Aristotle, ontology: description, essence and meaning. Ontology and Logic of Aristotle

Philosophy is the result of a combination of empirical knowledge and that which transcends them, that is, epistemes. So Aristotle claimed. The ontology, presented to them for general discussion, gained world fame and could glorify his name in the ages. He is the parent of logic, the founder of dualism, the best student and fierce opponent of Plato.

Ontology

Ontology is a branch of the science of philosophy, in which the principles of the origin of being, its structure, patterns of development and variants of the final state are described. It can be modified, according to the requirements of the era and the level of human knowledge, as well as under the influence of various philosophical schools. This explains why each philosophical system has its own ontology, different from the others, and undergoes changes along with the development of this system.

Separately, there was an ontology of Aristotle. Its essence, significance in the system of cognition consisted in the fact that the author introduced several issues open to discussion, such as:

1. Is there a being?

2. What is the divine mind and does it exist?

3. Where is the facet of the transformation of matter into form?

It was Aristotle who separated science from philosophy, and divided it into two parts. The first, the so-called metaphysics, dealt with rhetorical, abstract questions whose purpose was to understand what the meaning of human existence is. And the second contained very concrete reflections on man, the organization of the world and nature, the laws of society and served as another instrument of knowledge.

Form and matter

The existence of the objective world can be perceived and analyzed through sensations - such a theory put forward by Aristotle. The ontology of his philosophy claimed that being is the unity of form and matter, and "matter" is the possibility of embodiment in form, and "form" is being, the reality of matter. A thing is the embodiment of form and matter, but it can also change, move from one possibility to another. But sooner or later the final stage of transformation comes. And the opportunity, that is, matter, is actualized in the form definitively.

Reasons for change

Ontology and epistemology of Aristotle point to four causes of the variability of the world:

1. A formal reason that is necessary to comply with the transformation plan.
2. Material, that is, the activity of the substrate itself.
3. The acting is the force that transforms the substrate.
4. The target reason is the final outcome of the transformations to which the thing strives.

If it's not about a particular subject or thing, but about the world as a whole, then Aristotle, whose ontology does not deny the presence on only matter, but also some form of the world that is not accessible to our understanding, says that the world is in constant motion. To admit that sooner or later it will stop, it is impossible, because it requires some opposition. And how can an action come from outside if the movement in the world has stopped? There is a primordial motor, an immaterial driving force that ensures our world a constant movement. So Aristotle reasoned. Philosophy, the ontology of which contains the prerequisites for the existence of a perpetual motion, emphasizes that it is non-material, and hence incorporeal. The purest form of energy without form is the mind (or pure mind). Consequently, reason is the existence of the highest degree of this understanding.

Epistemology

This is part of the philosophy that deals with the thorium of knowledge, their criticism, development and evidence. It is this discipline that sorts out, philosophical knowledge can be applied in the real world or will remain only inferences. The source of knowledge, as is known, is experience. Especially valuable is the knowledge that is experienced by the researcher on himself. The problem of cognition was close at that time to philosophers, and, not remaining on the sidelines, Aristotle, whose ontology included the understanding of the process of obtaining knowledge, developed his theory.

Theory of knowledge

For the starting point, they decided to take the fact that, in addition to the subject of the researcher, there is still reality that does not depend on his will. He asserts that the knowledge that the senses give is equivalent to those that we receive by inference. And that together with the study of the formal components of any thing, we simultaneously comprehend its individuality. It is this combination of empirical experience and rational reasoning that makes it possible to understand the fullness of truth.

Entities

The definition of the first and second essence of the subject also carries the ontology of Aristotle. Its essence: the significance of the individuality of a thing lies in the process of cognition. The first essence is that the subject learns about the subject in the process of sensory cognition, and the second - the derivative of it. The second entities do not reflect all the nuances of individual existence, but are rather species or generic characteristics.

Teacher

The anthology of Plato and Aristotle deeply examines the notion of man and the state. And although in some issues they converge, basically their theories are opposite to each other. According to Plato's theory, a person belongs at once to the physical and spiritual realm of being. And if everything is clear with the physical aspect, then the soul can take different configurations. Proceeding from this, types of people are distinguished that are prone to hard work, creativity, maintenance of order, management of other people, etc. In an ideal state, every person is in his place, and the idyll reigns.

Aristotle has a different opinion, although his theory is also utopian. According to him, the ideal state is that in which all property is evenly divided among people and they rationally use it, then there are no conflicts, everyone lives in harmony with each other.

Despite the differences in views, issues related to slavery, the emergence of the state and the principles of governing it, were considered by both scholars in the same manner.