Philosophy is all about the love of wisdom and by love of wisdom is meant love of

truth therefore philosophy is concerned with the apprehension of truth which in its
turn lies in knowledge of the causes of things that are. Therefore to know the truth
regarding a particular thing is to be knowledgeable concerning its causes, but is
apprehending the truth a possibility or not, well answering this question involves
answering another basic question regarding the existence of truth itself, meaning, is
the existence of truth a reality or not, well if it is asserted that the existence of truth
is not a reality then this assertion would either be true or false, if it is held to be
false then the exact negation of this assertion meaning that the existence of truth is
a reality would then be held to be true, however if the above mentioned assertion is
held to be true then there would still be something that is true meaning this
assertion, therefore either way this assertion would prove to be self-destructive.
Having established the existence of truth there is another issue concerning
causation or causes, meaning are the causes of things infinite or finite in number.
This is due to the fact that if the causes of things happen to be infinite in number so
a finite intellect cannot acquire knowledge concerning infinite causes in finite time,
therefore in this case the apprehension of truth or knowledge would remain
impossible. Aristotle then proceeds to refute the impossibility of infinite regress by
stating that a causal chain consists of a first term, an intermediate term/terms and a
final or end term, the final term is an effect of the intermediate one but not a cause
of any other effect, whereas the intermediate term is the cause of the final term and
an effect of the first term, which means that the final term cannot come into
existence without the intermediate term and the intermediate term itself cannot
come into existence without the first cause/term, it makes no difference whether
the first term is finite or infinite in number. According to Aristotle the desire to know
is innate within all humans and therefore all Men long to know. And Men first get to
satisfy this desire or longing for knowledge through the bodily senses, and through
the sense of sight most of all. Therefore according to the Philosopher the sense of
sight is superior to all the other external senses of perception. He divides objects
and things into those that are perceptible by the senses which he calls sensibles
and those that are perceptible to the intellect, which he refers to as intelligibles, by
their very nature sensibles are things that are material in nature whereas
intelligibles are things that are immaterial in nature and therefore due to being
devoid of sensible matter cannot be apprehended by the senses. Another important
distinction is made on the basis of change and an objects susceptibility to process,
therefore there are things that are subject to generation and corruption, and hence
mutable and certain others that are not subject to any change or corruption and
hence are immutable. Another classification is made on the basis of matter due to
which some are classified as material and some others as immaterial. The first
classification is on the basis of perception, the second on the basis of mutability and
the third on the basis of materiality. Invariably it is the sensibles that are material
and therefore prone to change as well, and it is the intelligibles that are immaterial
and therefore immutable. The reason why sensible objects are mutable is because
they are composed of matter that possesses potential or receptivity to change,
whereas intelligibles do not possess matter that is receptive to change, in other
words they lack the potential to change from one state to another. Change is
nothing but a movement or motion from potentiality towards an actuality, from not

having towards having, or from having towards not having, from non-being towards
being and from being towards non-being. Potential is not only for something positive
and good but could also be concerned with something negative and evil, such as
the potential in a thing for death and decay, this is because things that lack a
potential for destruction and decay cannot cease to exist, therefore those that are
subject to corruption and therefore experience decay are the ones that possess the
potential for corruption and decay and are hence receptive to destruction. Actuality
is concerned with that which is whereas potentiality is concerned with that which
could be, or in other words that which is possible. Potentiality is a lacking a not
having or privation, but without it there can be no actuality or having, in other
words a stone can never become a tree due to the lack of any potential to become
one, therefore it is not possible for a stone to actualize into a tree. A seed possesses
the potential to grow and actualize into a tree, and without such a potential there
can be no actualization. Therefore mutable existents that are receptive to change
are constantly in motion moving from potentiality towards actuality, from one state
to another, in other words they are always becoming and never are, immutable
beings that are not susceptible to change always are and are never becoming. A
seed is a seed in actuality but a tree in potentiality. Similarly ice is ice in actuality
but water in potentiality, whereas water is water in actuality but ice in potentiality.
Potentiality is temporally prior as compared to the state of actuality which
consequently happens to be posterior. Aristotle distinguishes between things that
change naturally and those that are changed artificially, the former change by
nature and the latter are changed by art or skill, those that change naturally are
said to possess the principle of change within themselves whereas those that are
changed by art or skill do not possess the principle of change within themselves but
their principle of change is to be found in something else, namely the possessor of
that art or skill. Things that change by nature have a potential to change into one
thing only, whereas things that are changed by art or skill possess multiple
potentialities, therefore it is not possible for a material thing to be multiple things in
actuality hence a material thing can only be one thing in actuality, but it is possible
for a material thing that is changed by art or skill i.e. the principle of whose change
is in something else, to be multiple things in potentiality. In case of material things
that possess multiple potentialities only one of the many possible potentialities can
be actualized at any one time to the exclusion of all the others, however multiple
potentialities can exist simultaneously at any one time in a single actuality. The
reason why in material objects only one of the multiple possible potentialities can
be actualized at any one time is due to the inherent limitation of matter which can
only receive or accept one single form at any given time to the exclusion of all the
other forms, such that as long as the received form subsists or resides in that
matter it cannot accept or receive any other. Which one of these multiple
potentialities, each of which is possible, is actualized in reality, in other words
necessitated into existence, depends upon the will of the maker or producer. But
this demonstrates the fact that possibility is prior to necessity, in other words before
any of the potentialities could be realized in actuality it is imperative for it to be
possible. An impossible potentiality can never be actualized or necessitated,
therefore for a potential to become an actuality or necessary it must first be
possible. But a potentiality by the very fact that it is a potentiality can never be

impossible, and by its very definition all potentialities are possible. Therefore
possibility is temporally prior to necessity, just as potentiality is temporally prior to
actuality. Therefore in order for the existence of anything to become necessary it
must first be possible, because an impossible essence can never be actualized. The
Causes of existents can be classified into universal and particular where a universal
cause is the cause shared by all effects or things, meaning it is something from
which all others derive their being or existence, whereas a particular cause is one
that bestows existence to only particular things and not to all, for example the
Quranic Adam (as) is the universal parent or cause of all mankind whereas Johns
father is the parent or particular cause of John alone. Aristotle identifies four
different causes of things namely material, formal, efficient and final. The material
cause is the matter or stuff that is used in the making or production of something,
for example wood is the material cause for furniture and bronze for a bronze statue.
It is that which receives the form of a thing into itself, and without which the form
will remain only a potentiality that cannot be actualized. Efficient cause is the name
given to the maker or producer of the object or thing, the one who imposes his will
on matter to create something. Things that change artificially have the principle of
change not within themselves but in their efficient cause. The efficient cause simply
imparts or imposes form on an already existing matter or stuff, he does not bring
into existence any new matter that did not exist before. The final cause is the
purpose or reason for which anything is produced or any activity is undertaken, for
example a house is built to be lived in, or a book is written to be read. The form of a
thing is that which makes that thing what it is, and without which that thing will not
be what it is, for example a chair will not be a chair if its matter is given the form of
a table. Another classification of existents is between eternal and temporal beings,
sensible things are temporal and hence non-eternal because they are mutable
beings subject to change, corruption and decay, this is due to the fact that these
things are composed of changeable matter, the eternal on the other hand is
immaterial, changeless or immutable, free from all decay and corruption, in short
indestructible. Temporal things are perishable, eternals imperishable, temporal
things are sensible and therefore can be apprehended by the external senses of
perception, an eternal being on the other hand is non-sensible and therefore cannot
be apprehended by the senses. The sensible things existing here are particulars
whereas universals are non-sensible in nature, they are immaterial and immutable
because if universals will be material then they would no longer remain universals
and would become particulars. Universals are intelligibles and therefore can only be
apprehended by the intellect. Particulars are concrete material objects that all
mutually share in the universals, but what do they all share with the universal, well
it is the essence that the individual particulars share in with the universal. For
example the essence of man is a universal which is mutually shared by all the
individual men that are particulars. If in case of all particulars belonging to a specific
genus or species if we extract from them those attributes, properties and features
that define the genus or species and without which it will not be what it is, in other
words the essential and commonly shared attributes present in all individuals of
that species or genus, so we will thereby arrive at the notion of a Universal. The
Philosopher defines the Necessary as that the negation of which is impossible,
therefore a thing is said to be necessary if the exact opposite of it cannot under any

condition occur or be realized. According to Aristotle the temporal beings are causes
of their effects and are themselves also effects of their causes except for the last
term in the causal series, however the primary being is eternal and an eternal being
cannot be the effect of any cause but is itself the cause of all other beings, this is
because that which is prior to all cannot be the effect of any being, this is due to the
fact that all effects are posterior to their causes. Most things have opposites for
example heat and cold, life and death, sickness and health out of these one is the
exact negation of the other. It is also noteworthy that out of the two opposites one
is a privation of the other therefore in the case of heat and cold it is heat that truly
exists and cold which is its opposite is the name given to the absence or privation of
heat, similarly out of life and death it is life that exists and death is simply the name
given to its privation or the absence of life. Aristotle lays down the principle of Noncontradiction according to which a thing cannot both be and not be, in other words
a thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same respect.
Similarly a statement or a proposition cannot both be true and false simultaneously,
it will either be true or false at any one given time but cannot be both at the same
time, therefore a thing will either be this or that but cannot be both this and that
simultaneously, this is due to the fact that absolute negations or opposites cannot
both exist at the same time. The principle refutes the idea that all things are true
because to assert that all things are true is tantamount to saying that nothing is
false, but how can that be because if nothing is false and all things are true then the
exact opposite of the proposition that all things are true, which is all things are
false, is also true and this is clearly absurd. Similarly if all things are true then to
say that x exists is the same as stating that x does not exists, the statement
that x does not exists is the exact opposite or a negation of the proposition that
x exists and if all things are true then this negation of a true proposition is also
true which is absurd once again. However both these propositions which are
opposites of one another would be held to be true if differentiated by time and
space, in other words x may exist at y time, but may not continue to exist later say
at time z, similarly x may exist or be present at place y which means that he will not
exist at place z simultaneously. Therefore two exact opposites or negations can both
be true but not at the same time but both can be true at different times and at
different places. This shows that to assert that all things are true is a selfdestructive proposition. Similarly if it is asserted that all things are false then this
assertion itself will either be true or false, if it is held to be true then there would be
something that is not false and this defeats the assertion, and if the assertion is
held to be false then to the negation of this assertion namely that all things are not
false will be true, therefore either way it is also a self-destructive proposition. A
thing cannot be both long and short with respect to the same thing at the same
time, and to say that it can be both long and short with respect to the same thing
simultaneously is to assert that all things are true and nothing is false. Similarly a
thing cannot be both black and white,fat or thin at the same time, it will either be
black or white, fat or thin at any one given time but cannot be both. We have
spoken of prior and posterior above but let us add that a thing could be said to be
prior or posterior in a number of ways, for instance there is temporal priority based
on the notion of time, according to which things that come into being or happen
before others in time are said to be temporally prior in comparison to those that

occur or come into existence after them in time. So for example parents happen to
be temporally prior with respect to their children. Therefore a thing cannot be both
temporally prior and posterior with respect to the same thing at the same time, it
will either be temporally prior or posterior to it but cannot be both. However a thing
or an object could be both temporally prior and posterior with respect to different
things at the same time, for example parents are temporally prior in relation to their
children but are in fact temporally posterior in relation to their own parents at the
same time, but this later kind of temporal relationship is relative and depends upon
the frame of reference that is used. However if the frame of reference remains
unchanged so the temporal status (prior/posterior) will also remain fixed, and
therefore with respect to the same frame of reference a thing cannot be both
temporally prior as well as posterior simultaneously. In addition to temporal priority
based on time there is another kind of prior and posterior relationship based on the
notion of space which may be referred to as spatial priority or posterior according to
which a place or point is said to be spatially prior to another if it appears or comes
before the other when moving, and that which comes or appears later is said to be
spatially posterior with respect to the other. Therefore a place or point cannot be
both prior and posterior in relation to another place or point in the same respect at
the same time. However spatial priority/posterior like temporal priority/posterior
could be relative and a thing could be both spatially prior and posterior in relation to
the same thing but in a different respect, for instance imagine a straight line
consisting of points A,B,C and D now moving from A to D point B happens to be
prior in comparison to point C which consequently is posterior in relation to B, but if
we move from D to A so this relationship is reversed such that moving from D to A
point C happens to be prior in comparison to point B which is now posterior to C,
this demonstrates the fact that the same thing could be both prior and posterior in
relation to the same thing but in a different respect, but in that specific respect this
relation remains fixed or constant. This demonstrates the non-relativity of truth and
the universal and constant nature thereof. Aristotle classifies existents into two
further categories namely actual existents and potential existents, where a potential
being is one for which it is possible to come into existence but that which does not
yet exists in reality, in other words it is an existent that does not possesses actual
existence but has the potential or possibility to do so, for example as long as the
tree does not sprouts forth from the seed it is a potential existent devoid of actuality
but when it does sprouts forth it becomes an actual thing, similarly as long as the
form of a house exists in the builders thought it remains a potential existent but
becomes actual only after the builder builds it, whereas an actual being is one that
possesses being in reality or actuality, most actual existents are those in whom the
potential to come into being is later realized into an actuality, in other words most
actual existents are such that they are moved from being potential to being actual,
meaning that most actual existents come into being from non-being, but not all
actual existents are moved from potentiality to actuality, this is due to the fact that
a potential existent cannot move itself towards actuality and therefore has to be
moved by another, it cannot move itself because it is not possible for any being to
give to itself what it does not have, meaning actuality. Now assume a causal chain
consisting of A which is the first being, B which is/are intermediate beings, it makes
no difference whether these intermediate beings are finite or infinite, and C which is

the final existent in the causal link, C cannot come into being without B which in its
turn cannot come into being without A, now if all these existents were, prior to their
coming into existence, potential existents so we know that all potential beings are
moved by another towards actuality, therefore if A in the above causal chain is a
potential being so it will not be able to possess actual being if it remains unmoved
bearing in mind the fact that being potential it cannot move itself, that being the
case if all beings are potential beings then nothing would have come into existence
and there would be no being, which as we know is clearly not the case because we
exist and so does this universe, therefore A could not have been a potential being
that is moved to actuality, but instead must be an unmoved mover, one that is
never a potential existent but is always an actual being, moving all others but itself
being unmoved. Therefore there are three kinds of existents namely those that
move others and are themselves also moved by another, those that are moved but
do not move any other, and those that move all others but themselves remain
unmoved and it is this last kind that is always actual. Actuality and Potentiality can
also be spoken of in another way, for example a builder is potentially a builder when
not doing the building, but becomes a builder in actuality when he is doing the
building, similarly a cutter is potentially a utter when not doing the cutting but
becomes a cutter in actuality when it is cutting, or a singer is potentially a singer
when not singing but becomes one in actuality when he/she sings. If a singer builds
so his being a builder is something accidental, similarly if a builder happens to sing
so his singing is something accidental. According to the philosopher a thing or an
object cannot have contradictory properties or attributes at the same time for
example it is not possible for a figure to be both a triangle and a square
simultaneously, it will either be triangular or cubical but cannot be both at the same
time, similarly a man cannot be a biped and a quadruped at the same time, he will
be either one of these at any one time. According to the philosopher human senses
are limited in the sense that they only have jurisdiction over things that pertain to
that particular sense and not over all sensible things for instance our sense of sight
cannot taste things, similarly the sense of smell cannot see things, seeing is the
province of sight alone similarly smelling is the province of the sense of smell alone.
The philosopher makes a clear distinction between appearance and reality/truth by
refuting the idea or doctrine that appearance is reality or that appearance is
equivalent to truth, because if appearance is held to be the same as truth so this
would lead to contradictory assertions or contradictory things to be true at the same
time, because to say the reality/truth is equivalent to appearance is to assert that
truth is the same as perception, but this would lead to the contradictory things
being true which is inadmissible, this is because the same object or thing could
appear differently to different individuals, for instance a red colored rose would
appear red to one but may appear yellow or green to someone else at the same
time without undergoing any change, if appearance is the same as truth then both
of them would be right in their respective opinions which would mean that the same
rose would be both red and yellow or green at the same time. To furnish another
example a thing could taste sweet to one individual who is healthy and bitter to
another who is ill at the same time without there being any change in the thing
itself, now if appearance is the same as reality or truth then this thing would both
be sweet and bitter at the same time, which is impossible, because if that were to

be the case then nothing could be asserted or said about anything with certainty. In
fact the same thing or object could appear differently to the same individual but not
at the same time or under the same circumstances or conditions, for instance a
man may find something to be sweet when he is healthy but may find it to be bitter
when ill, for instance a thing may taste sweet to someone at a certain time but after
having consumed something sweeter the first thing may not appear as sweet as it
did previously. This difference in appearance or sensation is due to changing
conditions and circumstances and therefore cannot be attributed to a change in
truth which remains the same under all conditions and is immutable. In the opinion
of the philosopher sensibles are known as such because they can be sensed,
therefore if an object or a thing cannot be sensed it cannot be regarded as being
sensible but in his view the objective reality of things is not perception related or
dependent in other words things would continue to exist even if they cannot be
perceived. Aristotle refutes the idea that things exist only when perceived or sensed
and not otherwise. Concerning potentiality and actuality the Philosopher states that
man comes from a child in a sense that a child later grows into a man therefore a
child is man in potentiality. Aristotle classifies change as quantitative and
qualitative, where quantitative change depends upon increase or decrease in
number or quantity of a given thing, for example if the number of fruit growing on a
tree increases so that sort of change is quantitative in nature, qualitative change is
when a particular property of the thing changes or alters for example the color of a
thing changes from red to yellow or a man becomes sad, or if someone becomes
pleasant in appearance. According to the Philosophers matter has a number of
attributes such as generation, corruption, decay and decomposition, divisibility,
perishability, potentiality, and readiness to accept forms, in other words matter is
characterized with change and flux, this change and flux is motion, which is
movement from potentiality towards actuality. When it is said concerning a thing
this thing so what exactly is meant by the phrase this thing, meaning what is
being referred to in the phrase this thing, is it the color of that thing, or if the
thing is a person so is it his being black or white, fat or thin, tall or short, virtuous or
viscous, old or young, happy or sad, wise or stupid etc, because if this is what is
meant by the phrase this thing and if all the above mentioned properties define a
thing, then there would be no constant or fixed individuality because these
attributes are always in a state of flux or change, therefore if to be white defines
what that thing truly Is, then if that thing loses its whiteness then it would no longer
be what it Is, and would become a completely different thing other than the one
defines by the color white, but this is clearly absurd because if a man who is white
becomes black in complexion so he does not loses his identity and becomes another
individual but instead remains the same person that he was when he was white.
Similarly if being fat defines a persons reality so if he subsequently becomes thin
so would that person become an entirely different person now or would he continue
to remain that same individual that he was when he was fat, or alternatively if a
virtuous becomes evil so is he that same person who has now become evil, or is this
evil man a completely different person from the one who was good and virtuous.
Therefore all the above-mentioned properties or attributes are accidental in nature
and are subject to change and do not define the reality of a certain thing. These
accidents do not exist independently apart from an underlying substrate in the

external reality, in other words they do not have an objective concrete existence of
their own apart from an underlying substrate in which they inhere. For instance the
color red or any color for that matter, has no concrete being of its own but instead is
to be found inhering in a colored object, that acts as a substrate in relation to it,
same holds for the other accidental features such as being thin or tall, young or
short, for example obesity itself does not possess an objective concrete existence in
reality but instead it is always a certain person who is called fat or obese, and
obesity inheres in that person who acts as a substrate for it. So when we say this
thing, what exactly do we mean by it, we now know that we are not here referring
to the objects accidental properties such as its being thin or fat, black or white,
good or evil, then what is it that we are referring to. Well the answer to this question
is that we are in part referring to the material substrate or the material body of the
thing, which is its material cause. However all perceptible or sensible objects or
things are composites of matter and form, where matter is mere potentiality and
form represents actuality, and it is the appropriation of this form-actuality by matter
that renders it actual and this combination of matter and form is called the
composite, without form mere matter is simply potentiality. Therefore when we refer
to a thing as this thing so we are not only referring to its material substance but
also its formal substance or its formal cause that render that thing into what it really
is. For instance when we refer to a house so what do we really mean by it? Do we
only mean a collection of bricks and cement which are the material substance of a
house, or do we mean by it a certain combination or arrangement of this material
substance that transforms it into an enclosed structure with walls capable of
inhabiting people, which is its formal cause or form. Mere collection of bricks and
cement cannot be called a house unless given a certain arrangement or form. Mere
collection of bricks and cement is stuff with the potential to become a house devoid
of actuality, unless a specific from, meaning that of a house is imparted to it. Matter
of a house devoid of the form of a house cannot be called a house. Therefore all
perceptible things are composites of matter and form, and are hence divisible into
their constituent components. Similarly mere bronze cannot be called a statue,
unless some efficient cause, meaning a sculptor, imparts a specific form to the
bronze. As long as the bronze is without this form it is merely a statue in potentiality
but not in actuality, it means it has the potential or capacity to receive a certain
form, but this potential cannot actualize itself and is therefore in need of an efficient
cause for rendering it actual, by causing it to move from mere potentiality towards
actuality, and an efficient cause does this by imparting a certain from to an already
existent matter. Bronze which is mere matter or potentiality is in need of an efficient
cause because nature holds two kinds of things or existents namely a) those whose
principle of change or motion is within themselves and b) those whose principle of
change or motion is located not within them but in something other than them,
meaning the efficient cause. The first kind of beings or things include all animate
beings, such as humans and beasts, as well as plants, that have their principle of
motion or change, meaning growth, within themselves, and the second kind
includes things such as wood, which is potentially a bed or a chair, but does not
possess the principle of change within itself and therefore cannot actualize into a
chair or a bed without the skill of an efficient cause. Therefore it is the skill of an
efficient cause that acts as a mover of matter, which is mere potentiality towards

the acquisition of a specific from or actuality. This is because things which cannot
move on their own must therefore be moved by another. All sensible things are
composites being composed of matter and form, where matter is a sensible
substance and form an intelligible substance. A human efficient cause does not
create sensible substance or matter, nor does he create or produces intelligible
substance or form, therefore matter and form are not created or produced a human
efficient cause. If both the material as well as the formal substance that underlie a
particular thing are not created by a human efficient cause then what is it that is
made or produced by him, well it is the appropriation , acquisition or imparting of a
specific form to sensible matter that is known as production. It has already been
explained that matter is potentiality and potentiality is matter for the future
actuality, for example a plant soul is a plant soul in actuality but it is an animal soul
in potentiality, which means that it is matter for the future actuality or the animal
soul, and matter is potential pure and simple. Similarly an animal soul is an animal
soul in actuality but it is a human rational soul in potentiality, which means that an
animal soul is matter for the human rational soul, and matter as has been explained
is mere potentiality. To elaborate further a child is a child in actuality but a man in
potentiality which means that a child is matter for the future actuality or man. Being
can be classified into two distinct categories namely a) substantial and b)
accidental, in other words there are two kinds of beings namely substances and
accidents, therefore if a thing is said to have being so it will either be a substance or
an accident, so when we say that a thing Is so it means that it is either a substance
or an accident, now accidents are existents the being of which is dependent upon
the being or existence of substances and therefore cannot exist on their own, in
other words they cannot exist independently of substances for instance the
fragrance that emanates from the substance of a flower is an accident or an
accidental being that cannot exist independently of the substance of the flower and
therefore relies upon it for its coming into being and also the subsistence thereof,
substances on the other hand are independent in existence, and substances also
can be classified into two distinct categories namely matter and form, in other
words there are two kinds of substances namely material and formal, material
substances in turn are of varied kinds depending upon their matter for example
wood, wool and wax are all three material in nature but they clearly differ in the
matter that each of them possesses. There are substances that possess the
principle of change or movement towards actuality within themselves such as all
animate beings and plants, whereas there are material substances that do not
possess the principle of change or motion towards actuality within themselves, the
principle of their change or motion is to be found in an efficient cause other than
them. Similarly formal substances are also varied in kind in that there are animate
forms and inanimate forms, examples of inanimate forms are the forms of trees and
stones. Animate forms can also be further divided into the forms of non-rational and
rational beings, where examples of non-rational beings include all animals and
beasts, whereas the form of rational beings is nothing other than the human
rational form or the soul. Out of the two kinds of substances namely matter and
form, it is matter that is perishable, mutable, changeable, and created but form is
immaterial, imperishable and immutable. The form of a thing gives shape to a
previously unshaped or shapeless matter. The form of a thing in relation to its

matter is the same as the soul in relation to the body, just as the soul infuses life
into dead matter so does the form imparts shape to shapeless matter, and just as
the absence of the soul leaves the body dead similarly the absence of form renders
matter shapeless. Without its formal substance the thing is nothing but mere
formless matter. This formal substance is separable from matter and can therefore
be extracted from it, this is because had it been inseparable so it would not have
been possible to destroy sensible things, as it is by extraction of its form that a
thing is destroyed. The extraction of the form involves changing or altering the
arrangement of a things material substance, as it is by alteration or changing of the
arrangement of its material substance that a thing is said to perish or be destroyed.
However the form that we are referring to, meaning separable form or formal
substance is the Real Form of a thing, or essence, as opposed to its Apparent Form.
Out of the numerous multiple possible potentialities available which potentiality
becomes actual in reality depends at the least upon a couple of factors such as the
will as well as the skill of the efficient cause or maker, for example if there is a pile
of wood at the disposal of a carpenter so this wood is potentially a bed, a table and
a chair all at the same time but from among all these potentialities only one can be
actualized in reality due to the limitation or incapacity of matter to hold more than
one forms simultaneously. Now it may be that the carpenter wills to produce a chair
but lacks the skill to do so, in which case the chair will not be actualized, or
alternatively he may possess the skill to produce a chair but may lack the will to do
so, and in this case also the chair will remain un-actualized. Accidents can be
classified into quality, quantity, time and place out of which some are intrinsic and
some others are extrinsic, for example quality and quantity are intrinsic whereas
time and place are extrinsic accidents. For example the fragrance of a flower is an
intrinsic accident of the substance of a flower, and the same could also be said
about its color. Intrinsic accidents are those that inhere within the substance of a
thing and since both the color of the rose as well as its fragrance inhere within its
substance, they are therefore referred to as intrinsic accidents. On the contrary the
spatial location and the time at which the rose exists are both extrinsic accidents
pertaining to its reality or substance. Both time and space are extrinsic because
these attributes of a thing do not inhere within the substrate. Similarly the acts
produced by a substance are also its accidents, therefore acts such as sitting,
walking, talking and dancing are all accidents of the agent who performs these acts.
Aristotle classifies causes into proximate cause and remote cause, where a
proximate cause is the immediate cause. A proximate cause is one that does not
have any intermediate cause between itself and its effect, whereas a remote cause
is one that does have an intermediate cause between itself and its remote effect, or
in other words a remote cause is one that has an immediate effect which in its turn
is the immediate or proximate cause of its effect, which effect happens to be the
remote effect of the remote cause, for example in a causal series A,B and C, A is the
remote cause of C and the immediate or proximate cause of B. It is obvious from the
example mentioned that the same cause can be both proximate and remote
simultaneously but not in relation to the same effect, but different effects. When a
cause is said to be a remote cause so there is an implied necessity that it has a
plurality of effects, whereas no such necessity is implied in case of a proximate
cause, although a proximate cause may have more than one effects but it is not

necessary for it to have a plurality of effects. All composite things are a combination
of both matter and form where matter is potential whereas form represents
actuality, therefore all composite things represent a unity between potentiality and
actuality, and without this unity no material object can attain to its form or
perfection. It has already been stated that all mutable or changeable things can be
divided into two distinct categories namely those that possess the principle of
change, with respect to themselves, in their own selves such as all animate beings
like humans and animals as well as certain inanimate things such as trees and
plants, and those that do not possess their principle of change within themselves
but instead the principle of their change is found in something other than them. This
brings us to the distinction between two different types of potentiality namely
passive and active. An act or an object will only come into existence if both the
active and passive potentialities exist, for example building material has the
potential to become a building, similarly the builder has the potential to build,
where former potentiality is passive whereas the latter potentiality is active. The
building in question will only come into being if both the potential to build as well as
the potential to be built exists in the builder and the building material respectively.
If the builder lacks the active potentiality to build so the building will not come into
being even if the building material possesses the potential to be built. Similarly if
the building material lacks the passive potential to be built and therefore become a
building so even then the building will not come into existence even if the potential
to build exists in the builder. Therefore the presence of both the active and passive
potentialities is necessary for the existence of the building to be a possibility
however the existence of both these potentialities is necessary but not sufficient for
the existence of the building to become a reality. This is due to the fact that the
actualization of the potential in cases where the bearer of the active potentiality is
an animate particularly a rational animate being, depends upon the will of the
bearer or subject. Therefore if the building material has the potential to be built and
the builder has the potential to build and therefore both the active and passive
potentialities are present even then the actualization of the existence of the
building remains a possibility only and will not become a necessity unless it
happens to be necessitated by the will of the bearer of the active potentiality.
Therefore the co-existence of both the active as well as the passive potentialities is
necessary but not sufficient for the actualization of the existence of the building.
When it is asserted concerning a certain thing that it has the potential to be x so we
are simultaneously asserting the potential of the negation of x. Therefore both the
assertion as well as the negation of an assertion may co-exist at the same time, in
fact it is necessary for them to co-exist if the thing is to have that potential
otherwise it would become a necessity. For instance if it is asserted that a seed has
the potential to become a tree so we are simultaneously also asserting that it has
the potential to become its negation, meaning not to become a tree, this is because
if the potential to not become a tree which is the negation of the potential to
become a tree does not exist, so the potential to become a tree will no longer
remain simply a potential but will become a necessity. Therefore when it is asserted
concerning a seed that it has the potential to become a tree so what we are actually
saying is that it is possible for the seed to become a tree, but not necessary, this is
due to the fact that the actualization of the potentiality may be prevented by

external as well as internal factors. These intrinsic and/or extrinsic factors may act
as impediments or obstacles to prevent actualization. Let us revert back to the
distinction between real from and apparent form where real form of a thing is what
makes that thing what it is, meaning its essence, and without which that thing will
not be what it is. For example the image of a Man painted on canvas is not a Man
but the form of a man, now when we say that it is the form of a man so we are
referring to the apparent form as opposed to the real form of man, which is its
essence or without which a man will not be what he is, a real man has life, will and
consciousness and therefore able to act whereas the apparent form of man does not
exhibit all these effects and is devoid of life and consciousness. The apparent form
of a thing is devoid of the attributes and features of its real form, for instance the
image of fire drawn on paper is simply its apparent form and is therefore devoid of
the attribute of the being or essence of fire, which is heat, because the apparent
form is not able to produce heat whereas the real form is able to do so. Similarly an
orange drawn on paper is only an apparent form and therefore devoid of the feature
of a real form because its non-edible, whereas the real form of an orange that is in
the appropriate matter is edible. An important factor that renders any form real or
apparent is the absence or presence of the material substance or substrate
appropriate to it, for instance the material substance or substrate appropriate to the
form of man. Let us assume that A is the cause of B and the causal relation between
the two is such that the existence of A necessitates the existence of B such that if A
exists it is necessary for B also to exist, and if the existence of A is necessary,
meaning that A cannot not exists, so it logically follows that the existence of B is
also necessary and B also cannot not be, by virtue of the existence of A being a
necessity, the only difference being that A would be necessary in itself, if uncaused,
and B necessary through another meaning A, however if A is also an effect of some
other cause then A also would be necessary through another and so on until we
arrive at the cause which is necessary in itself and therefore uncaused. If the causal
relation between A and B is such that if A exists so the existence of A will
necessitate the existence of B, meaning that if A exists so it is necessary for B also
to exists, and we know that B exists so we can assert with certainty that A also
exists, even if we have not seen A. The above analysis shows clearly that there are
two kinds of necessary existents namely one that is necessary in itself and is
therefore independent due to the fact that its being is not derivative or borrowed
and the other that is necessary through another and is therefore dependent due to
the fact that its existence is derivative. Even if the causal relation between A and B
is not of necessity such that the existence of B is not necessitated by the existence
of A, however B cannot come into being without A therefore if B exists it is a logical
conclusion that A also exists. When it is asserted concerning anything that it has the
potential to become something else so we are actually asserting the fact that the
thing is mutable or changeable and when it is said that a thing is mutable so we are
simultaneously negating the opposite of mutability for that thing, which is
immutability. When it is stated regarding anything that it has a potential so that
potential would either be passive or active, if passive so it means that the principle
of change related to that thing is in something else, whereas if active so it means,
so it means that it possesses the principle of change within itself. Similarly when it
is said concerning anything that it is changeable so by saying this we are asserting

the fact that the thing is a particular, because universals are immutable. Thus when
a thing is said to possess a potential to become something so it is said to be
mutable, particular, non-eternal and sensible. All sensible objects are composites of
substance and accident, matter and form. When a thing is said to be composite so it
means that it is divisible into matter and form, and substance and its accidents.
There are two kinds of forms, namely natural and artificial, where artificial form is
one the realization or actualization of which is dependent upon some specific art or
skill, whereas natural form is that which is not artificial and the realization or
actualization of which is performed by nature itself. It is interesting to note that
artificial form is related to matter the principle of whose change is not within itself
but within something else, whereas natural form is related to matter that possesses
the principle of its change within itself. It can also be said that artificial form
pertains to matter that has passive potential and natural form pertains to matter
that has active potential. A sensible thing or a material object would either be at
rest or in motion, but cannot be both at rest as well as in motion in the same
respect, however a material or sensible object can be both at rest as well as in
motion simultaneously but in differing respects, but in order to elaborate on this it is
important list and explain the different kinds of motion. Therefore there is spatial
motion, temporal motion, positional motion, qualitative motion and quantitative
motion. Spatial motion involves the movement of a sensible object or a body from
one physical location or point to another, and therefore has a starting as well as an
end point. Positional motion is characterized by a change in direction of an object or
thing. Temporal motion is movement with respect to time, and is therefore
experienced by all temporal or material objects. Moveable objects can be classified
into two categories namely there are those the principle of whose motion lies within
them, such is the case with all animate beings as well as some inanimate beings
such as plants, and then there are those who do not possess the principle of their
motion within themselves, but instead the principle of their motion is found within
other beings, all inanimate moveable objects fall within this latter category. There
are two kinds of matter namely intelligible matter and sensible or perceptible
matter. Sensible matter is changeable or mutable, in other words it is matter that is
receptive to change because it possesses the potential to change. An idea or notion
is said to be true if it possesses a corresponding external reality, in other words a
true notion is one that corresponds with the external reality, and consequently a
false idea is one that does not have a corresponding external reality or one that
does not corresponds to the external reality. In other words an idea or a statement
is said to be true if it asserts concerning a thing that is that it is, or if it asserts
concerning something that is not that it is not. Similarly an idea or a statement is
said to be false if it asserts concerning a thing that is not that it is, or if it asserts
concerning a thing that is that it is not. All occurrences, events, existents or
happenings fall under either one of three modes namely, they either occur always,
in which case they would be necessary, or they occur either usually or seldom but
not always, in which case they would be possible but not necessary, and lastly that
they never occur, in which case they would be impossible. Therefore every object,
event, occurrence or happening is either necessary, possible or impossible. The
necessary may be defined as one for which it is impossible not to be and the
impossible as one for which it is necessary not to be, and the possible as one which

is neither necessary nor impossible. However necessity may be categorized into

essential necessity and enforced necessity. Essential Necessity is one that is
inherent within the essence or quiddity of a thing such that the thing cannot be
possible without it, for example being three sided is an essential necessity for a
triangle because a triangle cannot exist without being three sided and an object or
figure that is not three sided cannot be considered a triangle. The attribute of
triangularity is essentially inherent within the idea of a triangle, just as circularity is
an essential necessity for a circle and a circle cannot be imagined or exists without
its circularity. Similar is the case of a Necessary Being where the idea of existence is
an essential necessity for such a being, meaning that to be or to exist is inherent
within its essence. Change is either regressive or progressive, in other words
change is either a movement from perfection to another higher level of perfection
or from perfection to imperfection, or from imperfection to a still lower level of
imperfection or from imperfection to perfection. In order to change the mutable or
changeable object must possess matter that is receptive to change, because only
receptive matter bears the potential for change, and potential for change is nothing
but the capacity or ability to receive or accept forms. Without such a potential no
object will be able to change. However an object or a thing may possess the
potential to change in a certain way but may lack the capacity or potential to
change in another. Change is always from something to something except a change
from non-existence to existence, in other words there must always be something to
undergo process. Out of all the different kinds of changes outlined above each
change is either a movement from non-being to being or from being to non-being,
this is due to the fact that a move from perfection to imperfection is a move from
being to non-being, whereas a move from imperfection to perfection is a move from
non-being to being. It may be stated that the aim of all movement or change is the
actualization of hidden potential or the manifestation of latent capacity. A potential
can only be actualized through movement or change therefore if there is no
possibility of change or movement so it means that there is no potential or an
existing potential has been impaired in case the impossibility of change happens to
arise later. Quality may be classified as either affective or substantive, where the
example of affective qualities includes emotions such as fear, grief, joy, excitement
and the examples of substantive qualities includes properties such as color,
fragrance and taste.

Types of bodies(composite & simple).