CC BY
57
THE GENERATIVE DIMENSION, IN THE LIGHT OF ARISTOTLE'S SUBSTANCE (HYPOKEIMENON) THEORY
Xiaoyu XU1 and Xinlei LIU1
ABSTRACT: The paper is dedicated to the analysis of Aristotle's substance theory within the overall Organicist perception of the universe as a living organism. The suggested analytical pathway begins with the generative substance (in Stagirite's original term - generative hypokeimenon) and leads to the primary causes, prompted by the constant movement of the "thing". We argue that Aristotle's analysis of "matter and form" (in his original texts: "fi^n - hyle" and "^op^ - morphe")2 leads to the generative function, reaffirming its dynamism and process expression. KEYWORDS: Aristotle, hypokeimenon, hyle, morphe, potential, reality, dynamism, universe, organism, process, generative function
Contents
Introduction
1. From the studying of Aristotle's theory of substance (hypokeimenon) - to realizing the generative dimension
2. From Aristotle's analysis of "hyle" and "morphe' - to examining the generative potentials that are their natural essences
Conclusion
1 Northeast Petroleum University, Daqing, CHINA.
2 Following the approach of the BCnA-journal, we consider it essential to apply the genuine terms
and notions, used by the Stagirite in his original works, in expressing the authentic (and our own - neo-Aristotelian) conceptual constructions. Thus, we use (adding Italics); hyle - instead of "matter"; morphe - instead of "form"; hypokeimenon - instead of "substance", etc.
ГЕНЕРАТИВНОЕ ИЗМЕРЕНИЕ, В СВЕТЕ АРИСТОТЕЛЕВСКОЙ
ТЕОРИИ СУБСТАНЦИИ (ГИПОКЕЙМЕНОНА)
Чиаю ЗЮЕ и Шинлей ЛЬЮ
АБСТРАКТ: Статья посвящена анализу теории субстанции (гипокейменона) Аристотеля в общем восприятии органической вселенной как живого организма. Предлагаемый аналитический путь начинается с порождающего вещества (в первоначальном выражении Стагирита - порождающего гипокейменона) и приводит к основным причинам, побуждающим постоянное движением «вещи». Мы утверждаем, что анализ Аристотелем «материи и формы» (в его оригинальных текстах: «й^п» - гиле и «^орфф> - морфэ) означает появление генеративной функции, с ее динамизмом и процессуальным характером.
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: Аристотель, гипокейменон, гиле, морфэ, потенциал, динамизм, вселенная, организм, процесс, генеративная функция
Содержание статьи
Введение
1. От изучения Аристотелевской теории субстанции (гипокейменона) - к реализации генеративного измерения
2. От анализа Аристотелевских «гиле» и «морфэ» - к изучению генеративных потенциалов, которые являются их природными существами
Заключение
Introduction
The Aristotelian science (and philosophy) is the science of the thing's (subject's) substances-qualities, and all this is based on his cornerstone bipolar potentiality/actuality theoretical principle. The term "dimension" implies the two main aspects: of generalizing meaning (referring to a scope or importance, or direction); and of measurement the material (but not hyletic) aspects: in length, width, thickness, or energy levels and efficiency indicators, etc., referring to the results of generative activity. Therefore, the synonyms to "generative dimension" could be: the generative (Suva^iK^) potential (substance-hypokeimenon, essence-ouaia, subject, entity, nature, backbone, etc.), and the dimension of its (evspysia^) results of activity. Thus, other adequate synonyms (for the "generative dimension") could be (and are, in the text) 'generative hypokeimenon\ 'generative subject', 'generative capacity', etc., together with the objective study of the results of their
effective (Dynamic, Functionalist) activity. Or using the term "prehension" (which is a key notion in A.N. Whitehead's Process philosophy3 and within his general attempt of speculative building a comprehensive cosmology and worldview, of the truly Holistic essence), then we have - 'generative prehension' and the study of the organ(ism)'s effective functional activity (or, broadly, ' hypokeimenon functionalist prehension'); or even in a more extensive version - 'hypokeimenon grasping and its morpho-functional study'. However, we prefer chiefly to use 'generative dimension' because of its bipolar (polysemic, ambivalent) meaning.
Thus, Aristotle's substance (hypokeimenon) theory includes (all the more, in our contemporary time of the 21st century challenges) the task of generative dimension. From the evolution of the concept of hypokeimenon to realizing the generative grasping of the subject's essence and studying the functionalist results generated from within, we find that, Aristotle gradually sees morphe as the primary hypokeimenon, and that is the primary cause of the thing's generative changeability, including its entire range: movement-kinesis in the space, growth and development, with qualitative transition, shift alteration, transformation-metabole.
Through the analysis of hypokeimenon, the Stagirite points out that the universe is constantly undergoing a process of ascending (and corrupting) transformation - its origination and alteration shift from the absolute hyle to the absolute (but which is inherent in the Functionalist meaning) morphe. Thus Aristotle admits the universality of the evolving process of the thing, which is greatly different from our typical interpretation of Aristotle only paying attention to the everlasting eternity. From his analysis of the hyle and the morphe to examine the generative hypokeimenon included within it, we find that with the use of the explanation of generative potencies, we can overcome the dilemmas of component explanation, such as how can two combine into one, and this kind of explanation is not an analysis of the static components of individual's hypokeimenon at a given time, but the analysis of the causes of the individual's hypokeimenon formation.
In conclusion, the existence of hypokeimenon is not empty and bare, but it is "dynamic". If we really want to understand the existence of individual hypokeimenon, to understand hypokeimenon itself, we must delve deeply into the cause of their generation and existence and into the production and movement of the whole world, using the generative capacity to comprehend the conclusion of Aristotle's theory of hypokeimenon (theory of substance). Aristotle's concept of hypokeimenon is often interpreted as describing hypokeimenon as independent existence without the need for anything else, therefore hypokeimenon is abstract, static, and eternal. But his hypokeimenon theory includes the generative prehension.
1. From the studying of Aristotle's theory of substance (hypokeimenon) - to realizing the generative dimension
The theory of hypokeimenon is one of Aristotle's core concepts, which establishment is traced in the research process from Categories to Physics and then to
3 See : Whitehead, A.N. (1978). Process and Reality, corrected ed. prepared by David R. Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. New York: The Free Press.
Metaphysics. In Categories, Aristotle insists that an individual thing is hypokeimenon, the latter is the "underlying thing" is something which can be predicated by other things, but cannot be a predicate of others. Hypokeimenon is a concrete and individual thing. Aristotle points out that universality is a concept which is only used to distinguish one kind of hypokeimenon from another. Compared to other characteristics of hypokeimenon, the concept of Organicist universality is introduced. The "secondary hypokeimenon" ("secondary substance") is attached to the "primary hypokeimenon" ("primary substance") of the specific individual. In this stipulation of the hypokeimenon, generative connotation does not exist, or in another word it has not emerged.
Aristotle is the Father of aetiology. With our fully supporting the approach and statement of colleagues in the recent BCnA-issue (in the joint article on the "Challenging Integralism" [2017, p. 19]4), we strongly uphold the use of Aristotle's authentic terms for the designation of four (generally recognized) causes, which are their substantiated authentic designation as Hyletic (instead of material), Generative (instead of Efficient), Organic (instead of Formal), and Telic (instead of Final), and they all are basically generative and telic (i.e. focused at the telos - the effective needed result of life activity).
In Physics, Aristotle makes a supplement to the standpoint that only individual thing is "primary hypokeimenon" He attributes it to the four original principles of sensible hypokeimenon - Hyletic cause, Generative cause, Organic cause, and Telic cause. He further condenses this into Organic cause and Hyletic cause, because the Generative cause, the Organic cause, and Telic cause are always overlapping with each other. He believes that individual's hypokeimenon is a Generative process, which is hyle, morphe and shortages determine the "coming-to-be" and development of the thing. In Physics, Aristotle begins to give hypokeimenon a generative prehension. He analyzes hypokeimenon as a substantial basis for the process of a thing's changing; he states that the "coming-to-be" of the thing is a continuous process that on the basis of immutable carrier, namely hyle, which shifts from one morphe to another morphe. Morphe itself also contains shortages, yet these shortages gradually perish driven by the thing's own provision, and with the help of the hyle; one morphe would then be transformed into another. Hyle is the more fundamental element because it is "close to the hypokeimenon and in some sense it is hypokeimenon." [Aristotle, Physics, 189b20-27]
Aristotle, in the seventh volume of the Metaphysics, explicitly states that "what is it from" is the hypokeimenon, which changes his view of the idea of "hyle is hypokeimenon" in Physics. For Aristotle, morphe is more qualified to act as hypokeimenon because morphe, as a specific stipulation of the thing, would be defined explicitly in essence. "So the question, 'what is it from,' is appropriate for
4 See: Bremer, Josef; Khroutski, Konstantin S.; Klimek, Rudolf and Tadeusiewicz, Ryszard. "Challenging integralism, Aristotelian entelecheia, hyle and morphe (form), and contemporary concepts of information, touching upon the aetiological issues of carcinogenesis (with reflecting feedbacks of Paul Beaulieu, Ana Bazac, Anna Makolkin, Leonardo Chiatti, Milan Tasic and Dariusz Szkutnik)," Biocosmology - Neo-Aristotelism Vol. 7, No. 1 (Winter 2017): 8-111.
hypokeimenon in a primitive and pure sense, and then it is appropriate for others," [Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1030a30-35] according to Aristotle.
In conclusion, the evolution of Aristotle's concept of hypokeimenon progresses from what is "being," to the first "being" that is the hypokeimenon, which is then layered into three substrata: hyle, morphe, and the specific things produced by the above two. He confirms that the morphe is the first and the primary hypokeimenon as it is the essence of a thing, it is the thing as it is, and it is the primary cause of the thing's generative changeability, including its entire range: movement-kinesis in the space, growth and development, with qualitative transition, shift alteration, transformation-metabole. Consequently, Aristotle's concept of hypokeimenon has realized the ego of hypokeimenon itself through making of itself though movement from concreteness to abstraction and then to concreteness. Through the analysis of hypokeimenon, he points out that the universe is a constantly undergoing and a transforming movement process of ascending (and corrupting) transformation - its origination and alteration shift from the absolute hyle to the absolute (but which is inherent in the Functionalist meaning) morphe.
Thus, Aristotle admits the universality of the evolving process of the thing, which is greatly different from our typical interpretation of Aristotle, which is paying attention only to the everlasting eternity. Aristotle establishes a generative dimension within the concept of hypokeimenon, while developing this concept. However, even if Aristotle establishes "what is it from" as hypokeimenon in Metaphysics, he still do not abandon the concept of the "hyle-morphe" framework of hypokeimenon. As a consequence we can use both categories, "hyle and morphe", aiming at understanding and clarification of Aristotle's hypokeimenon theory.
2. From Aristotle's analysis of "hyle" and "morphe" - to examining the generative potentials that are their natural essences
Philosophers before Aristotle, including the Milesian School - they consider hyle exclusively as the cause of sensible objects; or like Plato, who believes that morphe is the cause of sensible objects. However, Aristotle thinks that both hyle and morphe are the causes and constituents of hypokeimena of sensible objects. In turn, hyle and the morphe are a pair of interrelating concepts; thus their relationship between each other can be discussed in pair of values: tone is component, and the other is generative.
If we merely comprehend morphe and hyle and their relationship from the nongenerative hypokeimenon (namely, the component hypokeimenon), we would insist that the generation of specific hypokeimenon is a process for permanent hyle to work from lacking a substantive morphe to generating the substantive morphe. In this framework, any generative hypokeimenon should be understood as organ of the permanent hyle and its inclusive morphe. The basic idea of this explanation is that the relationship between hyle and morphe should be seen as the relationship between the stuff (matter) and self-organization of the hypokeimenon5. Therefore, the boundaries between hyle and morphe are clear until the hyle is independent of the morphe.
5 Herein, the hyle and morphe are regarded as the "composition" of compound hypokeimenon.
In general, we need to introduce the notion (concept) of generative dimension. Indeed, hyle is "something from which a hypokeimenon comes from," [Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1032a17] and morphe is intrinsically interrelated with hypokeimenon. All the more, hyle is indefinite, and it is not associated with any particular thing; but hyle is organized by the hypokeimenon, and is the cause of the tangible aspect of everything. In turn, morphe is the concrete, functionally effective organ of life activity, which reveals essentially what the thing is in reality, so the definitions of "hyle" and "morphe" naturally are first formed in the analysis of the generative hypokeimenon.
The individual's generative hypokeimenon is a telic complex entity that realizes the emergence (organization) of the morphe that has the effective structure and which functionally (inherently) effective (generating the needed results of activity, in its turn). All this precisely relates to the Aristotelian Hyletic cause Organic cause as well. Therefore, Aristotle's theory of hyle and the morphe is merely not the analysis of the individual's hypokeimenon static components at a given time, but it is the analysis of all the Organicist causes of the individual's hypokeimenon origination.6 Hence, hyle is essential morphe while the morphe is already generated or finished hyle. The hyle and the morphe generation -in the continuous process generative transformations. Hence, hyle is no longer opposed to morphe, but the relationship between hyle and morphe is mutually interdependent.
Studying the generative relationship between morphe and hyle, Aristotle introduces a pair of fundamental concepts: potentiality and actuality. Any sensible hypokeimenon is generative, but not morphe and hyle, which serve as the generative carriers. Hence, what is generative is only the concrete and sensible hypokeimenon. Thus, we have the process of "antecedent hyle" natural transformation into the actual (functionally potential) morphe.
Now we can say that the potential hyle turns into reality by virtue of the natural generative process and essentially contributes to the telic (functionally effective) morphe emergence. Therefore, as far as the self-actualization of hypokeimenon concerned (which is primarily sensible, but, eventually, which is exercised in the morphe's functionalist success), one can say that "morphe is hyle", and "hyle is morphe" In this "in-in" structure, the morphe and the hyle depend on each other, relate to each other, and hyle (potential) becomes reality in virtue of generative hypokeimenon. Morphe predominates (but is based on) hyle, and hyle self-actualizes its inherent potency by constituting the effective morphe. Thus, a sensible hypokeimenon has one essence, which is single and inseparable at the level of ontology, and this is the meaning of the sensible hypokeimenon as a strict unity. Explained more precisely, this is when we take the sensible hypokeimenon as a "unity". Attention should be paid to the meaning of its realistic (functional) existence, but when we take it as a "compound hypokeimenon," we may discern its meaning of generative dimension.
6 Organicist causes (of the Aristotelian aetiology) do not refer to the time priority and exteriority characteristics in the modern sense, but they are reduced to the inherent potencies that are organized on the needed results of effective life activities.
Aristotle's thought stresses the bipolar (potentiality/actuality) unity and the relationship between potential and actual constituents of the thing, including the relationship between hyle and morphe. It can be deduced that hyle is a potential the foundation for building up a morphe. With this interpretation, hyle is driven by its own (inherent) potentiality and, gradually (and eventually) emerges into a reality, or the morphe. There is a continuous process between hyle and morphe during the transition from potentiality to actuality. Aristotle argues that the thing's morphe is in a ladder between the reality and potentiality, and it occupies the lowest level wherein the hypokeimenon is entirely realistic. For example, acorn is just an oak tree's potency (hypokeimenon) - of its future morphe, grown by accepting a due hyle.
In Aristotle's opinion, the universe itself can be seen as a generative process that realizes transition and organization from the potential hyle to the actual morphe. The pure hyle is in a state where the definition of the universe has not yet been realized, it has no definition, but it has sufficient potential to be actualized in a resultant morphe. In turn, the pure morphe itself is in a state that has fully evolved and, therefore, it is the end of the generative process.
However, in this internal relationship, the question that has to be answered is: How exactly pure hyle starts its own movement towards a pure morphe? Aristotle resolves this i8ssue by introducing the notion of "Unmoved Mover" (Kosmic Nous). Nous is essential for the existence of the Aristotelian whole Organicist universe (Kosmos), including its natural processes of all things self-evolvement. It is significant that Aristotle's Nous permanently exercises the universal attractive (that releases the intrinsic activities) forces and causes; while Plato's God -Demiurge (as a polar opposite) governs the world 'from without". Essentially, Aristotle's "unmoved mover" (Nous) realizes precisely the processes of self-existence and self-evolution in the Noetic (Noospheric) Universe - for all things and their hypokeimena (for all subjects of the real world) - but which (all the results of their life activities) lead to the natural harmony and the safe and successful Kosmic (Organicist) self-ascending evolution, in the generative manner and developing life processes toward the potential future.
Conclusion
The existence of natural (hence, sensible) hypokeimenon is not empty and static, but it is "dynamic" and can be expressed by its own inherent functions and activities. What we encounter in the empirical world is, in reality - is the manifestation (self-actualization) of the natural hypokeimena. And, if we wish to advance in understanding the individual hypokeimena and their generated effective functionalist activities - we then need to start from understanding the hypokeimenon itself, and further going deeper into its natural existence and generative activity, and, thus, advancing and developing the notion and approach of generative dimension. In this way, we are to rely on (but, firstly, to come closer to a true understanding of) the Aristotelian authentic theory of substance (hypokeimenon).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Konstantin Khroutski for the patient guidance, encouragement and advice in preparing the given work.
References
Aristotle. (1982). Physics, translated by Zhuming Zhang. The Commercial Press, Beijing.
Aristotle. (2003). Metaphysics, translated by Litian Miao. China People University Press, Beijing.
Bremer, Josef; Khroutski, Konstantin S.; Klimek, Rudolf and Tadeusiewicz, Ryszard. Challenging integralism, Aristotelian entelecheia, hyle and morphe (form), and contemporary concepts of information, touching upon the aetiological issues of carcinogenesis (with reflecting feedbacks of Paul Beaulieu, Ana Bazac, Anna Makolkin, Leonardo Chiatti, Milan Tasic and Dariusz Szkutnik), Biocosmology -Neo-Aristotelism Vol. 7, No. 1 (Winter 2017): 8-111.
Chunshan Lv. The Standard of Substance in Metaphysics and the position of Z3 in ZH, World Philosophy, 2011(2):214-232.
Ross, W. D. (1924). Aristotle's Metaphysics 2vols. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wedin, Michael V. (2000). Aristotle's theory of substance. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and Reality, corrected ed. prepared by David R. Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. The Free Press, New York.
