Aristotle's doctrine of the soul. School encyclopedia Aristotle on the soul

1. Elements of the doctrine of the cosmic Soul in the doctrine of the Mind.

If we recall what was said above about the general Platonic triad and about the need to consider Aristotle from the point of view of this triad (since he is also a Platonist), then after the problem of the One and the Mind, we would now need to talk about the cosmic Soul in Aristotle. As for the cosmos, in Plato and Aristotle it is only the eternal realization of the One, Mind and Soul. It is self-evident that Aristotle's cosmos also turns out to be the best and most beautiful work of art and the embodiment of the most divine beauty. However, Aristotle still has some differences from Plato here, which must be mentioned right away.

The point is that, apart from individual hints, Aristotle's doctrine of the cosmic Soul is, one might say, absent. On the other hand, however, his Mind is endowed with all those properties that the pure Platonists specially attributed to the Soul. The mind of Aristotle is not only cosmic and supracosmic thinking, not only cosmic and supracosmic speculation, not only self-sufficient contemplation and "thinking of thinking." It is no less interpreted as the "first mover" (to proton cinoyn).

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of passages about this in Aristotle. The Cosmic Mind as the prime mover is Aristotle's favorite idea; if he reproaches Plato and the “supporters of ideas” in general, it is only that their realm of ideas is too immobile and too isolated from the cosmos and from all movements that take place in the cosmos. Arguing theoretically, such reproaches by Aristotle are completely powerless and helpless, being based only on those places in the works of Plato where the dialectic of ideas is given in an independent form and where the question of the influence of ideas on the world and of ideas as a principle of movement is not raised. In fact, Plato, as we have often seen above, considers his ideas precisely as a principle of movement, precisely as generative models. Therefore, Aristotle's objections to Plato, correct in themselves, refer only to various teachings about the isolated existence of ideas, about their complete inactivity, deadness and abstractness, that is, they do not apply to Plato at all. On the other hand, Aristotle himself is by no means guilty of an isolated understanding of the cosmic Mind and does not get tired of saying that this Mind, being motionless itself, moves absolutely everything that exists. He is Aristotle's prime mover; and in this thinker, in addition to purely mental functions, he is also endowed with those functions of the Platonic Soul, which Plato himself put forward precisely as the principle of universal movement. Thus, the concept of the cosmic Soul is not absent from Aristotle at all, but all its essential functions are transferred to the Mind. And this is why Aristotle has so many arguments about the Mind as the prime mover, and why Aristotle’s ontological aesthetics, which has its completion in cosmology, is also full of these arguments about the prime mover, without which the cosmos would not have become his most perfect work of art, as he treats it. at Plato.

2. The main transcendental argument regarding the prime mover.

Among the numerous very diverse proofs of the identity of the Mind with the prime mover, the first place is undoubtedly occupied by what we have repeatedly called in relation to Plato and Aristotle himself transcendental theory. The meaning of this theory is very simple: if there is anything less, it means that there is something more; if something exists in particular, this means that it exists somewhere and somehow also in general; if parts of an object exist, this means that the object also exists as a whole; and if an object either exists, or does not exist, being either weakly strong, or only potential, or only dependent on other objects, then this means that there is such an object that is infinite both in its indestructible integrity and in its strength and power, and by its energy, and by its independence from any objects, and by its eternal ability to set everything that exists in motion, that is, by its eternal energy. Strictly speaking, with slight variations, Aristotle only gives this general proof of the eternal energy of the cosmic Mind. The details of this teaching for the history of ancient aesthetics no longer seem particularly important.

The most important reasoning lies here in Aristotle, as in Plato (IAE, vol. II, p. 207; cf. Legg. X 898 d - 899 c), in condemning the method of bad infinity, when we explain one movement to another, another - third, third - fourth, etc. And according to Aristotle and Plato, exactly no movement can be explained in this way. Since with such an explanation no end can be found for the explanation of this movement, it is simply meaningless. We will get a true explanation of the movement only when we state something that no longer needs something else for its explanation, and when it will move by itself:

"If it is necessary that everything that moves be set in motion by something, either by that which is set in motion by another, or by that which is not set; and if that which is set in motion by another, then it must necessarily be the first mover that does not move. to others, and if it is the first, then there is no need for the other (for it is impossible that what moves and is moved by the other continues to infinity, since for the infinite there is no first), if, therefore, everything that moves is set in motion by something, and the first mover is not set in motion by another, then it must move from itself" (Phys. VIII 5, 256 a 13-21).

"There is an immovable prime mover, since what is moved, namely, moved by something, either immediately stands in front of the first immovable, or in front of the moving one, but bringing itself into a state of movement and rest - in both cases it turns out that the primary mover in all cases movement is motionless" (258 b 4-9).

“Since everything that moves must necessarily be set in motion by something, precisely if there is a movement, then by another moving one, and it by another, and so on, it is necessary to recognize the existence of the first engine and not go to infinity” (VII 1, 242 a 16 -21).

3. Different shades of the main argument, and especially the physical-teleological argument.

In connection with this main argument of Aristotle about the first mover, he has many different shades of this argumentation, which we will not present here in a systematic form and which are not directly related to aesthetics.

a) So, for example, Aristotle has a doctrine about the necessary divisibility of such a body, which is set in motion by another body, since in the movable one here some elements really move, while others, perhaps, remain at rest. But if there are divisible bodies, then this means that there are also indivisible bodies, and then it will already be insufficient to explain their movement as a result of the action of some other body on them. But even self-moving beings by no means indicate that this self-movement of theirs is final. It can be both only potential (and then, therefore, it is necessary to recognize something that exists energetically) and temporal (and then it will be necessary to recognize something eternally mobile); and even these self-moving beings are still individual (which means that in order to explain them, something universal must be recognized). There are many accidents in life; which means that there is something necessary. If fate leads to some unexpected results, then it means that there is something that leads to reasonable results, that is, reason is something more primary and more general than fate and all sorts of surprises. The mover also moves only one of its sides, and, consequently, it is also divisible. One moves in it, the other rests in it. How to combine it? What moves and what is moved must have something in common. But then the student and the student will be the same. Etc. etc. Aristotle formulates a lot of all sorts of absurdities that arise when explaining movement without relying on the first engine. It is worth listing at least such chapters of "Physics" as II 6, VIII 5, 6 and many others. etc. In a word: "Anaxagoras rightly says, stating that the mind is not affected and not mixed, after he made it the beginning of movement, for only in this way can he move, being motionless, and rule, being unmixed" (Phys. VIII 5, 258 b 24-27).

b) Among all these logical shades of the doctrine of the prime mover, the transcendental argument (from what is conditioned by some cause to the cause itself) still occupies the first place in Aristotle. Proceeding from the fact that all movements in space are determined by the eternal and always correct movement of the firmament, Aristotle immediately constantly proceeds to the need to recognize what moves this sky itself, which determines its eternal correctness, unity and beauty. This is his first engine, or, as we said, motionless Mind, eternally acting as the World Soul.

“The first principle in things is not subject to movement either by its nature or [in any] random way, but itself causes the main eternal and single movement. But at the same time [it must be borne in mind that] the moving [in general] must be Movement is something, and the first mover is to be motionless in itself, and the eternal movement is necessarily caused by that which is eternal, and one movement - [each time] by one thing, meanwhile, besides the simple movement of the universe, which we attribute to the action of the main and a motionless essence, we see the presence of other spatial movements - the eternal movements of the planets (for the body moving in a circular motion is eternal and does not know rest; in physics regarding this evidence is given). for the nature of the luminaries is eternal, since it is an essence, and that which moves [them] must be eternal and precede that which [them] is set in motion, and what precedes the essence must [itself] be the essence. It is evident, therefore, that there must be [precisely] so many entities, eternal in nature and immovable in essence, and - for the reason indicated above - they should not have magnitude. – Thus, that here we have essences and that one of them takes the first place, the other - the second in the same order as the movement of the luminaries - this is obvious "(Met. XII 8, 1073 a 23 - b 3).

If we avoid such general transitions in Aristotle from the separate and fragmented to something necessarily united (for example, Met. IV 2 or IX 2), then from the soul he demands a transition to the mind (De an. III 5-6), so that he not averse to speaking in a completely Platonic way about the universal Soul (8, 431 b 21-23):

"The soul in some way embraces everything that exists. Indeed: everything that exists is either objects that are sensibly comprehended or intelligible. Indeed, in a certain sense, knowledge is identical with the cognizable, and sensation with sensually perceived qualities."

In the future, Aristotle clarifies this idea of ​​the world Soul, which arises in him in a necessary way. But these refinements are already known from our previous presentation. In the last chapters of Book III of his treatise On the Soul, Aristotle is precisely trying to move from individual minds and strivings, that is, from individual souls, to the universal Soul and universal Mind. "It is clear that aspiration and mind, these two abilities, are the driving forces" (10, 433 a 9). This is reinforced by transcendental reasoning in other areas as well. In order for something to come into being and perish, it is necessary for something to come into existence by itself and to annihilate by itself (De gen. et corr, I 3). In order for something living and animated to arise, a seed is needed; the seed needs a soul that animates it; but the soul needs a mind that comprehends it (De gen. animal. II 3). The same ascent can be observed in the animal world and in the anatomical sense, and Aristotle argues in detail the teleological arrangement of organs and body parts in humans (De part, animal. II 10, IV 10). The need to ascend from elementary and everyday morality to divine wisdom, bliss and speculation is Aristotle's favorite idea (Ethic. Nic. X 7 9).

in) We repeat, Aristotle has a lot of shades of this basic transcendental proof of the existence of the cosmic Mind. Thus, besides the semantic antecedence of this Mind to every human mind and to every actual formation of things in general, this cosmic Mind also in power, in energetic relation precedes everything finite, since everything finite can exist at all only if there is an infinite, and since all gaps within the finite still contain the infinite, no matter how small these gaps may be. We have already met with this circumstance in the previous presentation and will meet again and again. In "Metaphysics" (IX 8) it is indicated that energy is earlier than potency both in meaning, and in time, and in essence (cf. XII 2). In the same treatise (XII 6) it is proved that energy not only is not a potency, but also cannot be contained in a potency, because otherwise it would be involved in matter. The gods are precisely this immortal energy, and this is eternal life (De coel. II 3, 286 a 9). "God filled the Whole [the universe], creating [in it] continuous becoming" (De gen. et corr. II 10, 336 b 31). Above, we have already cited the text that the mind and striving are the driving principles. But in the primary mind, these two abilities of movement merge into one, since in it there can be no antagonistic strivings that require for their recognition and such a combination of mind and striving, which is already non-antagonistic (De an. III 10). Every living thing presupposes a soul, and the soul presupposes a mind, which is no longer potential, but energy (II 2), which generally refers to everything potential, which is possible only as the realization of energy (III 7.9.10). Ethical virtue presupposes dianoetic virtue, that is, virtue based on reason; and a mind that is related to transient things requires a mind that is related to eternal things, to the eternal (Ethic. Nic. VI 2, X 9). The fact that everything presupposes its opposite and that these opposites can be understood in the most diverse sense, Aristotle discusses in detail in the "Rhetoric" (II 23). The main thing here is that the opposites act on one another quite directly. Aristotle speaks of this many times, both in relation to ordinary things (De gen. animal. I 21; De gen. et corr. I 7) and in relation to his cosmic Mind, because this latter is precisely pure activity, energy. (Met. XII 6), has no parts and no magnitude (Phys. VIII 10). At the same time, the best does not need an action, since the action is twofold, namely, it is both the goal of the action and the action itself; and what is best must be together (De coel. II 12). Thus, the cosmic Mind, according to Aristotle, being the best being, does not need action at all; however, this must be understood not in the sense that his Mind is simply inactive, but in the sense that the action, the cause of the action, the purpose of the action, the material and the form of the action remain indistinguishable in him.

In this sense, one fragment of Aristotle (15 Rose) is curious with reference to the treatise of Aristotle that has not come down to us, where the idea is proved that the infinite, that is, the infinite mind and infinite beauty, cannot experience either increase or decrease, as in modern mathematics proves that adding units to infinity or subtracting these units from it leaves infinity completely intact. Here is this fragment, borrowed from the later commentator Aristotle Simplicius:

"Aristotle says in his writings on philosophy that there is something better in a general sense; in the same place he says that there is something better. For since in what exists one is better than the other, therefore, there is also something better that must be considered divine. Therefore, if something that changes is changed by another or by itself, and the other here is either stronger or weaker, then striving from itself as something stronger or more beautiful (and the divine has nothing stronger than itself, thanks to which it changed would), then the aspirant will become more divine. And it is natural that [in this case] it will not become the strongest thanks to the strongest, and, on the other hand, it will not accept anything bad from the weakest and there will be nothing bad in it. After all, it does not change in itself, neither as striving for something more beautiful (since it does not need any of its beauties), nor - for the worse, since even a person does not voluntarily make himself worst. And therefore it has nothing bad, as if it were changing due to the transition to the worse. And Aristotle took this proof from the second book of Plato's Republic.

So, what is divine only to a certain extent, indeed, striving for the divine as such, becomes both more divine and more beautiful. But what is divine in itself can no longer be worse or better, just as any infinity does not become either more or less from the addition or subtraction of finite units. For aesthetics, this is important because absolute and infinite beauty is preached here, which, by its very essence, can become neither more nor less.

We, perhaps, would not have begun to cite this fragment of Aristotle if at the end of this fragment there was no indication of Aristotelian borrowing from Plato in one of the most important points of their philosophy. For us, this is a very important reinforcement of our usual thought about the numerous borrowings of Aristotle from Plato, and, moreover, in the most important philosophical problems. Undoubtedly, Aristotle borrows his idea about the infinity of the deity and the impossibility for this infinity to become more or less precisely from Plato (R. P. II 380d - 383c with explanations from false mythology). We have already met with these texts from Plato's "Republic" above 33 .

In the above fragment of Aristotle, the specific shade of Aristotle's main transcendental argument about the relationship between the cosmos and the cosmic mind is not so clear. However, there are texts from Aristotle that directly highlight physical-teleological moment of Aristotle's main argument.

Aristotle not only asserts that “the gods and nature do not create anything in vain” (De coel. I 4, 271 a 33), but he has a teaching that directly deduces God and the divine mind precisely from the expediency and order that reign in nature. According to Sextus Empiricus (Adv. math. IX 20-22), Aristotle, firstly, proved the existence of God on the basis of various spiritual phenomena, such as inspiration, prophecy or dreams (frg. 13 R.). Secondly, Aristotle proved the existence of God on the basis of precisely the order and harmony in nature (frg. 16 R. from Sext. Emp. Adv. math. IX 26-27). Here we read:

“Some, relying on the unchanging and harmonious movement of celestial bodies, say that the beginning of thoughts about the gods first of all arose from this movement. After all, just as if someone, being on the Trojan Ida, saw how the army of the Hellenes was in perfect order slenderly approaching the plain, -

Nestor built horsemen in front with chariots,
Behind the footmen he placed fighters... [Il. IV 327 ff.]

he would come to the conclusion that there is a commander of such a formation and commanding warriors subordinate to him, for example, Nestor or some other of the heroes who knows how

Build fast horses and shield-bearing men for battles. [Il. II 554]

And as a connoisseur of shipbuilding, seeing from a distance a ship driven by a fair wind and well equipped, understands that someone controls it and leads it to the harbor in front of it, so for the first time looking at the sky and seeing that the sun makes its run from the east to west, and the stars move harmoniously, they looked for the creator of this beautiful device, not thinking that it occurs spontaneously, but under the influence of some strong and imperishable essence, which was God.

The same physico-teleological argument of Aristotle is repeated by Cicero (in Aristotelian fragments 14 R).

G) However, there is no need for us to necessarily refer to Cicero or Sextus Empiricus to demonstrate the Aristotelian physical-teleological argument. There is a whole chapter in Aristotle's Metaphysics (XII 8), which we will not cite and analyze here in view of its almost exclusively astronomical nature, but which is all built precisely on the construction of the cosmos with all its celestial spheres precisely on the basis of Aristotle's general doctrine of prime mover. No less than Plato, Aristotle also finds in the harmony of the celestial spheres nothing but the result of the action of the divine Mind, and he elevates all the beauty and harmony of this cosmos precisely to the beauty and harmony of the cosmic or, as he himself says, the divine Mind. Here, between Plato and Aristotle, the difference is only specifically astronomical (Aristotle here uses the astronomical system of Eudoxus), but by no means philosophical and certainly not aesthetic.

4. The general conclusion of Aristotle himself.

If we would like to draw a brief conclusion, stated by Aristotle himself, regarding the need to move from temporal nature to eternal nature, from the body to the soul and from individual souls to the cosmic Mind, including both general transcendental and specifically physical-teleological argumentation, then it seems that it would be best to quote the following chapter from the treatise "On the Soul" (III 5; the translator instead of the Greek "mind" puts the Russian "reason", corresponding, rather, not to the Greek noys, but to the Greek dianoia):

“Since everywhere in nature there is something that constitutes matter for each kind (and this [beginning] potentially contains everything that exists), on the other hand, there is a cause and an active principle for the creation of everything, [and their dependence is the same] as For example, art belongs to the material, it is necessary that these different sides also be contained in the soul.There is, on the one hand, such a mind that becomes everything, on the other hand, [mind], which generates everything, is a well-known property, similar to light. For in a certain way, light brings to reality the colors that exist potentially. And this mind is special, it does not have passive states, it is not mixed with anything, being essentially [of its nature] in [constant] activity. For the active principle always more noble than the passive, and the original force is higher than matter. Indeed, realized knowledge is the same as the [cognized] object. Knowledge in potential form in a separate individual is more original in time, in the absolute sense and in time it is not [is the original]. After all, it is impossible [to say about this mind that] it either thought or did not think. It is only when separated that he becomes what he is, and that alone is immortal and eternal. We have no memories, since this mind is not involved in suffering, while the suffering mind is transient and [without an active mind] [can] think nothing."

The analysis of the doctrine of being will be incomplete if we do not consider the concept of matter, which played an important role in the ideas of Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers.

For the first time, the concept of matter (hyle) was introduced by Plato, who wanted to use it to explain the reason for the diversity of the sensory world. If Plato's idea is something unchanging and identical to itself, if it is defined through the "one", then he thinks of matter as the "beginning of another" - changeable, fluid, impermanent. It is in this capacity that she serves for Plato as the principle of the sensible world. Matter, according to Plato, is devoid of certainty and therefore unknowable, things and phenomena of the world of "becoming" cannot become the subject of scientific knowledge precisely because of their materiality. In this sense, in the early dialogues of Plato, matter is identified with non-existence. In the later Timaeus dialogue, Plato likens matter to a substratum (material) devoid of qualities, from which bodies of any size and shape can be formed, just as various forms can be cast from gold. Therefore, Plato calls matter here "the recipient and nurse of all things." Plato believes that matter can take any form precisely because it itself is completely formless, indefinite, it is, as it were, only a possibility, and not reality. Understood in this way, Plato identifies matter with space, which contains the possibility of any geometric figures.

Not accepting the Platonic identification of matter and space, Aristotle at the same time considers matter as a possibility (potency). In order for something real to arise from possibility, matter must be limited by a form that transforms something only potential into actually existing. So, for example, if we take a copper ball, then the matter for it, says Aristotle, will be copper, and the shape will be spherical; in relation to a living being, matter is its bodily composition, and form is the soul, which ensures the unity and integrity of all its bodily parts. Form, according to Aristotle, is an active principle, the principle of life and activity, while matter is a passive principle. Matter is infinitely divisible, it is devoid of any unity and certainty in itself, while the form is something indivisible and, as such, is identical with the essence of the thing. Introducing the concepts of matter and form, Aristotle divides entities into lower ones (those that consist of matter and form), which are all beings of the sensory world, and higher ones - pure forms. Aristotle considers the highest essence to be a pure (devoid of matter) form - a perpetual motion machine, which serves as a source of movement and life for the entire cosmic whole. Nature according to Aristotle is a living connection of all individual substances, determined by a pure form (perpetual motion machine), which is the cause and ultimate goal of all that exists. Expediency (teleology) is a fundamental principle of both Aristotle's ontology and his physics.

In the physics of Aristotle, the typical Greek idea of ​​the cosmos as a very large but finite body received its justification. The doctrine of the finiteness of the cosmos directly followed from the rejection by Plato, Aristotle and their followers of the concept of actual infinity. Actually, the infinite was also not recognized by Greek mathematics.

Summing up the analysis of the ancient Greek doctrine of being, it should be noted that most ancient Greek philosophers are characterized by a dualistic opposition of two principles: being and non-being - by Parmenides, atoms and emptiness - by Democritus, ideas and matter - by Plato, form and matter - by Aristotle. Ultimately, this is a dualism of the one, indivisible, unchanging, on the one hand, and infinitely divisible, multiple, changeable, on the other. It was with the help of these two principles that the Greek philosophers tried to explain the existence of the world and man.

And the second important point: the ancient Greek thinkers, for all their differences among themselves, were cosmocentrists: their gaze was directed primarily to unraveling the secrets of nature, the cosmos as a whole, which they for the most part - with the exception of atomists - thought as living, and some - as animated whole. Cosmocentrism for a long time also set the main line of consideration of human problems in philosophy - from the point of view of its inextricable connection with nature. However, gradually, as the traditional forms of knowledge and social relations decay, new ideas about the place and purpose of man in space are formed; accordingly, the role and importance of the problem of man in the structure of ancient Greek philosophical knowledge increases.

The transition from the study of nature, from ontological problems to the consideration of man, his life in all its diverse manifestations in ancient Greek philosophy is associated with the activities of the sophists.

5. Sophists

Man and consciousness - this is the theme that enters Greek philosophy along with the sophists (sophists are teachers of wisdom). The most famous among them were Protagoras (c. 485 - c. 410 BC) and Gorgias (c. 483 - c. 375 BC).

These philosophers deepen their critical attitude to everything that is directly given to a person, an object of imitation or faith. They demand a test of the strength of every assertion, an unconsciously acquired conviction, an uncritically accepted opinion. Sophistry opposed everything that lived in the minds of people without a certificate of its legality. The Sophists criticized the foundations of the old civilization. They saw the vice of these foundations - mores, customs, foundations - in their immediacy, which is an integral element of tradition. From now on, only such content of consciousness was given the right to exist, which was allowed by this consciousness itself, that is, justified, proved by it. Thus, the individual became the judge of everything that previously did not allow individual judgment.

The Sophists are rightly called representatives of the Greek Enlightenment: they did not so much deepen the philosophical teachings of the past as they popularized knowledge, spreading in wide circles of their numerous students what had already been acquired by that time by philosophy and science. The Sophists were the first among philosophers to receive tuition fees. In the 5th century BC e. in most Greek city-states there was a democratic system, and therefore the influence of a person on public affairs, both judicial and political, depended to a large extent on his eloquence, his oratory, the ability to find arguments in favor of his point of view and thus incline to the majority of fellow citizens to their side. Sophists just offered their services to those who sought to participate in the political life of their city: they taught grammar, style, rhetoric, the ability to debate, and also gave general education. Their main art was the art of the word, and it was not by chance that they developed the norms of the literary Greek language.

With such a practical-political orientation of interest, the philosophical problems of nature receded into the background; the focus was on man and his psychology: the art of persuasion required knowledge of the mechanisms that govern the life of consciousness. At the same time, the problems of cognition came to the fore among the sophists.

The initial principle formulated by Protagoras is this: "Man is the measure of all things: those that exist, that they exist, and those that do not exist, that they do not exist."

Similarly, in the theory of knowledge, the sophists are guided by the individual, declaring him - with all his features - the subject of knowledge. Everything we know about objects, they argue, we receive through the senses; yet sensory perceptions are subjective: what seems sweet to a healthy person will seem bitter to a sick person. Hence, all human knowledge is only relative. Objective, true knowledge, from the point of view of the sophists, is unattainable.

As we can see, if an individual, or rather, his sense organs, is declared the criterion of truth, then the last word in the theory of knowledge will be relativism (the proclamation of the relativity of knowledge), subjectivism, skepticism, which considers objective truth impossible.

Let us note that the principle put forward by the Eleatics - the world of opinion does not really exist - the sophists opposed the opposite: only the world of opinion exists, being is nothing but a changeable sensory world, as it is shown to individual perception. The arbitrariness of the individual becomes the guiding principle here.

Relativism in the theory of knowledge also served as a justification for moral relativism: the sophists showed the relativity, conventionality of legal norms, state laws and moral assessments. Just as man is the measure of all things, every human community (state) is the measure of the just and the unjust.

6. Socrates: the search for reliable knowledge

Individual and supra-individual in consciousness

By their critique of the immediate givens of consciousness, by their demand to attribute all content of knowledge to an individual subject, the sophists paved the way for the acquisition of such knowledge, which, being mediated by the subjectivity of the individual, would not, however, be reduced to this subjectivity. It was the activity of the sophists, who defended the relativity of all truth, that laid the foundation for the search for new forms of reliable knowledge - those that could resist critical examination. This search was continued by the Athenian philosopher Socrates (c. 470 - 399 BC), first a student of the sophists, and then their critic.

The main philosophical interest of Socrates focuses on questions about what a person is, what is human consciousness. "Know thyself" is Socrates' favorite saying. (This saying was written on the wall of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, and it is probably no coincidence that the tradition has come down to us that the Delphic oracle, when asked about who is the wisest of the Hellenes, named Socrates.)

Socrates discovers, as it were, different levels, different layers in human consciousness, which are in very complex relations with the individual, the bearer of consciousness, sometimes even entering into an insoluble conflict with him. The task of Socrates is to discover not only the subjective, but also the objective content of consciousness and to prove that it is the latter that must be judged.

her over the first. This higher authority is called reason; it is able to give not just an individual opinion, but universal, obligatory knowledge. But a person can acquire this knowledge only through his own efforts, and not receive it from outside as a ready-made one. Hence the desire of Socrates to seek the truth together, in the course of conversations (dialogues), when the interlocutors, critically analyzing those opinions that are considered generally accepted, discard them one by one until they come to such knowledge that everyone recognizes as true. Socrates possessed a special art - the famous irony, with the help of which he gradually aroused among his interlocutors doubts about the truth of traditional ideas, trying to lead them to such knowledge, the reliability of which they themselves would be convinced. Socrates considered the goal of the critical work of the mind to obtain a concept based on a strict definition of the subject. So, he tried to determine what is justice, what is good, what is the best state structure, etc.

The ethical rationalism of Socrates

It is no coincidence that Socrates paid so much attention to clarifying the content of such concepts as “justice”, “good”, “evil”, etc. He, like the sophists, always focused on questions of human life, its purpose and purpose. , a fair social order. Philosophy was understood by Socrates as the knowledge of what is good and evil. The search for knowledge about the good and the just together, in a dialogue with one or more interlocutors, in itself created, as it were, special ethical relations between people who gathered together not for the sake of entertainment and not for the sake of practical deeds, but for the sake of gaining the truth.

But philosophy - the love of knowledge - can be regarded as a moral activity only if knowledge in itself is already good. It is this ethical rationalism that constitutes the essence of Socrates' teaching. Socrates considers an immoral act to be the fruit of ignorance of the truth: if a person knows what is good, then he will never act badly - such is the conviction of the Greek philosopher. A bad deed is identified here with delusion, with a mistake, and no one makes mistakes voluntarily, Socrates believes. And since moral evil comes from ignorance, it means that knowledge is the source of moral perfection. That's why philosophy

how the path to knowledge becomes for Socrates a means of forming a virtuous person and, accordingly, a just state. Knowledge of the good - this, according to Socrates, already means following the good, and the latter leads a person to happiness.

However, the fate of Socrates himself, who throughout his life strove to become virtuous through knowledge and encouraged his students to do the same, testified that in the ancient society of the 5th century. BC e. there was no longer a harmony between virtue and happiness. Socrates, who tried to find an antidote to the moral relativism of the Sophists, at the same time used many of the methods characteristic of them. In the eyes of the majority of Athenian citizens, far from philosophy and irritated by the activities of visitors and their own sophists, Socrates differed little from the rest of the "wise men" who criticized and discussed traditional ideas and religious cults. In 399 BC. e. The seventy-year-old Socrates was accused of not honoring the gods recognized by the state and introducing some new gods; that he corrupts the youth, causing the young men not to listen to their fathers. For undermining the morality of the people, Socrates was sentenced to death in court. The philosopher had the opportunity to evade punishment by fleeing Athens. But he preferred death, and in the presence of his friends and students, he died after drinking a goblet of poison. Thus, Socrates recognized over himself the laws of his state - the very laws of undermining which he was accused. It is characteristic that, dying, Socrates did not give up his conviction that only a virtuous person can be happy: as Plato tells, Socrates was calm and bright in prison, until the last minute he talked with friends and convinced them that he was happy. human.

The figure of Socrates is highly significant: not only his life, but also his death symbolically reveals to us the nature of philosophy. Socrates tried to find in the very consciousness of man such a strong and firm support on which the building of morality, law and the state could stand after the old - traditional - foundation had already been undermined by the individualistic criticism of the sophists. But Socrates was not understood and accepted neither by sophists-innovators, nor by traditionalists-conservatives: Sophists saw in Socrates a "moralist" and a "revivalist of foundations", and defenders of traditions - a "nihilist" and a destroyer of authorities.

7. Man, society and the state according to Plato

The problem of soul and body

In Plato, as well as in his teacher Socrates, the leading theme remains moral and ethical, and the most important subjects of study are man, society and the state.

Knowledge of true being, i.e., that which is always identical and unchanging to itself - and such is Plato’s world of ideas, which are prototypes of things in the sensible world, as we already know - should, according to the philosopher’s plan, provide a solid foundation for the creation of ethics. And the latter is considered by Plato as a condition for the possibility of a just society, where people will be virtuous, which means - remember Socrates - and happy.

The ethical teaching of Plato presupposes a certain understanding of the essence of man. Just as Plato divides everything that exists into two unequal spheres - eternal and self-existing ideas, on the one hand, and transient, fluid and non-self-sufficient things of the sensual world - on the other, he also distinguishes in man an immortal soul and a mortal, perishable body. The soul, according to Plato, like an idea, is one and indivisible, while the body, since matter enters it, is divisible and consists of parts. The essence of the soul is not only in its unity, but also in its self-movement; everything that moves itself, according to Plato, is immortal, while everything that is set in motion by something else is finite and mortal.

But if the soul is one and indivisible, if it is something independent and non-material, then why does it need a body? According to Plato, the human soul consists, as it were, of two "parts": the higher - rational, with the help of which a person contemplates the eternal world of ideas and which strives for good, and the lower - sensual. Plato likens the rational soul to a charioteer, and the sensual soul to two horses, one of which is noble, and the other is low, rude and stupid. Here the bodily principle is considered not only as inferior in comparison with the spiritual, but also as evil and negative in itself.

Plato is a supporter of the theory of transmigration of souls; after the death of the body, the soul is separated from it, so that then - depending on how virtuous and righteous life it led in the earthly world - again move into some other body (human or animal). And only the most perfect souls, according to Plato, completely leave the earthly, imperfect world and remain in the realm of ideas. The body is thus regarded as the dungeon of the soul, from which the soul must free itself, and for this it must purify itself by subordinating its sensual inclinations to the highest striving for the good. This is achieved through the knowledge of the ideas that the rational soul contemplates.

With the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, Plato's idea of ​​knowledge as recollection is connected. Even before its incarnation in the body, the soul of each person was in the supersensible world and could contemplate the ideas in all their perfection and beauty; therefore, even now, for her, sensual phenomena are only an occasion to see behind them their true essence, ideas that the soul thus, as it were, vaguely recalls. The doctrine of recollection had a great influence on the development of the theory of knowledge not only in antiquity, but also in the Middle Ages and in modern times.

Platonic Theory of the State

The theory of the state of Plato is closely connected with the doctrine of man and the soul. The anthropology and ethics of the Greek philosopher, as well as his ontology, aimed at creating a perfect human society, and since the life of Greek communities proceeded in policies - city-states - the creation of an ideal state. Platonic ethics is not focused on the formation of a perfect personality, but rather on the formation of a perfect human race, a perfect society. It has not an individual orientation, as, for example, among the Stoics or Epicureans, but a social one and therefore organically merged with the political theory of Plato.

Plato divides people into three different types, depending on which part of the soul is predominant in them: rational, affective (emotional) or lustful (sensual). If the rational prevails, then these are people who strive to contemplate the beauty and order of ideas, strive for

the highest good. They are committed to truth, justice, and moderation in all matters of sense gratification. Plato calls them sages or philosophers, and assigns them the role of rulers in an ideal state. With the predominance of the affective part of the soul, a person is distinguished by noble passions - courage, courage, the ability to subordinate lust to duty. These are qualities necessary for warriors, or "guards", who care about the security of the state. Finally, people of the "lustful" type should be engaged in physical labor, because from the very beginning they belong to the bodily-physical world: this is the class of peasants and artisans who provide the material side of the life of the state.

There is, however, a virtue common to all classes, which Plato values ​​​​very highly - this is a measure. Nothing beyond measure - such is the principle that Plato has in common with most Greek philosophers; Socrates called on his supporters to measure as the greatest ethical value; moderation as a virtue of the sage was honored by Aristotle, the Stoics and the Epicureans.

According to Plato, a just and perfect state is the highest of all that can exist on earth. Therefore, a person lives for the sake of the state, and not the state - for the sake of the person. In the doctrine of the ideal state, we find a pronounced domination of the universal over the individual.

The danger of absolutization of such an approach was already seen by Aristotle. Being a greater realist than his teacher, he was well aware that an ideal state in earthly conditions could hardly be created due to the weakness and imperfection of the human race. And therefore, in real life, the principle of strict subordination of the individual to the general often results in the most terrible tyranny, which, by the way, the Greeks themselves could see in numerous examples from their own history.

8. Aristotle: development of the doctrine of man, soul and mind

Man is a social animal endowed with reason

Aristotle, however, like Plato, saw the state as more than just a means of securing the security of individuals and regulating social life through laws. The highest goal of the state, according to Aristotle, is to achieve a virtuous life, and since virtue is a condition and guarantee of happiness, then the corresponding

vetstvenno happy life. It is no coincidence that the Greek philosopher defined man as a social animal endowed with reason. Man, by his very nature, is destined to live together; only in a hostel can people be formed, brought up as moral beings. Such education, however, can only be carried out in a just state: on the one hand, true justice, the presence of good laws and their observance improve a person and contribute to the development of noble inclinations in him, and on the other hand, “the goal of the state is a good life ... the state is the communication of clans and villages in order to achieve a perfect self-sufficient existence ", the best life, which, according to Aristotle, involves not just material prosperity (Aristotle was a supporter of average material prosperity, when there are neither poor nor too rich people in society), but in first of all, justice. Justice crowns all the virtues, to which Aristotle also included prudence, generosity, self-restraint, courage, generosity, truthfulness, benevolence.

1 Aristotle. Cit.: V 4 t. M., 1983. T. 4. S. 462.

The premise of the political concepts of ancient philosophers is the recognition of the legitimacy and necessity of slavery. Both Plato and Aristotle speak of the state of the free: slaves are not considered citizens of the state.

Teaching about the soul. Passive and active mind

Aristotle makes certain adjustments to the Platonic doctrine of the soul. Considering the soul as the beginning of life, he gives a typology of the various "levels" of the soul, highlighting the plant, animal and rational souls. The lower soul - the vegetative - is in charge of the functions of nutrition, growth and reproduction, common to all animate beings in general. In the animal soul, sensation is added to these functions, and with it the ability to desire, i.e., the desire to achieve pleasant

and avoid the unpleasant. The rational soul, which only man possesses of all animals, in addition to the listed functions that man has in common with plants and animals, is endowed with the highest of abilities - reasoning and thinking. Aristotle does not have Plato's characteristic idea of ​​the lower, bodily beginning (and, accordingly, the lower, plant and animal souls) as a source of evil. Aristotle considers matter, the body, as a neutral substrate that serves as the basis for higher forms of life. The mind itself, however, according to Aristotle, is independent of the body. Being eternal and unchanging, he alone is capable of comprehending eternal being and constitutes the essence of the highest of Aristotelian forms, completely free from matter, namely the perpetual motion machine, which is pure thinking and by which everything moves and lives in the world. Aristotle calls this higher mind active, creative, and distinguishes it from the passive mind, which only perceives. The latter is mainly inherent in man, while the active mind is only to a very small extent. Trying to resolve the difficulty that Plato had in connection with the doctrine of the “three souls” and caused by the desire to explain the possibility of the immortality of the individual soul, Aristotle comes to the conclusion that only his mind is immortal in a person: after the death of the body, he merges with the universal mind.

Aristotle ends the classical period in the development of Greek philosophy. As the internal decomposition of the Greek city-states gradually weakens their independence. In the era of Hellenism (IV century BC - V century AD), during the period of the first Macedonian conquest, and then the subordination of the Greek cities to Rome, the worldview orientation of philosophy changes: its interest is increasingly focused on the life of an individual person. The motives that anticipate this transition, upon careful reading, can already be noted in the ethics of Aristotle. But the ethical teachings of the Stoics and Epicureans are especially characteristic in this respect. The social ethics of Plato and Aristotle give way to individual ethics, which directly reflects the real situation of a person of late antiquity, a resident of a large empire, who is no longer bound by close ties with his social community and cannot, as before, take a direct part in the political life of his small city-state. .

9. Ethical teachings of the Stoics and Epicurus

Stoic ethics

If the former ethical teachings saw the main means of moral improvement of the individual in his inclusion in the social whole, now, on the contrary, philosophers consider the liberation of a person from the power of the outside world, and above all from the political and social sphere, as a condition for a virtuous and happy life. This is to a large extent the attitude of the Stoic school, and especially the Epicureans. The Stoics in Greece included Zeno from Kition (c. 333 - c. 262 BC), Panetius of Rhodes (II century BC), Posidonius (late II - I century BC) and others. The Stoic school gained great popularity in Ancient Rome, where its most prominent representatives were Seneca (c. 4 BC - 65 AD), his student Epictetus (c. 50 - c. 140) and the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180).

Philosophy for the Stoics is not just a science, but above all a life path, life wisdom. Only philosophy can teach a person to maintain self-control and dignity in the difficult situation that developed in the Hellenistic era, especially in the late Roman Empire, where the decay of morals in the first centuries of the new era reached its highest point. Seneca, in particular, was a contemporary of Nero, one of the most depraved and bloody Roman emperors.

The Stoics consider freedom from the power of the outside world over a person to be the dignity of a sage; his strength lies in the fact that he is not a slave to his own passions. A sage cannot aspire to sense gratification. A real sage, according to the Stoics, is not even afraid of death; It is from the Stoics that the understanding of philosophy as the science of dying comes. Here the model for the Stoics was Socrates. However, the similarity of the Stoics with Socrates is only that they build their ethics on knowledge. But, unlike Socrates, they seek virtue not for the sake of happiness, but for the sake of peace and serenity, indifference to everything external. This indifference they call apathy (dispassion). Dispassion is their ethical ideal. The mood of the Stoics is pessimistic; such a mood is well conveyed by A. S. Pushkin:

There is no happiness in the world, but there is peace and will.

To achieve inner peace and dispassion means to learn to completely control oneself, to determine one's actions not by circumstances, but only by reason. The demands of reason are immutable, for they are in accordance with nature. By the latter, the Stoics understand both external nature and the nature of man himself. Nature for a Stoic is fate, or fate: make peace with fate, do not resist it - this is one of the commandments of Seneca.

Ethics of Epicurus

We meet a complete rejection of social activism in ethics by the materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), whose teaching gained wide popularity in the Roman Empire; the most famous of the Roman Epicureans was Lucretius Carus (c. 99-55 BC).

The individual, and not the social whole, is the starting point of Epicurean ethics. Thus, Epicurus revises the definition of man given by Aristotle. The individual is primary; all social ties, all human relations depend on individuals, on their subjective desires and rational considerations of utility and pleasure. Social union, according to Epicurus, is not the highest goal, but only a means for the personal well-being of individuals; on this point Epicurus is close to the sophists. Epicurus's atomistic natural philosophy fully corresponds to the individualistic interpretation of man: the existence of individual isolated atoms is real, and what is made up of them - things and phenomena of the visible world, the entire cosmos as a whole - these are only secondary formations, only aggregates, clusters of atoms.

In contrast to the Stoic, Epicurean ethics is hedonistic (from the Greek hedone - pleasure): Epicurus considers happiness, understood as pleasure, to be the goal of human life. However, Epicurus saw true pleasure not at all in indulging in gross sensual pleasures without any measure. Like most Greek sages, Epicurus was committed to the ideal of measure. Therefore, the widely held idea of ​​the Epicureans as a people who indulge exclusively in sensual pleasures and put them above everything else is wrong. Epicurus, like the Stoics, considered equanimity of spirit (ataraxia), peace of mind and serenity to be the highest pleasure, and such a state can be achieved only if a person learns to moderate his passions and carnal desires, to subordinate them to reason. The Epicureans pay special attention to the fight against superstitions, in

including the traditional Greek religion, which, according to Epicurus, deprives people of the serenity of the spirit, instilling fear of death and the afterlife. To dispel this fear, Epicurus proves that the human soul dies with the body, for it consists of atoms in exactly the same way as physical bodies. There is no need to be afraid of death, the Greek materialist convinces, for while we exist, there is no death, and when death comes, we are no more; therefore death does not exist for either the living or the dead.

Despite the well-known similarity between Stoic and Epicurean ethics, the difference between them is very significant: the ideal of the Stoics is more severe, they adhere to the altruistic principle of duty and fearlessness before the blows of fate; the ideal of the epicurean sage is not so much moral as aesthetic, it is based on the enjoyment of oneself. Epicureanism is enlightened, refined and enlightened, but still selfish.

10. Neoplatonism

The schools of Epicureanism and Stoicism, which became widespread in republican and then in imperial Rome by the 3rd century, shortly before the fall of the latter, practically disappeared, with the exception of Platonism. Having absorbed the mystical ideas of the followers of the ancient Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras, some of the ideas of Aristotle and other teachings, he appeared in the late antique era as Neoplatonism. Its most prominent representative is Plotinus (204/205-270). He was born in Lycopolis (Egypt), for 11 years he was a student of the founder of the Alexandrian school of neoplatonism, Ammonius, took part in the campaign of the Roman emperor Gordian in Persia to get acquainted with oriental mystical teachings, then moved to Rome, where he founded his own philosophical school. At first he expressed his views orally, then he began to write them down. Plotinus' student and editor of his works, Porfiry, after the death of his teacher (in Minturn, Italy), divided his lengthy treatises into six sections, each of which included nine treatises; Porfiry called them "Enneads" ("nines"). The structure of the Ennead corresponds to the structure of the universe, which was discovered by Plotinus in the texts of Plato and "after

side" of these texts. For Neoplatonists (in addition to Plotinus, Iamblichus, 245 - c. 330, and Proclus, 412-485, are considered the main representatives of this trend), the whole world appears as a hierarchical system in which each lower level owes its existence to the highest. At the very top of this ladder one is placed (it is God, it is also good, or, in other words, that which is on the other side of all that exists). The One is the cause (first of all - the target) of all being (everything that exists exists insofar as it strives for the One, or for the good); it itself does not participate in being and therefore is incomprehensible either for the mind or for the word - nothing can be said about God. The second stage is the mind as such and the intelligible entities in it - ideas; it is pure being generated by the one (for thinking and being in the Platonic tradition are identical). Below is the third step - the soul; it is no longer one, like the mind, but divided between living bodies (the soul of the cosmos, for the cosmos for the Platonists is a living being, the souls of demons, people, animals, plants); in addition, it moves: the soul is the source of all movement and, consequently, of all excitements and passions. Even lower - the fourth step - the body. Just as the soul receives its best properties - rationality, harmony - from the mind, so the body receives form thanks to the soul; its other qualities - lifelessness, inertness, inertness - are akin to matter. Matter, or the subject, the substratum of sensible things, is inertness itself, inertia, lack of quality as such. Matter does not exist; it is in no way involved in the mind, i.e., being; therefore it also cannot be comprehended by the mind and the word. We learn about its presence in a purely negative way: if we take away their form from all bodies (i.e., all their somewhat definite characteristics: quality, quantity, position, etc.), then what remains is matter.

Man in the system of Neoplatonic philosophy was conceived accordingly as a union of the divine, self-identical mind with an inert body through the soul; it is natural that the goal and meaning of life in this case is to free your mind, spirit from the fetters of matter, or body, in order to ultimately completely separate from it and merge with one great mind. It is clear that the source of all evil is material and bodily; the source of good is intelligible, sublime knowledge, philosophy. A person must learn to think, on the one hand, and to subdue his body through exercises, austerities, on the other.

Neoplatonism had a great influence on Western (Augustine) and Eastern (Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite) Christian philosophy. The ideas of Neoplatonism penetrated the philosophy of the Renaissance (Florentine Platonists), as well as the New Age (Cambridge Platonists), representatives of German idealism and the philosophy of romanticism were interested in them.

13. Aristotle

The philosophical thought of ancient Greece reached its highest height in the works of Aristotle (384–322 BC), whose views, encyclopedically incorporating the achievements of ancient science, are a grandiose system of concrete scientific and proper philosophical knowledge in its amazing depth, subtlety and scale. Educated mankind has studied, is studying and will continue to learn philosophical culture from him for centuries.

Aristotle is a student of Plato, but on a number of fundamental issues he disagreed with his teacher. In particular, he believed that the Platonic theory of ideas is completely insufficient for explaining empirical reality. It is Aristotle who owns the saying: “Plato is my friend, but the truth is dearer!” He sought to overcome the Platonic gap between the world of sensible things and the world of ideas.

Matter and form (eidos). Potency and act. Proceeding from the recognition of the objective existence of matter, Aristotle considered it eternal, uncreated and indestructible. Matter cannot arise from nothing, nor can it increase or decrease in quantity. However, matter itself, according to Aristotle, is inert, passive. It contains only the possibility of the emergence of a real variety of things, just as, say, marble contains the possibility of various statues. In order to turn this possibility into reality, it is necessary to give the matter an appropriate form. By form, Aristotle meant an active creative factor, thanks to which a thing becomes real. Form is a stimulus and a goal, the cause of the formation of diverse things from monotonous matter: matter is a kind of clay. In order for various things to arise from it, a potter is needed - a god (or mind-prime mover). Form and matter are inextricably linked, so that every thing in the possibility is already contained in matter and, by natural development, receives its form. The whole world is a series of forms connected with each other and arranged in order of increasing perfection. Thus, Aristotle approaches the idea of ​​a single being of a thing, a phenomenon: they are a fusion of matter and eidos (form). Matter acts as a possibility and as a kind of substratum of being. Marble, for example, can be considered as the possibility of a statue, it is also a material principle, a substrate, and a statue carved from it is already a unity of matter and form. The main engine of the world is God, defined as the form of all forms, as the top of the universe.

Categories of philosophy. Categories are the fundamental concepts of philosophy. Aristotle's consideration of the relationship between matter and eidos (form), act and potency reveals the energetic dynamism of the being in its development. At the same time, the thinker sees the causal dependence of the phenomena of existence: everything has a causal explanation. In this regard, he makes a distinction between causes: there is an active cause - this is an energy force that generates something in the stream of universal interaction of the phenomena of being, not only matter and form, act and potency, but also a generating energy-cause, which, along with the active principle, has a target Meaning: "for what". Here we are dealing with such an extremely important position of Aristotle's philosophy as the semantic principle of all things, as well as the hierarchy of its levels - from matter as a possibility to the formation of individual forms of being and further - from inorganic formations to the world of plants, living beings, various types of animals and and, finally, to the individual, to society. Therefore, in Aristotle, the principle of the development of beings played a huge role, which is organically connected with the categories of space and time, which act for him not as substances, but as a “place” and a number of motion, that is, as a sequence of real and conceivable events and states . This approach is closer to the modern understanding of these categories than, say, Newtonian.

Aristotle developed a hierarchical system of categories in which the main one was "essence", or "substance", and the rest were considered its features. In an effort to simplify the categorical system, Aristotle then recognized only three main categories: essence, state, relation.

With his analysis of potency and act, Aristotle introduced the principle of development into philosophy. This was a response to the aporia of the Eleans, according to which the existent can arise either from the existent or from the non-existent, but both are impossible, because in the first case the existent no longer exists, and in the second - something cannot arise from nothing, therefore , emergence or becoming is generally impossible, and the sensible world must be referred to the realm of "non-existence". Thus, Aristotle introduced into philosophy the categories of possibility and reality, and this is potency and act.

God as the prime mover, as the absolute beginning of all beginnings. According to Aristotle, the world movement is an integral process: all its moments are mutually conditioned, which implies a single engine. Further, starting from the concept of causality, he comes to the concept of the first cause. And this is the so-called cosmological proof of the existence of God. God is the first cause of movement, the beginning of all beginnings. Indeed, a series of causes cannot be infinite or beginningless. There is a cause that determines itself, does not depend on anything: the cause of all causes! After all, the series of causes would never end if we did not allow the absolute beginning of any movement. This beginning is the deity as a global supersensible substance. Aristotle substantiated the existence of a deity by considering the principle of the beautification of the Cosmos. According to Aristotle, the deity serves as the subject of the highest and most perfect knowledge, since all knowledge is directed to form and essence, and God is pure form and the first essence. Aristotle's God, however, is not a personal God.

Soul idea. Descending in his philosophical reflections from the abyss of the Cosmos to the world of animate beings, Aristotle believed that the soul, possessing purposefulness, is nothing more than its organizing principle, inseparable from the body, the source and method of regulating the body, its objectively observable behavior. The soul is the entelechy of the body. Therefore, those who believe that the soul cannot exist without a body are right, but that it itself is immaterial, incorporeal. What we live, feel and think about is the soul, so that it is a certain meaning and form, and not matter, not a substratum: “It is the soul that gives meaning and purpose to life.” The body has a vital state that forms its orderliness and harmony. This is the soul, that is, the reflection of the actual reality of the universal and eternal Mind. Aristotle gave an analysis of the various "parts" of the soul: memory, emotions, the transition from sensations to general perception, and from it to a generalized idea; from opinion through the concept to knowledge, and from immediately felt desire to rational will. The soul distinguishes and cognizes the existent, but it "spends a lot of time in mistakes." “To achieve something reliable in every respect about the soul is certainly the most difficult thing.” According to Aristotle, the death of the body frees the soul for its eternal life: the soul is eternal and immortal.

Theory of knowledge and logic. For Aristotle, knowledge has being as its object. The basis of experience is in sensations, in memory and habit. Any knowledge begins with sensations: it is that which is able to take the form of sensually perceived objects without their matter. The mind, on the other hand, sees the general in the particular. It is impossible to acquire scientific knowledge only by means of sensations and perceptions, due to the transient and changing nature of all things. The forms of truly scientific knowledge are concepts that comprehend the essence of a thing. Having developed the theory of knowledge in detail and deeply, Aristotle created a work on logic, which retains its enduring significance to this day. Here he developed a theory of thinking and its forms, concepts, judgments, conclusions, etc. Aristotle is the founder of logic.

Analyzing categories and operating with them in the analysis of philosophical problems, Aristotle also considered the operations of the mind, its logic, including the logic of propositions. He formulated logical laws: the law of identity (the concept must be used in the same meaning in the course of reasoning), the law of contradiction (“do not contradict yourself”) and the law of the excluded middle (“A or not-A is true, the third is not given”) . Aristotle developed the doctrine of syllogisms, which deals with all kinds of inferences in the process of reasoning.

Of particular note is the development of the problem of dialogue by Aristotle, which deepened the ideas of Socrates.

ethical views . According to Aristotle, the state requires certain virtues from a citizen, without which a person cannot exercise his civil rights and be useful to society: that which serves the interests of society, which strengthens the social order, is virtuous. He divided the virtues into intellectual and volitional - the virtues of character. Speaking of character, we will not call anyone wise or prudent, but meek or moderate. Intellectual virtues are of decisive importance: wisdom, rational activity, prudence, in them a person manifests himself as a being endowed with reason. Such virtues are acquired by mastering the knowledge and experience of previous generations and are manifested in rational activity. The happiness of a person, according to Aristotle, is the energy of a completed life in accordance with completed valor. You can not consider a happy person with a "slave way of thinking." Ethical properties are not given to people by nature, although they cannot arise independently of it. Nature makes it possible to become virtuous, but this possibility is formed and realized only in activity: by doing what is just, a person becomes just; acting moderately, he becomes moderate; acting courageously - courageous. The essence of virtue is the combination of generosity and moderation. The general principle of the thinker's ethical teaching is the desire to find a middle line of behavior. An exceptional place in this doctrine is occupied by the idea of ​​justice: one can be fair only in relation to another, and caring for another, in turn, is a manifestation of caring for society.

About society and the state . Having carried out a grandiose generalization of the social and political experience of the Hellenes, Aristotle developed an original socio-philosophical doctrine. In the study of socio-political life, he proceeded from the principle: "As elsewhere, the best method of theoretical construction would be to consider the primary formation of objects."

Such an "education" he considered the natural desire of people to live together and to political communication. According to Aristotle, man is a political being, that is, a social one, and he carries within himself an instinctive desire for "joint cohabitation" (Aristotle had not yet separated the idea of ​​society from the idea of ​​the state). Man is distinguished by the capacity for intellectual and moral life. Only man is capable of perceiving such concepts as good and evil, justice and injustice. He considered the formation of a family as the first result of social life - husband and wife, parents and children ... The need for mutual exchange led to communication between families and villages. This is how the state was born. Having identified society with the state, Aristotle was forced to look for elements of the state. He understood the dependence of the goals, interests and nature of people's activities on their property status and used this criterion in characterizing various strata of society. According to Aristotle, the poor and the rich “turn out to be elements in the state that are diametrically opposed to each other, so that, depending on the preponderance of one or another of the elements, the corresponding form of the state system is established.” He singled out three main strata of citizens: the very wealthy, the extremely poor, and the middle class, standing between the two. Aristotle was hostile to the first two social groups. He believed that the life of people with excessive wealth is based on an unnatural kind of gaining property. In this, according to Aristotle, is not the desire for a "good life", but only the desire for life in general. Since the thirst for life is irrepressible, the desire for the means of quenching this thirst is also irrepressible. Putting everything at the service of excessive personal gain, "people of the first category" trample on social traditions and laws. Striving for power, they themselves cannot obey, thereby violating the tranquility of public life. Almost all of them are arrogant and arrogant, prone to luxury and boasting. The state is created not in order to live in general, but mainly in order to live happily. According to Aristotle, the state arises only when communication is created for the sake of a good life between families and clans, for the sake of a perfect and sufficient life for itself. The perfection of man presupposes the perfect citizen, and the perfection of the citizen, in turn, the perfection of the state. At the same time, the nature of the state stands "ahead" of the family and the individual. This deep idea is characterized as follows: the perfection of a citizen is determined by the quality of the society to which he belongs: whoever wants to create perfect people must create perfect citizens, and who wants to create perfect citizens must create a perfect state. Being a supporter of the slave system, Aristotle closely links slavery with the issue of property: in the very essence of things, an order is rooted, by virtue of which, from the moment of birth, some creatures are destined for submission, while others for domination. This is a general law of nature - animated beings are also subject to it. According to Aristotle, who by nature does not belong to himself, but to another, and at the same time is still a man, is by nature a slave.

If economic individualism takes over and threatens the interests of the whole, the state must intervene in this area. Aristotle, analyzing the problems of the economy, showed the role of money in the process of exchange and in general in commercial activity, which is a brilliant contribution to political economy. He singled out such forms of government as monarchy, aristocracy and polity. Deviation from monarchy gives tyranny, deviation from aristocracy - oligarchy, from polity - democracy. At the heart of all social upheavals lies property inequality. According to Aristotle, oligarchy and democracy base their claim to power in the state on the fact that property wealth is the lot of the few, and all citizens enjoy freedom. The oligarchy defends the interests of the propertied classes: none of these forms is of general benefit. Aristotle emphasized that the relationship between the poor and the rich is not just a relationship of difference, but of opposites. The best state is such a society that is achieved through the mediation of the middle element (under the middle element Aristotle means the "middle" between slave owners and slaves), and those states have the best system where the middle element is represented in a larger number, where it has a greater value. compared to both extremes. Aristotle noted that when in a state many people are deprived of political rights, when there are many poor people in it, then in such a state there are inevitably hostile elements. In democracies, and in oligarchies, and in monarchies, and in every kind of other state system, the following should be a general rule: no citizen should be given the opportunity to increase his political power beyond the proper measure. Aristotle advised to watch the ruling persons, so that they do not turn public office into a source of personal enrichment.

ARISTOTLE ... a tidy man who sought to put things in order in human ideas ... When my mother went to rest after dinner, Sophia went to the Secret. She put a sugar cube in a pink envelope in advance, and wrote “Alberto Knox” on top. There is no new letter yet.