John Herman Randall, Jr.

Quite fortunately, I recently discovered an unusually penetrating book on Aristotle by John Herman Randall, Jr. Simply entitled, Aristotle, the book was published by Columbia University Press in 1960 several years before I was born. In no other work on Aristotle have I been so completely and pleasantly surprised to discover novel interpretations---phrases jumping off of the page in such a way that I am amazed with Randall's understanding of Aristotle. It is an understanding that is comprehensive, concise and from what I can tell, coherent.

I am going to take the liberty of quoting at length from Randall's work concerning the celebrated doctrine of the "unmoved mover"---my training through Jan Van der Veken had exposed Aristotle's First Philosophy as a 'theologike' with the unmoved mover as a kind of monotheistic deity (this interpretation, as I recall, was championed by Giovanni Reale). Now imagine my excitement and shock when I discovered this paragraph in Randall (I will quote the paragraph in its entirety) ---concerning the 'unmoved movers' discussed in Aristotle's De Anima:
"Thus for Aristotle's analysis, every individual process has its own unique unmoved mover. The name is a generic term for a factor to be found in every process. There are untold billions of unmoved movers in Aristotle's world. When he generalizes, he gives to them a mythical unification, as in Book Lambda of the Metaphysics. And this mythically unified Unmoved Mover possesses the same traits as the factor in every process: in one sense it is immanent in every process, in another it is transcendent, and external to all processes. But even in Book Lambda Aristotle at once goes on to speak in chapter 8 of fifty-five unmoved movers. Aristotle's is a pluralistic philosophy, not a monotheistic theology (Randall, 71)."

Wow! This is for me a revelation that confirms a longheld intuition that in fact Aristotle's 'god' is the result of a particularly scholastic interpretation. Further, I have always sensed that Aristotle's philosophy has been 'Platonized' by the scholastics and that further, the governing notion of Deity as separate Transcendence is simply inaccurate. Perhaps the reason that this escaped me for so long is that having been raised Catholic, I was in a habit of thinking about God as a Being entirely separate, complete, perfect, finished as opposed to immanent, particularly with regard to nature. That is to say here is nature, the world or even the universe and outside of all this there is a divine world---according to Giovanni Reale's interpretation of Aristotle's Unmoved Mover---invisible, infinite and unchangeable. It appears to be a Platonizing effort which forges Aristotle's metaphysics into a 'theology of the Unmoved Mover'.

Aristotle may better be understood as philosopher of process, to use Whitehead's term. And as such it is this natural philosophy which is best equipped to discuss evolution and a universe in process. It is coherent with, for example, Teilhard's synthesis. The plurality of unmoved movers drawing forward biological processes by desire helps us to understand what Teilhard means by 'radial energy'. And the cumulative effort of these unmoved movers toward a unifying unmoved mover helps us to understand what Teilhard means by Omega. In fact this interconnected chain of desire from beginning to end resembles alpha and omega. However, not in a Platonic or Scholastic sense, of standing separate, outside, and complete. This notion of deity is 'implicate', immanent-transcendent, process-oriented. Being is only discovered as a particular type of natural being.

Addendum: Ayn Rand reviews Randall's book on Aristotle in a recorded lecture at the following link:https://secure2.convio.net/ari/site/SPageServer?pagename=reg_ar_aristotle

Ayn Rand exhibits her sharp and biting critique of Randall's work. She indicates several points which are well taken. I thoroughly agree with her evaluation of Aristotle as the most profound philosopher in the West and further that when Aristotle rises, civilization rises, and when Aristotle falls, so to does Western intellectual civilization. At the time of this lecture, Rand observes that philosophy is in bad repair and in fact, dying---hence, the time is ripe for a rehabilitation of Aristotle!

Aristotle on Causes

According to Windelband, Aristotle's doctrine of causes, presents 'material cause' and over and against that, 'formal cause' which includes both efficient and final causes. So it looks like: a)material cause, over and against b)formal cause (efficient and final causes). Traditionally, the causes are numbered as 4. Each cause ('aitia') answers the why question---so that when someone asks why of a given phenomenon, it must be clarified whether the questioner is interrogating as to seeking an understanding of cause in a material, formal, efficient or final sense. Let us consider the following by means of an example.

When giving a cause, one is giving an answer to the question 'why'.The meaning of the question: "What is a drum?" can be understood: Why does a drum, for example, exist? This can be answered in four ways: it is a drum because a drum maker carved it, or Yamaha manufactured an "electronic drumset". To answer this way is to give an account or 'cause' ('aitia') of its efficient manufacture.

Aristotle uses the Greek term 'aitia' which can be translated as cause, but also, principle, or even account. To give an 'aitia' is to give an account for the 'being' or more accurately 'substantial being' of this given thing. Accounting for its being-there is cause-giving, or in a weak sense, explanation.

The phenomenon under discussion (the "drum"); the discussion (dialectical seeking of an adequate account for the phenomenon)---philosophere-to philosophize---i.e. generate beautiful discourses, which ignite wonder and seek for the causes of phenomena (all that comes to be and passes away). All of this can be understood as a seeking of understanding (hermeneuein).

Seeking understanding does not entail a manifold of explanations ('aitia'-but in a narrow sense) infinitesimally describe, but rather expresses an acquiescence. There is an interrogation of being, but once the meaning given is satisfactory the questioner accepts the account given as true or honest. The questioner may, if they so choose, to continue a line of questioning ad infinitum. This is what Western Man has done in terms of scientific growth and technology. He could have accepted the thing as it appears and been quite happy at that, but no... He pressed on, Cartesian paranoia, tear it open, analyze it to bits and then call this scientific understanding. He could have accepted the apple as an apple, or the drum as a drum.

The horizon of the question is apparently unlimited, hence he continuously learns more about the phenomenon under attack. Question after question, leads to only greater question, so that interrogating 'x' entails the totality of understanding from the subject side plus the totality of understanding from the object side. Total subject=thought or consciousness. Total object=history of world. A discourse which links the totality of subject with the totality of object wins! This is another way of saying that given any 'x' entity or thing, the full grasp of this entity cannot be achieved without a complete understanding of universal evolutionary history plus a complete understanding of consciousness. When consciousness is understood as a complete understanding of universal evolution, then this is the most satisfying discourse. However, one may simply say, I am satisfied that this apple is an apple.

For example, in an interrogation concerning a particular phenomenon such as the drum, one will ordinarily acquiesce, or accept the answer or account being made in answer to the question 'why'. Which is after all to give an aitia!