Skip to main content

Werner Jaeger on Aristotle’s Metaphysical Thought

(This is the third post in a series of studies on Werner Jaeger's work on Aristotle's philosophical development. Follow these links to find the other parts: Post 1Post 2and Post 4 It would be best to read parts 1 and 2 prior to reading this post.)

            Werner Jaeger does not begin attempting to explain what he sees as Aristotle’s metaphysical thought until the last chapter of this important book. For Jaeger, “The Metaphysics is his [Aristotle’s] grand attempt to make this Something that transcends the limits of human experience accessible to the critical understanding.”[1] A couple of remarks concerning Jaeger’s portrayal of Aristotle’s metaphysical thought are in order.

First of all, for Jaeger, the legend by which the Metaphysics got its name due to it coming after the Physics in Andronicus’s library is almost certainly false. Rather, the Metaphysics got its name, for Jaeger, due to the very fact that the philosophical considerations found in the treatises that make up the Metaphysics are based upon the prior considerations of the Physics, but go beyond them.[2] Indeed, “Metaphysics is based on physics according to Aristotle in the first place because it is nothing but the conceptually necessary completion of the experimentally revealed system of moving nature.”[3]

Secondly, for Jaeger, the primary concern of the Metaphysics is to discover whether or not a supra-physical science is possible, “We usually overlook the fact that his commonest description of the new discipline is ‘the science that we are seeking’. In contrast to all other sciences it starts not from a given subject-matter but from the question whether its subject matter exists. Thus it has to begin by demonstrating its own possibility as a science, and this ‘introductory’ question really exhausts its whole nature.”[4]

Thirdly, for Jaeger, Aristotle’s philosophy is thoroughly Realistic. “In spite of his critical attitude, therefore, he escapes no more than Plato did from the notion that all real knowing presupposes an object lying outside consciousness…which it somehow touches, represents, or mirrors.”[5] For Jaeger, however, Aristotle is a “critical” realist, whose primary purpose is to discover whether or not the science of being is possible – “is such knowledge possible?”[6] As such, Jaeger sees Aristotle as the precursor of Immanuel Kant, if not in Kant’s Idealism, at least in his critical approach to philosophical knowledge of being.[7]

Fourth, Aristotle’s theory of being begins with the sensible world. Jaeger puts it in the following, somewhat nebulous manner, “The starting-point of his theory of being is the world of perceptible appearances, the individual thing of the naively realistic consciousness.”[8] This is a nebulous description because of the term used by Jaeger, ‘perceptible appearances’, which, for post-Kantian philosophers, is anything but a philosophically neutral term describing what Aristotle meant by sensible being. Indeed, Jaeger’s entire analysis of Aristotle seems to be inspired by, at the very least, Kantian terminology, if not by the philosophy which undergirds these terms. Jaeger goes on to explain that for Aristotle, “the complete determination of reality by the forms of the understanding and by the categorial multiplicity of their conceptual stratification is rooted not in transcendental laws of the knowing consciousness but in the structure of reality itself.”[9] In spite of the Kantian terminology, Jaeger seems to be properly explaining Aristotle’s understanding of the way things are. That is, Jaeger is saying that the forms and categories by which we understand reality, being as it presents itself to us, do not find their source and foundation in the human intellect, but in the very ‘structure of reality itself’. Reality, being, just is such that we glean these forms and categories from it.

Fifth, for Jaeger, Aristotle’s understanding of Being “drives us on towards an ultimate Form [this word is one of the typical English translations of the greek τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι.] that determines everything else and is not itself determined by anything.”[10] In other words, in light of the fact that “in every kind of motion Aristotle’s gaze is fastened on the end”,[11] Aristotle follows the existence of form in matter to a “form” that is not composed with matter, and which is that towards which all reality tends. “In Aristotle’s teleology substance and end are one, and the highest end is the most determinate reality there is. This substantial thought possesses at one and the same time the highest ideality as conceived by Plato and the rich determinateness of the individual, and hence life and everlasting blessedness. God is one with the world not by penetrating it, nor by maintaining the totality of its forms as an intelligible world within himself, but because the world ‘hangs’ (ἤρτηται) on him; he is its unity, although not in it.”[12] For Aristotle, then, the question of Being must necessarily drive the philosopher to God.

[1]Werner Jaeger, Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development, 2nd ed., trans. Richard Robinson (1948; repr., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), 378.

[2]Ibid., 378-379.

[3]Ibid., 380. Cf. Ibid., 381.

[4]Ibid., 379.


[6]Ibid., 379-380.


[8]Ibid., 381.

[9]Ibid., 382.


[11]Ibid., 384.

[12]Ibid., 385.

Popular posts from this blog

How Kant’s Synthesis of Empiricism and Rationalism resulted in Agnosticism

Immanuel Kant, presented with the extreme empiricism of Hume and the extreme rationalism of Liebniz, which he discovered through the writings Wolff, sought to take a middle road between these two extreme philosophical positions. I would submit that Kant’s synthesis of these two views leads to an agnosticism about what Kant called “the thing-in-itself”, and ultimately to the philosophical positions known as Atheism, determinism, and nihilism.

Kant’s Sources
First of all, Kant was influenced by Hume’s empiricism and Newton’s physics. He saw that the physical sciences, in contrast to rationalistic metaphysics, were actually making advances. They were making discoveries, and building a system of knowledge that accurately described the world of our sense perceptions. Rationalistic metaphysics, on the other hand, was floundering amidst the combating systems that the philosophers were erecting. It did not provide new knowledge, and only led to unacceptable conclusions, such as the Absolute Mon…

A Short outline of Charles Taylor's: The Malaise of Modernity

            This is simply an outline of Taylor’s basic argument in this short work written by Charles Taylor. The idea of this outline is to help the reader understand the book by providing a simple outline of the basic argument that Taylor is presenting here. The book, which is essentially the manuscript is the fruit of a series of presentations that Taylor made at the Massey Conferences which are hosted by Massey College and Radio-Canada, is divided into 10 chapters. In the first chapter Taylor essentially proposes three causes (recognizing that there may be more) of the Malaise of Modernity: (1) Individualism or the Loss of Sense, (2) The Primacy of Instrumental Reason or the Loss of Ends, and (3) The effect on society and politics in general of the loss of sense to an inauthentic individualism and the domination of instrumental reason, or, the loss of true freedom. Taylor considers the first Malaise in chapters 2 to 8, the second in c…


Leisure: The Basis of Culture & the Philosophical Act. Josef Pieper. Translated by Alexander Dru. 1963. Reprint, Ignatius Press, 2009. 143 pp. $12.99. ISBN 978-1-58617-256-5.
            This book is composed of two articles written by the German philosopher Josef Pieper. Though the two articles are intimately connected, they form two distinct works; as such, this book review will begin by giving a brief introduction to the works in question, followed by and exposition of each of the works individually. The two articles that are included in this book, Leisure: the Basis of Culture and The Philosophical Act, were both published in 1947, and, as such, were written during the cultural crisis in Germany that followed the Second World War. Not only did Pieper have the cultural crisis in mind when he wrote these articles, but he was also writing in light of the works of the most well-known German philosopher of the time – Martin Heidegger. As such, any reader who is familiar with Heidegg…