The form in Aristotle, from his Metaphysics, the being or non-being, the diversity and unity of being
To be or not to be" is what we hear as a proverb, but have we ever asked ourselves what "to be or not to be" refers to beyond how we interpret it today? In Aristotle's book of Metaphysics, where he reflects on the nature of things, the sciences, and the composition of matter, Aristotle, who did not get along well with the poets and expelled them from the city, got along better with the Sophists. He accepted that their constructions on the essence of things, the way they described the compassion and understanding of things in their narratives, became, for Aristotle, a form of science insofar as they inquired into the first causes. For this thinker, it is theology that should question the why of matter, and this is what the Sophists do. For this philosopher, physics inquired into the composition of things, their nature, and their causes, while the second science, physics, concerned itself with the movements of matter. For Aristotle, all things in the world were composed of matter and form. This idea is known as hylomorphism. Matter: that of which a thing is made, the material or substance. Form: that which makes a thing what it is; it gives it its essence and organization. For example, a statue is made of bronze (matter), but its form is the figure it represents. How was movement produced? Aristotle understood movement as the transition from potentiality to actuality. Potentiality: what a thing can become. Actuality: what that thing already is. For example, a seed has the potential to become a tree. When it grows and develops, it becomes actual, that is, it becomes a tree. According to Aristotle, all movement needs a cause or a mover to produce it. Furthermore, he explained that there is a First Unmoved Mover, a being that moves the entire universe without being moved by anything else. This First Mover is considered the ultimate cause of all motion.
In Aristotle's philosophy, potentiality does not have components as if it were an object. It is a philosophical concept that describes the capacity of something to become something else.
However, to better understand it, it can be explained through these elements: The subject: the thing that possesses the capacity to change. Example: a seed. The potential or capacity: what that thing can become. Example: the seed can become a tree. The actualization (act): the result when that capacity is realized. Example: the fully grown tree. Complete example: Subject: seed. Potentiality: capacity to become a tree. Act: tree. In short, potentiality is the real possibility of becoming something, while act is the realization of that possibility. These two concepts are fundamental in Aristotle's explanation of change and motion.
This structure in Aristotle, this unmoved mover from which everything originated, was the ether, and it was in the form of love and hate, and so it happened to us. But unlike how we think of the cosmos and things today as something external, for Aristotle they were related, like cold and heat, and every cause had an effect; thus, cold was the effect of heat. This way of thinking, from a humanist perspective, facilitated the establishment and maintenance of ancient and modern theocracies, which allowed order to be considered as something fixed. Thus, the priest was a priest and the layperson a layperson, and there was no way to change it, so as not to damage the order established by God, which was based on the concept of this unmoved mover. These are the writings of Baruch Spinoza. Having established the concept of nature, things were now in themselves under debate, understood not through abstract categories, but contained within themselves, from the humanities since Aristotle and through the various revolutions. Many of his concepts regarding theocratic government are no longer applicable, but his concept of democracy remains valid, as do his concepts of mobility, though not of the unmoved mover. Another current concept of Aristotle is that things are in motion, a concept valid for biology, systems of government, and forms. How Aristotle classified the epistemology of science remains relevant. The modern way of interpreting organisms, from transhumanism, opens the door to new philosophical speculation on the nature of the human body, its integration with being, and its ultimate purpose. Now, it is no longer a victim of an unmoved mover destined to return to a place, but rather possesses a time and space of which it is the master.
