-
The Place Of Man In Aristotle: The Basis Of Man’s Life Crisis
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 5]
Page 3 of 5
-
-
-
Also, Martin Heidegger has the opinion that man
cannot be defined until death. Therefore, it is only in death that one
can define man from his own perspectives. On the contrary, we can only
accept their propositions on the ground of the utopic nature of man, as
the humanity in Aristotle. Thus, the idea of Bloch’s ‘utopic being’
(utopischer Raum) stands supreme. But this is not the case even Mondin’s
claim that man is a kind of prodigy that combines within himself
apparent antitheses: a fallen unrealizable, divinity, unsuccessful
absolute value etc…17 Hence, he mutually concluded the part of his own
jolt by a two word definition of man as an impossible possibility.
Actually, A.J. Heschel observed this in his book, ‘Who is Man’, when he
writes that man portrays:
a conscious desire in man to be animal
‘natural in the experience of carnality or even to identify himself as
animal in destiny or essence.
Considerably, the definitions of man
since Aristotle bear the vestigial traces of this truth of ‘animality’
in man calling for recognition. The real predicament in man springs up
and as well becomes intensified by the attention of man to understand
the human ideal of reason as man’s ‘human’ nature, instead of
accomplishing the real natural level of animality in his experience of
the world so far, not neglecting the passions in man. The most
ridiculous drama going on in man’s unconsciousness is his abhorrence of
his authentic existence in evasion towards the definition of his nature
which he projects in the explanation of other beings other than himself.
Thus he denigrates them in an anthropomorphic greed, to be of lower
strata to himself.
Whenever man is seen analyzing other beings, it is
just a projection of greed. Unless this consideration is taken, man
continues to remain an animal, a project and a mystery. Man has no
perfect knowledge of himself.
1.4 Aristotle vis-Ã -vis Some Philosophers
Some
schools of thought view man as a mere spiritual singularity, while
others view man as somewhat a material body. And thirdly, those at the
mid-way have no acceptable explanation. Aristotle belongs to this last
group, as he attempted the reconciliation of the two through his
metaphysical theory of ‘hylemorphism’. Thus for him, man is a
substantial union of body (matter) and soul (form). But he couldn’t
balance the equation in the relation between passion and reason. Hence,
reason predominates, as it controls man in all his
actions.18
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 5]
Page 3 of 5
-
