See more Physics (Aristotle) articles on AOD.

Powered by
Share this page on
Article provided by Wikipedia

( => ( => ( => Physics (Aristotle) [pageid] => 1692795 ) =>
First page of "Immanuel Bekker's 1837 Oxford edition of Aristotle's Physics.

The Physics ("Greek: Φυσικὴ ἀκρόασις Phusike akroasis; "Latin: Physica, or Physicae Auscultationes, possibly meaning ""lectures on nature") is a named text, written in ancient Greek, collated from a collection of surviving manuscripts known as the "Corpus Aristotelicum because attributed to the 4th-century BC philosopher, teacher, and mentor of Macedonian rulers, "Aristotle. Due to the unique educational methods of the Athenian school founded by Aristotle, the "Lyceum, at the period of its greatest success, and the accidental circumstances surrounding the disposition and rediscovery of its library after his death, it is possible to say that without a doubt some of that library descends to the Corpus and that some must be attributed mainly or entirely to Aristotle, but it is not possible to say for sure which works. The two answers excluded by the circumstances are "all" and "none."

Standard epistemological method has been to accept the entire Corpus tentatively as genuine; that is, transmitted by manuscript copying from one or more original manuscripts in the library. As soon as evidence is perceived or discovered to make a case that a work is not Aristotle's, it is crossed out, but left in the list. Such a cross-out does not mean that its author was not influenced by Aristotle, or did not have Aristotle's work in front of him.


Research at the Lyceum[edit]

Recent archaeological discoveries at Athens have verified that there was a school in the park called Lyceum and that one of the foundations fits the shape of a rectangular library.[1] The site had in fact still been a park (or garden), and will remain one, according to the Greek government. Study of the ancient sources reveals that, regardless of its legal status, whether owned, rented, or just occupied, an organization did reside there, which called itself "the friends" ("philoi) and the establishment "the school (diatribe) of the friends."[2]. This was its own name, or "endonym. It meant that the relationship of belonging to the school was "completely informal." The name peripatetikoi, those who inhabited the walkways, or peripatoi, of the gymnasion in the park, is an exonym.[3]

The friends lived in a "cooperative" ("koinonia).[4] They dined together and together had responsibility for the facilities, including the library and the museum. They paid no one and received no pay from anyone. The expenses for the establishment were assumed by wealthy patrons, one of whom was Aristotle; however, during the time that "Alexander the Great was a friend, there were no financial worries. For all these informalities, they were nevertheless considered to be either "young men" (neaniskoi) or "elders" (presbuteroi).[5] Aristotle, moreover, did have some power, beginning with his position, described by English scholars as "scholiarch, "ruler of the school."[6] This rule did not include the day-to-day operation of the school, as he instituted the equivalent of a maritime "watch" to take care of that; i.e., every 10 days he appointed an "archon, "master," from the friends.

The business of the friends was not merely education in existing knowledge. As is expressed in the first few paragraphs of Physics, they were interested in discovering the principles, or elements of the knowledge, which was an entirely new goal in Greek education. This research was divided into specific "fields" (methodoi). First they collected written works representing the existing knowledge. Subsequently they collected field data through interviews and specimen-hunting. Aristotle is the first known scientist to have sent out field workers, and to have sent them with military expeditions. Alexander's ethnic and political intelligence gathering as a friend of the school was certainly of greatest value in his ultimate goal, to create a new, multi-cultural world empire. His was the first known army to feature a military historian unit. He was said to have assigned thousands of men to the task of collecting specimens, presumably in addition to their military duties.[7]

The final step in a research project was analysis of all the information to ascertain "scientific knowledge" ("episteme) of the "elements" (stoicheia), the "causes" ("aitia), and the "first principles" (archai) of the topic. These were written in a new type of document, which has survived in the corpus. Beginning with a brief survey of the previous views, it launched into the definitions and conclusions in a style similar to a geometric presentation. The papers were then stored in the library. Their authors, analysts, contributors, whether or not they were emended, or corrected, and by whom, remain unknown for certain.

The meaning of physics in Aristotle[edit]

It is a collection of treatises or lessons that deal with the most general (philosophical) principles of natural or moving things, both living and non-living, rather than physical theories (in the modern sense) or investigations of the particular contents of the universe. The chief purpose of the work is to discover the principles and causes of (and not merely to describe) change, or movement, or motion (κίνησις kinesis), especially that of natural wholes (mostly living things, but also inanimate wholes like the cosmos). In the conventional "Andronicean ordering of Aristotle's works, it stands at the head of, as well as being foundational to, the long series of physical, cosmological and biological treatises, whose ancient Greek title, τὰ φυσικά, means "the [writings] on nature" or ""natural philosophy".

Significance to some major modern philosphers and teachers[edit]

The works of Aristotle are typically considered foundational to Western science and philosophy.[8]


"Martin Heidegger writes:

The Physics is a lecture in which he seeks to determine beings that arise on their own, τὰ φύσει ὄντα, with regard to their being. Aristotelian "physics" is different from what we mean today by this word, not only to the extent that it belongs to antiquity whereas the modern physical sciences belong to modernity, rather above all it is different by virtue of the fact that Aristotle's "physics" is philosophy, whereas modern physics is a positive science that presupposes a philosophy.... This book determines the warp and woof of the whole of Western thinking, even at that place where it, as modern thinking, appears to think at odds with ancient thinking. But opposition is invariably comprised of a decisive, and often even perilous, dependence. Without Aristotle's Physics there would have been no "Galileo.[9]


"Bertrand Russell says of Physics and "On the Heavens (which he believed was a continuation of Physics) that they were:

...extremely influential, and dominated science until the time of Galileo ... The historian of philosophy, accordingly, must study them, in spite of the fact that hardly a sentence in either can be accepted in the light of modern science.[10]

Description of the content[edit]

The Physics is composed of eight books, which are further divided into chapters. In this article, books are referenced with Roman numerals, chapters with Arabic numerals. Additionally, the "Bekker numbers give the page and line numbers used in the Prussian Academy of Sciences edition of Aristotle's works.

Book I (Α; 184a–192b)[edit]

Book I introduces the Aristotle's approach to nature, which is to be based on principles, causes, and elements. Before offering his particular views, he engages previous theories, such as those offered by Melissus and Parmenides. Aristotle's own view comes out in Ch. 7 where he identifies three princioples: substances, opposites, and privation.

Chapters 3 and 4 are among the most difficult in all of Aristotle's works and involve subtle refutations of the thought of Parmenides, Melissus and Anaxagoras.[11]

In chapter 5, he continues his review of his predecessors, particularly how many first principles there are. Chapter 6 narrows down the number of principles to two or three. He presents his own account of the subject in chapter 7, where he first introduces the word matter (Greek: "hyle to designate fundamental essence (ousia). He defines matter in chapter 9: "For my definition of matter is just this—the primary substratum of each thing, from which it comes to be without qualification, and which persists in the result."

Matter in Aristotle's thought is, however, defined in terms of sensible reality; for example, a horse eats grass: the horse changes the grass into itself; the grass as such does not persist in the horse, but some aspect of it – its matter – does. Matter is not specifically described, but consists of whatever is apart from quality or quantity and that of which something may be predicated. Matter in this understanding does not exist independently (i.e. as a "substance), but exists interdependently (i.e. as a "principle") with form and only insofar as it underlies change.[12] Matter and form are "analogical terms.

Book II (Β; 192b–200b)[edit]

Book II identifies "nature" (physis) as "a source or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily" (1.192b21). Thus, those entities are natural which are capable of starting to move, e.g. growing, acquiring qualities, displacing themselves, and finally being born and dying. Aristotle contrasts natural things with the artificial: artificial things can move also, but they move according to what they are made of, not according to what they are. For example, if a wooden bed were buried and somehow sprouted as a tree, it would be according to what it is made of, not what it is. Aristotle contrasts two senses of nature: nature as matter and nature as form or definition.

By "nature", Aristotle means the natures of particular things and would perhaps be better translated "a nature." In Book II, however, his appeal to "nature" as a source of activities is more typically to the "genera of natural kinds (the "secondary substance). But, contra "Plato, Aristotle attempts to resolve a philosophical quandary that was well understood in the fourth century.[13] The "Eudoxian planetary model sufficed for the "wandering stars, but no deduction of terrestrial substance would be forthcoming based solely on the mechanical principles of necessity, (ascribed by Aristotle to material causation in chapter 9). In "the Enlightenment, centuries before modern science made good on "atomist intuitions, a nominal allegiance to "mechanistic materialism gained popularity despite harboring Newton's "action at distance, and comprising the native habitat of "teleological arguments: Machines or artifacts composed of parts lacking any intrinsic relationship to each other with their order imposed from without.[14] Thus, the source of an apparent thing's activities is not the whole itself, but its parts. While Aristotle asserts that the matter (and parts) are a necessary cause of things – the material cause – he says that nature is primarily the essence or formal cause (1.193b6), that is, the information, the whole species itself.

The necessary in nature, then, is plainly what we call by the name of matter, and the changes in it. Both causes must be stated by the physicist, but especially the end; for that is the cause of the matter, not vice versa; and the end is 'that for the sake of which', and the beginning starts from the definition or essence…[15]

— Aristotle, Physics II 9

In chapter 3, Aristotle presents his theory of the "four causes (material, efficient, formal, and final[16]). Material cause explains what something is made of (for example, the wood of a house), formal cause explains the form which a thing follows to become that thing (the plans of an architect to build a house), efficient cause is the actual source of the change (the physical building of the house), and final cause is the intended purpose of the change (the final product of the house and its purpose as a shelter and home).[17]

Of particular importance is the final cause or purpose ("telos). It is a common mistake to conceive of the four causes as additive or alternative forces pushing or pulling; in reality, all four are needed to explain (7.198a22-25). What we typically mean by cause in the modern scientific idiom is only a narrow part of what Aristotle means by efficient cause.[18]

He contrasts purpose with the way in which "nature" does not work, chance (or luck), discussed in chapters 4, 5, and 6. (Chance working in the actions of humans is tuche and in unreasoning agents automaton.) Something happens by chance when all the lines of causality converge without that convergence being purposefully chosen, and produce a result similar to the "teleologically caused one.

In chapters 7 through 9, Aristotle returns to the discussion of nature. With the enrichment of the preceding four chapters, he concludes that nature acts for an end, and he discusses the way that necessity is present in natural things. For Aristotle, the motion of natural things is determined from within them, while in the modern empirical sciences, motion is determined from without (more properly speaking: there is nothing to have an inside).

Book III (Γ; 200b–208a)[edit]

In order to understand "nature" as defined in the previous book, one must understand the terms of the definition. To understand motion, book III begins with the definition of change based on Aristotle's notions of "potentiality and actuality.[19] Change, he says, is the actualization of a thing's ability insofar as it is able.[20]

The rest of the book (chapters 4-8) discusses the infinite (apeiron, the unlimited). He distinguishes between the infinite by addition and the infinite by division, and between the "actually infinite and potentially infinite. He argues against the actually infinite in any form, including infinite bodies, substances, and voids. Aristotle here says the only type of infinity that exists is the potentially infinite. Aristotle characterizes this as that which serves as "the matter for the completion of a magnitude and is potentially (but not actually) the completed whole" (207a22-23). The infinite, lacking any form, is thereby unknowable. Aristotle writes, "it is not what has nothing outside it that is infinite, but what always has something outside it" (6.206b33-207a1-2).

Book IV (Δ; 208a–223b)[edit]

Book IV discusses the preconditions of motion: place (topos, chapters 1-5), void (kenon, chapters 6-9), and time (khronos, chapters 10-14). The book starts by distinguishing the various ways a thing can "be in" another. He likens place to an immobile container or vessel: "the innermost motionless boundary of what contains" is the primary place of a body (4.212a20). Unlike space, which is a volume co-existent with a body, place is a boundary or surface.

He teaches that, contrary to the Atomists and others, a void is not only unnecessary, but leads to contradictions, e.g., making locomotion impossible.

Time is a constant attribute of movements and, Aristotle thinks, does not exist on its own but is relative to the motions of things. Tony Roark describes Aristotle's view of time as follows:

Aristotle defines time as "a number of motion with respect to the before and after" (Phys. 219b1–2), by which he intends to denote motion’s susceptibility to division into undetached parts of arbitrary length, a property that it possesses both by virtue of its intrinsic nature and also by virtue of the capacities and activities of percipient souls. Motion is intrinsically indeterminate, but perceptually determinable, with respect to its length. Acts of perception function as determiners; the result is determinate units of kinetic length, which is precisely what a temporal unit is.[21]

Books V and VI (Ε: 224a–231a; Ζ: 231a–241b)[edit]

Books V and VI deal with how motion occurs. Book V classifies four species of movement, depending on where the opposites are located. Movement categories include quantity (e.g. a change in dimensions, from great to small), quality (as for colors: from pale to dark), place (local movements generally go from up downwards and vice versa), or, more controversially, substance. In fact, substances do not have opposites, so it is inappropriate to say that something properly becomes, from not-man, man: "generation and corruption are not kinesis in the full sense.

Book VI discusses how a changing thing can reach the opposite state, if it has to pass through infinite intermediate stages. It investigates by rational and logical arguments the notions of continuity and division, establishing that change—and, consequently, time and place—are not divisible into indivisible parts; they are not mathematically "discrete but continuous, that is, infinitely divisible (in other words, that you cannot build up a continuum out of discrete or indivisible points or moments). Among other things, this implies that there can be no definite (indivisible) moment when a motion begins. This discussion, together with that of speed and the different behavior of the four different species of motion, eventually helps Aristotle answer the famous "paradoxes of "Zeno, which purport to show the absurdity of motion's existence.

Book VII (Η; 241a25–250b7)[edit]

Book VII briefly deals with the relationship of the moved to his mover, which Aristotle describes in substantial divergence with "Plato's theory of the soul as capable of setting itself in motion ("Laws book X, "Phaedrus, "Phaedo). Everything which moves is moved by another. He then tries to correlate the species of motion and their speeds, with the local change (locomotion, phorà) as the most fundamental to which the others can be reduced.

Book VII.1-3 also exist in an alternative version, not included in the "Bekker edition.

Book VIII (Θ; 250a14–267b26)[edit]

Book VIII (which occupies almost a fourth of the entire Physics, and probably constituted originally an independent course of lessons) discusses two main topics, though with a wide deployment of arguments: the time "limits of the universe, and the existence of a "Prime Mover — eternal, indivisible, without parts and without magnitude. Isn't the universe eternal, has it had a beginning, will it ever end? Aristotle's response, as a Greek, could hardly be affirmative, never having been told of a creatio ex nihilo, but he also has philosophical reasons for denying that motion had not always existed, on the grounds of the theory presented in the earlier books of the Physics. Eternity of motion is also confirmed by the existence of a substance which is different from all the others in lacking matter; being pure form, it is also in an eternal actuality, not being imperfect in any respect; hence needing not to move. This is demonstrated by describing the celestial bodies thus: the first things to be moved must undergo an infinite, single and continuous movement, that is, circular. This is not caused by any contact but (integrating the view contained in the "Metaphysics, bk. XII) by love and aspiration.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Chandler, Corinne. "Aristotle's Lyceum". Matt Barrett's Athens Survival Guide. Retrieved 14 November 2017. 
  2. ^ Lynch 1972, p. 76
  3. ^ Lynch 1972, p. 74
  4. ^ Lynch 1972, p. 85
  5. ^ Lynch 1972, p. 72
  6. ^ Scholiarch though a useful term in scholarship is a fantasy of the English language. It is based on scholarch, which is used by the classical writers, but so rarely that it does not even appear in the standard Greek dictionaries. The head of a school, such as Plato or Aristotle, is generally called the archon or master or the "leader." Aristotle's transference of the title to any friend at random is believed indicative of his humanistic views. He was nevertheless the guiding light, with the power to name Theophrastus as successor.
  7. ^ Lynch 1972, pp. 83-84
  8. ^ Heidegger, Martin (1998). "On the Essence and Concept of φὐσις in Aristotle's Physics Β, 1". In McNeill, William. Pathmarks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 183–230, 185. Aristotle's Physics is the hidden, and therefore never adequately studied, foundational book of Western philosophy.  (Emphasis in original).
  9. ^ "Heidegger, Martin (1991). The Principle of Reason. Studies in Continental Thought. Translated by Lilly, Reginald. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. pp. 62–63. 
  10. ^ Russell, Bertrand (1946). The History of Western Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. p. 226. 
  11. ^ Joe Sachs, Aristotle's Physics: A Guided Study (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1995), p. 47.
  12. ^ See David L. Schindler, "The Problem of Mechanism" in Beyond Mechanism: The Universe in Recent Physics and Catholic Thought, ed. David L. Schindler (University Press of America, 1986).
  13. ^ Hankinson, R. J. (1997). Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought. Oxford University Press. p. 125. "ISBN "978-0-19-924656-4. 
  14. ^ David L. Schindler, "The Problem of Mechanism," Beyond Mechanism: The Universe in Recent Physics and Catholic Thought, ed. David L. Schindler (University Press of America, 1986).
  15. ^ Aristotle. trans. by R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye, ed. "Physics". The Internet Classics Archive. II 9. 
  16. ^ For an especially clear discussion, see chapter 6 of Mortimer Adler, Aristotle for Everybody: Difficult Thought Made Easy (1978).
  17. ^ Aristotle. "Physics". Retrieved 5 February 2013. 
  18. ^ See, for example, Michael J. Dodds, "Science, Causality And Divine Action: Classical Principles For Contemporary Challenges," CTNS Bulletin 21.1 (Winter 2001), sect. 2-3.
  19. ^ See Sachs 2006 for a good discussion of the etymologies of the words Aristotle uses, as well as the distinction between the words usually translated into English as "actuality" and "activity."
  20. ^ Brague 1990 is an excellent discussion of this extremely dense definition.
  21. ^ Roark, Tony. Aristotle on Time: A Study of the Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 1.


Recensions of Physics in the ancient Greek[edit]

A "recension is a selection of a specific text for publication. The manuscripts on a given work attributed to Aristotle offer textual variants. One recension makes a selection of one continuous text, but typically gives notes stating the alternative sections of text. Determining which text is to be presented as "original" is a detailed scholarly investigation. The recension is often known by its scholar's name.

English translations of the Physics[edit]

In reverse chronological order:

Classical and medieval commentaries on the Physics[edit]

A "commentary differs from a "note in being a distinct work analyzing the language and subsumed concepts of some other work classically notable. A note appears within the annotated work on the same page or in a separate list. Commentaries are typically arranged by lemmas, or quotes from the notable work, followed by an analysis of the author of the commentary.

The commentaries on every work of Aristotle are a vast and mainly unpublished topic. They extend continuously from the death of the philosopher, representing the entire history of Graeco-Roman philosophy. There are thousands of commentators and commentaries known wholly or more typically in fragments of manuscripts. The latter especially occupy the vaults of institutions formerly responsible for copying them, such as monasteries. The process of publishing them is slow and ongoing.

Below is a brief representative bibliography of published commentaries on Aristotle's Physics available on or through the Internet. Like the topic itself, they are perforce multi-cultural, but English has been favored, as well as the original languages, ancient Greek and Latin.

Modern commentaries and monographs[edit]

Further reading[edit]



External links[edit]

Commentaries and comments[edit]


Physics, english Translation by Thomas Taylor public domain audiobook at "LibriVox

) )