Spradleys Model based on a chosen scientist or philosopher
Name
Course
University
Tutor
Date
Spradley’s Model based on a chosen scientist/philosopherIntroduction
The models Greek rationale, medieval hierarchical, enlightenment mechanical and modern relational models each contain philosophical ideologies that were proposed by philosophical scientists who had much influence in a particular historical era. Scientific models provide analogies for the interpretation of the social and cultural aspects although there should be a caution to ensure that these analogies are not overextended or made absolute (Spradley p. 256). For instance, Spradley (p. 256) illustrates the overextension of analogies by stating that the rationale model can lead to rationalism, hierarchical concepts can lead to, and have been used in the defense of authoritarianism; while the mechanical model may be extrapolated to support reductionism and determinism, as the relational model has been used to imply that cultural relativism rejects all the absolutes. Nevertheless, if the absolutism tendencies can be avoided, each of the historical models can be used to provide useful insights which can aid in the interpretation of the diverse social and cultural experiences (Spradley, p. 256).
The focus of this research is on the Medieval Hierarchical model and the purpose of the research is to articulate the works of the scientist Aristotle in Spradley’s medieval hierarchical interpretation. The research aims to discover and relate parts of Aristotle’s work that fit and those that do not fit in Spradley’s medieval hierarchical model. The following key issues are demonstrated in the paper; – First, the subject matter of Aristotle’s work and how it belongs to the Spradley’s medieval hierarchical model. Second, the paper demonstrates Aristotle’s method of finding answers and how it belongs to Spradley’s medieval hierarchical model. Third, the paper illustrates the kind of worldview that Aristotle has in regard to the scientist’s topics and methods as put in the foreground. Finally, the paper discusses the philosophical and cultural implications of the works Aristotle in the medieval hierarchical model.
Overview of Spradley’s Medieval Hierarchical Model
Just like the other three models, the medieval hierarchical model consists of a wide variety of cultural experiences such as the definition of human nature and its associated concept of God, in relation to the scientific ideas that prevailed (Spradley, p. 256). The human uniqueness, concepts of God and structure of nature, are unique to each period. For instance in the Medieval hierarchical historical model, the science-related view of human nature was that of rational and animal as opposed to the Greek rational model in which scientifically, the human nature was perceived to be immortal and soulful. The scientific view of concepts of God in the medieval hierarchical model is that God is supreme and good while the science-related view of the physical nature is that the universe is a chain of beings (Spradley, p.256). Specifically, the medieval hierarchical model can be described as one that was portrayed by the scientific ideas of Aristotle. Additionally, the philosophical syntheses fulfilled the purposes of Thomas Aquinas and the period is marked from an Arabic transmission to the renaissance and reformation period. The politics and economic ideologies of the period were generally of monarchism and feudalism. Finally, art prevailed in gothic forms while religion prevailed in theism in the medieval hierarchical period.
To clearly illustrate how the scientific ideas of the medieval hierarchical period prevailed, the Aristotle forms of science and how it relates to human, God and the physical natures is discussed. Spradley are medieval hierarchical model describes the cultural and social experiences that were characterized by the Aristotelian philosophy which occurred between the 12th and 17th centuries of the Western civilization. According to Spradley (p. 254) the Aristotelian science was introduced into Europe from Arabic sources and then later became synthesized with Christian theology that was perpetuated by Thomas Aquinas. This synthesis then became the basis for the medieval philosophical ideologies. Aristotle’s revealed his philosophical background by first rejecting the earlier Greek rationalism ideologies perpetuated by Plato. Aristotle instead opted for a more empirical approach in dealing with concepts and ideologies. For instance, instead of Plato’s concept of eternal ideas, Aristotle ideologies encompassed that forms occur within nature and are actualized by a four cause combination. The Aristotelian science at this period emphasized on the ultimate purposes or final causes of matter.
In description of the physical nature, Aristotle geocentric cosmology divided the universe into a hierarchy of celestial spheres made up of fire, water, air and the earth at the center, and the spheres experience a sublunar terrestrial region revolution. In relating science to the concept of God, the medieval science combined Aristotle’s multi-layered structure of the universe with the neo-Platonic chain-of-being concept which includes nine orders of angelic beings governing the complex planetary motions. Nevertheless, God is regarded as the source of motion who beyond the celestial sphere is an unmoved mover. In relating science to the biological nature, the ideas of Galen’s-a 200 AD scientist-were followed. Galen believed in the after thought and the art shown by nature regard to animals (Spradley, p. 254). Galen’s science views were also practiced in medicine in which the tradition stated that a proper hierarchy of the brain, liver, and heart can be maintained through the production of rational, vegetable and animal spirits (Spradley, p. 254).
Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC)
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and a student of Plato, the philosopher whose ideologies relate to the Greek rationale historical model. Aristotle is considered as one of the most important founding personalities of the Western philosophy.
The subject matter of Aristotle’s work and Spradley’s medieval hierarchical model
Aristotle considered Nature as the subject matter of physics (Lang, p. 134). Aristotle’s subject matter is described in various ways-such as the first philosophy, wisdom, theology or the study of qua being (Lang, p. 134). Aristotle’s metaphysics shows that all men suppose wisdom to deal with the cause and principle of things. “…Of the parts of animals some are simple: to wit, all such as divide into parts uniform with themselves, as flesh into flesh,” (Aristotle, trans. D’arcy). Aristotle’s work further shows that the causes and principles of are the subject matter of Aristotle’s first philosophy. This subject matter is well illustrated in Spradley’s medieval hierarchical historical model. Spradley (p. 254) shows that Aristotle was in favor of empiricism, and that the scientist emphasized on the final cause or ultimate purpose. As a result, Aristotle forms of scientific ideas prevailed in the medieval era and were overemphasized as opposed to those of Plato which focused on rationalism as opposed to empiricism (Lang, p. 134; Spradleys, p. 254). Aristotle’s subject matter shows that there are things that are better known to the individuals, while there are things that are better known in them. By the subject matter of the first philosophy, Aristotle implies that in research, human beings should first begin by studying things that are too general or those that which they are aware of and in the event develop an understanding that will help them understand things of a complex nature (Lang, p. 135). This is demonstrated in the script by the words “…we must consider why Nature is to be ranked among causes that are final, that is to say purposeful…This principle comes out most clearly when we consider the other animals…And then descending step by step, we find that plants too produce organs subservient to their perfect development-leaves for instance, to shelter the fruit (Aristotle, trans. Wicksteed). Therefore, Aristotle’s subject matter of cause and principality demonstrate that the knowledge of nature occurs in a step-wise manner from familiarity to complex and this subject matter therefore fits in historical model of hierarchy.
Aristotle’s work consists of the study of the subject matter and thus his studies mainly involved three parts; first the study itself in which empiricism should be used to describe the causes. The second part is the subject matter (or being) under study, and this is the nature of things, while the third aspect is qua being which represents the manner in which the subject manner is being studied, in which a hierarchical pattern was used to seek answers (Lang, p. 134). Aristotle emphasized on studies of beings, which in the context, are things which can said to be, rather than intangible ideas like the ones that prevailed in rationalism. Aristotle therefore performed the studies using the first philosophy in which the causes and principles of the substances are studied.
Aristotle’s Method of Finding Answers and Spradley’s Medieval Hierarchical Model
Aristotle’s logic revolves on the notion of deduction (Edel p. 71). A deduction is a logos in which certain things have been supposed, and these things are different from the supposed results because of their being so “…As there are in the mind thoughts which do not involve truth or falsity, and also those which must be either true or false, so it is in speech.
For truth and falsity imply combination and separation,” (Aristotle, trans. Edghill). Aristotle collected views of all other Greek scientists on the topic under study and used his logic to find the best view of the topic (Edel, p. 71). All Aristotle’s philosophical methods began with the opinions of his predecessors, of which Aristotle articulated their problems and proposed solutions. Aristotle’s logic was to provide answers for every problem through an inquiry into the problem. “…Every sentence has meaning, not as being the natural means by which a physical faculty is realized, but, as we have said, by convention. Yet every sentence is not a proposition; only such are propositions as have in them either truth or falsity. Thus a prayer is a sentence, but is neither true nor false. Let us therefore dismiss all other types of sentence but the proposition, for this last concerns our present inquiry, whereas the investigation of the others belongs rather to the study of rhetoric or of poetry. In analyzing his predecessors’ opinions,” (Aristotle, trans. Edghill). Aristotle got all the views and perspectives together and sorted out the opinions in either contradictory or non-contradictory forms through the use of logic. In cases where there was no clear consensus of the problem, as it were for many problems at the time, Aristotle would apply the four cause doctrine besides the logical doctrine. The four cause doctrine entails material, formal, efficient, and final to solve the problem or otherwise put the problem into a clearer perspective so that future scientists are able to solve (Edel, p. 71).
Aristotle’s methods of scientific inquiry first begin by criticizing Plato’s rational numerical model that prevailed in the Greek rational historical model. Aristotle insisted that the mathematical application to the realm of necessity as recognized by Plato is imperfect and that the world cannot perfectly correspond to the rational numerical model. The aspect of shifting from numerical rationale to empiricism and logic is an aspect of the medieval hierarchical period as described by Spradley (p. 253). The method of finding answers provides a cut from the Greek rational model to the medieval hierarchical model.
Aristotle’s logic emphasized on a conclusion for every proposition made. This can be illustrated as if Y and Z are true then the result X is also true. An emphasis on an end and a supreme good occurred also on Aristotle’s description of politics “…The end of politics is the best of ends; and the main concern of politics is to engender a certain character in the citizens and to make them good and disposed to perform noble actions (Aristotle, trans Terry).
Other than Aristotle’s criticism of Plato in which Aristotle clearly states that it is physic and not mathematics which gives answers in the study of the cosmos, other criticisms also follow in bid to seek answers or clarify situations. Aristotle clearly states that the physical body and mathematical body must be clearly distinguished. Aristotle’s deduction system follows that of quality to quantity or empiricism. Mathematicians’ ideologies like the Pythagoras which dwelt during the Greek rationale did not have primacy over physicists in the early medieval hierarchical period. In his contradictory of the primacy of mathematics over physics, Aristotle faced the challenge of determining the ontological status of mathematics and he later denied the platonic argument that there are separable and eternal objects of knowledge which correspond to science (Spradley, p. 254). Therefore, the mathematic ontology problem was initiated, and it was state that there was no longer independent elements, and neither are they identical with sensible objects. Another area of the argument concerns the platonic metaphysics in which the form of numbers was compared against the nature of the Good. Plato’s mathematical principles could neither provide the cause nor the good of the physical world. On the other hand, Aristotle’s solution of the Unmoved Mover provides both the cause and the good of the physical world. The cause of motion is because there is the Unmoved Mover who causes the celestial spheres to revolve around the sublunar terrestrial region, while the Supreme Good is indicated by each and every component placed to play a vital part in the universe.
Aristotle’s View of the World
Aristotle’s view of the cosmos or universe has a broad scope, just as the universe itself is broad (Brentano, George & Chisholm, p. 124). Aristotle supported the geocentric theory in which he stated that the earth is centered (Brentano, George & Chisholm, p. 124; Spradley, P. 254). The geocentric theory explains that competent mathematicians and astronauts could accurately predict the solar and lunar movements of the zodiac by applying the Eudoxus geometry (Brentano, George & Chisholm, p. 124). Eudoxus headed the Plato’s school of mathematicians in which Aristotle was also a student. Aristotle’s view of the world belongs to the medieval hierarchical period as described by Spradley. Spradley (p. 256) asserts that the physical nature of the medieval hierarchical model dwelt on the chain of being. Aristotle geocentric cosmology fits in this model as the philosopher shows that there was a hierarchy of celestial spheres which revolve around the sublunar terrestrial region. “…The science which has to do with nature clearly concerns itself for the most part with bodies and magnitudes and their properties and movements, but also with the principles of this sort of substance, as many as they may be. For of things constituted by nature some are bodies and magnitudes, some possess body and magnitude, and some are principles of things which possess these,” (Aristotle, trans. Stock). The chain if being is demonstrated by the earth’s sphere being at the center and the spheres of fire, water, and air attached to it. “… Bodies are either simple or compounded of such; and by simple bodies I mean those which possess a principle of movement in their own nature, such as fire and earth with their kinds, and whatever is akin to them,” (Aristotle, trans. Stock). God the mover or the cause of the motion in the sublunar terrestrial region is himself unmoved.
Aristotle’s view of the world matches the topic and subjects that are discussed in the foreground. Spradley (p. 256) asserts that the physical universe in the medieval hierarchical model was believed to be a physical chain of being. This chain is the one demonstrated by Aristotle’s’ geocentric earth of which are attached the celestial spheres of fire, air, and water, and these together revolve around the sublunar terrestrial region.
Philosophical Implications of Aristotle’s works in the Medieval Hierarchical Model
Thomas Aquinas played a bigger role in the philosophical synthesis of the medieval hierarchical period in which the Arabic transmission was plastered with Aristotle’s scientific views on culture and social experiences. The philosophical implication of the medieval hierarchical model as described by Spradley (p. 254) involves the Thomistic synthesis of both the Aristotelian and Christian schools of thought which formed the worldview of the late medieval period. Thomas, Aquinas, a theism, emphasized that God is independent of his creation, which, unlike in Plato’s view, is temporal rather than eternal. Aristotle’s work demonstrates God’s independence of his creation by describing Him as the Unmoved Mover, and this can be exemplified through the movement of the celestial spheres. However, during the philosophical synthesis, Thomas Aquinas, the theist transformed Aristotle’s definition of God as the Unmoved Mover into the Supreme Good of the universe. The synthesis also occurred through transforming the causes of Aristotle which became the purposes of God through a unified hierarchical order pattern in which everything plays its role or part and strives to achieve its purpose. Furthermore, the philosophical interpretation during the synthesis referred to human beings as rationale animals who played the role of revealing both celestial and terrestrial features although the males were superior to the females. According to Aquinas, this hierarchical pattern could be applied in several ways although it is believed that Aquinas would sometimes bend nature in order to fir his model. For example, Aquinas words “…whatever is in accord with nature is best, for in all things does what is best. Now, every natural governance is governance by one…Among the powers of the soul one power presides one power presides as chief, namely the reason. Among bees there is one king bee and in the whole universe there is one God, Maker and Ruler of all things,” are considered ironic (Thomas Aquinas, trans.Phelan, p. 228). Nevertheless, through people like Thomas Aquinas, the birth and stability of the Western Civilization took place. Aquinas mediated the Greek philosophy and the Roman law despite the fact that their efforts were conditioned culturally, and superseded eventually.
Cultural Implications of Aristotle’s works in the Medieval Hierarchical Model
Culturally, the hierarchical model of the cosmology of Aristotle appeared in several aspects of the medieval culture. Aristotle’s hierarchical model was extended to politics, and the culture of monarchism widely prevailed in the medieval. Aristotle’s words “…Monarchs, may practice compulsion…all should joyfully obey such a ruler, according to what seems to be the order of nature” demonstrate that his hierarchical pattern could apply to the political system of the moment (Spradley, p. 254). To emphasize on feudalism, Aristotle defined the constitution as “…a certain ordering of the inhabitants of the city state,” (Robinson, p. 32). The authoritarian structure of the medieval society was formed through the hierarchies of both the state and the church. The medieval people accepted monarchies in which the rule was confined in one family line. Aristotle described the Athenian constitution in part as follows “…After this event there was contention for a long time between the upper classes and the populace. Not only was the constitution at this time oligarchical in every respect, but the poorer classes, men, women, and children, were the serfs of the rich. They were known as Pelatae and also as Hectemori, because they cultivated the lands of the rich at the rent thus indicated…” (Aristotle,trans. Kenyon) The medieval people also agreed with the divine rights of kings in which it was believed that kings were chosen by God and therefore directly responsible to Him. Additionally, the medieval people believed in the authority of the church as the God-given order. Other than monarchism, the feudal system was used in the governance of the state. In the feudal system, everyone had a part to play, just as in Aristotle’s description of the subject matter and the universe cosmology where every component played its part. The Thomistic synthesis endured in the cultural heritage and was evident Dante’s Divine Comedy, which encompassed all the areas of the medieval knowledge in the integrated Christian vision. The faith’s scholastic synthesis as well as the reason was vividly expressed in the Gothic cathedral which was characterized by a vaulted interior and vertical spire which symbolized the hierarchical mysteries of creation. Gothic art, which prevailed before the early renaissance period, strived to bridge the gap between God and man, the supernatural and the natural, the infinite and the finite (Spradley, p. 254). There were also nominal philosophers in the 14th century such as Oresme and Ockham who initiated criticism against the scholasticism, although the medieval authority was not effectively challenged by anyone until the Protestant Reformation. According to the reformers, the church’s authority was unnecessary and the reformers argued that anyone could know the will of God directly from the bible. Therefore, if the individual interpretation of the bible could replace Thomas Aquinas, then it was possible that the individual interpretation of nature could replace Aristotle. In the event of these arguments, there was a rebirth or revival of the classics of Greek during the Renaissance period and this reinforced the attitudes and provided alternatives further from the much embraced Aristotelian scholasticism. The revival contained a renewed emphasis on the Platonic Pythagorean doctrine of mathematical harmony, and this influenced the Copernican revolution as well as culminated the Newtonian synthesis (Spradley, p. 254).
Conclusion
Spradley describes four historical models: the Greek rational, the medieval hierarchical, the enlightenment mechanical, and the modern relational models. Historical models provide significant insights that aid in the interpretation of expanse variety of cultural experiences. Through the historical models, it is found out that each historical period had its own description of the concepts of God, human nature and the physical nature. The medieval hierarchical historical model of which this article has focused upon defines the various cultural experiences of the Middle Ages of the Western Civilization. The scientific views of these ages were of the forms of Aristotle, the Greek philosopher. The philosophical synthesis of took place from Arabic transmission to Christianity and this is mainly attributed to Thomas Aquinas, the friar, who integrated the Greek philosophy and the Roman law to influence the lifestyle of the medieval ages. The form of governance that prevailed in the medieval hierarchical is monarchism and feudalism of which Aristotle had much demonstrated in his work. The aspect of animism prevailed in the religious views in which human beings were described as animals in nature and rationale in character, while gothic art prevailed as an art. The purpose of the paper was to demonstrate whether some of the works of Aristotle the scientist belong to the medieval hierarchical historical model as described by Spradley. The findings reveal that indeed, most of Aristotle works belong to the model-from Aristotle’s subject matter, to methods of collecting data, and Aristotle’s world view. Therefore, it can be said that Aristotle’s work greatly interacts with the culture of the medieval hierarchical context. An evaluation of the historical development of the scientific concepts has aided in understanding the trends and issues of the western culture in the medieval ages. The ideas of science in the Middle Age period influenced the ideals of society at the time and provided a model-the medieval hierarchical-for interpretation and acceptance of the cultural trends during the time. It is now understood why concepts of divine rights of kings, monarchism and gothic art prevailed during the medieval times. Scientific revolutions, together with the concepts that they produce are thus inseparable from the philosophical revisions and changes of culture.
Works Cited
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated and edited by Terry Irwin. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1999.
Aristotle. On interpretation. Translated by Edghill, E.M
Aristotle. On the heavens. Translated by Stocks, J.L.
Aristotle. The Athenian constitution. Translated by Frederic G. Kenyon
Aristotle. The history of animals. Translated by D’Arcy, Wentworth T.
Aristotle. The physics, II, 8, translated by P. Wicksteed and F. Cornford in the Loeb classical diary. Cambridge: Harvard U.P, 1934.
Brentano, Franz, George Rolf and Chisholm, Roderick. Aristotle and his worldview, 1978. CA: University of California Press.
Edel, Abraham. Aristotle and his philosophy. 1996. UK: Transaction Publishers
Lang, Helen. Aristotle’s metaphysics and its medieval varieties, 1992, UK: SUNY Press.
Robinson, Richard with a supplementary essay by David Keyt. Politics III-IV, 1995, accessed from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/
Spradley, Joseph. Historical parallels in science and culture. American Journal of Physics, 1989, 57(3)
Thomas Aquinas, On kingship, translated by G. Phelan and I Eschmann in W. Ebenstein, Great political thinkers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969, p. 228
HYPERLINK “http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/
