Pan Weihong | A popular interpretation of Aristotle's concept of "material"

[Pan Weihong] Many people like philosophy very much, but people who engage in philosophy are becoming more and more hateful of philosophy, and others want to learn it, but they feel that they can't learn it, and of course they are angry. Therefore, philosophy must lay down its body, be close to the people, solve the practical problems of the masses, and have someone to talk to them and help them improve. Philosophy is nothing, it is life, especially Chinese philosophy.

[Yao Haitao] Gentleman knows, can not learn. ...... The study of a gentleman is also into the ear, the heart, the four bodies, and the shape is still. At the end, the bat moves, and one can be the law.

[Pan Weihong] For example, when Yao Brother quoted the Xunzi language, when it is spoken, it must be translated into modern Chinese, and it must also have its own interpretation, understanding, and thinking, so that others can see it clearly.

To make an advertisement, I am now engaged in the popularization of philosophy, and I hope that my academic colleagues will actively participate.

[Pan Weihong] Daily Philosophy (March 10, 2022): Aristotle on the Perceptual Entity (8). "Something exists or doesn't exist, but it doesn't need to be generated or destroyed,...... Not everything has a material, but only those that generate and change with each other. Those things that exist or do not exist, but have not changed, have no material. ...... There is a difficult question here, how does the material of each thing relate to its opposite? ...... Can it potentially be both? Is the water potentially wine and vinegar? ...... There is also the conundrum of why wine is not the ingredient for vinegar, nor is it potential vinegar (although vinegar is generated from wine), and a living person is not potentially a dead body. Due to the corruption of the living, the material of the living becomes the potential and material of the dead body, and the water becomes the material of vinegar. ...... Anything that transforms into each other in this way should first return to the material. This chapter is difficult to understand (otherwise, the last time I should have analyzed this chapter first), so, at the suggestion of Teacher Nie, I went to see Ross's English translation of Metaphysics. In comparison, I feel that Mr. Miao Litian's translation is quite accurate, but some broken sentences are different, and the treatment of paragraphs is also different. Personally, I think that translators can actually believe, even if there are some errors and omissions, but the whole book or the entire chapter is read in its entirety, the basic idea is completely graspable, therefore, to read with the heart, to understand with the heart, for philosophical research, is the most critical, although the foreign language is very important, but not the focus, can only be used as a better auxiliary tool. Aristotle in this chapter is actually trying to express the idea that sensible entities exist to be generated and destroyed, but we cannot assume that entities are generated and destroyed. One thing disappears and another thing forms, for example, wine becomes vinegar because the material changes, a tree is made into a table, and the material changes. Before and after two things, their material may be the same, may be different. Because of the change of material, one thing becomes something else, and it is sometimes said that one thing comes from another, for example, vinegar comes from wine, and the table comes from trees. But here it is not the change of the material that leads to the change of things (i.e., the form) (thus, it seems that things are determined by their materials, and the material seems to be its form), but the material is given a new form, which is called a new thing, and the form, that is, the entity, does not change, and when the material undergoes change and is given a new form, the thing either disappears or arises. This is what Aristotle said, that sensible entities exist to generate and destroy, but what changes is actually the material, not the entity. What determines what a thing is is its form or substance.

Aristotle pondered two questions here:

First, if something has opposites because of its material, such as body or health, or disease, can the body be healthy and sick at the same time? Since a thing can have only one entity, because of these two possibilities, it seems that a thing has two entities. Aristotle's explanation was that it was a change in material that caused the two entities to transform into each other. That is, health turns to disease. So, a healthy body is not a potentially sick body, it is healthy, but it is a potentially sick body. Here, potential and potential, obviously two concepts, are two uses of the concept of "potential", that is, one is the possibility (in reality it is still that thing), one is the passive potential (in reality it may be turned into another thing), and for example, a living person is certainly not a dead person, so the living person is a living person, it cannot be said that the living person is a potential dead person, but the living person is a potential dead person, that is, the potential and material of the dead body, because the living person's body is corrupt, and eventually it will become a dead person.

Second, sometimes the texture of two things seems to be the same, but it is obviously not called the same substance, such as wine and vinegar, both are water, but the substance of wine is called the liquid of wine, and the material of vinegar is called vinegar liquid, why is there such a difference? Or why is it called a different substance? If the tree becomes a bed, and the two have the same material, and the reason why they are called different things is because they have different forms, and in this case, the materials of the two are actually regarded as different substances, then are these two different things determined by these two different substances? Aristotle could not answer this question. For it seemed to him that although one thing came from another, that is, vinegar came from wine, and both seemed to be water, the two were different things, and the reason could be that the two had different substances. If so, how do you show that things are determined by form? That is, we must find a way to show that the two have the same material, and in the end it is only the difference in form that is different. The question that Aristotle could not answer was due to the limitations of science, and this question is well answered today. That is, the transformation of wine and vinegar is actually a transformation of form. The two are essentially the same thing (of course not water), but the molecular structure of the liquid is different, the transformation of the two, in fact, is the transformation of the molecular structure, ethanol becomes acetic acid, so the same thing, because of its different forms (that is, molecular structure), so it becomes a different thing, just like a tree becomes a bed. Finally, I would like to add that the path of thought is difficult, but it is also happy.

[Pan Weihong] Similar to this.

[Yao Haitao] The distinction between potential and potential is necessary. The interpretation of Xunzi's theory of human nature is also enlightening. Xunzi's human evil is the potential evil, not the potential evil.

It is estimated that Teacher Lin Guiwan could not agree, and had to criticize and correct it again.

[Pan Weihong] Makes sense.

The evil of potential is the possibility of being altered by environmental influences. The underlying evil is the evil itself. According to the above distinction.

The above distinction is not necessarily correct after reading it, which I read and wrote. For reference only.

Brother Yao's words in combination with Chinese philosophy are very enlightening. That is the meaning of dialogue.

[Lin Gui stick] This is in the middle, philosophy is empty, concept games, really useful, history can not be left.

Potential murderer = murderer, I can kill at any time. Is the underlying good and evil sexual good and evil? The philosopher steals the concept and expresses his intentions, like a ball of yarn, pulled long.

There is no good or evil in the ball of yarn, it is evil to hang on the neck to kill people, it is good to throw it out to save people or sew clothes, and it is good to distinguish between good and evil in the world, and false touch is also.

[Yao Haitao] Teacher Pan's distinguished interpretation of Aristotle's potential and potential is still meaningful for understanding Xunzi's theory of human nature. Potential, potential, the key is not in the potential, the key is in the ability.