Moral Psychology and Human Action in Aristotle ||

Page 1 of 23 Desire in Action: Aristotle’s Move

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2013.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: NorthCarolina State Univ Libraries; date: 09 April 2013

Moral Psychology and Human Action in AristotleMichael Pakaluk and Giles Pearson

Print publication date: 2011Print ISBN-13: 9780199546541Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: Sep-11DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546541.001.0001

Desire in Action: Aristotle’s Move

David Charles

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546541.003.0004

Abstract and Keywords

When Aristotle's description of how the animal is moved in De MotuAnimalium is considered in light of his discussion of passions ‘common tobody and the soul’ in De Anima one is able to sketch in outline Aristotle'sdistinctive characterisations of desire; of features ‘common to body andsoul’; and of how these lead the agent to move his (or her) body. Theview which results can appear unsatisfactory, because it is not one of thefamiliar options available in post-Cartesian philosophy (dualism, materialism,functionalism, and ‘spiritualism’). However, Aristotle's approach should beseen as a radical alternative to these modern accounts, challenging the basicassumptions that underlie them.

Keywords: Aristotle, desire, passions, body and soul, bodily movement, De MotuAnimalium, De Anima

1. Introduction

In De Anima 3.10, 433b13ff Aristotle says that desire moves the animal.However, his claim is difficult to interpret (partly) because he takes thephenomenon described to be completely unproblematic. He writes:

The instrument by which desire moves the animal is a bodilyone: this is why it must be investigated among the functionscommon to body and soul… (433b19–20)

His remark strikes post‐Cartesian interpreters as disappointing andmysterious. From their viewpoint, he fails even to spot the basic

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy



philosophical question: how can desire (a psychological phenomenon) movethe animal's body? Nor is their sense of disappointment diminished by whatfollows:

…for now, to put the matter briefly, that which movesinstrumentally is where a beginning and end coincide, as ina ball and socket joint: here the convex (the ball) and theconcave (the socket) are respectively the end and beginning ofmovement; this is why one is at rest and the other is in motion.They are spatially inseparable but differ in account. For allmovement consists in pulling and pushing. This is why it isnecessary (as in a wheel) that something remains at rest andfrom it movement is initiated… (433b21–6)

For Aristotle, the instrument by which desire moves the body does so bypushing and pulling. But his observation only deepens the mystery: howcan desire ‘use an instrument’ which must have weight and magnitude, ifit is to push and pull? How can it be spatially adjacent (as in a hinge joint)to the beginning of the movement of the body? Aristotle does not address,let alone answer, these questions. While he notes that the instrument mustbe investigated ‘among the functions common to the body and the soul’,he does not clarify what such functions are. Nor does he spell out what isinvolved in desire doing something with ‘an instrument’. We need to lookelsewhere for his views on these issues.

In this chapter I shall consider first Aristotle's account of the interconnectionbetween ‘passions of the soul’ and states of the body in De An. 1.1. This (p. 76 ) discussion, in my view, provides the resources to understandcentral aspects of his account of desire and of ‘functions common to thebody and the soul’. On this basis, I shall investigate his description of howthe animal is moved in De Motu Animalium and finally comment on histalk of ‘instruments’ in this area. While a full account of these issues liesbeyond the scope of this essay, my aim is to sketch an outline of Aristotle'scharacterization of (i) desire, (ii) ‘functions common to body and soul’, and,(iii) how these lead the agent to move his (or her) body.

Aristotle's view on these issues is, or so I shall argue, a distinctive one.Indeed, it seems unsatisfactory to contemporary interpreters preciselybecause it is not one of the familiar options of post‐Cartesian philosophy(dualism, materialism, functionalism, or spiritualism). It should be seenrather as offering a radical alternative to these traditional accounts,challenging the basic assumptions that drive them.




Post‐Cartesian theories normally make two common assumptions:[1]* There is a purely psychological feature or processinvolved in desiring (or a purely psychological description),such as desiring (or aiming at) revenge.[2]* All relevant processes and features essentially involvedin desiring are either purely psychological or purely physicalor a combination of the two.

These assumptions have been taken for granted in the exegetical debates ofthe past two decades (and more) about De Anima. Thus, broadly materialistinterpreters represent Aristotle's account of desire as follows:

[1] Desire is to be defined as the psychological process itis without reference to any physical phenomena (in purelypsychological terms).[2] Desire is realized in (or constituted by/or supervenes on)a particular process of a physical/material type.[3] The relevant type of physical/material process can bedefined without reference to any psychological state ordescription.

If there were a ‘spiritualist’ interpretation, it would represent Aristotle asholding that:

[1] Desire is to be defined as the psychological process itis without reference to any physical phenomena (in purelypsychological terms).[2] Desire is not realized in any physical process at all(although it may require the presence of certain physicalnecessary conditions).[3] Aristotle did not require desire to be realized in anyphysical process because he understood the relevant matteras primitively endowed with capacities for ungroundedpsychological activity.1

(p. 77 ) Both sets of interpreters, so understood, explicitly accept [1] (whichis equivalent to [1]* above) and tacitly assume [2]* on their journeys to theirfundamentally opposed conclusions. Aristotle, I shall argue, did not accepteither of these shared assumptions. Indeed, his position calls into questionthe Cartesian map which most current philosophers and interpreters use tonavigate in this area. We have to recover his very different vantage pointbefore we can see how his apparently disappointing account of how desire




moves the body constitutes an intelligible alternative to contemporary(twentieth–twenty‐first century) orthodoxies.

2. De Anima 1.1: fear and anger: an overview

Anger and fear, as I have argued in more detail elsewhere, are treated byAristotle as inseparable in definition as well as in existence from states ofthe body. More specifically, the type of desire for revenge which definesanger cannot be defined without reference to certain physiological processes(boiling of the blood). The latter play a role in determining the type ofdesire that is present in anger. Desire of this type is an inextricably andessentially psychophysical process. It is a boiling‐of‐the‐blood‐type of desirefor revenge.2

The type of desire for revenge which the angry experience resistsdecomposition into distinct physical and psychological components. AsAristotle comments:

We have said that the affections of the soul are inseparablefrom the physical matter of living beings in the way in whichanger and fear are inseparable and not in the way in which lineand plane are. (403bl7–19)

In this passage, he distinguishes these cases in terms of distinct types ofseparability:

anger and fear: they are existentially inseparable andinseparable in definition from perceptual matter

mathematical objects: they are existentially inseparable frombut separable in definition from perceptual matter

In the latter case, the mathematician initially abstracts and then separateshis objects from all perceptual matter in thought and no error arises (inhis purely mathematical reasoning) when he does so (see also Meta. 13.3,1078al7: Phys. 2.1, 193b34–5.) By contrast, in the case of anger,

[A] The psychological features that are essential to being angry(that is, desiring revenge) are inseparable in definition from theprocesses with physical properties (p. 78 ) to which they belong:the relevant features are inextricably psychophysical features.[B] The psychophysical features (specified in [A]) are essential tothe identity of the processes to which they belong: the processesto which the psychophysical features belong are essentiallypsychophysical processes.




[C] There is no other process (other than the one specified in [B])which is essential to being angry.

Aristotle produces some considerations in favour of these claims in De An.1.1. In favour of [A] he argues as follows: one who grasps what it is to beangry must know that it involves certain specific bodily states; otherwisethey will go wrong in their account of when one gets angry/what anger is.More specifically: he suggests that the presence of some bodily state isnecessary if anger and fear are to occur (403a19–20).

Sometimes one is not stimulated or made afraid by greatexternal misfortunes [i.e.: when the body is not affected].

Next, he claims that such bodily states are an essential part of theexplanation of when one is angry or afraid. For sometimes (as he notes) oneis moved to anger by small or insignificant events, when the body is stirredup (orgą) and is in the type of condition one is in when angry (403a20–2).Sometimes, even when nothing frightening happens, one is still afraid (in theemotional states of the person who is afraid).3 In the latter case, presumably,one experiences fear because of the presence of some internal bodily state,even in the absence of an external cause (403a23–4).

What do these considerations show? In the last two examples, the body'sstate is an important part of what accounts for the person's being angry (orafraid). Omit reference to it and one fails to state the conditions under whichsomeone is (e.g.) angry. The first example establishes that the presenceof some bodily state or other is necessary if one is to be angry. Indeed, itsabsence explains why one is not angry in certain situations. If one assumes(as Aristotle seems to) that the type of bodily state is the same in all threeexamples, being angry requires the presence of one specific type of bodilystate whose presence (partially) explains its onset.

From these considerations Aristotle concludes:(p. 79 ) It is clear that the emotions are enmattered formulaeand so their definitions will be of the following form: to beangry is a process of this type of body or part or capacity ofsuch a body caused in this way for the sake of such and such agoal. (403a24–7)

This conclusion is spelled out more fully in his next remarks:To be angry is a given type of process, the boiling of the bloodaround the heart for the sake of revenge. (403a31)




Aristotle's conclusion seems to be, in line with [B] above, that the relevanttype of desire is inseparable in definition from (and not abstractable from)the boiling of the blood. So understood, the type of desire for revenge whichdefines anger is a boiling‐of‐the‐blood‐type of desire for revenge. Anger isessentially enmattered because its form is an enmattered form: one which isto be understood as essentially enmattered in this type of physical process.

Armed with this understanding of anger, Aristotle further claims thatNo one considers the properties of matter which areinseparable [from this type of body/matter] not that is asproperties separable [from this type of body/matter] but thephysicist considers all the deeds and properties of this type ofbody and matter of this type.… (403b10–12)

The physicist, unlike the mathematician, studies the inseparable propertiesof this type of body as inseparable properties of this type of body, designedto play the role they do in this type of matter. If so, in studying the typeof boiling of the blood involved in being angry, the physicist will studyprecisely that: the type of boiling of the blood whose goal is revenge. He isnot concerned with a purely physical description of this type of blood boiling,which does not refer to the specific goals of the organism in question. In hisview, there is no other process essentially involved in being angry other thanthe type of boiling of the blood which is directed towards revenge. The onlyprocess at issue is: boiling of blood for the sake of revenge.

Three points may help to clarify Aristotle's thought on this important issue.[1] In Physics B. 2, Aristotle understands physical form (the typeof form the physicist studies) on the model of the snub: concavityin the nose (194a5–8). Here, he claims that one cannot definethe form correctly in terms of concavity, taken as the form of thenose. For to define the type of concavity of which we speak wehave to refer to concavity‐of‐the‐nose. (For more detail on this:see Soph. El. 181b36ff where the snub is said not to be a concavenose [concavity in the nose] but rather concavity‐of‐the‐nose inthe nose; Meta. 1064a23ff where the phrase ‘of‐the‐nose’ is part ofthe logos of the snub). Reference to the nose is required to makedeterminate the type of concavity at issue. It might be describedas the determinant that specifies the determinate type of concavitywhich snubness is. We begin with a determinable concavity, whichis said in a general way (koinē: Soph. El. 181b35: compare the




koinos logos discussed in De An. 414b23f), (p. 80 ) but needs to bemade determinate before it can appear in the relevant definition.

Physical forms, so understood, are to be contrasted with the typesof form mathematics studies. The latter can be defined withoutreference to change (194a5) and so without reference to matter(194a13). Mathematical forms need to be instantiated (if theyare to exist) and in some areas (such as optics or harmonics) arestudied qua instantiated in matter (194a10–12). Nonetheless in allsuch cases mathematical forms are to be defined independentlyof all physical matter, even though they are realised in physicalmatter. Physical forms, by contrast, cannot be defined in this way:they have to be defined in terms which refer to change and soinvoke matter. Such forms are enmattered not simply in the sensethat they have to be enmattered in (e.g.) physical lines to exist.Rather, they are enmattered in a far stronger sense: they areforms‐in‐matter, forms that involve matter to be the forms theyare.4

If anger and fear also instantiate physical forms, they (like thesnub) must be defined as forms‐in‐matter. If so, to make specificthe type of desire for revenge that is required one has to define itas a boiling‐of‐the‐blood‐type of desire for revenge. Otherwise, onewill not be able to distinguish the type of desire for revenge thatcharacterizes anger from the cold, calculating desire for revenge ofthe aged, who are not angry (see Rhet. 1390a15ff).[2] In De An. 1.1, Aristotle introduces a dialectical definition of ahouse as a covering designed to prevent damage from wind andrain (403b4–6). But this does not yet mark out the type of coveringa house is. Caves, awnings, tents, and well‐trained branches areall coverings that are also designed to serve this purpose. Whatmakes the relevant covering a house is that it is one which is madefrom matter such as bricks and wood. While there are other typesof covering, a house is a specific type of matter‐involving covering.Here, as in the case of the snub, being matter‐involving functionsas a determinant that specifies the determinate type of covering ahouse is.[3] Aristotle compares various affections of the soul, includinganger, with weaving in De An. 1.4, 408b11–13. This is an especiallyrevealing example. (p. 81 ) For it seems intuitively clear that




one cannot define what weaving is in purely psychological termswithout reference to bodily movements. Indeed, as before:

[A] The psychological features that are essential to weaving(intentionally moving one's body to achieve a given goal) areinseparable in definition from the processes with physicalproperties to which they belong. They are inextricablypsychophysical features.[B] The psychophysical features (specified in [A]) areessential to the identity of the processes to which theybelong: the processes to which the psychophysical featuresbelong are essentially psychophysical processes (i.e.weaving).[C] There is no other process (other than the one specified in[B]) which is essential to weaving.

If this is correct, being angry and being afraid are ‘common to body and soul’in a particularly demanding way. The relevant processes are inseparable indefinition into two separate components. There is not one (definitionally)separable purely formal process to which can be added another definitionallydistinct physical (or bodily) process, both making (definitionally) separablebut individually necessary contributions to the outcome. Rather, the relevantprocess is indissoluble in definition into two such components.5 Even whenconsidered as a ‘formal’ process, it cannot be defined except in terms whichessentially involve matter.6

The bodily instrument which moves the animal is, as we noted above,described as ‘common’ to the body and the soul.7 We are now in a positionto understand what this means. However, first it may be helpful to considerAristotle's discussion of desire.

(p. 82 ) 3. Desire: a suggested model for this and otherprocesses common to body and soul

Since anger is a type of desire (403a31), there should be similar types ofdefinition for both. Indeed, Aristotle begins this section of De An. 1. 1 bycommenting that he is concerned with the affections (pathe) of the soul quitegenerally, including sensual desire (epithumein) and perception as well asanger and fear (403a5–7). Throughout the remainder of the first chapterof De Anima he seems to be working out a model for the case of anger,confidence, and fear which can apply to all (or most) of the affections of the




soul mentioned at the beginning of this section (403b16–19). It is particularlycompelling to see this model as applying to sensual desire (epithumia),which elsewhere is counted as a passion of the same general type as anger,fear, and confidence (NE 1105b21ff).

If this is correct, we can derive the following general account of sensualdesire and how it moves the animal:

(1) Sensual desire, like anger, is an inextricably psychophysicalprocess (perhaps essentially involving some heating of the blood).(2) As a result of the heat provided by desire, there is a furtherinextricably psychophysical process in the part of the agent whichcorresponds to the hinge joint: for this process too is common tothe body and the soul.(3) As a result of this second process the limbs are moved in justthe way required for the action desired. The moving of the limbswill also be an inextricably psychophysical process (like weaving).

On this account, Aristotle can describe the part of the agent mentionedin (2), the instrument by which desire moves the animal, as one to beinvestigated among the functions common to body and soul (433b19–20)because the processes there are inextricably psychophysical ones. This partis described as a ‘bodily’ one not because sensual desire or anger are notthemselves bodily processes but rather because it is bulky, not fine‐grainedor light in the way heat‐based processes are. (For this contrast betweenbulky elements and fine‐grained ones, see De An. 404b31–405a7. It is adistinction within what we would count as bodily elements.)

The simplicity of this picture should not obscure its distinctive features. Morespecifically:

(1) It is not a dualist account in which a purely psychologicalphenomena results in the movement of the body. For desire, inAristotle's account, is already a psychophysical process, not apurely psychological one. (Nor is it the account the spiritualistwould offer. For, in it, the body is not endowed with a capacity fora purely psychological process: it is not ‘pregnant with consciousstriving’.)(p. 83 ) (2) Nor is it the account materialists would offer becauseit lacks the two features they require. It does not have either thepurely psychological aspect which specifies what desire is (in non‐material terms) or the purely physical process (defined in purelyphysical terms) which grounds (or underlies) the relevant desire.




For sensual desiring (like being angry) is, in Aristotle's account, aninextricably psychophysical process with its own causal powers.In the materialist picture, by contrast, the purely psychologicalaspect of desire has its causal power in virtue of its instances beingrealized (or grounded) in purely physical processes, the sources ofthe causal efficacy of desire. But in the model so far sketched thereis no need to invoke a separable purely physical process (whichrealises desire) to account for the ability of desire to move ourlimbs (as its kath'hauto cause).8 The psychophysical causal processcauses this to happen by itself.

While this model of sensual desire as ‘common to body and soul’ followsthe pattern set by Aristotle's remarks in De An. 1.1 and helps to account forthe (apparently) unproblematic way in which desire moves the animal in DeAn. 3. 10, it is not spelled out in De Anima. De Motu Animalium, to which Ishall now turn, provides a considerably more detailed picture of how all thishappens.

4. The role of desire in De Motu: its place in Aristotle's four‐stage model

In De Motu, Aristotle characterises that which moves the limbs as a bodilypart, capable of becoming bigger or smaller and changing its shape underthe influence of heat and cold. (701b12–16).9 These changes in shape andsize move the animal by releasing and slackening its sinews and bones(701b9–10). The instrument in question is capable of pushing and pulling theanimal because of its expansion and contraction (703a18–20). In order to becapable of this it needs to be a body which is heavier than fire (703a21–3).Its distinctive constituent, the connate pneuma, is capable of contraction andexpansion of this type. These increases in size are not forced since they arenot contrary to the nature of the internal pneuma (703a21–3).

(p. 84 ) The heating and cooling which produce these changes in size areoccasioned by the thought or imagination or perception of a given object.When I think of or imagine an object which is to be pursued or avoided, mythought or imagination of it is necessarily followed (akolouthei) by chillingand heating (701,b35ff), which Aristotle describes as accompanying (‘meta’)confidence, fear or sexual arousal (aphrodisaiamoi). For if, as Aristotleremarks, what is thought of or imagined is pleasant or painful, we nearlyalways respond by being warmed or cooled (702a3–5). As a result of these




changes in temperature, that part of the body which initiates movementchanges in size in the way required to move the limbs of the body.

There are, I shall claim, four stages in the case of action on emotiondescribed in De Motu chapter 8:

[1] The object of pursuit or avoidance is thought about or imagined.Such objects may include your friend, enemy, a cool drink, etc.[2] Fear, confidence, or sexual arousal occur, accompanied by heator coldness.[3] The connate pneuma expands or contracts.[4] The limbs (including bones and sinews) move.

Aristotle refers to Stage [2] as occurring in the regions around the origins ofthe organic parts (702a7ff: see 702b21). These changes lead to expansionand contraction in the adjacent parts (Stage [3]: 702b22–3), which generateanimal movement (702b23–4) via the bones and sinews (701b6–11): Stage[4]. Aristotle introduces the connate pneuma as what expands and contractsat Stage [3] (703a22ff), spelling out in more detail what is involved in theexpansion and contraction he had mentioned earlier (701b12ff).

Aristotle, in De Motu chapter 8, applies his account of action on emotion toinclude cases where, at Stage [1], the object in question is remembered oranticipated (702a5–7). In these memory and anticipation are the causes forthe changes in temperature at stage [2]. The heating and cooling involved atStage [2] requires that the regions where it occurs are capable of changing(e.g.) from hard to soft as they heat up and cool down (702a8–10). Thisheating and cooling will lead to further resulting affections (702a12ff)which, in turn, will result in the animal's walking (Stage [4]: 702a15–16).Aristotle sums up this case as follows: imagination (Stage [1]) preparesdesire (orexis) which in turn prepares certain affections, resulting in the‘organic parts’ (here, presumably the limbs) moving (702a16–20). Theaffections in question (if they are caused by heating and cooling) will occur atStage [3], the limbs' movement at Stage [4]. If so, while there appear to befour stages here also, they are now somewhat altered, running as follows:

[1] Object of pursuit is imagined (remembered or anticipated).[2] Desire (orexis).(p. 85 ) [3] Certain affections (see reference ‘to the account wehave given of them: 702a15: I take it that this refers back to theexpansion and contraction mentioned in 701b13ff).[4] The limbs move (the animal walks).


http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546541.001.0001/acprof-9780199546541-chapter-9#




However, while desire has replaced fear, confidence, and sexual arousal atStage [2], this change should not surprise us. In 702a2ff Aristotle appearsto introduce the cases of confidence, fear, and sexual arousal to introducea general point, especially vivid in their case: when something perceivedis painful or pleasant (and as such to be avoided or pursued), cooling orheating follow. This is obvious in their case since heating or cooling areessential to fear, confidence, or sexual arousal (as boiling blood is essentialto anger). But heating or cooling will arise whenever we are aware of whatis pleasant or painful (even if this is not as obvious as in the case of angeror fear). If so, there will be heating or cooling in all cases of, for example,desire for the pleasant: sensual desires (epithumia). Since the relevant typeof heating and cooling will be present when we have desires of this sort,Aristotle can easily generalize his claim from his favoured vivid example ofcertain emotions to desire. All will essentially involve heating or cooling ofthe relevant type.

This said, there is, perhaps, some unclarity in De Motu about the preciseextension of the term ‘desire’ (orexis).10 Aristotle must intend it to applymore widely than to sensual desire alone since he speaks of thought aswell as imagination and perception as bringing about the states which (inturn) lead to changes in the organ which causes the limbs, etc., to move(701b33, 701b16ff, picking up the reference in 701a33). Thus, he begins hisdiscussion in De Motu 8 in terms of what is to be pursued or avoided, whichwill (presumably) include objects beyond those of sensual desire. Indeed,since the desire which precedes the relevant movement (701a35) can bebrought about by thought, it will sometimes be the result of reasoning fromgeneral premisses (as set out in 701a15ff). For, as Aristotle remarks, thefinal desire can be brought about by reasoning (701a36) and may be (orbe based on) a rational wish (701a37). It seems that his earlier referenceto ‘desire’ (orexis) applies to all (p. 86 ) cases of desire, not just to sensualdesire. Perhaps, nonetheless, he thought that all such desires involvedthe object being thought or imagined as pleasant or painful (701b35f).Or perhaps he thought such desires were cases of being attracted to anappropriate object of desire (e.g. the fine) in ways similar to that in whichsensual desire is attracted to the pleasant.11 Either way, he can claim that inall such cases there will be heating and chilling (even if imperceptible to theagent).

Desire, it appears, plays a role at Stage [2] in Aristotle's four‐stage account.It remains to be seen how it leads to action. To understand this, we need toinvestigate more closely two questions:




(1) What does it mean to say that fear, confidence, and sexualarousal are accompanied by heating or cooling? How does thisapply to desire?(2) How is the expansion and contraction of the connate pneumacaused? What is their nature?

(1) Confidence and cooling:

On this issue, we have already gained an understanding of how fear andconfidence ‘occur with’ heating and cooling. Like anger (in the model ofDe An. 1.1) they are inextricably psychophysical processes, essentiallytypes of heating or cooling around the heart. If so, they ‘occur with’ heatingand cooling in a particularly demanding way. They are not to be properlydefined as purely psychological phenomena realised by distinct physicalprocesses of heating and cooling. Rather the relevant psychological aspectcannot be defined without reference to heating or cooling. Fear will be anavoidance‐directed cooling (of the blood or something similar) around theheart (occasioned by the appearance of one's enemy). One cannot properlydefine what the relevant type of desire for avoidance is without reference tothe cooling of the blood (or something similar).

(2) Expansion and contraction of the connate pneuma:

There are two issues here:[A] The types of process are common to body and soul:

The relevant instrumental part is to be investigated amongst the activitiescommon to body and the soul (De Anima 433b18ff). Activities (or processes)which are ‘common’ to the body and the soul, as we have seen, cannot bedefined as a combination of psychological and physical components. Onecannot say what they are in purely psychological terms as they are typesof expanding and contracting, becoming hard and soft, which generatepushing/pulling. Like anger, they are not simply necessarily enmattered insome physical process. Rather, one cannot define what they are withoutreference to expanding or contracting, pulling or pushing, and so forth. Thelatter features (p. 87 ) are of their very essence. Nor can one define therelevant type of physical process without reference to their psychologicalaspects. This is what I intend by calling these processes ‘inextricablypsychophysical’. In their case, as in that of nutrition, the processes maybe psychophysical in this way even though they need not be objects ofconscious awareness (as the Aristotelian soul extends to reaches areasbelow those of consciousness).




[B] The expansion and contraction of the connate pneuma iscaused by heat and cold:

The heat and cold involved in desire is what affects the size and shape of theconnate pneuma, occasioning processes within it. As Aristotle notes:

The parts expand because of heat and contract because ofcold… (701b15f)

The relevant parts expand and contract in the way required to move thesinews and bones (701b6ff). As a result the animal moves (when all goeswell) in the way required for them to do what they desire to do.

Aristotle does not spell out what happens in great detail, seemingly relyingon the thought that the heat (or coldness) involved in desire will impact onthe pneuma and occasion movements there (changes of shape/size, etc.) ofthe type required. Aristotle uses pneuma in a similar way elsewhere: it is theright type of thing to be affected by heat in the way required to bring about acomplex result.12

Consider Aristotle's use of pneuma in the case of animal reproduction. Itsmovements are said to be like the processes of arts (Gen Anim. 744b32ff),when he writes:

the sword is produced by movement of the instrumentsemployed which contains the logos of the art. For the art is thestarting point and form of what is produced…

The movements in both cases are defined as the ones required for theproduction of the product aimed at. As Aristotle remarks, ‘the movementsof the instruments contain the formula [logos] of the craft’. The case of themetal worker (or the weaver) provides a clear example of this phenomenon:his movements contain the formula (logos) of the art in that one is not ableto define them (say what these processes are) without reference to the goalsof the craftsman and his/her skill. While they are essentially spatial, there isno defining what they are without reference to the goals and know‐how ofthe craftsman. The relevant movements are the ones which are guided in theappropriate way by his/her skill. In the earlier case, the weaver spins, cardsthe wool, and ties the knots in the way required to make the coat she is aimsto produce. Her actions are vivid examples of inextricably psychophysicalprocesses.

Since the movements of pneuma involved in reproduction are like those ofthe weaver, one will not be able to define them without reference to the




goals and capacities of the agent. In the case of the generating parent,the movements (p. 88 ) in the pneuma follow from his nature, not fromconscious reasoning (744a33–6, see 740b27–36). But in both this case andthat of weaving the nature and identity of the movements themselves will bedetermined by the capacities and goals of the agent (see PA 640b1–3, GenAnim. 734b11–18). As the weaver moves her hands in certain ways and usescertain materials because they are appropriate to her goal, so the generatingparent functions in certain ways and operates on certain materials becausethey are appropriate to its goal. In both cases, the relevant processes will bepartially defined in terms of the goals to be achieved.13

In the case of the pneuma involved in action, while the relevant movementswill involve increase or decrease in size and hardness and change in shape,there will be no defining the relevant type of increases or changes involvedwithout reference to the goals and know‐how (action‐producing skills) of theagent. These too will be essentially the types of expansion and contractioninvolved in achieving his goals. Like the movements of the weaver, they willbe inextricably psychophysical processes. While, in De Motu, Aristotle doesnot specify the specific types of increase or size movement of the connatepneuma which result in actions, these will be the ones required if the agent isto fulfil his/her goal. From his viewpoint, nothing further need be said aboutwhich types of movement are involved. He has done enough for his purposeby defining (as in the case of weaving) the general category in which theywill fall (‘common to body and soul’), noting their causal antecedents andconsequences and pointing to the general bodily features they must haveto expand and contract in the appropriate way (703a21–7). As he remarks,the part whose movements they are is naturally well suited to perform itsappropriate function (703a35ff). Its expansion and contraction is causedby heating and cooling and causes the body's limbs to move. In doing thisthe connate pneuma (i) has the ability to produce large spatial movementsat the periphery of the body on the basis of (sometimes) relatively smallheatings and coolings in the region of the heart (701b24ff) and (ii) to bringabout those specific spatial movements (such as in the case of weaving)which are required to achieve the agent's goals.

5. Desire, the connate pneuma, and action: an overview ofAristotle's account

We are now in a position more fully to understand Aristotle's brief andinitially disappointing comment in De An .433b13ff:




(p. 89 ) The instrument by which desire moves the animal isa bodily one: this is why it must be investigated among thefunctions common to body and soul…

Desire moves the body by means of the connate pneuma, itself anessentially and inextricably psychophysical phenomenon. The movementsin the pneuma are essentially psychophysical, increases in size andshape of the type required to move the limbs so as to act. In order to dothis, the instrumental part (whose constituent is connate pneuma) mustbe a bulky body, capable of pushing and pulling (703a22ff). Desire canmove the connate pneuma because it too is essentially and inextricablypsychophysical: the type of heating or cooling which is directed towards toa goal of a given type (one seen as good for the organism).14 It is becausedesire is essentially a process of this type that it can succeed in moving thebody by means of a psychophysical instrument.15

The simplicity of Aristotle's general account (as sketched in De Anima anddeveloped in De Motu) is a direct result of his conceiving of the relevantprocesses as inextricably psychophysical. Given this conception, he did notneed to address the Cartesian puzzle of how desire (a purely psychologicalphenomenon) can move the animal. For Aristotle's desire is not the type ofpurely psychological phenomenon the dualist (or spiritualist) philosophertakes it to be. In his picture, it cannot be defined as the process it is withoutreference to some physical phenomenon. Nor, when one desires is there apurely psychological phenomenon realised in (constituted by/supervenienton) a distinct particular process of a robustly physical type. Indeed, thereneed be no particular robustly physical processes of this type present whenthe person desires to act (contrary to the materialist account of thesephenomena.) Aristotle's simple account only appears mysterious when wesee it through the distorting lens of post‐Cartesian assumptions.

In Aristotle's view, when desire moves the animal, there is a series of basic,fully determinate, psychophysical processes. One cannot define desiresimply as a type of heating (without reference to its psychological goal)since it is the type of heating which is directed towards this goal. Nor canone define desire (p. 90 ) solely in psychological terms (as seeing A aspleasant) since one cannot define the relevant type of seeing withoutreference to the heating and cooling of the body. Remove that and one hasnot distinguished desiring from (merely) thinking that A is pleasant. Thepsychological and physical features can be thought of as determinables,requiring additional determinants to generate the determinate phenomenon




of desire. Similar remarks apply to the movements of the connate pneumaand the subsequent movement of the limbs.

Is desire itself the movement of the connate pneuma or of some distinctbodily part which becomes hotter and cooler and, as a result, produceschanges in the connate pneuma?16 It is true that he describes both desireand (by implication) the connate pneuma as ‘moved movers’ (703a4–7) butthis need not commit him to identifying the latter as the body that realizesthe former. For he has already marked out a physical point, to be identifiedwith the connate pneuma, as what is moved and moves (702b33ff: see703a13ff) and may simply be comparing its role with that of desire. Laterin De Motu chapter 10 Aristotle specifies the nature of the connate pneumaas being to expand and contract (703a21) while earlier he had associatedfear and sexual arousal with heating and cooling (702a6ff). If desire playsthe same role as fear and so forth, it too should be connected with heatingand cooling and not with the expansion and contraction that follows. Ifso, desire may be better associated with (for example) blood around theheart (or with what is hot: De An. 403a31ff) rather than with the distinctivephysical properties of the connate pneuma (703a22–5). In this way, it willbe distinct from the instrument (De An. 433b19) it uses to move the body,where the latter (we learn in De Motu) essentially involves the connatepneuma (703a12ff). This said, it remains the case that in De Motu Aristotleis more concerned to separate the processes of heating (and cooling) fromthe resultant expanding and contracting than to specify the bodily part which‘houses’ desire.17

In sum: desire is, in Aristotle's account, like anger: some type of bodilyprocess (perhaps a heating of the blood around the heart) caused in a givenway for the sake of a given goal (compare De Anima 403a27ff). Both areinextricably psychophysical processes in the way suggested above. Whatdistinguishes desire from (for example) sexual arousal mentioned in De Motu11 or other types of boiling of the blood is that it, unlike them, is inextricablyconnected with grasping that something is to be done (703b8ff). It is aboiling‐of‐the blood type of grasping that something is to be done.

(p. 91 ) 6. ‘Desire moves the animal with an instrument’

Stephen Menn (2002) has argued against what he describes as a‘fashionable’ hylomorphic account of the soul. He notes (correctly)that Aristotle describes the body as organic: designed to be used as aninstrument (organon) for certain purposes. Indeed in De An. 433b19 Aristotle



http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199546541.001.0001/acprof-9780199546541-bibliography-1#acprof-9780199546541-bibItem-150



talks of desire as ‘moving the animal with a bodily instrument’. Thus, forexample, the connate pneuma is designed to move the animal in the wayrequired to achieve what the agent desires. In this way, the connate pneumais the instrument by which desire sets the animal in motion. If one thinks ofdesire as a passion of the soul, one might say that (in this case) the connatepneuma is the instrument by which the soul sets the animal in motion.

When desire moves the body with an instrument, it does so because (or soI have argued) it is an inextricably psychophysical (hylomorphic) process,the realization of an essentially hylomorphic capacity to desire. Thus, forexample, in the case of anger, the desire for revenge is a specific type ofboiling of the blood around the heart which moves the pneuma and so setsthe animal in action. Although the bodily instruments by which desire movesthe animal are distinct from desire, this does not mean that desire itself isnot a type of bodily process. Indeed, it has to be a psychophysical process(a type of bodily process) if it is to move the connate pneuma in the way itdoes. If desire is a passion of the soul, the relevant aspects of the soul willthemselves be essentially psychophysical (or bodily).

Menn understands Aristotle's talk of instruments by which the soul movesthe body differently. In his interpretation, the soul, as user of the body, isseparate from the body, standing to it as user to used (as the pilot stands tothe rudder he uses to steer the ship). Further, in his view, since the soul isseparate (in this way) from the body, it is not itself bodily but must be non‐bodily. Indeed, in Menn's interpretation, Aristotle comes close to (Cartesian)dualism, only avoiding it by understanding the soul as like an art which (insome mysterious way) ‘uses’ the tools of its trade and even (Menn suggests)the artisan to make its products.

There is a weakness in Menn's argument. Aristotle, let us assume, thinks thatthe desiring faculty of the soul is a hylomorphic, inextricably psychophysical,compound. He can, nevertheless, still regard it as separate from those partsof the body it uses to obtain its ends. The hands, the action joint, or theconnate pneuma can all be regarded as the instruments designed to initiatemovements caused by the inextricably psychophysical process of desiring.Indeed, Aristotle's discussion in De Motu of the way in which desire causesthe animal to move shows that he is thinking of what occurs in this way. Itdoes not follow from the fact that desire is separable from the bodily organit uses to move the animal that desire itself is other than a psychophysical(bodily) process.




(p. 92 ) There is a further point. The hand, let us assume, is a purelybodily instrument used by and separate and distinct from the soul. Butthis assumption is consistent with the soul's using of the hand being apsychophysical (or hylomorphic) process. It does not follow from the factthat the soul uses separate instruments that its using them is anything otherthan a psychophysical process, essentially the realization of a hylomorphiccompound (e.g. the faculty for desire). Once we distinguish between theinstrument used and the agent's using of the instrument, it is clear that evenif the instrument is (like the loom) purely bodily, the weaver's using the loomcan itself be a psychophysical process, initiated by other psychophysicalpassions of the soul (such as desiring, etc.).

So far, following Menn, I have spoken of the soul (or passions of the soul)as moving the animal. However, in Aristotle's account (when carefully,set out) it is the person (or the composite), not the soul, that moves hishand, grieves, and so on. Nor is his point hard to understand since thecomposite, and not the soul, is the appropriate subject of the essentiallypsychophysical processes that lead to action. When Aristotle, on occasion,allows himself to talk of the soul as causing certain changes (thinking,movements) he is quick to avoid saying that the soul does things, preferringhis own formulation in terms of the person. ‘It is better not to say that thesoul grieves or learns or thinks but man in respect of his soul’ (408b13–15).For the soul, conceived of as a purely psychological phenomenon (or set ofsuch phenomena), is not the type of thing which can be the subject of theseinextricably psychophysical processes. At this point, Aristotle is best seen aschallenging the moves that lead to dualism at the first step: it is not the soul(properly speaking) that moves the animal but the (psychophysical) person.

The desirer is, no doubt, responsive to the goods (or goals) he seeks,themselves the starting point of the process that leads to action. (In somecases these goals may be the goals of skills.) Indeed, the desirer typicallyaims to achieve these goals. But neither the goals themselves nor theskills are (or can plausibly be) described as ‘using’ desire (or the desirer) toachieve their ends. Indeed, it is the desirer who uses his skill to achieve theends he has set himself.

7. Conclusion

Aristotle's account, I have argued, does not fit into the standard categoriesof post‐Cartesian philosophy because it rejects the two assumptions thatcharacterize it. In his view, it is not the case that




[1]* There is a purely psychological feature or processinvolved in desiring (or a purely psychological description).[2]* All relevant processes and features are either purelypsychological or purely physical or a combination of the two.

(p. 93 ) Materialist and spiritualist interpreters have erred in seeing Aristotleas occupying a position in the logical space of options defined by Descartes.His account shows that there are more ways of understanding the mind–bodyrelation than are dreamed of in most post‐Cartesian philosophy. It remains tobe seen whether it can withstand serious scrutiny. (p. 94 )

Notes:

(1) Dualists would present desire as the purely psychological efficient causeof the material change involved in action. They would also see desire as themanifestation of a capacity of a separate substance: the dualist's soul. Itmoves the body by (somehow) interacting with the body (e.g. in the pinealgland).

(2) For a fuller statement and defence of this view, see Charles (2009c).

(3) I take this sentence as providing a further proof of the claim made at403a18–19: the body suffers at the same time as the pathe of the soul (justlisted) occur. That is, ‘touto’ in 403a23 refers back to the claim in 403a18–19 as further evidence (along with the claims made in 403a19–21). It seemsimplausible to take this sentence as making clear the quite different situationmentioned in the previous sentence: ‘being moved by small occurrences’.

(4) Aristotle discusses similar issues in Meta. 1036a25–32 and b5–8, wherehe also talks of some forms as enmatterred. While a full account of thesepassages lies outside the scope of the present Chapter, I take them asmaking the same strong claim about forms‐in‐matter as is to be found inPhys. 2. While forms so understood cannot be defined without referenceto matter, this does not mean that they contain bits of matter in the wayindividual substances (such as Kallias or a snub nose do: 1037a32f). Indeed,enmattered forms (such as humanity) will differ from such kinds as man(1035b27ff) if the latter are themselves composed of the type of matterwhich individual substances contain (now seen in abstraction). For whileforms (such as snubness) cannot be defined without reference to matter,it does not follow that they actually contain matter (or are composed outof matter) in the way Socrates' snub nose or the class of snub noses do(via the individuals that compose it). I am indebted to discussion of these





Metaphysics passages with Alan Code and Michail Peramatzis. However, Itake Phys. 2 as the immediate background for Aristotle's remarks in De An.1.1.

(5) Contrast Philebus 34a3ff where the soul and the body are described asjointly (koinē) in one single passion and jointly (koinē) moved when the bodysuffers in a given way which reaches through to the soul (in contrast withcases where the body suffers and the soul is oblivious). In this case the soulsuffers a passion (pathos) ‘together with the body’ which it can later recallit without the body. The passion in question belongs to the soul even if thebody has also to be moved at the same time and in the same way if the soulis to perceive. The relevant movement of the soul (when it perceives) andthat of the body are, in Plato's account here, separable in thought even if theformer cannot happen without the latter.

(6) In particular, it will not follow from the fact that perception is a formalchange, that is ‘at the level of form alone’, not essentially involving anymaterial change. Contrast Johansen (1998: 290n10), quoting Buryneat (1995:431).

(7) It is important to note that the version of hylomorphism Aristotleintroduces in De Anima 1.1, as I have interpreted it, is not the one generallyattributed to him in recent discussion by friends and critics alike. For intheir view (but not in his), the psychological and the physical ‘components’or ‘parts’ of anger are by definition separable even if not separablein existence. In their interpretation, matter does not play the role ofdeterminant in determining the specific type of psychophysical processinvolved.

(8) For this kind of account, see Putnam and Nussbaum (1992: 39ff). Theytalk of Aristotle's ‘psychological processes as realised in physiological ones’.For a different type of materialist interpretation, see Charles (1984: 217ff).

(9) I take the necessary connection between the thought/imagination ofsome object of pursuit and (e.g.) heating to be an efficient causal one(compare that between memory and heating, etc. in 702a5ff). Why thendoes Aristotle say next that the painful and pleasant are [only] nearly alwaysfollowed by heating and chilling (701b35ff)? One thought would be thatare some cases of pleasure which are not followed by heating and chilling(even when grasped by thought or imagination): those that are not objects ofpursuit or avoidance (because they are remote in time or place). Such cases






might arise if the theoretical intellect thinks of something that is pleasant butthere is no desire to obtain it.

(10) Nor is this, the only lack of clarity: in 702a19 Aristotle replaces hisearlier talk of thought, perception, or imagination (701a16, see 701b34:thought and imagination) by a reference to ‘imagination brought on byperception or thought’. However, this may simply be a comment on theexample considered in the immediately preceding lines: one involving (e.g.)walking towards some non‐present object which is remembered or hopedfor (702a7ff), where the memory or anticipation arises from perception orthought. It need not show that imagination is always present prior to action.(At this point I am indebted to discussion with Jean‐Louis Labarrière.) It isalso unclear in De Motu 701b34 (i) whether the object of pursuit grasped bythought and imagination is an external object (such as a friend or a drink)or an internal one (such as the ‘representation’ of an external object) and(ii) whether it is grasped simply as (e.g.) a drink or rather as a drink to beobtained (or as pleasant). These issues lie outside the scope of this chapter.

(11) Gabriel Richardson Lear (2006: 116–36) develops this line of thought.

(12) Gad Freudenthal (1995) spells out a general theory of this type.

(13) I discuss these issues in more detail in Charles (1988: 26–9).

(14) Since it is of the essence of the relevant process of heating that it ispsychophysical, its nature will be (in principle) distinct from any type ofprocess which is not essentially psychophysical in this way. One cannotexpect to be able to define this type of process in terms of ordinary heatingor cooling since this type of heating is one which essentially serves certaingoals. One could label this as ‘vital heat’, understood as the type of heatwhich essentially serves certain teleological goals in the organism.

(15) The main motivation for treating desire as essentially psychophysicaldiffers (somewhat) from that given in the discussion of anger in De Anima.The latter rests on the thought that people become angry under certainbodily conditions and not others (403a19ff). In the case of desire, Aristotle'smajor consideration appears to be that desire has to be a type of heating ifit is to have the consequences it does (generate expansion in the connatepneuma). The case of desire is not separable from processes of this type(even in thought).







(16) Martha Nussbaum (1978: 157) suggests that pneuma may be whatmaterially realizes desire.

(17) I am indebted to Christof Rapp for discussion of this issue.



Date post:	08-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	giles
View:	220 times
Download:	2 times

Moral Psychology and Human Action in Aristotle ||

Documents