Aristotelian Realism

Aristotelian Realism
by Lord Egan, FCoS founder

[The author grants permission for individuals to post this

Work on their websites, so long as nothing is altered.]

Similar to idealism, realism is also one of the oldest

philosophies in western culture and its origin began with
the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) in
ancient Greece.

Being a longtime and star student of Plato's, he

elaborated on the idealist view of reality being based on ideas and not matter. He thought that a
proper study of matter could lead to better and more distinct ideas.

After twenty years as a student and teacher at Plato's Academy, Aristotle opened his own school
called the Lyceum wherein he developed his philosophical differences with Plato. Although he
had his own views, the basis of Aristotelian realism is found within Plato's idealism. In these
regards, Aristotle never broke free of his influence.
Also like idealism, since its beginning, realism has had many proponents and interpretations.
Aristotelian realism was the foundation started in secular Greek culture. Religious realism came
about through Thomas Aquinas, who like Augustine, was heavily influenced by ancient Greek
culture and combined his ideas with Christianity. This is known as the classical period. Modern
and contemporary realism consists of scientific, natural and rational realism. Some philosophers
of this later period include Francis Bacon, John Locke, Alfred Whitehead and Bertrand Russell.

Throughout its long varied history, realism has had a common theme, which is called the
principle or thesis of independence. This theme holds that reality, knowledge and value exist
independently of the human mind. This means that realism rejects the idealist view that only
ideas are real. Matter exists even though there is no mind to perceive them (recall the classic
question about the tree falling in the woods). To the realist, matter is certainly an independent
reality; however, the realist also considers ideas to be part of the thesis.

Aristotelian realism is based on the principle that ideas (or forms) can exist without matter, but
no matter can exist without form. Aristotle claimed that each piece of matter has universal and
particular properties. For example, all people are different in their properties. We all have
different shapes and sizes and no two are alike. However, we all share something universal
called "humanness."

This universal quality is certainly real because it exists independently and regardless of any one
person. Aristotle called this quality a universal form (idea or essence), which is a nonmaterial
aspect of each single material object that relate to all other objects of that group.

Although form is nonmaterial, we realize it by examining existing material objects that are
independent of us. Aristotle believed we should study and understand the reality of all things. He
agreed with Plato on this position. However, they differed concerning the method of how to
arrive at form. Aristotle believed one can get to form by studying material things and Plato
believed it could be reached through reasoning, such as the dialectic.

In his second principle, Aristotle thought that the forms of things, the universal properties of
objects, remain constant and never change, but that particular components do change. Individual
humans change through growth and then die, but humanness would remain because universal
forms are constant.

Moreover, Aristotle and Plato agreed that form is constant and matter is always changing, but
Aristotle believed that form was within particular matter and was even the motivating force of
that matter. He thought that each object has a tiny "soul" or purpose in life. For instance, the
purpose of a kitten is to become an adult cat. The purpose of a child would be to become an
adolescent and finally an adult human.

Aristotle was not only a philosopher, but also a scientist. He believed there was a relationship
between philosophy and science in which the study of one aids us in the study of the other. We
can consider what physical properties make-up a cat (internal and external structure, color),
however; these scientific questions naturally would lead us to asking deeper philosophical
questions about a cat's origin, meaning and purpose. This process would lead us to discover its
essence or form.

He thought the most important questions we can ask about things relate to their purposes. Unlike
all other animals, the human animal can think abstractly and Aristotle believed the use of this
unique ability is humanity's purpose. When we don't use our intelligence, we go against our true
purpose in life.

In his third principle, Aristotle believed that design and order are present in the universe and
thus, all things happen in an orderly fashion. As mentioned, the destiny of a kitten is to become a
cat, a child to become a human adult. This process is unchangeable and constant like their
universal forms. Thus, we can understand the universe by studying its purposes. However,
Aristotle pointed out that humans have a free will to think. If we refuse to think or think poorly,
then we go against our design and creation and suffer the consequences of wrong ideas, poor
health and unhappiness.

Aristotle believed that the person who follows a true purpose leads a rational life of moderation
and avoiding extremes. He believed in two extremes: the extreme of too little and of too much. If
one drinks alcohol too much, one will become an alcoholic and suffer from the disease.
However, the moderate thinking person avoids such self-destruction. Aristotle called this
moderate path of avoiding the extremes, the Golden Mean.
This fourth principle is illustrated by his idea of the soul as an entity to be kept in balance. He
believed there are three aspects of the soul called vegetative, animative and rational. Vegetative
represents doing too little or inactivity. Animative means the other extreme of too much as in
anger and hostility. However, when one uses reason to keep the other two aspects in harmony,
they are following the true path of design and purpose.
The ideal state exists when all three aspects, vegetative (brass), silver (animal) and gold
(rational) are in balance and harmony. Aristotle believed that a good education helps achieve the
Golden Mean and therefore, promotes the harmony and balance of soul and body.

Aristotle believed that balance and order are central to the body and mind and also the universe.
Concerning humans, he didn't view body and mind in opposition as Plato did; however, he
viewed the body as the means by which data come to us through sense perception. Data from
sense perception are organized by the reasoning mind. Universal principles are reached by mind
from an examination of the particulars by sense perception and organizing the results into
rational explanations. Thus, body and mind operate together in balance with their internal
consistencies.

Unlike Plato who believed only in ideas, Aristotle didn't separate matter from form or its
universal being. This is his fifth principle. He saw them as two fundamental aspects of the same
thing. All matter has form and is in some stage of actualization. Formless matter doesn't exist. He
tried to unite the world of matter with the world of forms. An example of this is his view of
actuality and potentiality. Actuality is that which is complete or perfect which would be form.
Potentiality refers to the capability of being actualized or gaining perfection and form. It's the
union of form and matter that gives concrete reality to things.
This union is further illustrated by Aristotle's conception of the Four Causes:

1. The Material Cause: the matter from which something is made

2. The Formal Cause: the design that shapes the material object

3. The Efficient Cause: the agent that produces the object

4. The Final Cause: the direction toward which the object is tending

These causes can be attributed to building anything. One needs materials to build, a design or
blueprint, the builder and finally the result.

The sixth principle is Aristotle's belief that matter is always in process and moving to some end.
This is similar to the modern view of evolution and the idea of an open-ended universe.
However, the difference between them is he saw this movement headed to a final end. The
universe was open-ended to a certain point. He believed in an Ultimate Reality to be the power
and creator that controlled the process of matter. This entity is the final end beyond all matter
and form. In this regard, Aristotle's philosophy is as esoteric as Plato's. He saw this Ultimate
Reality as a logical explanation for the order of the universe and as its principle organizer and
operator.
To search for the structure of independent reality, Aristotle worked on logical processes. He used
the dialectic to synthesize opposing ideas about truth. He also tried to refine it. The logical
method he developed was the syllogism, which is a method for testing the truth of statements.
Consider the following example: All music is good, classical is a form of music, therefore,
classical music is good.
The syllogism is composed of a major premise, minor premise and conclusion. Aristotle created
it to help us think more accurately by ordering statements about reality in a logical and
systematic form.

This method is deductive which means it reaches truth from generalizations starting with the
major premise. One problem with this method is that if either of the premises is false, the
conclusion may be false. The chance of an unproven general premise is greater than starting with
a specific fact. The syllogism runs contrary to his insistence that we can better understand form
(general principle) by studying specific material objects.

The final principle is his belief of the chief good, which is happiness. This depends on a virtuous
and well-ordered soul. To achieve this, one has to develop habits of virtue that are shaped
through the proper education. As mentioned, moderation through the Golden Mean is the key.
This would result in assisting the state in producing good citizens with the proper social
development. In Politics, Aristotle mentioned that a reciprocal relationship exists between the
properly educated person and properly educated citizen.

The Aristotelian influence has been very important to Europeans and Americans. Several
approaches to thought include studying nature systematically, using logical processes, reaching
general truths through the study of particulars, organizing things into hierarchies and
emphasizing the rational aspects of human nature.

Religious realism began with Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) when he first encountered the work
of Aristotle while studying in Naples, Italy. This began a lifelong passion of attempting to join
Aristotelian philosophy with Christian concepts.
Aquinas connected with the Aristotelian idea of human thinking being our highest good.
He saw a parallel with the idea of Christian revelation and maintained that because we're
children of God, our best thinking should agree with Christian tenants.

Aristotle's ideas had a great impact on Christianity. In many respects, they have tended to
secularize the church, as opposed to the monasticism engendered by the writings of Augustine.
The ideas of Aristotle eventually were incorporated into Christianity and gave it a different
philosophical base.

Aquinas became the leading authority on Aristotle in the Middle Ages. He claimed that since
God is pure reason; the universe is reason. By the use of it, we can know the truth of all things.
Aquinas believed that God created matter out of nothing and that he is the Final End who gives
meaning and purpose to the universe. This Christian idea is similar to Aristotle's pagan view of
an Ultimate Reality. In his work Summa Theologica, he used the rational approach suggested by
Aristotle in dealing with religious questions. This monumental Christian work is considered by
the Roman Catholic Church to be its leading philosophy.
Although Aquinas adopted reason in his work, he didn't subordinate revelation to it. He gave
reason its proper place, but considered theology to be superior.

Aquinas agreed with Aristotle that we arrive at universals by a study of particulars. He accepted
the thesis of independence and "form" as the principle characteristic of all being. He disagreed
with him about the origin of the soul. He held that the soul is not derived from humanity's
biological roots; rather, soul is a creation, immortal from God.
Concerning education, he believed that only God could be the true Teacher. The only one who
can directly touch the souls of men. Humans can only teach indirectly through guidance using
signs and symbols. However, teaching is one of the greatest ways to serve humankind and is part
of God's work in this world.

Aquinas agreed with Augustine that humans are born with original sin and life is a testing
ground, but disagreed about the idea of only knowing truth through faith. He believed God to be
pure reason and that when He created the world; He made it possible for us to acquire true
knowledge using reason. Faith can be applied to things we yet don't understand and reason is
used to understand religious truths.

The Judeo-Christian belief of the immortal soul was central to the philosophy of Aquinas. He
viewed the soul as having inner-knowledge that through reason would create perfection of a
person. This was the major goal of education. The final step would be to reunite the soul with
God.
Moreover, Aquinas believed that human reality is not only spiritual, but also physical and
natural. The path of the soul lies in the physical senses. This is an Aristotelian progression from a
lower to a higher form.

Aquinas views on education are consistent with his philosophical views. Knowledge is attained
through the senses and can lead to God. One should study matter and then progress to form. And
one should use reason to reach God in the material world.
Finally, he felt the main agencies of education are the family and church. The state or organized
society is much less important. The family and church have the responsibility to teach moral and
divine law. The state should enforce such law and respect the privacy of home and church.

Modern realism developed out of the need to

correct the failure of deductive reasoning
(recall the syllogism). Although classicists had developed the thesis that reality, knowledge and
value can be discovered through studying particulars; the problem of working with a general
major premise caused false conclusions. With the arrival of the scientific revolution, many
philosophers applied themselves to the task of developing an adequate method of inductive
reasoning.

Francis Bacon (1561-1626) introduced a new approach to reasoning called induction. He urged
his fellow citizens to stop using false deductive reasoning that relied on faith in old beliefs and
past generalizations, which may or may not have been valid. He illustrated this concern with his
four "idols" listed below.
1. Idols of The Den: We believe things from our own limited experience

2. Idol of The Tribe: We tend to believe what others believe

3. Idol of The Marketplace: Language is used to prevent understanding

4. Idol of The Theatre: Religion and philosophy distorts our objective judgment

Induction is the opposite of deduction. To reach a conclusion, we start with a collection of

particular data, not unproven generalizations. This data is examined and found to be true or false
based on present scientific or other kinds of facts. This method would create valid knowledge.
Bacon influenced John Locke (1632-1704). He attempted to continue his work by explaining
how we develop knowledge. He agreed with Bacon that people we're hindered by false beliefs
from the past and that they needed to rid themselves of the "idols."

Locke believed that there are no innate ideas. At birth, the mind is a blank sheet of paper, a
tabula rasa, on which ideas are imprinted. All ideas come from experience through sensation and
reflection.
Bacon had a significant influence on the twentieth century mostly American philosophy called
pragmatism. It emphasizes the practical process (induction) to achieve the best possible result of
a problem. Pragmatists were born from British, European and ancient Greek traditions. The
character of the pragmatist is very American. They accept past traditional views, but also
examine those views and apply them to present life. They also are open to create new ideas to the
constantly changing world. These refreshing attitudes came about not through sealed minds of
the Catholic Church, but through invention and progressive thinking in the scientific revolution
and the Enlightenment.

Moreover, many pragmatists were inspired by Bacon's inductive thinking as a basic scientific
method and extended his approach to other fields such as economics, politics, psychology, ethics
and education. The following three Americans were major contributors.

John Dewey (1859-1952) popularized and systematized pragmatism in education. He believed

there were no absolutes or universal truths as in idealism and realism, but that life was about
human experiences and consequences. William James (1842-1910) had similar views in
psychology. He felt truth in not absolute, but tested as viable in the real world. It doesn't belong
to any idea; however, it's discovered through acting on ideas and their consequences. Truth is
inseparable from experience. Charles Peirce (1839-1914) maintained that ideas are part of human
conduct and cannot be separated from it. He also believed that personal experience tests the
validity of true ideas.

Another progressive area that developed in modern realism was a psychological theory called
behaviorism. This is a theory that regards objective behavior as the only subject for
psychological study. It's related to the thesis of independence that resembles the behaviorist view
that behavior is caused by environmental conditions. It differs from idealism in that it's based on
realism and behavior in the material world. Its connection to classic realism is with the idea of
the meticulous study of particulars. The realist does this to reach form and the behaviorist does it
to reach conclusions about behavior. Finally, behaviorism is also based on materialism.

Some important behaviorists include Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) and B.F. Skinner (1904-1990).
Pavlov was an early behaviorist who is famous for his conditioned reflex behavior using dogs.
This conditioning shows how realism and behaviorism is related. The conditioning is external
and not mental. Skinner was a disciplined scientist dealing with facts, but also a psychologist
who wrestled with human behavior.

He often criticized philosophical observations of psychology. He claimed that philosophers were

trying to reach conclusions about human understanding through a priori generalizations rather
than through controlled scientific experiments. This was a deductive approach, not inductive.
Yet, he's made general statements about nature and the good society. Skinner was known as
paradoxical.

Concerning my views about realism, I feel Aristotle was right concerning his views about all
matter and living things having universal forms and their own purposes, but I feel these forms
are like their properties and are not constant. For example, "humanness" has been changing since
we were advanced Mammalian order primates about 55 million years ago. Is a near human like
Neanderthal man the same as Homo sapiens (modern humans)?

Everything is in a state of evolution, both physically and spiritually. The only thing that is
constant in the universe is change itself (even if the world ended in a supernova, a new beginning
or change would emerge). This is expressed through the cycle of life, death and rebirth. Even
these facts of existence aren't constant as seen with the scientific advancement of birth control
and living longer.

Christians often accuse scientists of "playing god," but then again, the majority of them have no
problem adopting the latest advancements in their lives. This includes leaders like Augustine and
Aquinas who despised pagans, but incorporated Greek philosophical ingenuity into their church
dogmas.

Actually, this view of forms contradicts what I said in my previous paper. I mentioned that the
only absolute truths that exist are found within the objective universe or nature.

I've changed my mind about this (even math changes when new theories are introduced by
physicists like Einstein). Again, the only constant is change. Besides this, absolute truth doesn't
exist. As said above, nature does have universal forms or laws, but as in science, it is always
changing. Everything has a purpose, as Aristotle said, and that is to evolve through time. It is to
develop into existing or future universal forms.

I feel Aristotle's views about matter were the next logical step to advance humanity beyond
Plato's idealism. Although they were both searching for absolute forms, they had different
methods of how to reach it. The world of ideas is very important, but we are not just thinking
animals. It would be very limiting to not look beyond thoughts and consider your material
surroundings for any meaning.
I like the practicality of the Golden Mean. Everyone must have balance of the two harmful
extremes in life to achieve true happiness and to fulfill their destinies. Albeit, this would seem
obvious, many people today indulge in unhealthy extremes. This observation by Aristotle is a
landmark for self-awareness and preservation.
Finally, his syllogism was a great attempt at tackling logic, although I can see the limitation of its
deductive reasoning. Assumptions and unproven subjective generalities
are not foundations for future scientific progress.

Francis Bacon was a very big leap for reason. Why was there such slow progress from ancient
Greece until the scientific revolution? Two reasons. The Christian religion with Aquinas
assimilated realism like Augustine had with idealism. Human progress (or reason) is the opposite
of Christianity! God is all about stagnancy and conformism. Jesus said, "you can't enter the
kingdom of heaven without becoming a little child." The second is dualistic thinking. Aristotle
and Aquinas thought this way with matter and form and the material and spiritual sides of
humankind, respectively. Now, there's nothing wrong with discovering particular properties of
something in nature and forms, but when one makes general unproven assumptions like the
existence of God, then that ends all reason. Reason is based on scientific facts as Bacon realized.
One can't discover universal truths in nature without reason and science. Dualism uses the
deductive method, rather than the inductive one.

Concerning pragmatism, this was another logical step for Bacon's ideas of induction and the four
"idols." In the twentieth century, inductive reasoning based on scientific evidence brought about
practical thinking. Plato's idea of seeking the best result was the goal of pragmatism. Dualistic
thinking was unpopular among philosophers and scientists, at least secular ones.

Pragmatists like Charles Peirce, William James and John Dewey brought together pragmatism
and the real world for which the philosophy was meant. This was the combination of reason and
real world philosophy. They all discovered that true knowledge and absolutes are derived from
life or the human experience. Thus, this proved Aristotle's thesis of independence was correct.
Behaviorism refocused realism with the combination of behavioral psychology, science and
philosophy. Behaviorists such as Pavlov and Skinner advanced our understanding of individual
and social behavior. They both believed in one-way conditioning of human and animal behavior.
Skinner saw no distinction in education and conditioning. He viewed the act of repeated positive
reinforcement would encourage good behavior.

Realism has greatly influenced American education in several ways. Aristotle's view of matter as
forms gave us deductive reasoning which although it led to false ideas; it also resulted in Bacon's
inductive reasoning. Induction was the basis for scientific facts, which led to the scientific
revolution. From progressive science, induction was applied to many other fields such as
psychology and economics. In the twentieth century, the spirit of science for examining
particular matter to find facts gave us pragmatism, which with its emphasis on practicality and
economy has laid the blueprint for American schools.

Realists emphasize basic factual data in school curriculum such as reading, writing and
arithmetic. Technical knowledge takes prominence over more idealistic studies such as
philosophy, literature and the arts.

Since the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957, the race for the moon and the US second-place
position in science caused resurgence in realism. This led many to criticize American education
as "unfocused" and needed to return to the basics like math and science. This brought about the
formation of the Council for Basic Education.

Recalling what I mentioned in my previous paper about education, I feel a school curriculum
should be based on science, reason and psychology as tools for self-realization. This would
emphasize realism, of course, and also idealist courses. This implies that truth is found within
personnel experience like James and Dewey suggested.
Discipline would stem from parents and teachers and would reflect their role in society as Dewey
stated. Consequence, or limits to behavior are crucial to forming a well-behaved and morally
productive child.

I don't believe in the "open education" approach because character development comes from
hard work, not unstructured discovery. This open approach needs balance, as realists have said,
and has its proper place in society.

Most importantly, a school needs to reflect the Constitutional amendment of separation of church
and state. As I mentioned, the opposite of religion is reason, more specifically, inductive
reasoning. Human progress came about through proving particular matter as fact. And not by
men like Aquinas who adopted pagan ingenuity while still parading around as a power-hungry
man of God. Pagans should be pagans; Christians should act as Christians, not hypocrites. Alas,
throughout history Christians have always "changed with the times" to keep their churches
profitable. And the Pope and the word of God are supposed to be infallible.