish by resolving into the elements of which they consist and this also means that the elements are perishable. This also leads him to the conclusion that there must be principles prior to the principles (Book III, Chapter IV, Lines 25-30). Those who believe there are perishable principles alone are stuck in a dilemma, as he states further that it’s uncertain whether this process has a limit or proceeds to infinity. But the most interesting conclusion he came to was that how do perishable things exist if their principles are to be annulled? (Book III, Chapter IV, Lines 25-30). Think about that: if the elements are to perish, then why do they exist in the first place? So whether he infers at this point, later on or it’s a conclusion that I’m reaching myself, this means that the principles must be both perishable and imperishable. So to branch off from what he’s saying, if the elements are perishable and they resolve into each other, thus constantly changing, it would seem that their very existence is based on not being consistent and remaining formalized. As he says, how can perishable things exist if their principles are to be annulled? So if their very existence is to be disordered and perishable, then why do they exist? The only conclusion to draw is that there are imperishable principles as well sustaining these perishable principles. An example: when you’re reading this, and looking at your computer screen, if your computer screen is composed of principles and elements that were disordered at one point and will resolve into other elements and principles when it reaches its end, why is it presently existing as an essence, a form in front of you? It must, then, be currently sustained by imperishable principles as well. So what are these imperishable principles? Now I’m not sure if he reaches this conclusion through these means now or later on or if I’m making this conclusion now after being familiar with his thought and writings, but this imperishable principle is the soul.
A Perishable Form?
I figured I’d upload another philosophical piece again. I’ve been delving into Aristotle’s “Metaphysics” this summer and an he mentioned something that was extremely interesting. Now I drew a conclusion that I can’t say he hasn’t because I’m not even remotely into the book and I’m not sure if he concludes this later on at some point. He was commenting on Empedocles before him, who was a pre-Socratic philosopher, and his ideas on early philosophy and inquiries into the first principles and causes. Empedocles maintained that the first principles are perishable and said that the elements are imperishable. Aristotle states emphatically that the principles are definitely not the same and that they are different, but if they are different are they either imperishable or perishable? He says that if perishable principles exist, then the elements exist because things that perish, perish by resolving into the elements of which they consist and this also means that the elements are perishable. This also leads him to the conclusion that there must be principles prior to the principles (Book III, Chapter IV, Lines 25-30). Those who believe there are perishable principles alone are stuck in a dilemma, as he states further that it’s uncertain whether this process has a limit or proceeds to infinity. But the most interesting conclusion he came to was that how do perishable things exist if their principles are to be annulled? (Book III, Chapter IV, Lines 25-30). Think about that: if the elements are to perish, then why do they exist in the first place? So whether he infers at this point, later on or it’s a conclusion that I’m reaching myself, this means that the principles must be both perishable and imperishable. So to branch off from what he’s saying, if the elements are perishable and they resolve into each other, thus constantly changing, it would seem that their very existence is based on not being consistent and remaining formalized. As he says, how can perishable things exist if their principles are to be annulled? So if their very existence is to be disordered and perishable, then why do they exist? The only conclusion to draw is that there are imperishable principles as well sustaining these perishable principles. An example: when you’re reading this, and looking at your computer screen, if your computer screen is composed of principles and elements that were disordered at one point and will resolve into other elements and principles when it reaches its end, why is it presently existing as an essence, a form in front of you? It must, then, be currently sustained by imperishable principles as well. So what are these imperishable principles? Now I’m not sure if he reaches this conclusion through these means now or later on or if I’m making this conclusion now after being familiar with his thought and writings, but this imperishable principle is the soul.