In the Physics, Aristotle first posits the way to have knowledge and understanding about any object of inquiry. This, he says, is by becoming acquainted with the object’s elements, causes, especially primary, and its principles. This is the starting point for his inquiry into nature, i.e. physics (Φυσικὴ).
This is a good reminder for beginning any inquiry, but especially with such a vast and complex inquiry as nature. He says that to do this you should start by looking into what is more clear, yet obscure, and then move to what is most clear and knowable by nature which is the method of moving from universals to particulars. He gives two analogies of knowing the whole of what is a circle, and the analogy of a child knowing the whole of adult males and females as a kind of whole knowledge in relation to its parents, its mother and father. Then, from the whole we analyze the particular aspects of what these things are, the case of the child showing a kind of proof of how this works, that is the child eventually learns the essential particular differences between man and women in general as opposed to the particular knowledge of father and mother.
He explores the principles of what a thing is by offering the analysis of substance and accidence, and what something is of its substance and what something is of its accidence, accidence being those things that are by the substance, such as the accidence of a fire moving upwards is by the nature of the fire. He makes an analysis of what something is by its material, he is looking at the issue of defining what a thing is by its cause, in this case, the material cause. He also pointed out the principle of motion or change in something and analyzed the definition of what something is by its nature of motion or change.
Aristotle is telling us how to give an account of things, in the case of nature, by telling us to look at the elements, causes, such as the matter and form, and then the principles. We can use this conceptual framework to define what things are and understand them. Some have defined the nature of a thing by its matter, and some by its form. Aristotle offers us a more complex, but more refined analytical framework to define the nature of something.
I want to summarize my understanding by putting it in the following way: nature is form and matter, with form being actual, and with matter being potential. And there are four main causes of things: formal, which is the essence and definition, and is connected with form, in the form and matter dichotomy, then material, which is connected with matter, in that dichotomy, and then the last two are efficient and final, efficient being what makes the changes in the matter, and final being to what end or purpose is the thing for.
Aristotle sets out to show how nature has these classes of causes which are ultimately for the sake of something, i.e. the importance of the final cause, but also the importance of the necessary. Form is to the end of the final purpose, and form is the cause of the changes in the matter, i.e. the efficient actions that change the material. At the end he says “[t]he necessary in nature, then, is plainly what we call by the name of matter, and the changes in it” (Physics, 200 a, 31). Lastly, he says that the necessary is part of the definition.
Motion and change are terms of the same genus. This is a deeper understanding of nature as the material and efficient causes through the principle of actuality. The efficient is the cause of motion or change on the material and the efficient is the mover. The mover transmits a form. Both the mover and the moved have agency because the motion or action is with both, though the agent is moving and the patient is moved. The two share the one actualization.
If you’re interested, I highly recommend reading Aristotle’s Physics, especially books one and two. It’s important for his other major works, especially On the Soul and the Metaphysics which I will be exploring next. Generally, these works provide a great “back to basics” way of conceptual framing about these topics. It’s a good foundation for thinking, in general, and for exploring later theories of nature and metaphysics, even contemporary physics because his works were so important and influential even up to this day, as we will explore later. You don’t have to be an Aristotelian, but he is great educator for how to think about these things.
E D