Metaphysics book 4 c1

This states the purpose of what's to be discussed. The goal is to examine being without focusing on particulars. And to do this one much examine the first cause. Otherwise what ever knowledge we dredge up would be of the particular.

Metaphysics book3 c2

There is a lengthy discussion on whether one needs particular knowledge of an art to discuss the first cause with-in the art's framework.

The argument seems to be against this. First knowledge of first causes is discredited in mathematics. Mathematics deal with 'things' that are immaterial and motionless. The first cause which gives the source of motion cannot be understood by a mathematical art.

Then there is a discussion about arts that study nature. Since nature is material, it does not have the causes in it. Demonstrative knowledge of nature would just demonstrate knowledge of particulars rather than the whole deal.

Or I'm going to skip ahead. It seems like these questions will be addressed later. And I'm not making heads or tails of this.

Metaphysics book3 c1

Chapter 1 serves to bring up questions that need to be answered and what presumably the book will address later on.

There are many to list, but here are some highlights:

1. Whether philosophy can be its own art or if it requires the knowledge of all the arts.
2. Is it necessary to study the whole being or also consider it's attributes
3. Whether an immaterial cause is possible
4. If we call something a being, is it the same as just calling it 1 thing

Metaphysics book2

Book two explains that what happens afterwards is not describing nature. What will be discussed is immaterial and since it cannot be sensed, it can only be made clear by close reasoning. Aristotle also admits it will get knick-picky, but also states there is no alternative to such a topic.

Metaphysics book1 c4-10

Aristotle begins a family tree of arts related to reason.

Natural Science
Religion
Mathematics
~~Plato's Forms~~
Philosophy

The end, philosophy, is the best way to assess being while at the same time being the most abstract art of reason.

Natural Science credits material as the source for something to exist. While the material may exist, it was not what caused something to exist. Natural Science is largely pointing to things that can be sensed, seeing they exist, and jumping to the conclusion that what is sensed caused it's existence. (Natural Science also resembles a form of art based on necessity.)

Religion happens when one considers material to be insufficient to cause being. In it, the cause of being is abstract but largely focuses on an attribute that is not sense. For instance, consider a hot fire. A Natural Scientist would say fire is caused by the material that is on fire. Religious reasoning would say the Hotness of the fire is the cause of the fire. But the term religion becomes apparent when using good/bad to denote causality.

Yet, listing an abstract attribute of nature does not cause being any more than a material attribute. But Religious reasoning is a step closer to Philosophy than Natural Science.

The next step up is Mathematics. Math still dabbles in attributes but in abstraction. Understanding this requires a look at numbers. Numbers are somewhat universal attributes that can be applied to anything. A fire can not be considered cold but both a fire and an ice cube can be considered 1 thing. Math may be the most abstract form of reasoning mentioned yet, but it seems logical that a number does not cause existence and is still yet an attribute of something that has already been caused.

Plantonic Forms get dangerously close to philosophy. The idea, more or less, is that we address reality through ideals. So, thus far, the first form of reason that addresses thought as a cause. Platonic Forms also mirror Psychology a great deal. But the study of thought is not Philosophy. Philosophy is the study of first causes.

There are problems just considering Platonic Forms as the first cause of existence. Having the ability to link ideal things with things from sense perception will not cause itself. There has to be a source of motion.

This whole discussion seems to be in order to get all of this out of the system. So far, the discussion has been describing what Philosophy is not.

Metaphysics Book1 c3

So now that we're freaking out. Captain Aristotle has told us to be philosophers we need to ask 'are things what they appear to be'. We wanna be philosophers. So we ask the question. Now what's next, captain?

Remember, philosophy is also concerned with what causes things.

Yeah, we remember that. But err.....

Okay lets take flash back.

Sounds fun.

The first step a philosopher takes is to look around him. Material must be cause of everything. Like with out water, we'd die. So logically water must cause our existence. Something like that.

Well sure. I'm doing that now. What am I doing wrong?

Do you like wood or bronze?

Yeah sure, why do you ask?

Well do those things make stuff from themselves?

No. Probably not. What's left to do then Captain?

Well I bet the next step is to assume things are put into motion by some sort of intelligence.

Great. I'm thinking that right now. Tell me when we're done with the flashback.

Metaphysics Book1 c2

Chapter 2 gives us as much assurance that Ishmael should have of Captain Ahab. Captain Aristotle first told us a philosopher knows all things (in a way that's possible). Yet, he says that philosophy starts from wondering whether things are what they seem....

So now we philosophers has opened a can of worms. We've asked the big one. And now Captain Aristotle what should we do?

Bravely run away from ignorance of the big one. See more in chapter 3....

Metaphysics Book1 c1

This chapter gives a family tree. At the end of the family tree is Philosophy.

perception + memory = experience
experience + reason = Arts
contemplative arts + leisure = Wisdom

Wisdom is analogous to philosophy. It is the art of knowing first causes. To understand this better, lets look at the comparison between Art and Experience.

Experience is working at a problem without knowing how to solve it. Somewhat similar but boldly different, art is a reasoned account in solving a problem that has already been solved. The main difference is someone with knowledge knows the cause of the problem.

Philosophy extracts from Art it's essential juices: the first cause and origins. But of what? The answer starts in chapter 2.