After class today, I began to think about forms, materials, and potencies in regards to social responsibility. While I realize we cannot instill potencies in others (e.g., we cannot make it possible for a man to birth a child), we can focus our attention to the what potencies do exist in others. Aristotle's continual reference to the educated and uneducated (Sachs p.36 187a, p.37 line 188b, p.40 190a, p.41 190a20, etc.) makes it clear that all human beings (as long as they are healthy, still have mental capabilities, etc.) can be an educated human being because what one needs to educated is 1) to be a human being (which is the underlying thing/material/potency) and 2) to be uneducated, so a change occurs (which is a contrary/form/activity). The consequences of realizing this are that no one can make an argument that teens living in poverty are incapable of graduating high school, that homeless people are inherently incompetent, that the elderly are impotent in the face of learning new things, and so forth. They all have the material to be worked on. If we take this all to be true, how do we actualize this potency?
-Mackenzie
I enjoy the way you laid out the various 'steps' in the process of change concerning, in this case, the "material" that is a human. Though, I think the most pressing critique of your question is probably this: is it really the case that everyone has equal potency? Would someone who is not naturally as intelligent as another be better suited to manual labor or slavery? Or, even more pressing, what's to be said for one who is handicapped? The system that Aristotle has created thus far (big modifier) seems to leave room for actions all over the ethical spectrum.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI had a comment but I am going to wait to see what unfolds before I comment. This blog should encourage student discussion, not be a forum for me to insist on things...
ReplyDeleteAs Trey says, I think it is natural to consider whether or not potency is equal in each human being. However, assuming that any given person has a properly functioning cognitive faculty, ontologically speaking they should have the same potency as any to be educated. Otherwise, ontologically speaking, there would be many human beings (each with different capacities to be educated). But Mackenzie's point does raise an interesting question. To what extent is potency altered by environment? Ethically, to what extent do we have the responsibility to attempt to even the field?
ReplyDeleteI think one way that we could (and are going to) see potencies challenged are by developments in contemporary science. It seems more and more nowadays that what constitutes "a properly functioning cognitive faculty" (thank you Matt) is going to come under increasing scrutiny when Neuroscience begins to flesh out its work.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean this in a, "Science is going to debunk Aristotle" way. It could genuinely do quite the opposite. What I think is ultimately apparent however is that Science, Philosophy, and their elusive intersection will continue to color this debate.
First of all, I love how you connected Aristotle's ideas to real world issues. It's definitely an interesting question that you have raised. However, I would have to agree with Trey in regards to the idea of equal potency. I think before we can answer your question about actualization we must first decide if everyone in fact has equal potency.
ReplyDeleteI think it'd be important to remember that the "final" cause of human beings is fulfillment/happiness. What Mackenzie is saying seems to suggest a way to open people's minds through the way we look at other human beings that are often stereotyped as being "incompetent" (lacking potency to learn) and, consequently, overlooked by society. Because they are all people, they all have the potency to be fulfilled. By acknowledging that they must have some sort of potential to learn, (no matter how slight/great it is), they would receive more attention, thus giving them a greater potential to find their niche that will allow them to live a fulfilled life.
ReplyDeleteYes the question of equal potency is a fascinating one, but it doesn't seem to have a huge affect on what Mackenzie said. If manual labor is what allows a particular person to live a fulfilled life, (as opposed to being "educated"), like Trey's comment suggests, that doesn't change the "societal responsibility" to help that person find that fulfillment. Wouldn't this be supported by Nic. Ethics? The way I understood Aristotle's model of friendship from our discussion in class was, "the way in which one enacts their virtues." Would it then follow that helping those whose environment held back their potential would be, not only good, but necessary in Aristotle's eyes?
ReplyDeleteI like what you said about a person's environment holding back their potential. And even further than environment, there are circumstances (such as being handicapped) that can interfere with/stifle their potency. A handicapped person may not have the potency to walk, but he still has the potency for mobility (with a wheelchair). He also has the same potency to live a happy, fulfilled life as a non-handicapped person. The potencies are still there; the path by which he achieves them are different.
ReplyDeleteI think in the lines referenced in the original post, Aristotle is just using educated and uneducated as a repeated example to explain his ideas on the sources of things, mostly what the sources of things are not. How does what he wrote in those lines make it clear that ALL uneducated human beings can become educated (as long as they are healthy)?
ReplyDeleteNot that I don't think that myself though.
I think you could relate this question to the old debate between nature vs. nurture. I also would think that Aristotle would say that our human potency has always been in us since being born as a human (nature) and that we reach our potential through reacting and learning through the events in our lives (nurture).
ReplyDelete