The Influence of Parmenides and Heraclitus on Aristotle's Definitions of Nature

By Isabella Mininni

This essay demonstrates the pre-Socratic influence on Aristotle’s philosophy of physics by analyzing two Aristotelian definitions of Nature. Aristotle asserts that motion is a characteristic of Nature, thus demonstrating the influence of Heraclitus. Aristotle also argues that attributes occur by nature, which allows an object to achieve the perfect form, thus showing the influence of Parmenides. My analysis will demonstrate how Aristotle took principles from both philosophers to define the Nature of beings. As a result, Aristotle uses his “Golden Mean,” or Aristotelian mean, beyond the philosophy of ethics. In the end, these principles of motion and being allow a thing to exist, and are thus both necessary characteristics to define the Nature of something.

This paper will focus on Aristotle’s Physics 2.1.192b23-4 and 2.1.192b35-6, which presents two Aristotelian definitions of Nature. In one definition, Aristotle argues that the principle of motion exists within the thing itself. In another definition of Nature, he contends that the attributes of a thing are aligned with its virtue. This paper will show how Aristotle’s definitions of Nature were influenced by Parmenides, the philosopher of being, and Heraclitus, the philosopher of change and motion. Aristotle finds the mean between the theories of Parmenides, in which things are in a state of simply being and possessing qualities, and of Heraclitus, in which changes maintain the constancy of a thing. This analysis will show that being and motion are important not only in the study of physics, but in understanding Nature as well.

Aristotle defines Nature by using the principles of motion and being. In his Physics, one of Aristotle’s definitions of Nature is “a source or cause of being moved or being at rest.”1 He emphasizes the importance of motion and rest because these principles are characteristics of being, and to be is to have nature.2 Aristotle asserts that this principle of motion and change exists “in virtue of [the thing] itself.”3 Since the principle of motion is present in the substance itself, it is an aspect of Nature.4 Essentially, this principle is not the result of what Aristotle calls “a concomitant attribute.”5 Motion is not an accident, which is defined as being predicated by the substance.6 In simpler terms, motion does not occur randomly; it exists within a thing simply because that thing is in a state of being or existing. In order to assert this, Aristotle explains, “nature is a principle or cause of being moved and of being at rest in that to which it belongs primarily, in virtue of itself and not accidentally.”7 While attributes do not influence this definition of nature, Aristotle explains their importance in another definition; he says that “‘according to nature’ is applied to all these things and also to the attributes.”8 Attributes are predicates of a substance and contribute to that substance.9 This is because an attribute allows something to act by nature. For example, it is by nature that an apple tree produces apples.10 These attributes “belong to [a thing] in virtue of what they are.”11 Therefore, attributes exist in order to achieve the full form of that thing, and they exist according to the nature of that particular thing.12 Attributes allow a thing to exist in its fullest capacity and are therefore important to a thing’s state of being.13

The greatest difference between these definitions is that the first definition explains what Nature is, while the second describes how something exists according to its nature. This difference shows that Nature exists in the thing itself, while the attributes contribute to that thing achieving its fullest form.14 Attributes do not impact the essence of that thing but are simply an accident of it. The state of being in existence is what allows these attributes to exist, thus showing they cannot be part of what Nature is, but occur as a result of nature.15 The Nature of a thing has aspects of being and motion within it, as well as attributes that exist by nature, thus showing the influences of both Parmenides and Heraclitus.

Aristotle incorporates different aspects of the philosophies of Parmenides and Heraclitus by including both being and motion in his definitions of Nature. In doing so, he applies the Aristotelian mean to his philosophy of physics. Starting with the first definition discussed in this paper, which describes Nature as a source of motion and rest, one can see the influence of Heraclitus. In his philosophy, Heraclitus uses the example of a river, explaining that “rivers can stay the same ... because, the waters change.”16 This example shows “that some things change [which] makes possible the continued existence of other things.”17 In being, motion and rest are necessary aspects that allow for a thing to exist. Creating a connection between motion and existence helps to explain why this principle of motion is present in the thing itself. If not for this principle, the thing would not exist, since according to Heraclitus, motion causes existence. The concept of being that Aristotle includes in this definition of Nature shows the influence of Parmenides. Parmenides asserts that “‘accepted/seeming things’ should/would have had (to be) to be acceptably, passing through [just being] all things, altogether, in every way.”18 Rather than having this principle of motion exist within the thing itself, Parmenides believes that things just exist.19 Aristotle employs Parmenides’s concept of existence as well, but adds a principle of motion to form his definition of Nature. Therefore, Aristotle understands the importance of being and agrees slightly with Parmenides but does not disregard the importance of motion argued for by Heraclitus. Aristotle thus uses both concepts in this first definition of Nature analyzed in the paper.

Moving to the second definition discussed in this paper, Aristotle argues that a thing’s attributes are an aspect of that thing’s nature by noting that they exist according to a thing’s nature. Parmenides’ influence is shown here because he advocated that “no properties that can be predicated of—‘nothingness’ [exist].”20 In order for these attributes to exist, the thing itself must exist. Therefore, being plays a large role in Nature because a substance must exist in order for its attributes to occur. Parmenides did not believe motion existed because he argued that “motion includes ‘not- being.’”21 He asserted that belief in motion came from mankind being misled by sense perception.22 In contrast, Aristotle sees the importance of both being and motion in his definitions of Nature. This understanding is exhibited through the study of physics in which both matter and motion are needed in order to comprehend this science.23 Employing the concepts of matter and motion, which are both aspects of physics, in order to create his definitions of Nature, Aristotle indicates that both Parmenides and Heraclitus were correct to some degree. Essentially, Aristotle combined and refined their philosophies to truly define what Nature and by nature are.

Aristotle’s definitions of nature show the influence of Parmenides and Heraclitus as he draws on the ideas of both motion and being. Heraclitus argues that motion contributes to a thing’s existence. Aristotle agrees, asserting that the principle of motion exists within the thing itself. This principle of motion is in the thing itself because it is necessary for a thing to be. The mere existence of an object demonstrates how Parmenides’s philosophy of what exists and what does not exist influenced Aristotle’s definition of Nature. Aristotle asserts a thing exists because of the principles within it. Further, the idea of being is also applied to the definition of by nature. Attributes can be predicated by a substance because that substance exists. The influence of both of these philosophers on Aristotle is exhibited through the study of physics, in which an object is in a state of being and motion. When these aspects are applied by Aristotle, he is able to define the term Nature.

ENDNOTES

1. Aristotle, Physics, trans. R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye, in The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon (New York: Random House, 1941), 2.1.192b23.

2. Aristotle, Physics, 2.1.192b10-1.

3. Ibid., 2.1.192b23.

4. Jeffrey Wilson, “Discuss what Aristotle means by nature,” HSPH 203: Nature and Human Nature (course guide, Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., Fall 2021, 16).

5. Aristotle, Physics, 2.1.192b24.

6. Aristotle, Categories, trans. E. M. Edghill, in The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon (New York: Random House, 1941), 5.3.2a33-34.

7. Aristotle, Physics, 2.1.192b22.

8. Ibid., 2.1.192b35-6.

9. Aristotle, Categories, 5.3.2a33-4.

10. Jeffrey Wilson, “2.1 Definitions of ‘nature,’” HSPH 203: Nature and Human Nature (course guide, Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., Fall 2021, 18).

11. Aristotle, Physics, 2.1.192b36.

12. Ibid., 1.8.191b18-19.

13. Ibid., 1.8.191b14-15.

14. Ibid.

15. Aristotle, Categories, 5.3.2a37-2b1.

16. Daniel W. Graham, “Heraclitus,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, https://iep.utm.edu/.

17. Daniel W. Graham, “Heraclitus.”

18. Jeremy C. DeLong, “Parmenides of Elea (Late 6th cn. ― Mid 5th cn. B.C.E.),” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, https://iep.utm.edu/.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.

23. Aristotle, Physics, 2.2.194a17-8.

24. Ibid., 2.9.200a30-1.

Report abuse