We have a conception of the Cosmos that was simply inconceivable to Greek thought. Within this context, Aristotle took for granted, as Jaki correctly pointed out, a cyclical world that repeated itself cycle after cycle, controlled by Fate alone. This way of thought automatically suggested the notion of an organism, the cycle of life, that predisposed Aristotle to think in these terms. Therefore, when contemplating the world as a whole, Aristotle did not turn toward mechanics. We also must remember that Aristotle was convinced that observation, based on our senses, was the key to good science, something all good scientists adhere to. Neither did Aristotle believe that the Heavens were composed of the same substances as those here below. He thought it prudent to leave astronomy to the mathematicians, as was customary. However, his proposal that our terrestrial environment was organized by certain principles that we could observe here on earth proved to be quite valuable. As a philosopher, Aristotle was a realist, he argued that causes existed that could be discovered by observing their effects. He held that four fundamental causes operated in our earthly environment, and here lies his greatest contribution. As preserved by the Scholastic's of the Middle Ages these are the: Formal cause, the Material cause, the Efficient cause, and the Final cause. In the context of "modern" mathematized, schematic, quantitative, and highly abstract science, Aristotle's four causes have been disfigured and misunderstood. However, all of these causes are either present or are hidden in contemporary science. For example, organisms really are not understood when Aristotle's (especially as enhance by Thomas Aquinas) four causes are cast aside. I will take my leave by referring everyone to a number of experts that can verify and articulate my thoughts more expertly and in greater detail, take a look at the following works, please: "Aristotle's Revenge", Edward Feser, "Physics and Philosophy", Werner Heisenberg, "The Science Before Science", Anthony Rizzi, "The quantum Enigma", Wolfgang Smith. All of those are great sources.
In any case giving undue respect to any creation/knowledge be it science or religion at the level of idolation prevents further growth towards the Truth. God does covert progress out of Mercy on behalf of sinners staring to death for giving them a non hellish life while letting know the more holier ones of His capability to sustain a far better paradise hidden to physicists as all matters and everything else are created/sustained live by God as true Magic (Maya) which does not require consumption of energy as it is analogous or effortless as we speak words .
Biology is life - physics is the manipulation of matter (non-life) So it would seem that Aristotle's focus
on living and metaphysical aspects preclude any important reliance on what he considered a minor
subject - while Jaki realized human progress must be enmeshed and entwined with all forms of matter and forces of creation. Aristotle had the wheel but eschewed the clay. Gee, you've inspired me.
We have a conception of the Cosmos that was simply inconceivable to Greek thought. Within this context, Aristotle took for granted, as Jaki correctly pointed out, a cyclical world that repeated itself cycle after cycle, controlled by Fate alone. This way of thought automatically suggested the notion of an organism, the cycle of life, that predisposed Aristotle to think in these terms. Therefore, when contemplating the world as a whole, Aristotle did not turn toward mechanics. We also must remember that Aristotle was convinced that observation, based on our senses, was the key to good science, something all good scientists adhere to. Neither did Aristotle believe that the Heavens were composed of the same substances as those here below. He thought it prudent to leave astronomy to the mathematicians, as was customary. However, his proposal that our terrestrial environment was organized by certain principles that we could observe here on earth proved to be quite valuable. As a philosopher, Aristotle was a realist, he argued that causes existed that could be discovered by observing their effects. He held that four fundamental causes operated in our earthly environment, and here lies his greatest contribution. As preserved by the Scholastic's of the Middle Ages these are the: Formal cause, the Material cause, the Efficient cause, and the Final cause. In the context of "modern" mathematized, schematic, quantitative, and highly abstract science, Aristotle's four causes have been disfigured and misunderstood. However, all of these causes are either present or are hidden in contemporary science. For example, organisms really are not understood when Aristotle's (especially as enhance by Thomas Aquinas) four causes are cast aside. I will take my leave by referring everyone to a number of experts that can verify and articulate my thoughts more expertly and in greater detail, take a look at the following works, please: "Aristotle's Revenge", Edward Feser, "Physics and Philosophy", Werner Heisenberg, "The Science Before Science", Anthony Rizzi, "The quantum Enigma", Wolfgang Smith. All of those are great sources.
In any case giving undue respect to any creation/knowledge be it science or religion at the level of idolation prevents further growth towards the Truth. God does covert progress out of Mercy on behalf of sinners staring to death for giving them a non hellish life while letting know the more holier ones of His capability to sustain a far better paradise hidden to physicists as all matters and everything else are created/sustained live by God as true Magic (Maya) which does not require consumption of energy as it is analogous or effortless as we speak words .
Biology is life - physics is the manipulation of matter (non-life) So it would seem that Aristotle's focus
on living and metaphysical aspects preclude any important reliance on what he considered a minor
subject - while Jaki realized human progress must be enmeshed and entwined with all forms of matter and forces of creation. Aristotle had the wheel but eschewed the clay. Gee, you've inspired me.
Thank you! If I remember correctly, you have read some of Jaki's work, right?