WWeesstteerrnn UUnniivveerrssiittyy SScchhoollaarrsshhiipp@@WWeesstteerrnn Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 11-10-2011 12:00 AM AArriissttoottllee''ss CCoonncceepptt ooff NNaattuurree:: TThhrreeee TTeennssiioonnss W.W. Nicholas Fawcett, The University of Western Ontario Supervisor: John Thorp, The University of Western Ontario A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Philosophy © W.W. Nicholas Fawcett 2011 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the History of Philosophy Commons RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn Fawcett, W.W. Nicholas, "Aristotle's Concept of Nature: Three Tensions" (2011). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 311. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/311 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Aristotle’s Concept of Nature: Three Tensions Spine title: Aristotle’s Concept of Nature Thesis Format: Monograph by W.W. Nicholas Fawcett Graduate Program in Philosophy A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada © W.W. Nicholas Fawcett, 2011 THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO SCHOOL OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION Supervisor Examiners ______________________________ ______________________________ Dr. John Thorp Dr. Karen Nielsen ______________________________ Dr. Kathleen Okruhlik ______________________________ Dr. Matthew Carter ______________________________ Dr. Christopher Byrne The thesis by W.W. Nicholas Fawcett entitled: Aristotle’s Concept of Nature: Three Tensions is accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Date__________________________ _______________________________ Chair of the Thesis Examination Board ii Abstract And Keywords ! The concept of nature (phusis) is ubiquitous in Aristotle’s work, informing his thinking in physics, metaphysics, biology, ethics, politics, and rhetoric. Much of scholarly attention has focussed on his philosophical analysis of the concept wherein he defines phusis as “a principle or cause of change and of remaining the same in that to which it belongs primarily, in virtue of itself and not accidentally” (Phys. 192b21-23) and the implications this has in various parts of his philosophy. It has largely gone unnoticed, or unremarked, that this is not the only understanding of phusis present in his thinking. This thesis argues that in addition to his philosophical understanding of phusis, there is another, pre- theoretic understanding at work. ! After unpacking this pre-theoretic understanding, which is best described as ‘the natural world,’ I argue that there are three tensions stemming from this. First, the natural world is, at times, placed in opposition to the human realm, while at other times, the humans are included as part of nature. Second, nature is considered to be both a static state and a dynamic process of change depending on the context, which prompts Aristotle to claim, in different places, that ageing and dying are both natural and unnatural. Third, nature is treated both as an ideal and as something to be overcome. This thesis attempts to bring to light Aristotle’s pre-theoretic understanding of phusis and to draw out these three tensions. In the end, I suggest that modern confusions about nature may be informed by considering how they are reflected in the work of the first great thinker about nature, Aristotle. iii Keywords: Aristotle, philosophy, ancient Greek philosophy, nature, phusis iv "For what is Nature? Nature is no great mother who has born us. She is our creation. It is in our brain that she quickens to life. Things are because we see them, and what we see, and how we see it, depends on the arts that have influenced us." ~Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying v For all who pressed me to continue, even when I no longer wanted to go on. vi Acknowledgements ! I need to extend my gratitude to a number of people whose help in bringing this project to completion has been extremely valuable. First, I must thank Jim Hankinson with whom I had the distinct pleasure of working while I visited the University of Texas at Austin; his generosity of spirit and wise counsel will always remain with me. Our conversations helped to mold what was then a very raw set of ideas into something much more rigorous. Also included in those conversations was Mariska Leunissen, who has become a dear friend. I am beholden to her not only for her insight offered while in Texas but for our innumerable email and Skype exchanges since. Always insightful, her challenges to my views have pressed me to find better arguments and steered me towards places in the Aristotelian corpus to which I may never have travelled without her prodding. ! I am also deeply grateful to Bonnie MacLachlan for her help in steering me through the very foreign world of Indo-European etymological scholarship. Her patience in answering a seemingly never-ending set of questions was monumental. ! Sean Coughlin, Daniel Bader, and two anonymous referees commented on a paper based on material from chapters one and two. The issues they raised strengthened these chapters considerably. ! Karen Nielsen read a full draft of the thesis and somehow managed to return comments at one of the busiest times of the year. I owe her my deepest vii thanks. Her fresh eyes, critiques, and suggestions have gone a long way towards shaping the dissertation’s final form. ! To Julie Ponesse who patiently read too many early drafts to count and always responded with challenging and positive comments and suggestions, I cannot thank you enough. You have supported me with grace and in love, and I will be forever grateful. ! Finally, I am profoundly indebted to my advisor and friend, John Thorp, who always showed great enthusiasm for the project even when mine would wane. I owe him for many, many things, but perhaps for none more pivotal than his wisdom in allowing matters to take their own course. viii Table of Contents Certificate of Examination! ! ! ! ! ! ! ii Abstract and Keywords! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! iii Epigraph! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! v Dedication! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! vi Acknowledgments!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! vii Table of Contents! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ix Chapter 1 ! Section I - What is Nature? ! ! ! ! ! ! 1 ! Section II - Aristotle and Nature! ! ! ! ! ! 8 ! Section III - Etymology of Phusis !! ! ! ! ! 16 ! Section IV - Aristotle’s Explicit Discussion of Phusis ! ! ! 22 ! Section V - Aristotle’s Great Assumption !! ! ! ! 34 ! Section VI - Three Tensions ! ! ! ! ! ! 36 Chapter 2 ! Section I - Introduction! ! ! ! ! ! ! 40 ! Section II - Gotthelf and Lennox Against Big Nature! ! ! 42 ! Section III - ‘In Nature’ (ἐν τῇ φύσει)! ! ! ! ! 48 ! Section IV - ‘The Whole of Nature’ (ὅλη φύσις) and ‘All Nature’ ! (πᾶσα ἡ φύσις)! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 54 ! Section V - Conclusion! ! ! ! ! ! ! 61 Chapter 3 ! Section I - Introduction! ! ! ! ! ! ! 62 ! Section II - Nature and Artifice! ! ! ! ! ! 64 ! Section III - The Problem with the Polis! ! ! ! ! 67 ! Section IV - The Problem with Sparrows’ Nests!! ! ! 75 ! Section V - Natural Arts! ! ! ! ! ! ! 81 ! Section VI - Conclusion! ! ! ! ! ! ! 85 Chapter 4 ! Section I - How to Think About Old Age and Dying?! ! ! 88 ! Section II - The Static View of Nature! ! ! ! ! 93 ! Section III - The Dynamic View of Nature! ! ! ! 99 ! Section IV - A Resolution?!! ! ! ! ! ! 103 ! Section V - Conclusion! ! ! ! ! ! ! 109 ix