CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22256, 8 May 1934, Page 8

CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION

PHILOSOPHY OF ARISTOTLE ADDRESS BY DR J. N. FINDLAY. An address on “ Aristotle's View of the World" was given before a largelyattended meeting of the Otago Classical Association by Dr J. N. Findlay, professor of philosophy at the University of Otago, in the Museum lecture room last evening. Mr W. J. Morrell occupied the chair. After dealing with the modern views on Aristotle’s philosophy, and the extent to which Aristotle was influenced by and indebted to Plato, Dr Findlay considered at length the ideas held by Aristotle on form and matter. The upward and downward tendencies of matter, said Dr Findlay, enabled Aristotle to prove that the universe was finite and spherical, because it was only in such a universe that they got a definite centre and therefore a definite plan for earthly bodies to tend to. And the finitude of the universe was further proved by the fact that the heavens turned round the earth in the course of 24 hours. If they were finite they would never be able to get round at all, an argument not very convincing to a modern mathematician. The heavens were therefore a rotating sphere on sphere, and the planetary motions being to a large extent independent of the motion of the fixed stars they had to lix the planets in separate spheres. Aristotle took over the academic astronomy of Eudoxus and Callippus, who found that a number of spheres, one contained within the other, and dominated by the outer sphere, were required to explain the eccentricities and aberrations of the planetary motions. But while Eudoxus and Callippus treated their spheres as ideal entities, Aristotle bad the temerity to ask what they were made of. Their motion proved that they could not belong to any of the classes of matter known; they had, therefore, to be made of an incorruptible fifth substance whose perfection consisted, not in rushing upwards to the circumference of things, nor in falling heavily to the centre, but in turning noiselessly and invisibly in a circle. And this was the most perfect of all possible motions, because it approximated most closely to rest. Aristotle added a great number of these beautiful spheres to those of the academy, because he wanted the motions of a planet not to interfere with those of other planets, and he ended up with a grand total of 55 spheres, with 65 angels—each a sphere —who were required to keep the engine of the universe in good running order. Turning to Aristotle’s other material substance? God, Dr Findlay said that the philosopher proved the existence of God by the fact that the heavens moved perpetually in a circle. Aristotle accepted the modern principal of inertia as far as it concerned resting bodies, but he rejected it in the case of moving bodies. Though it was the nature, the highest activity of the celestial substances to move in a circle, there had to be something which stimulated them to put forth their energies, and which stimulated them continuously. This stimulating object could be nothing material which pushed the universe round, for no finite object could exhibit infinite energy. It therefore had to be an immaterial substance, a pure mind, and the mode of its operation on the universe had to be one that induced rather than one which impelled. The nature of the Divine intellect was the topic of some of the finest passages in Aristotle. In conclusion. Dr Findlay said that whether they liked it or not they had to concede that the visible world—the world of concrete actual existence—was dominated by imponderables and invisibles. About Aristotle’s theory of immaterial substances it was impossible to be equally happy. The objects of thought were never literally in the mind that thought of them, nor were minds universal patterns nor anything resembling them. But he was not prepared to demolish Aristotle’s theory of mind and construct another one that evening. Dr Findlay was accorded a hearty vote of thanks at the close of his address.