Menn, Aristotle and Plato On God As Nous

Aristotle and Plato on God as Nous and as the Good Author(s): Stephen Menn Source: The Review of Metaphysics,
Vol. 45, No. 3 (Mar., 1992), pp. 543-573 Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20129216 . Accessed: 04/03/2014 13:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Metaphysics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.248.184.4 on Tue, 4 Mar 2014 13:24:30 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ARISTOTLEAND PLATO ON GOD AS NOUS AND AS THE GOOD1

STEPHEN MENN
I
as the first unmoved his doctrine of god presents -Aristotle mover as the crown of his metaphysics, and thus of his entire theo an retical He it considers achieve philosophy. obviously important ment. Yet to interpre the doctrine has been peculiarly resistant
tation.
theology: unmoved. conclusion
It is difficult
certainly The proof and not
to know where
his has clearly versa. proof been How
to break
that developed did this
in to Aristotle's
must sake be for the of the to
not with
the first mover
vice
conclusion
occur
Aristotle,
and why did he want

promising approach the doctrines of his is a rough some divine scholarly
it to be true?
has been to compare Aristotle's and especially with predecessors, consensus that there is something unmoved source of motion,
The most with theology Plato. There
Platonic
believed but for
about Aristotle's
that
doctrine of God: not that Plato himself

being is the first and the arguments and modifying it, to to Plato's position.
in constructing that Aristotle, this doctrine was Plato's it, taking deliberately position a reformed as an alternative Platonism present Werner mover Jaeger
that Aristotle's doctrine of God as unmoved thought an to in Aristotle's semi-Platonist stage belonged early and that this doctrine from discussions in the thought, emerged von to Hans Arnim the that the doc Academy. thought, contrary, trine belonged ting up a school to a later of Aristotle's life, when period in competition with the Academy. They he was both set agree,
"Plato on God as paper is a sequel to my monograph, present in the Journal Monograph of Philosophy of theHistory (forthcoming Iwould like to thank Charles Series), but is intended to stand on its own. on the present paper. for helpful comments Brittain and Joseph di Filippo from Greek are my own. All translations Nous"
Review Metaphysics of Metaphysics 45 (March 1992): 543-573. Copyright ? 1992 by the Review of
1 The
544
however, ification alternative cisms had that Aristotle's of Plato's doctrine
STEPHEN MENN
from a process of mod emerged it as his that Aristotle presented which his own and others' criti
and position, to a Platonic theology
undermined.2 obvious, however, which "Platonic Aristotle's theology" that Aristotle's suggested Forms has there as su been that
It is not theology God was
should in some
to. Jaeger be compared a for way replacement but in Laws
the Platonic
prasensible with Plato's
of knowledge; objects of soul discussion
the usual 10. and
comparison Plato argues that if (as he the first mover This
from every motion proceeds an infinite movers of regress moved source by itself of motion and rather Plato brute than
a mover,
is impossible, something with soul, one and have
assumes) must be
by identifies
else. and
yond human the motions As Friedrich
souls,
some bodies, others
or more thus seen,
self-moving thinks that, be divine souls supply he the universe. is starting
of the heavenly Solmsen and
govern Aristotle
with
this argument
in Physics
8, but is modifying
it: as Aristotle
because else.3 it need Aristotle
need not be self-moved, out, the first mover points not be moved at all in order to move something with Plato that agrees every actually object which other every moves Thus mover or-several moved must ultimately self-mover decomposes the other, and a second transforms into an argument souls divine be moved
by an a he but that argues self-mover, by into a first unmoved that component that is moved the first. component by is moved first one un
Aristotle
for a self-moved Plato's argument for an unmoved first mover. Plato's are thus replaced bodies. by the one-or-several
movers
Although the argument
of the heavenly this approach of Physics
obviously and 8, although
says
something it has yielded
right about some results,
2 Werner Jaeger, Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of his Devel trans. Richard Robinson Press, 1948), chs. 6 opment, (Oxford: Clarendon von Arnim, Die Entstehung der Gotteslehre des Aristoteles and 8; Hans inWien, Vienna, der Akademie der Wissenschaften 1931). (Sitzungsberichte see W. K. C. Guthrie, "The Development For an account of the controversy, 27 (1933): 162-71; and I and II, Classical Quarterly of Aristotle's Theology," 28 (1934): 90-8. 3 in Friedrich "The Unmoved Mover" Ar See the chapter Solmsen, World istotle's System (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, of the Physical that really matters Solmsen says that "the only antecedent 1960), 222-49. own doctrine of the Platonic is clearly the movement for his [Aristotle's] world-soul" (p. 247).
ARISTOTLE AND PLATO ON GOD

I think doctrine parison it is not of God, in Plato. an adequate for understanding approach it is taking the wrong and I think in Plato What point of comparison Aristotle's
545
of com point we find plau
sible depends on how we describe

cussing describe
the being which Aristotle
is dis
enough will tell us about
in Metaphysics if we passages: 12.7, 9, 10, and parallel as the "unmoved this being then it seems natural mover," see as a movers. to it of Plato's modification self-moved This Aristotle on unmoved movers, but, for two reasons, are relational
itwill not tell us anything

12.7, 9,10. descriptions satisfies them. When First, which "unmoved do not
essential
mover" indicate are
about the object ofMetaphysics

or "first mover" the just are essence too many and modifies unmoved of the thing which movers. unmoved Plato's movers argument and not
Aristotle, in Laws 10, he
Second, in Physics concludes
there
8, criticizes that souls of Plato's
self-movers. movers
Thus
instead
(souls divine, of unmoved movers, argument
of self-moved large plurality or a Aristotle has human, brute), large plurality some one or many each initiating causal chains. to the initiator of motion is sufficient to
The
from motion
get to souls, but it is not sufficient to get to a single first principle

"on which Aristotle heaven and nature depend" in Physics Even is seeking. he turns away from the argument about this first principle, an infinite of movers, and uses a quite different regress argument about the need for a single eternal the infinite regulating principle series doctrine unmoved of unmoved movers principle we must (Physics 8.6). To understand to his general Aristotle's doctrine of of the first which is what (1072bl3-14), to Aristotle wishes 8, when
discover
of the movers), conception essence or of not for this relational specific settling principle, general an I will this has been done correctly, Once argue, descriptions.4 or von or to Arnim's will similar Solmsen's approach Jaeger's yield a much deeper and more precise understanding of what Aristotle is
(as opposed Aristotle's identify
doing in his theology.

names Aristotle may begin by asking what gives or names unlike "unmoved mover" "first which, principle, We 4 to his first principle,"
In what is called nous souls and (b) latter are not is a notorious avoid pulously
follows Iwill be concerned only with the first principle (which and the Good), not with other unmoved movers, that is, (a) the movers of the nonequatorial celestial motions. These called "soul," and they are also not called nous; their status on which I have some views, but which I will scru problem, in this paper.
546
will be names the name of the essence.5 Occasionally or somewhat are not For Aristotle more
STEPHEN MENN
to this applies the often, adjective but they have too Aristotle puts no
being "divine" little
"god" (theos), names These (theios). content to be really useful.
relational, this reason
weight
so are pians theoi first
on them: the first principle
is a god or something
divine, but
the Olympians, the planets, and Heracles. Even if the Olym do not actually the fact that such beings would be called exist, shows that theos does not convey about the anything precise Two names are that do convey something about and the nous.6 than very are are
principle. essence of the names or
These "god" wide at least
might "unmoved
principle seem
good to convey because
(agathon, no more these the rational
tagathon) the essence about too seem soul, to have then and Ethics
extensions: as many goods. Ethics
mover," if nous can mean of them
there there
as there
are human
even more Eudemian Nonetheless, and nous "the also Good" uses
As Aristotle 1.8,
says
beings, inNicomachean in all takes Now
1.6 and
it is easy to be names as nous the to name Plato
is predicated "good" to show that Aristotle of the essence of God.
of the both Plato
categories. "the Good" too and takes Plato to the
name
of the highest a (different) god, says in the Philebus and
divine the
principle; source of order "all
world. physical that nous is king
that
the wise and
for us of heaven
earth"
(28c6-8),
agree this nous
is identical with
paper to's to show doctrines
the demiurge
as
of the Timaeus.1
over, the first
I will
try in this
Pla of nous and
how Aristotle of the Good
takes
criticizes, divine principle,
and modifies
5 I am using a common idiom: some names of God are theological names of his essence, while or of his others are names of his attributes acts directed to other things. In Islam (the tradition I am most familiar it is most often thought that "God," "Truth," and "necessary with) being" are names of the essence; that "Living," and "Knowing," "Powerful," are names of the attributes; and that "Creator," "Willing" "Lord," "Life of the acts. It is more difficult and more giver," and so on are names to know what God is like than to know what He does, and it is valuable to know what He is (simply the yet more difficult and valuable learning of what names, of course, does not automatically convey knowledge they signify). leave the word nous untranslated; I discuss 61 will further on what its English be. might equivalent 7 I have written at length on this subject in "Plato on God as Nous," I will draw in some of what follows. from which As I argue there, Plato as a real being, intends the demiurge of the Timaeus identical with the nous of the Philebus and of Laws 12; some things may be said about him but this does not make him a "mythical character." mythically,

as an inferior divine principle, After this try and how he presents initial as his alternative
547
to Plato's
both I will nous turn
theology his own doctrine of a divine principle which

and the Good. since I will some name to show remarks an easier Aristotle to nous, nous, allows how
is
on the Good, but approach; connects nous
in discussing
with
the Good.
II
"The Good" Metaphysics 12.10: is claimed as a name for God at the beginning of
in which way the universe the good We must possesses investigate as something and itself-by-itself and the best, whether separate [ke ti kai auto kath' hauto], or as [the universe's ch?rismenon own] order. For the good [to eu: whatever like an army? Or rather, in both ways, is responsible for the army's being as it should be] is in the order and is also the general, and more so [mallon] the latter: for he is not good on account of him. of the order, but the order is good on account (1075all-15) That the order of an of the universe is, although (like the order a sense in is something is good, the good stronger (mallon) army) the of the itself The uni general army). separate existing by (like that and the good, and this means it possesses is good because primarily it possesses first the good as a separately existing principle, as a consequence, that it is ordered well. When secondarily, asks he is "something whether the good is obviously and self-consciously there is some one first separate things was right. As are, in a weaker The phrase rest sense, in which and itself separate Plato's terms, using through is good; saying this affirmation is ini and he Good-itself
verse
Aristotle
by-itself," to ask whether which that other Plato
tially made
no real
looks tentative, but this is typical of Aristotle

the of the chapter bears
and implies
out, Aristotle
hesitation.
is firmly committed
itself, and Speusippus, ples," whereas (1075a36-7). Metaphysics treating each thing, the
to identifying
not
the first principle
as the Good
is especially who "does in fact Aristotle 1.2, which and
to defend this identification eager against even make good and evil [to be] princi "in all things the good is most of all a principle" is here had said only carrying that wisdom and the best that out should "this the be program the science good of of
for-the-sake-of-which, universally,
is the (982b6-7).
in all nature"
548
At this point it is important of the Good, not elsewhere entities to avert
STEPHEN MENN
a misunderstanding. One
might
Platonic doctrine.
think that when Aristotle,

separation he Does separate
in Metaphysics
he
12.10, endorses the

usual terms and
is going his own against in general criticize Plato themselves-by-themselves,
for positing
existing
does he not (inNicomachean Ethics 1.6 and Eudemian Ethics 1.8) apply this critique specifically to Plato's positing of a Good-itself?
The answer things cannot is no on both counts. Aristotle and criticizes Plato which for sep arating thinks (for example, exist apart from 1.8 Aristotle this phrase animals numbers) the conditions of matter; Aristotle but he does
not think this applies to the good.8

Eudemian Ethics but of the good," is not
InNicomachean
Plato's
Ethics
1.6 and
criticizes
positing
of an "Idea
to "Good equivalent necessarily at least, Aristotle In the Eudemian Ethics itself." passage, sharply two between these Aristotle expressions. distinguishes begins Eu 1.8 by asking "the best" demian Ethics about which he (to arist?n),
immediately
as inMetaphysics being
identifies with "the Good-itself"

12.10 "the he asks good, that about
(auto to agathon)
kai He to arist?n, explains others
(just
kai that
epexegetic: and
to agathon is, the best"). the cause
"the Good-itself"
among their goods,
means
"that to which
its presence Ethics
it belongs both to be first

to the of There are, however, this Good-itself is clear that [i.e.,
to be by
being good" (Eudemian 1217b4-5).9 about what Aristotle says, three different opinions two of which he and the third: is, accepts rejects neither (i) the Idea of the good, nor (ii) the
"It
common
character
8 1218a34 that the arguments Ethics Aristotle does say at Eudemian he has given against a Form of the Good constitute aporiai against a Good can solve these aporiai if he can exhibit itself, and so they do; but Aristotle some other Good-itself which is not the Form of the Good, and which is As far as I know, the Form of the Good. immune to the arguments against doubts about a Good there are no other passages where Aristotle expresses that denies evil exists itself. Metaphysics para ta pragmata 9.9, strikingly, no such judgment while making about good. (1051al7-18), 9 of Plato's cri These criteria for the auto to agathon are reminiscent 289d7-8 We teria for the auto to kalon at Hippias (and 289d2-4): Major must give in answer "what is the kalon thing, through which also all other to them." it becomes and appear kala when present things are adorned are to for auto kalon either the because candidates they rejected Hippias's are not perfectly in some respect), or because kala (and so are aischra they In Plato, it seems, in which they are present. fail to make kalon something be auto toX without universal X being an abstracted might something use of this pos that Aristotle makes ness; so it should not be surprising sibility.
ARISTOTLE AND PLATO ON GOD the goodness

we are seeking.
549
immanent equally in all good things] is the Good-itself

. . rather, (iii) the for-the-sake-of-which is the best
and the cause of the [goods] below it and the first of all [goods], so that this would be the Good-itself" Plato's mistake (1218b7-12).
was not in positing a good-itself, nor in making this separate, but
in identifying
cause.
it with assumes
the Idea of the good and not with (doubtless unfairly)
the final
Aristotle
if there were
that an Idea of the good,
were be simply the result "if someone to one, would an make the common character separate" (1218a9) by positing common "eternal and instantiation of the character separate"
(1218al2-13).
both versal because terms
Aristotle
objects
that there is no Idea of the good,

because Ideas. even Even univocal if there uni were
is equivocal, and "good" do not have corresponding
an Idea of the good, Aristotle
claims
that this would

good it will
not be the
and thing, not satisfy
one more because it would be merely Good-itself, "it will be no more good for being Thus eternal."10
the criteria of being the best of all things and the source of dimin ished goodness to everything else. Aristotle justifies this claim by
noting that "that which is white for many days is no more white
than that which is white for one day" (Eudemian Ethics 1218al3 14; cf. Nicomachean Ethics 1096b4-5). This is a deliberate parody
of Plato's than remark mixed in the Philebus white" more that "a small As Plato pure white recognizes is whiter that we a great (53b4-5).
cannot discover
familiar discover extended most good,
the most good (or the most white)
by making
the
good (or white) the most good or even
so also Plato cannot spatially extended, the familiar by making good more temporally eternal. Aristotle's is to discover the proposal
not by separating and eternalizing the common character, but by finding that for the sake of which the other goods are valued, as exercise is valued for the sake of health. If there is some one
ultimate final cause, itwill satisfy the criteria of being the best and
the to the other goods. of goodness At this stage, I do not want to investigate there is some one final cause these satisfying cause more criteria. deeply My whether point is
simply that Aristotle
distinguishes
between what
a "Good-itself"
10 Nicomachean Ethics 1096b3-4. A parallel has apparently passage out of the manuscripts of Eudemian Ethics dropped 1.8; rather than try to reconstruct Ethics it, I just cite the Nicomachean parallel.
550
must Aristotle positing (mallon be and what joins of an Idea agathon) be good of an an "Idea of the good" would for a Good-itself search The Good-itself things, be
STEPHEN MENN
if there were one; his good not
Plato's
while must and
of the good. than the other
rejecting be more this means
good
merely
must
that it must
be quantitatively
sense,
more
the
valuable,
other
but that
become
it
in a stronger
since
things
good through
existence existence only
it and with
Idea
reference
since
to it. Aristotle
is actually could
thinks that the

with the of the good If there is a good because
of the good were
of a Good-itself, all other
there
incompatible be an Idea
if it and
Good-itself, goodness ness is a pros hen equivocal, we made that "good" above, many
good goods must be a pros hen
univocally. equivocal. to answer
Because the essence,
it is possible name cannot the divine
objection
are good, but not in besides God are also good?they things same sense that God is good. God is the only thing that is good the God is good. in which in the sense of "good" This does not totle conceives
how Aris get us very far toward understanding we have not described this special of God, because sense of goodness In Nicom which is predicated only of one being. in is Ethics and that there 1.6 Eudemian achean Ethics 1.8, proving no Idea of the good because is not univocal, Aristotle gives goodness a list of different ways in which goodness is said:
Good
For being is said in many ways, and in as many ways as being. means sometimes substance, elsewhere) (as has been distinguished and being-moved, sometimes quality, quantity or time, and also moving nous and God [ho and the good is in each of these cases, in substance nous kai ho theos], in quality in due measure, the just, in quantity as So and in motion time opportunity, teaching being taught. just so neither is the is not some one thing in all these instances, being Ethics 1096a23 cf. Nicomachean 1217b26-34; good. (Eudemian Ethics
29)
Neither being nor goodness, to this however, is a merely it is also the will same not chance equivocal: in the other
being is said primarily

by reference
of substance or of what a thing is, and then,

sense, follow surely is indeed derive predicated derive a substance pattern: its goodness from and hen, justice from a relation
primary
will Goodness categories. essence in its is good which time. if goodness will
having a good quality or from being in the right place at the right
Rather, the due measure predicated their pros ultimately goodness

to what derstand stand natural, more in substance.11 It is, however, is good can be good in its essence how a substance it can have since what the justice as a good accessible difficult than
551
to un
to under is only
how
being To illustrate ho nous stance, kai
they how ho
ordinarily are, but only a substance This
this difficulty quality; are not substances accidents which
theos.
by having can be essentially seems to exhaust what
good, what
good by are good.12 Aristotle gives is good in sub To un
as due measure
exhausts
is good
in quantity. what it means
derstand how the first principle

the primary first principle sense, we must first to be nous.
is the Good-itself,
understand
or the Good
for
in
the
Ill In the phrase ho nous kai ho theos of Eudemian

and
Ethics
1217b31,
1096a24 the parallel ho theos kai ho nous of Nicomachean Ethics two names for the same entity 25, the kai is epexegetic, connecting commentators two rather than entities. Some have tried to take
It may be objected that Nicomachean Ethics 1096b27ff suggests that I think both must be true. rather than pros hen. "good" is said by analogy, The program of showing how all good things are good by reference to the in the concluding sentences substantial Good is realized of the Eudemian as the to Ethics: God is the final cause hou, the for-the-sake-of-which and all other things are good because of their relation to attain-which, that they have their goodness God. Aristotle does not mean, however, to something else which is intrinsically only extrinsically, by contributing seems to believe this only for what Aristotle is good in relational good: is the good in the category of pros ti;Nicomachean categories (to chr?simon or quantity, not Ethics for what is good in quality thus not for 1096a26), to the case health or the virtues. The case of goodness may be compared of health, which is predicated of a man and a horse, predicated analogically both pros hen and analog pros hen of an animal and a diet, but predicated The heart or the liver, like the ically of an animal and a heart or a liver. in contributing to the health of the animal; unlike the diet, has its health It is true that the health of a heart is to diet, it contributes intrinsically. a heart as the health of an animal is to an animal (that is, it is the proper sort of that of the matter of the thing functioning thing, occurring when to the form). is in proper subordination It is not true in any serious sense that the health of a diet is to a diet as the health of an animal is to the 12 The scholastic that all beings are good insofar as they are doctrine, and Boethius), and beings, derives from the neo-Platonists (via Augustine is incorrect as an interpretation of Aristotle.
animal.
11
552
nous here as the human can be good Ethics goods. or ho theos but this mind, or bad according listed were here
STEPHEN MENN
is hopeless. A human mind, to the qualities it possesses,
like a body, comachean substantial
such as "justice"
(Eudemian Ethics
1096a25), If nous
1217b32) or "the virtues"
(Ni
as qualitative than rather the human mind, it could not pos
sibly be called a substantial

ho theos kai
good.
must
In fact a phrase
have been
like ho nous kai

way of
ho nous
a standard
referring to the first principle. We find ho theos kai ho nous at Politics 1287a28; ho nous kai ho theos in Theophrastus's Metaphysics
to agathon in Aristotle's kai ho nous 7b22-23; The Epicurean in Cicero's De Natura Deorum Metaphysics 1.13.33 says 1075bll. that Ar
istotle, in book 3 of On Philosophy,

as gods, "attributes nous. In addition,
while
also naming other things
a Greek to mens," all divinity surely translating the only surviving of Aristotle's On fragment nous or even either that "ho theos is says something Prayer beyond ac nous tou ti where kai Aristotle epekeina presumably [? nou],"13
cepts the former view himself

(epekeina tou nou would recall
and attributes
the description
the latter to Plato

of the Good epekeina
13 is quoted by Simplicius, The fragment In De C?elo 485,21-22. Some leave out the word kai, but nothing much hangs on this. There manuscripts seems to be no reason to doubt its authenticity; other ancient writers men of the tion the On Prayer, but nobody quotes from it. The authenticity not the fact that it is does what Sim say fragment greatly supported by to recognize wants Aristotle it to say: Simplicius something plicius wants line 20; cf. the context, line 16ff). (Simplicius, "beyond nous and ousia" All Aristotle will say, however, is that some people think God is nous and some people think there is a higher god beyond nous, and that which of for the particular is right does not matter of the these parties argument in the Laws, like Plato On Prayer. arguing, (Aristotle was presumably and sacrifices, and that the that the gods cannot be bribed by prayers to the gods rather than to is to assimilate ourselves function of prayer to us.) is certainly But Simplicius their attitude change right that Ar tou nou is a deliberate to Plato's epekeina reference istotle's phrase epekeina F. Cherniss, tes ousias (against Harold [Aristotle's Criticism of Plato and the Academy Johns Hopkins Press, (Baltimore: 1944), 592 and 609] who wants nous here to mean the human mind, and the thing epekeina tou nou an to be the divine no?sis no?se?s). is unusual word: it Epekeina quite occurs only three times in Plato: twice in the Republic and once in the The only time in Plato's writings there spelled ep' ekeina. that Phaedo, it occurs, as here, without is in the Republic's the article, of description occurs four more times in Aristotle, never The word apparently the Good. sense. in a metaphysical Even apart from the fact that the content fits? candidate for a highest god superior to nous that is, that the only plausible to identify is the Platonic Good, which Aristotle (against Plato) wishes with notes?Aristotle's language would inevitably recall the Platonic phrase.

at Republic 509b9). that nous was a standard way t?s ousias From these texts and others principle,
553
it is clear which
of naming
one divine
Aristotle
When sense two
(although not everyone) held to be the highest

names each given together, ho theos kai ho nous means are serves Imean
principle.
the the [not
to confirm
of the other:
and ho nous "nous, gods of the state but] nous"; I mean human mind God." the but] [not what the first principle is by saying tries to express Aristotle it is nous. his conception of the essence of that So to understand this principle, does we must understand the meaning that of the word nous,
"God, kai ho theos means
in the sense inwhich Aristotle

Aristotle nous among not mean even others,
applies this word to the first principle.

one instance is simply of God and highest instance. God is also cannot refer to of ousia, but Aristotle
to say
the first
the first
and highest
instance
the first principle as h? ousia kai ho theos. God must be nous in such a way that God is the only being which can be called nous in
that sense of the word. It is of course also true that God is the only that
being which
good;
can be called good in the special sense inwhich God is

explains this sense of goodness by saying
but Aristotle
this is the sense inwhich nous is said to be good.

nous
So it seems that
to signify, exclu the word could be used without qualification a of other word have divine certain course, would, being (the sively, out nicely This is brought in the open in other contexts). meanings sentences 12.9: of ing Metaphysics some aporiai. For The doctrine of nous [ta peri ton noun] involves are evident to this seems to be the most divine of the things which in order to be such [sc. most us; but how it [nous] would be disposed involves some difficulties. (1074bl5-17) divine] Ross thought means; translates involves but the first certain sentence and not as "the nature of the divine
the word
problems," "divine" does
this
is indeed what
Aristotle in
correspond
to anything
Ross's translation might suggest that thought is just something God has, or at least, if God is thought, that there could be other thoughts which are not the divine thought. In fact Aristotle
ton noun ta peri word for any additional by itself, without a as out scientific certain call it "noetics," marking study, divinity, nous. the of the named divine Aristotle being namely, study by a being assumes at least called nous, that his audience recognizes takes
the Greek.
by this point
in the argument,
and that this is the highest
being
554
STEPHEN MENN
He also assumes, conceive. that they they can distinctly however, on not yet have will reached how further it is to be de agreement so to he address this further It is as scribed, proceeds question. means nous sumed that God. throughout exclusively What nous, then does nous mean so that there and should so that be so that it should a So far delicate be something substantial good, I have avoided just one it should be with for nous, Translators they are often Gram good and
self-evidently qualities? it is a very have
divine, not just something a translation giving the word the word, means. and
generally to split forced
question at a been
as to what loss with
it up
into many from often
different the verb means, verb
nous is derived matically, as "to think," but which intuit mined
English noein, which more precisely, if, however, noein, noun this nous:
words.14
can be as broad or to perceive we have deter is not to enough nous sometimes noei something, related nous as
something intellectually.15 sense the relevant of the the meaning which what noein of the
Even
determine denotes but very to the
derived
the action often verb
takes
it denotes in some when
place is not an action, other way. We it denotes
when
someone but
something render may
or "intuition" "thought" in other is more difficult nous that on these nous occasions the
denotes
an action; but translation we render like many If, translators, as "mind" or "intellect," we are suggesting us in which the rational soul or thing noei, cases. But that in fact, it does, nous although and the trans You but it
the rational of the soul. part or faculty can have this sense, it is fairly infrequent lations have been "mind" and "intellect" and would I each have
seriously a mind, and we have together we to say that be extremely unusual have
misleading. two minds, two nouses.16
14 in passages where Aristotle is using nous as a name of God, Even the word at least as "reason," and "mind"? Ross translates "thought," use "intellect" not. sometimes Other writers sometimes and capitalized, in nontheological senses, we find all of these plus "intuition," "intelligence"; 15 in the Sun passage This is the sense of noein presupposed of the as nous in is in where is the soul the and again in the opsis body; Republic, an is the highest Line passage, where no?sis kind of cognition, Divided of intelligible immediate beings. apprehension 16 is so rare that it is unclear whether The plural the classical nomi I know of only one occurrence native would have been noi or noes. of nous in the plural before the imperial period, Aristophanes frag. 471 Edmonds, it doesn't mean "minds." Aris and there it is in the accusative?and
"comprehension," "sense," "attention," and other terms.

When each more nous does not than denote the sense an action "rational it has soul." two other
555
senses, nous
common
Sometimes or
is the internal object which or plan; this sense is presupposed or attention turn one's thought einai often, thinks tini, to be in accord nous is what
someone
intention noei, his thought to in the idioms noun prosechein, noun toward and kata something, someone's desires possesses or plan. when he Most acts or
with
however,
someone
or virtue of rationality, the habit rationally, sense is presupposed with This onymous phron?sis. or acquire noun to echein and noun possess ktasthai, or become sense in be Nous this should rational. "reason" as "mind." I have before meant abundant in a separate argued nous who made Aristotle nous as a virtue, that evidence not Plato or "intelligence"; it is seriously misleading
syn roughly in the idioms reason, translated to translate to be as it
that the philosophers monograph17 a divine principle the cosmos ruling nous in the sense of "mind." There is meant nous in this sense. I have also
argued nous as a virtue
that Plato's
predecessors, when they made
Anaxagoras, especially nous a principle. Plato
also meant declares
in the Philebus
heaven and Anaxagoras, Presocratics agreeing with
that "all the wise agree that nous is king for us of

suggest orderer
earth"
"The wise" would (28c6-8). immediately as making nous in the Phaedo described the and
(diakosm?n) of all things (97cl-2).

(notably Empedocles Plato Anaxagoras.
But Plato also interprets other

Diogenes himself, of Apollonia) as he hopes insofar as to
is defending himself the charge that, although he has against tophanes made fun of Euripides, in his own work. he imitates Euripides Aristoph anes admits to making use of Euripides' aphoristic style, but says, "I make tous nous agoraious less than he does." Nous here are something like content of his verses as opposed moral opinions, the intellectual Euripides' to the material to their style. in Euripides According printed frag. 1114 nous is Euripidean, Nauck doubted the by Nauck), phrase agoraios (but If so, we may well owe our like "vulgar." something agoraios meaning one pre-imperial plural of nous to an Aristophanic parody of Euripidean cite a nominative diction. Liddell-Scott-Jones (A Greek Lexicon) plural noes from Philo 1.86, but I cannot find it there. A search of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae yields no nominative plurals before Plotinus, who is split between noes and noi 17 In addition to the evidence "Plato on God as Nous." there Menn, Laertius's "He asserted cited, note Diogenes report of Euclid of Megara: that the good is one thing, called by many names: for sometimes it is called nous and others names"; Diogenes sometimes God, sometimes phron?sis, 2.106. Laertius
556
be wise about corporeal nature, tries to display to confirm nous
STEPHEN MENN
as the governor
of the physical world.

and Protarchus digress
In the Philebus
into cosmology certain
itself (28c8-30e8), Socrates

their predecessors' who thinkers, taken up the it with a theo
doctrine
(noun panta diakosmein
[28e3]).
In addition, the Athenian

recent have
in Laws 12 says that Stranger must and his colleagues be Plato
more
at the Academy,
old doctrine
within
that "nous is the orderer [diakekosm?k?s] of all that is

(967b5-6), and have supplemented
the heaven"
ry of celestial souls. This is just what Plato had done, not only in the Philebus, but especially in the Timaeus: he gave a detailed hy
pothetical account of how nous may [Timaeus have ordered using the physical celestial world souls as (diakosm?n its instruments. . . . ouranon 37d5-6])
My point here is that nous is not identified with mind or rational

soul souls orderer in any of these dialogues, and and in the Laws Timaeus;18 world is instead is clearly from distinguished the nous that is the cause and the virtue of reason. Thus
of the physical
the sages of the Philebus

that
say equivalently
nous
that nous is king (28c7);
"a marvelous and phron?sis coordinating governs" (28d8 or a cause that there is and and years "ordering 9); coordinating seasons and months, which would most be called and rightly sophia nous" and Nous is clearly identical (30c5-7). a virtue. Although they are clearly or be present nor in anything does it mean with Plato and phron?sis says that nous soul (Philebus does not sophia, cannot 30c9
come-to-be
without
10; Timaeus
itself
30b3; Sophist 249a4-8),
this does not mean

that nous
that nous is
exist by soul; at Philebus in separation Thus the passage from souls. 30c9 itself 10 says that "sophia and nous could never come to be without soul," to nous in exactly the same sense and this principle that it applies applies souls, (Plato or to sophia. that these of course Plato virtues that he is not saying do not exist the virtues that that sophia and nous from and are souls them can in separation exist separately except
a rational
believes
selves-by-themselves); in sophia participate
is saying or nous.
nothing
a soul
18 The Laws distinguishes the doctrine of soul from the doctrine of nous at 966d6ff, and speaks of a soul "taking nous as its companion" 897bl creates souls. of the Timaeus 2; the demiurge
ARISTOTLE AND PLATO ON GOD Plato makes

to which 6), or that As I have have quiring Timaeus, resemble he soul nous" and alone
557 by saying that "the being
the point equivalently
to acquire is soul" it belongs 46d5 nous, (Timaeus can nous in have soul except nothing 249a4-8). (Sophist these for the phrases "to acquire and being The nous" and "to ac
noted, already are idiomatic
to make itself, wishes as possible; in him as much him or participate a soul, because he recognizes endows the world with can possess Plato that attributes or participate in Reason to his predecessors, governs that the the cosmos; (Timaeus
possessing is Reason who
becoming of reason. virtue
reasonable, of the demiurge a world will which this that is why only a
30a2-cl).
doctrine
nous
the including Anaxagoras, 12 he tells us but in Laws
that these same philosophers

did not recognize soul was
then got into difficulty because

bodies were or
they
that ensouled, heavenly to of assertions Plato's that only (The point prior body. to show that, in nous is precisely if we are to soul can participate out Anaxagoras's of showing how nous governs the carry project on reliance mechanical cosmos, we must causes, Anaxagoras's reject instead assign a cosmic role that to believe take Anaxagoras a is cosmic rational soul, some cosmic soul. rational somehow governing the to souls.) Plato does not Clearly the nous which the cosmos governs that it is a virtue possessed by and
and
or even
It is just a virtue, existing cosmos. I have argued that
by itself, Plato is here
Anaxagoras interpreting Anaxagoras analyzes predi correctly.19 as "to share cates like "to be hot" or "to be gold[en]" in, or possess a portion a within of the hot," or "to possess within oneself oneself portion broken whose bodies. it may possess of gold," where "the up into little bits and portions may be present the predicate hot" and "gold" signify vast bodies distributed the universe, throughout or lesser degrees to greater in other as "to be reasonable" is expressed,
Similarly, or "to in nous" be in quite Greek, by "to share ordinary a portion within oneself of nous" The virtue of nous, like
gold or the hot, is a vast body distributed throughout the universe, by the presence of which animal and cosmic bodies (rather than
souls) which come Plato, souls to behave of course, "share in a rationally ordered believes that nous is an in" in some quite different way. incorporeal than way substance by having
19 See Menn,
"Plato
on God
as Nous,"
ch. 5.
558 bits of it physically

on the nature from Anaxagoras are, and on what
STEPHEN MENN inside them. Plato's difference from Anaxagoras
is just a part of his general of nous, however, difference on what, or for example, the hot-itself gold-itself in them. it means to participate Both Plato and
in their different that nous believe ways, is, that Anaxagoras, (that noun someone he is behaving he which when possesses echei, when comes a which to be present is self-existent substance reasonably) in other "all Plato the cosmos. When and so governs things, nous nous or nous that and the wise agree sophia, [or says that and phro
n?sis]
is king of heaven
to his
and earth,"
it is this opinion which

he is himself
he is
ascribing Aristotle model. declaring heavens,
predecessors, endorsing.20 the same Plato's takes following path, apparently like line with "all the wise" in into falls Aristotle, Plato, is king of heaven the and earth, that nous ruling directly in turn govern sublunar like which Aristotle, things. Plato, Anaxagoras, for proposing as is present, to those as against more materi narrowly as a principle: "When someone so also as the in nature, in animals nous
and which
begins by praising alist philosophers, said that nous
cause of order [kosmos] and all orderliness

sober him" man in contrast who Here had (Metaphysics 984bl5-18).21 assertion panta
[taxis], he seemed like a

spoken at random before seizes this as like Plato, and takes
on Anaxagoras's
Aristotle, diekosm?se nous,
was for Anaxagoras's whole Anaxagoras philosophy. programmatic an on his predecessors, Aristotle both by positing thinks, improving cause cause cause sort the of of efficient coming-to-be (a [984bl2], where his predecessors had posited whence motion only [984b21-22])
seem strange to posit an abstraction It may for someone of this as a divinity, but of course the Greeks and sometimes recognized, in Aristophanes' temples to, many divinized abstractions. Euripides, and Aristophanes is 892, prays to a god called sunesis, Frogs "prudence," a rather than for comic fact pur distorting reporting probably funny just at the end of his speech Against Ctesiphon, prays to "earth poses; Aeschines, the and sun and virtue and sunesis and paideia by which we distinguish So there is no obstacle to a virtue being a god. noble from the base." 21 is making Aristotle to render this sentence It is difficult exactly. a kind of pun in saying that Anaxagoras's spoke "at random" predecessors a choice between making nous and phron?sis Plato had demanded (eik?[i]). or consigning it to "the power of irrationality of the universe, the governor 28d6-7. Philebus and randomness" (t?n tou alogou kai eik?(i) dunamin); to reason, spoke of the universe in ascribing the governance Anaxagoras, and random material in citing only irrational his predecessors, rationally; kind built
causes, spoke at random.
20

material causes, and also by positing a cause
559
of order, that is, of ta (tou eu kai kal?s nous fulfills the
and beautifully arranged" "things' being well men cf. b21-22). Anaxagoras's echein) (984bll-12; motion functions and of causing both of causing proper good even if they move toward motion, but nous, it is nous, just because all orderliness." Aristotle thing Thus unlike thus takes to nous is to cause order. disorder is "the Other rather cause
is order, but what can cause also things than toward order, and of [cosmic] order
as Empedocles'
nous Anaxagoras's since Empedocles philia, be evil) said to have made "if
to be much said
the
same have
(or should
said [985a4-5]) that philia

Empedocles Anaxagoras, Aristotle these clearly may the
is the cause of goods and neikos of evils.

the indeed good (and also, thing of nous a principle, concludes as rational the that [a single
which
is] the cause of all goods

thus causes not but posit here are good
is the Good-itself
"those
[auto tagathon]"
who speak
(985a9-10). or philia philia produce ating
virtues effects?), the universe.23 throughout
and Nous good" (988b8-9).22 souls these always (why should or principles of goodness oper
In parallel texts at Metaphysics 1075M-11 and 1091b8-12, Empedo are explicitly cles and Anaxagoras named and yoked together. 23 1.2 that Anaxagoras Aristotle does say in De Anima identified nous fails to convince even himself. "is not and soul; but Aristotle Anaxagoras 404bl. He "seems to say that soul and clear" on the subject; De Anima
nous are different . . . but he uses them as a single nature"; 405al3-15.
22
is trying to find what Anaxagoras says about soul; it looks as if at all on the subject in Anaxagoras, has found nothing and is to be found in the extant fragments). guessing nothing (there is certainly more or less identified nous and soul is The argument that Anaxagoras to the same principle that "he assigns both knowing and moving [kinein], when he says that nous moved 405al7-18. the All"; De Anima Nous is so Anaxagoras of knowing, must have the principle and soul of kinein, Aristotle identified soul and nous. gives a fuller version of the argument at 404bl-6: is less clear about [soul and nous]. For he says "Anaxagoras inmany places that nous is the cause [to aition] of [what is done] beautifully but elsewhere he says that this [touton] is soul, for he says and rightly, in all living things both great and small, both noble that this is present But nous in the sense of phron?sis and ignoble. [ho ge kata phron?sin in all living things; legomenos nous] does not seem to be present similarly not even in all men." This passage shows a great deal both about what found in Anaxagoras and about the presuppositions Aristotle with which The key point to note is that the antecedent Aristotle the text. approached ton noun, not the neuter the masculine of touton in 404b3 is unambiguously so as to suggest to aition translation the issue Oxford the fudges (the Aristotle Aristotle
560
Aristotle through criticizes
STEPHEN MENN
for his program of explanation Anaxagoras praises nous and the good. of course, Aristotle, like Plato, Then, own to out for his for carry program, failing Anaxagoras
"making no use" of nous (Metaphysics 985al7; cf. Phaedo

falling back on material causes: uses nous
98b9) and
as a device
"Anaxagoras for producing the cosmos, and whenever he is at a loss to [m?chane] cause then he for should be what say necessary, something [aitia] in nous, but otherwise he assigns rather than nous drags anything as a cause for the things which come to be" (985al8-21).24 Connected
often says that nous is the cause of what Anaxagoras opposite construal). and rightly, that is, he is using nous in the proper sense, is done beautifully to mean a virtue. But then, Aristotle he seems to turn around complains, even in and use nous in the sense of "soul": he says that nous is present worms not true of "nous in the sense of and the like, and this is certainly a, virtue which even most human beings don't have. Really, phron?sis," one thing by nous meant is it clear that Anaxagoras however, quite it was present in various concentrations and that he thought throughout, not everywhere, in different although parts of the universe, subjecting never means of rational control. Nous each of them to varying degrees said that there was a small amount of pure ratio soul, and if Anaxagoras not be expurgated. If Anaxagoras this should did say in worms, nality somewhere that nous and soul are the same thing, then he meant what meant when he said (frag. 4) that air is both soul of Apollonia Diogenes of one and the same prin that the presence and no?sis to animals, namely, and intelligence argues from what (Diogenes ciple causes both vital motion Plato says, in a not very serious context if you remove the air). happens that Anaxagoras made "nous and soul order and hold (Cratylus 400a8ff), identified [echein] the nature of all other things," implying that Anaxagoras nous and soul. with diakosmein But here nous is associated (as usual), with echein. This association is used to argue that and soul is associated There is probably the word psuch? is short for phusech?, "nature-holding." behind this at all (Plato has taken the Anaxagorean nothing genuinely and put in the words psuch?, usual catch phrase noun panta diakosmein, to for psuch?). If and the insinuate proposed etymology echein, phusis is responsible there is, then the point is that one and the same substance the order into things and for holding both for introducing things together, of nous, and the latter of soul. function former being a characteristic 24 uses nous as the tragedians use is that Anaxagoras The implication a deus ex machina: This is what Plato says whenever they are at a loss. this to what and he there compares do (Cratylus 425d5-6), the tragedians a philosopher in a god to explain the first be tempted to do, bringing might in at Plato does not seem to use this comparison of names. imposition course of of the substance Aristotle's however, though tacking Anaxagoras, on the Socrates' echoes the Phaedo. judgment (Plato compares complaint to the pronouncements of a deus ex machina at folly of human pursuits but this seems to be an unrelated the end of a tragedy, Clitophon 407a6-8, like the Clitophon comparison may also be implied Something comparison. at Sophist 216c2ff, esp. c5-6.)

with though qua this also is the that Anaxagoras charge as the good, nous or philia do not say that but rather and
561
al Empedocles, it a cause do not make
they posit since good, "they the sake
to-be for
of these,
either is or comes anything that they are the sources of
motion" (988b9-ll). Aristotle echoes the disappointment

who that duce that like "would never have that
of Socrates
in the Phaedo,
while thought saying [Anaxagoras], have been ordered intro by nous, would [the heavenly bodies] was that for them other it best any except explanation [aitia] be as they are" So Aristotle, (Phaedo 98a6-bl). they should to carry out Anaxagoras's Plato undertakes in the Timaeus,
program order
than Anaxagoras himself had done, explaining better the causes of the physical world from nous, without material citing as anything more nous adapts than the sunaitia which for its pur and without abandoning the program of explanation through the best. Aristotle, existing like Anaxagoras and Plato, substance which is the ultimate to the nous physical world: Aristotle posits nous as a separately cause of motion, order, and for praises Anaxagoras
poses,
goodness making master which merely
for only thus can it move and unmixed, and impassible Nous exists the world 256b24-27). (Physics itself-by-itself, means it is separate all that from above the things which have nous: there is not the least suggestion Aristotle anywhere insists in
Aristotle
which
that the first principle

have nous.25 On
is a soul, that is, the sort of thing

the contrary, that
would
25 I should note one controversial To avert confusion, I thesis which I do not take it to imply, and take my claim to imply, and another which I do not believe to imply that Aristotle to be true. I do mean which did not identify the first principle, nous, with a soul at any stage in his career. to find this identification Von Arnim's in the fragments of the attempts De Philosophia, and in parts of the De C?elo, are at best unsupported and von Arnim's reasons often directly contradicted Furthermore, by the texts. for finding this position plausible (to show Aristotle gradually moving away from Platonism) collapse once we realize that Plato's world-governing nous is not a soul. On the other hand, I do not mean to imply that Aristotle, at any stage in his career, thought that the heavenly bodies did not have the first principle. souls; it is just that these souls are not identical with Aristotle in the De Philosophia and the De C?elo that the clearly asserts bodies have souls; De C?elo 2.1, which has been taken to say that heavenly of the kind, and Metaphysics they do not have souls, says nothing 12, by It would, that they have souls. saying that the heavens desire, presupposes to reject the for Aristotle in the historical have been bizarre context,
562
its ousia He is even is nous, willing that is, that that nous is what it is and is no?sis,
STEPHEN MENN
not what to show it has. unam
to say
its essence
biguously
should nous,
that the first principle
is not a psychic
or,
faculty, which
if in a sense it is the no?sis
be said to have strictly (not to be) nous, at any rate has no?sis. The first principle
is rather
itself which a psychic faculty might

22, 28-9).26 We clusion Aristotle may have difficulty, however,
have (cf.Metaphysics
1074bl7
con in accepting the apparent as for Plato, of nous it is the virtue that for Aristotle, (which in its without Nicomachean nature, recognizes, discussing
Ethics
6.6) which
is the first principle.

is a single
Nous,
in the sense in which
it is the principle, think that Aristotle might separately virtues existing in this way, but
and one substance; existing separately as being does not regard the virtues such of course, the substances. does Plato, regard this is because of his of Forms. Just theory in separate Forms? or in the Hot-itself are virtuous in Justice-itself, does by partic rational
as things have other predicates or three hot or golden being or the Three-itself?so Gold-itself ipating
by participating by participating also they
in the virtues?just by participating in Reason-itself. Aristotle, by participating at least not if they are taken lieve in Forms, he rejects Plato's
of explaining way are hot or gold or three that things through participating or or Gold-itself Hot-itself Three-itself, existing arately
not be however, to exist separately, and denies Aristotle predication. in a sep so he should
doctrine that the heavenly bodies were ensouled?a doctrine which was at or reactionary the time not in any way irrational (as it is now, or was when Thomas Taylor held it), and which was rejected only by Epicurus, who rejected the science of astronomy it. The view that Ar along with seems to stem (i) from a misguided istotle did reject this doctrine attempt common to make Aristotle scientific agree with modern sense; and (ii) of seeing how Aristotle from the difficulty could maintain both that nous causes the celestial and that a soul distinct from nous causes rotations, rotations. the celestial Aristotle has no more difficulty maintaining these two propositions, than he does that the soul of the however, maintaining causes the production artisan of the artifact, and that the art causes the of the artifact. production 26 that the I cannot pursue the point here, it should be evident While nous of De to the psychic nous of De Anima 3.5, the cause of energeia Anima 3.4, is nous in the strict sense, that is, God. I hope that my comments not directly in what follows on Aristotle's concept of God as nous, although the Alexandrist will help to make the De Anima, theological addressing 3.5 more and plausible. of De Anima intelligible interpretation

also deny that existing people are intelligent through participating
563
in a sep
arately it is also "it
Intelligence-itself.
I think this is in fact a misleading

a misleading that from is evident
picture of Aristotle
(perhaps
as for Plato, For Aristotle, of Plato). picture is some and unmoved eternal there substance (Metaphysics in deliberately and Aristotle 1073a3-5), as "some terms Platonic
separated is willing thing tainly arately
the sensibles" this
to describe and many
separated rejects and
itself-by-itself" Platonic claims for
itself-by-itself,"
cer Aristotle (1075al2-13). of the type "The X exists sep "There is a Hot-itself, example,
from the many Gold-itself, Three-itself, existing things separately are hot, gold, which to reject all be concerned three"; but he cannot claims the claim that of this type, since (as we have seen) he accepts from is a Good-itself the many there separately existing things a general are good. to Aristotle Thus to ascribe which it is a mistake concern attitude which to avoid toward is being but the Platonic separation separated. to avoid of predicates. Aristotle's separation on nature of the the predicate depends concern Aristotle's is not to avoid general to divine, immaterial substances
separation, matter. erly
applying
predicates which are in fact applicable only to things bound up with

Aristotle assimilating frequently incorruptible that they the charges the Platonists to corruptible lacking they are with things do this because, improp He things.
polemically, with acquaintance scribe only these ones
implies,
separate substances, in terms of the things which down-here, things know. I will cite two texts: they simply key
forced
any genuine to de are the
in many places, but what is most [The theory of forms] has difficulties absurd is to say that there are natures beyond those which are within the heaven, but to say that these are the same as the sensibles, except that the former are eternal and the latter are corruptible. For they and horse-itself and health-itself, and say that there is a man-himself close to those who said that there were nothing else, doing something for neither did those people gods, but in human form [anthrdpoeideis]: other than eternal men, nor do [the poets] make [the gods] anything the forms anything these people make other than [the Platonists] eternal sensibles. 997b5-12) (Metaphysics Those who speak of Forms in one way speak rightly by separating but in another way not rightly, them, if indeed these are substances; because is a Form. And the reason they say that the one-over-many is that they cannot tell what the substances of this kind are, the in ones beyond the individuals so they make and sensibles: corruptible these the same in species the corruptibles (for [or form, eidos] with these we know), man-himself and horse-itself, adding to the sensibles
564
the word
STEPHEN MENN
"itself." But even ifwe had never seen the stars, nonetheless there would still be eternal substances (I deem) beyond those we knew; so also in the present case, even if we cannot tell what they are, it is still doubtless that there should be some. necessary (Metaphysics 1040b27-1041a3)27 It Aristotle is clear from these to adopt his Platonic less than the and from many that passages, others, as his own the Platonic search for sep
is willing
arate
intelligible
to accuse
substances,
and within
companions real object
the context of this joint

of being of their too ready to settle
search, for something accept turns Homer,
a sensible against Hesiod,
that search, is, to as a substance. Aristotle thing disguised separate which Plato the criticisms Plato had used against and others for their does not always is a separately divine X existing a lesser degree: the many X's become Xin of divine there anthropomorphic This things. or otherwise
unworthy representations to deny lead Aristotle itself, by relation on matter,
that
to which
it depends on whether X
depends
is the sort of predicate which

it is, like "good," the sort
essentially
of predicate
or whether
which would also apply to immaterial
things, differently
rejects, or Idea assumes
but in the
the we Idea
sense. Aristotle strongest possible always that the separate X-itself is the Form claim to the Good, Aristotle have seen with respect of X
however, of X. As that the
to believe, there were such a thing) (if, as we have no reason an eternal instantiation of the would be merely existing separately no more is which is white for "that and many X; days predicate
white
than that which
is white
for one day" (Eudemian Ethics

X, there is a separate X-itself,
1218al3-14).
If, for a given
predicate
27 "Even if we had never seen the is particularly This passage biting. from the cave." (Aristotle "even if we had never emerged stars" means a cave a in transmitted the version of fragment by Cicero allegory, gives stresses the stars as the supreme Deorum at De Natura 2.27.95, which are cut off.) the cave-dwellers Ar from which object of contemplation is suggesting that the Platonists, istotle they have recognized although that we are living in a cave in the sensible world, have only fooled them out: in fact they "have selves into thinking they have found a passageway never seen the stars" and are still in the cave, although they have come to that some of the things they have seen down here are really the believe In the context is of Metaphysics eternal up there. 7, Aristotle objects Even though we have not managed this as a piece of consolation: offering immaterial to see the "stars" (separate substances) by looking for Forms, no doubt there are such substances, and we may be able to find another claims to do in leads to them. This is what Aristotle way which Metaphysics
12.

this must X's are, be X and in a higher so we cannot and more primary inherent way than the
565
other
is, for example, or Wisdom-itself, these must be just or wise, but they certainly more must be (not merely than quantitatively) just and more wise or or than human and wise human wise beings, just just qualities or actions. if there is indeed a Justice-itself, be an Thus it cannot Idea of Justice. If there were a separate it is hard to imagine what Horse-itself, an immortal that in the be except horse, is, an Idea of horse sense in which Aristotle understands "Idea." We might, debunking a Horse in of course, that the of is horse Idea different and say it could higher Aristotle sense than that in which and ordinary sensible horses that are horses. not very plausibly, however, mean ac at all by this, that we would have no genuine anything no thus and the with, genuine conception of, quaintance allegedly sense of horseness which Horse higher applies only to the eternal charges, itself. From Aristotle's an eternal "prudent," we would
simply which
by abstracting are X. So if there
acquire out the X-ness
or communicate
of it knowledge in the ordinary things a separate Justice-itself
discovering and "just" beings, arate
of view, there of is a better chance point or Prudence-itself. Justice-itself To be sure, as
signify existence
of human they are ordinarily predicated are even less capable and qualities of sep qualities, a a If there like horse. substance than is material
or Prudence-itself, to these would have Justice-itself is a separate we if is Yet it seek these but substances. be not qualities only or as essence in and of the prudent prudence just things justice of quality; the category and there that we are stuck within people for Justice-itself. of looking is another and more way promising The moral and intellectual virtues for and are, Aristotle, hexeis, or states, not merely this means that they are habits but also that they are possessions, that they consist in having something. A per
son is just by having justice, intelligent by having nous, a geometer

geometry, by possessing or diagrammata.2S theorems or by possessing This analysis particular geometrical of the virtues does not
28 For Aristotle's Origins of Aristotle's Philosophy, Theaetetus distinguish
see my article "The as havings, of virtues analysis and Dunamis," Ancient Concept of Energeia: Energeia from Aristotle takes this Plato's forthcoming. analysis and Euthydemus, both of which, using different terminology, some object, such as a piece between of having merely
566
presuppose mind described any particular Aristotle theory allows of what a wide the
STEPHEN MENN
are that the objects to be of relations variety "Fis to Fin in X" or some way to according
possesses.
(chr?sthai) are just through whatever having kata) Y. We justice, we are some if turns out it that relation be: just through justice may will be Justice this substance to some separate of having substance, we are on to enabled exercise itself. the If, contrary, only justice (energein through a relation then there will
"Fbelongs that enables
"JThas F" by the phrase to X"): in each case, Xis Jf to use or exercise
(or, equivalently, related stably
Y or act
to something from the conditions of inseparable a not be Justice-itself. matter, separate In fact, Aristotle thinks that some virtues exist separately and he thinks that only nous exists others do not; or rather, separately, and from that virtues which But are not even matter.29 enough principle Aristotle of the virtues, Aristotle can to nous are all inseparable equivalent if only one virtue exists this separately, was not committed to any that Aristotle that the virtues cannot exist apart from
is still general virtues. ration
to show implying does but
the souls (that is, the forms of living bodies) which

not, rather in principle, subjects of nous reject it to a critical
possess
these
sepa
the Platonic
examination
which yields different results for different virtues.

how allow the virtue to exist
Instead of asking
apart (for there
is nothing
thinks of matter. concern that
intrinsically
the other I will not
problematic
cannot this
in this), we should ask why he

exist
virtues
is simply as agreeing with all will, things cite
explore to eliminate Plato
apart from the conditions in depth, here since my question an objection to interpreting Aristotle that than the nous a soul it does which orders I or a mind. not precisely
is the virtue
and Anaxagoras of reason, rather which,
however,
one passage
although
and actually using it. As I show in the article cited, this dis knowledge, is the starting and using tinction between point for Aristotle's having such as the Pro In early works hexis and energeia. between distinction in later works he where Aristotle says chr?sis, "use," frequently trepticus, would say energeia. 29 This does not necessarily imply that there is only one separately turn out to be a generic virtue virtue, since nous might including existing I suspect that this will turn out to explain several distinct specific virtues. of the nonequatorial celestial motions: the status of the movers they are enable the celestial souls to move virtues which the arts or intellectual I will not pursue this point here, however, and their respective spheres. it can be assumed that nous is a single of this paper for the remainder specific virtue.

formulate exist totle's istotle's or precisely does separately, critical critical review review resolve the question whether to show the connection separation of the the virtues between virtues
567
can Aris and Ar of sensible
help of Plato's
separation As Metaphysics 997b5-12 thinks that shows, Aristotle an eternal or Horse-itself to posit Man-himself is to give an an or theriomorphic of a divine The description thropomorphic entity. tradition Aristotle his anti-anthropomorphic gives starting point substances. for criticizing of separation: assertions IfXdepends of matter of and generable (especially corruptible on the conditions matter), to men then X
of Plato's
of the forms
should not be predicated

to exist but separately. less obviously, also, This
of a divine being, and X should not be said

clearly principle applies to some of the virtues: and horses,
We have supposed that the gods are most of all blessed and happy; so what kind of practical action is it fitting to attribute to them? Just actions? contracts and returning They would seem ridiculous, making and the like. Brave to fearful deposits actions, submitting things and accepting it is noble? Generous actions? To danger because whom will they give? It is absurd if they too are to have money or of the kind. And temperate actions, what would they be? something The praise is vulgar, for they do not have bad appetites. If we ex amine, all these things seem to be about actions which are petty and of the gods. Yet everyone has supposed that they live, and unworthy so that they act: surely they are not asleep like Endymion. But if someone is alive and practical action is taken away, and still more is left to him except contemplation? So the productive action, what would be contemplative activity of God, distinguished by blessedness, Ethics (Nicomachean activity. 1178b8-22, my emphasis) This intellectual passage virtue alone exists does not commit to thinking that of the independently things Aristotle
itself-by-itself, arts about that
which
moral way. ments, a thing, So
participate
virtues Through it was must and
in it; it does commit him to thinking

the productive all the debates for granted itself most just, do not exist the Forms separately or their if there
that the
in this replace is such
taken be
be most good. if the gods cannot cannot be just, Justice-itself be a god, and this means that it cannot exist from matter. Our passage separately seems to leave open the case of theo from the Nicomachean Ethics retical virtue: perhaps against and it exists this), some but just by itself (certainly we have seen no arguments or more gods individual the virtue is shared perhaps by one as an human without by beings existing from these many But it is clear from participants.
Justice-itself, as a Good-itself must
apart
568
other itself. different any given Aristotelian There texts that intellectual virtue does
STEPHEN MENN
itself-by a plurality of intellectual is, of course, virtues, knowing will not of For the all and these. possess gods objects, if V is possessed virtue V, however, by some god G, at exist
least if G is divine in the strictest sense, being purely immaterial and not merely everlasting like the heavenly bodies, then V must
exist itself by itself. For an immaterial not being simply is pure have no dunamis: consequently, G does energeia, the virtue with V, in
the sense
dunamis we the
in which
to act
a human being has V (which implies having a

to V). Instead, to avoid the implication that sense
according cited
of potentiality, G must
have already substance or essence
itself be the activity of V. Thus in the passage

from Metaphysics of the first 12.9, Aristotle principle is nous, argues in the
of no?sis: If it [nous] intellectually-perceives in it would be [noei] nothing, what It would be as if it were asleep. of worship? But if it does worthy over it (for the else is master and something intellectually-perceive, it is is not no?sis but dunamis), which it would not be the substance for what to it through best substance: is valuable intellec belongs it would acquire value from some tually-perceiving [sc. and therefore the thing it perceives, and so this must be more thing else, namely to hypothesis]. valuable, contrary (1074bl7-21) Aristotle both the possibility outside it. He that nous-itself noei noth
rejects
ing, and the possibility

to energeia by something that its substance sibility at the problem posed nous is to be described The god is not
that it noei as a dunamis which

is no?sis. accepts This is the only way
is brought
pos to solve
the remaining
of the chapter, of how the beginning namely, in such a way that it will be most divine. a which intellectual has but simply being virtue,
rather he is the intellectual
virtue existing
itself-by-itself.30
This
30 Note that God (nous) is identified with the Good, which is the object on the ground and the goal of his productive of his knowledge activity, is somehow the same thing as health"; Metaphysics that "the art of medicine not to a doctor, but to the medical art 1075bl0. God is here compared, A few lines further down itself. says that views (1075b20ff) Aristotle those of Anaxagoras, other than his (for example, Empedocles, Plato) are to wisdom and to the forced to admit "that there is something contrary asserts most valuable while Aristotle himself that "there is knowledge," to the First"; 1075b21-22. Aristotle's is clear contrary meaning nothing are God himself, not knowledge" enough: "Wisdom and the most valuable of God. had ad (as Ross tries to make out) our knowledge Empedocles

in itself, is not a hexis or dunamis, considered virtue, we can (at best) The god just is this energeia, while as a hexis, us to be from dunamis brought allowing outside something It is important the virtue we have what very same the the ourselves. to see that the virtue in: when the god is is the same we intellectually-perceive
569
but an energeia. have the virtue to energeia by as
or participate
god perceives same intellectual science god
through possess
specified it in a stronger possesses way, it; we possess by being a nonidentity since the virtue relation, by perceiving it, is the same as the object we perceive, the god: namely,
we possess the god himself), the (namely, virtue which the god possesses, that is, the same content. is the The difference that by it we
In some cases the knowledge is the is the essence and the knowledge the theoretical the logos [sciences] So where the nooumenon and the it will which do not have matter, will be one with the nooumenon. is not maintaining knower is the same
object: in the productive [arts] the substance without the matter; in is both the object and the no?sis. nous are not different, in things be the same thing, and the no?sis (Metaphysics thesis 1075a2-5) that an ordinary hu He is main
Aristotle man
the bizarre as the object
of knowledge.
taining that the knowledge is the same as the object of knowledge (without its matter, if it has any), and that if the knowledge exists
separately agrees with tuous, and itself will be most Aristotle knowledge knowing. that the self-subsisting Plato virtue is itself most vir a to that human become lesser beings virtuous, degree, the
by participating
mitted
in this.
Aristotle
disagrees
about which
virtues
a contrary to philia, namely, had argued in neikos, and Aristotle a 984b32ff that Anaxagoras should have admitted Metaphysics logically to nous in order to explain the existence of things contrary to the contrary Plato contrasts the soul "which takes nous as its companion" and good. the soul "which is conjoined with anoia" and produces good works with evil works as if nous and anoia were two contrary Forms; Laws produces 897bl-4. Aristotle does not have to admit that his nous has a contrary, it is not a formal or efficient but a final cause, and there is no final because cause of evil works qua evil, as there is of good works qua good. Eis to enantion at 1075b23-4 should be retained: the point is that an to the highest would be contrary to a con contrary ignorance knowledge Aristotle trary, not that it would be about a contrary. gets a reductio ad if there were an ignorance absurdum: to nous, then nous would contrary but "all contraries itself be a contrary; have a matter, and these things are in potentiality" so nous would not be pure energeia. If (1075b22-23), were right, there would be no argument. Ross's translation
570
exist many they out throwing separately, of the intellectual virtues presuppose matter (like the arts and
STEPHEN MENN
the moral virtues and that or
as well, knowing
on the ground always the essence of snubness)
potentiality
(like discursive
science).
Again, Aristotle
denies that
a separately is the Idea of knowledge, because existing knowledge are such natures or this too would involve "If there potentiality: as the dialecticians substances describe the Ideas as being, there will more more much than Knowledge-itself and something knowing than Motion, for these [ordinary of knowledge moved instances are more and motion] and those activities, [the Ideas] are [merely] be for these" (Metaphysics in its own right, be related Idea of knowledge to anything in particular. it as an absurd conclusion that Knowledge-itself 1050b34-1051a2). and the relational For an Idea can
powers would
not be changing not in itself Aristotle
takes
should not itself be most knowing; and so, avoiding

Ideas, he tries to exhibit because knowing of knowing knowledge, Knowledge altering anything potentiality. trine, however, as a separate
universe.
the doctrine of
which is more be the activity
than we,
a separate it is more
Knowledge-itself It must activity. namely we participate in knowing. to avoid the the
something
namely this is what Plato's which doctrine would These which substance,
in particular, When itself. we share
of highest object in a separate Aristotle is here
in order on
depend alterations is that and
to the gods attributing or on conditions of matter core exists in the of the doc
do not virtue, is the
the change the best virtue, cause of order
by itself sensible
IV
It is clear the separate
from virtue
what
has
been
said
that Aristotle's to Plato's
doctrine
of
nous-itse\f
is related
doctrine
of nous Good agrees be rejects of X
in much itself that cause the would not tries
the same way is related of these
that Aristotle's doctrine can of
doctrine
of the separate Aristotle and
to Plato's things
the Good.
each
they are not dependent claim that the X-itself be no more contribute to describe X than
exist separate on the conditions of X, X's
itself-by-itself, He of matter. the Form because
is the Form corruptible
because and
are,
it would Aristotle a way that
to the X-ness of other causally or nous-itself, the Good-itself,
things. in such

it is most knowledge Aristotle separately offers nous," Form
571
or most or of goodness and the source good, knowing, to other is not yet clear, however, is why What things. are the same A thinks that nous and the Good thing. be good, but it is not ob virtue would existing certainly
vious that it would be the Good-itself;

the alternative, "God is either nous seems to have asserted and Plato of the Good, turn
the fragment
of On Prayer
or something even beyond the that the highest God,
modifications
nous. is something How do Aristotle's beyond the Good and nous into the same thing? I cannot
fully answer
this question
here, but I will
try to sketch some key

of other things.
in the development of Aristotle's points Both the Good and nous are posited nous seems to be an efficient
argument. as causes
The good should be the final cause (as inEudemian Ethics

inMetaphysics axagoras since nous does what from the Phaedo,
1.8), while
cause account of An (as in Aristotle's causes are two but these 1), linked, closely As we learn it does for the sake of the good. was he that abandoning that best his own goal of ex said it was as they were things were for them to be so. The
planation for some Timaeus what not nous think
through reason other
Anaxagoras nous when than
to fulfill Anaxagoras's that program, attempts showing it does for the best; but Aristotle does does at each stage the defects has fully corrected of Anaxagoras's that Plato Plato wants the
physics.
because the latter is Reason demiurge, to overcome the disorderly motion of itself, by persuasion (peitho) or constraint are the good, not by violence which char (bia, ananke), some rather of the "wandering In fact, though, acteristic cause." of and the works demiurge's once Plato even says are clearly accomplished that the demiurge by brute force, fits something
explicitly
together by violence
(sunarmott?n bid [i]) (Timaeus 35a8). Aristotle

to its appropriate to free it from de presuppose not merely of nous's that to prune activity, of to it
in a manner to describe is trying nous's causality nature both as nous and as pure energeia, and are anthropomorphic or which which scriptions contains away all God's dunamis. more This process leads Aristotle descriptions more Plato's violent
obviously
but to whittle
that
down the complex cosmotheology

is Aristotle's If nous own much is pure energeia,
of the Timaeus until

austere it cannot doctrine now begin
is left
causality.31
31 Cherniss
and others
have
asked why Aristotle
does not mention
the
572 act after a period of inactivity

preexisting also cannot chaos), nor can
STEPHEN MENN (as if it had created the world out of

effects which last only for a
it produce
finite time (as if it intervened directly among sublunar bodies).

act on bodies their resistance in such by a way that it would a soul moves The only its body). an efficient cause, Aristotle thinks, causes or intellection the sation such without the heaven itself affected
It
a way that it would be reciprocally a moves a body), or in when body (as be carried along by their motion (as when remaining is the way act of way that that nous can be an object of sen or intellection, of is
sensation
causes the soul affected. So nous eternally being to contemplate of because the soul the heaven and it,
always
thinking
this constant
motion sublunar
object,
it imitates
its constancy
by
producing in turn govern causal chain
a constant
which
the
in the heavens; and the celestial motions one is This things. certainly important nous with Timaeus recognizes connecting
to remain it is the only chain which Aristotle the world-order; allows nous as as consistent with the characterization of pure energeia. to insist, like Anaxagoras Aristotle continues and Plato, that or an cause source nous For him, however, is of motion. efficient nous moves causes as of thought But if nous and of desire. only as an object as of desire, and the object of rational the object desire on the part of a soul which is perfectly rational it partic (because a in nous), then nous is the Good; for this is what ipates perfectly would agree presumably the Good, and that it has this He would this, how explain is itself the Good, but that nous is what participates For Aristotle, are the same the same in nous however, knows the Plato
soul would desire. rational perfectly a soul rational desires that perfectly in nous. desire right by participating ever, by not that saying of the Good, also desires) the Good of medicine nous so the and that
Knowledge (and thus
Good. the Good is somehow
of Knowledge we say, the art
"For as thing: as health" thing
(Metaphysics
1075b9-10).
even conjectures that Aristotle Cherniss of the Timaeus; may demiurge own view) that Plato did not take in Cherniss's have thought (wrongly, as anything more than a myth; Aristotle's Criticism the demiurge of Plato But the truth is that Aristotle 610. and the Academy says a great deal name "demiurge," not by the relational of the Timaeus, about the demiurge name nous; Aristotle the demiurge, fails to criticize but by the essential in he believes but because to take him seriously, he refuses not because of course he does not believe many of the stories Plato tells him, although about this god.

By reduces the reducing the Good-itself causality to nous, of nous to final with
573
Aristotle causality, the Good dispensing mysterious nous and ousia, as the formal cause which Plato had posited, beyond to nous and to other the to of goodness Good things. By reducing a cause. is Aristotle shows how the Good nous, Aristotle complains inMetaphysics is a principle, cause] of goodness, it causes. "do not say how the Good predecessors or as mover end [final cause] whether [efficient or as form" a cause it Plato had made formal (1075a38-bl). his as or of unity, in other and so no better than what things, not to this is the the Good-itself. proper causality Clearly and Empedocles, Aristotle the Good with says, identified and they were of motion, had given right; but then they used nous and lost its connection with up entirely on showing how or philia the final the Good a final 12.10 that
Anaxagoras nous or philia,
only as a source cause. Speusippus but that
could be a principle.
showing of nous
Aristotle,
by identifying
of motion
the Good with nous,

just by being
is a source
cause, thinks that he has shown how the Good-itself

cause
is the first
is the source and of goodness to other the world-order, of the Good which is not a separate Form There would be things. cause of goodness to other things, but the separate the formal virtue of Reason-itself is the final cause for the sake of which the souls both good Plato of the heavens as they a separate are and of virtuous In this human sense beings Aristotle not perform such
works that
perform. Good-itself
is a paradigm,
agrees with as a Form, but
as the goal or model

the world-order,
in imitation of which all good things, including

produced.
Princeton
University

Menn, Aristotle and Plato On God As Nous

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Menn, Aristotle and Plato On God As Nous

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aristotle and Plato on God as Nous and as the Good Author(s): Stephen Menn Source: The Review of Metaphysics,

ARISTOTLEAND PLATO ON GOD AS NOUS AND AS THE GOOD1

the first mover

and why did he want

The most with theology Plato. There

doctrine of God: not that Plato himself

and position, to a Platonic theology

It is not theology God was

to. Jaeger be compared a for way replacement but in Laws

prasensible with Plato's

of knowledge; objects of soul discussion

the usual 10. and

comparison Plato argues that if (as he the first mover This

is impossible, something with soul, one and have

yond human the motions As Friedrich

some bodies, others

or more thus seen,

self-moving thinks that, be divine souls supply he the universe. is starting

of the heavenly Solmsen and

Although the argument

of the heavenly this approach of Physics

obviously and 8, although

something it has yielded

right about some results,

ARISTOTLE AND PLATO ON GOD

of com point we find plau

sible depends on how we describe

the being which Aristotle

enough will tell us about

itwill not tell us anything

about the object ofMetaphysics

Aristotle, in Laws 10, he

Second, in Physics concludes

8, criticizes that souls of Plato's

(souls divine, of unmoved movers, argument

get to souls, but it is not sufficient to get to a single first principle

(as opposed Aristotle's identify

doing in his theology.

being "divine" little

"god" (theos), names These (theios). content to be really useful.

relational, this reason

on them: the first principle

principle. essence of the names or

These "god" wide at least

good to convey because

(agathon, no more these the rational

extensions: as many goods. Ethics

mover," if nous can mean of them

beings, inNicomachean in all takes Now

it is easy to be names as nous the to name Plato

is predicated "good" to show that Aristotle of the essence of God.

of the both Plato

categories. "the Good" too and takes Plato to the

of the highest a (different) god, says in the Philebus and

principle; source of order "all

world. physical that nous is king

the wise and

agree this nous

how Aristotle of the Good

criticizes, divine principle,

ARISTOTLE AND PLATO ON GOD

theology his own doctrine of a divine principle which