Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

Plato and Aristotle:

Nature, The Four Elements, and Transformation from Physis to Techne

Introduction

Timaeus by Plato
- Nature is defined by four elements: fire, air, water, and earth
- The physis of these elements can change and transformation is natural

Physics by Aristotle
- Ways of metamorphosis: “change,” “addition,” “composition,” “subtraction.”
- The “form is the nature more than the matter is”
- The power, movement, and creativity of the “unmoved mover”

Metaphysics by Aristotle
- Perception and appearances are not the same
- States or conditions exist simultaneously; pertains to potentiality and actuality

Significant differences concerning nature between Plato and Aristotle

- Plato: The presence of physis and the revelation of techne
- Aristotle: A metamorphosis and the persistence of nature in the new technology

How technology fits within the author’s natural frameworks.

- Plato: Order is created from chaos and technology will have such an effect
- Aristotle: Technology is an expected and acceptable progression from nature

Prometheus Bound:
- Plato: Humanity deserves fire because of its transformative power
- Aristotle: Rock has potentiality of being chains while chains maintain ‘rockness’

Essential differences between nature and technology and revelations about humans
- Plato: New technology from transformation; Aristotle: the form is retained

Unique revelations about human beings:

- Things are hidden from humanity but are revealed by necessity and intellect

Conclusion
- Physis and techne, essence and metamorphosis
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

Introduction

The ancient Greeks were in a prime position to describe the physical world.

Their burgeoning knowledge base of the environment around them allowed for an

expanding view to identify, classify, and describe all that their senses observed.

Certainly, a desire for understanding the world, to answer they why of their existence

granted them some control over the natural environment. Of two major writers, Plato

and Aristotle, both provide a perspective on the origins of the universe as well as a

review of the human body: the former mainly focuses on the sense organs while the

latter discusses many aspects of the body’s functions. More importantly, both authors

present their views of physis – nature – though the techne – technology – of their

philosophies must be gleaned from the context of their writings. While Plato describes

nature as being ruled by the four major elements and seemingly unable to be altered,

Aristotle notes that the elements are changeable from one physis to another, opening

the door for techne.

Plato’s Timaeus

In Plato’s Timaeus, the author understands nature in terms of the four elements.

Fire, air, water, and earth are linked to both the universe and the human body,1 and

these four elements comprise nature and man.2 Evidently being the first of the ancient

Greeks, or one of the first, to write about the elements (at least as far as history has

1
Plato, Timaeus, Translated by Donald J. Zeyl (Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett, 2000), 32b.
2
Ibid., 42c-d; 42e-43a.

1
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

remembered)3, Plato initially gives a foundational view of what the world is comprised

of, meaning these elements, but then refutes that idea as saying these should not be

considered the stoicheia or “letters,” meaning elements.4 Instead, he sees the four as

being transitional in nature, for example, with water becoming “wind and air” or

“dispersing and dissolving.”5

Plato describes fire as having “becoming.”6 Without attempting to divine Plato’s

intent, there is a possibility the Heideggerian concept of “revealing”7 is inherent in

Plato’s idea of becoming. Fire by itself is a mere flame, consuming that which is

burning. The object on fire, or that that is affected by the flame, is that thing that is

being revealed: the object becomes something else. The burning log reveals its power

to provide light and warmth – outputs that would not occur if the “becoming,” as Plato

says, of the fire did not affect the wood. Heidegger might say that while the tree has

standing reserve,8 the fire reveals its power to provide light and warmth; these are

things that are hidden when the wood is a tree growing into the sky.

3
Plato, 48c. The translator mentions “Plato is criticizing Empedocles and his followers, who made the
familiar four elements the ultimate material constituents (the “roots”) of things. Thus, there was an
ongoing debate in this ancient era on what was ‘elemental’ and what was only ‘transitory’ in the natural
world.
4
Ibid., 48a-b.
5
Ibid., 49b.
6
Ibid., 49e and 56c.
7
Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, (New York: Harper & Row,
1977), 20.
8
Ibid., 24.

2
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

Interestingly, Plato proposes a significant question about fire when he asks “Is

there such a thing as fire by itself?”9 The answer is no, when considered in the context

that fire is a by-product of its host when in the state of being on fire. In Timaeus, Plato

describes the element of fire as ‘transformational’ and in that aspect can destroy the

status quo…or create something new.10 This power that fire has, through its

transformational nature, can cause objects to undergo a metamorphosis, like ore can

become metal and then be hammered into chain links, as in the chains the bind

Prometheus in Aeschylus’ story. So the element of fire, says Plato, causes things to

come to “be…and subsequently perish.”11 This is the techne aspect of the element. In

this metallurgical example, fire and hammering transform the ore into a new artifact.

This action is thus likened to the power of the entity that Plato argues created the

universe; this was done because “order was in every way better than disorder.”12 Thus,

the disorder was transformed into order. Moreover, the process matters here. While

not necessarily a Hegelian ‘thesis, antithesis, synthesis,’ Plato’s example of “water

condensing and turning to stones and turning to wind and air, and air when ignited,

turning to fire,”13 confirms his belief in the transformational character of these natural

elements. With his explanations of being and perishing, as well as order from disorder,

Plato confirms that he sees the natural world as one where there are few constants, and

9
Plato, 51b-51c. Italics in the Zeyl translation.
10
Ibid., 56c.
11
Ibid., 50a.
12
Ibid., 30a.

3
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

one where transformation itself is common; through this transformation, then, the techne

of objects comes to exist.

Aristotle’s Physics

Aristotle’s understanding of the natural world holds to the idea that change

occurs in things but that they hold their essence after the change. He notes that in the

world, there are several ways of metamorphosis: “change,” “addition,” “composition,”

and “subtraction.”14 Also, Aristotle says there are four causes: material, formal, efficient,

and final,15 which are important for understanding the process of nature he describes.

However, Aristotle claims that nature and the four elements occur on their own, though

their effects are not the reason for their being.16 Certainly, their existence is proof that

they have form.

In one example, Aristotle shows how this process results in the essence of thing

is retained. He says a man can become musical man but he is still a man, i.e. his

essence remains.17 Also, logically, then, “unmusical man” exists.18 Extrapolating from

13
Plato, 49b-c.
14
Aristotle, Physics, Introductory Readings, Translated by Terence Irwin and Gail Fine (Indianapolis,
Indiana: Hackett, 1996), 190b5-10.
15
Ibid., 194b-195b, passim.
16
Ibid., 198b10-20.
17
Ibid., 190a11-13.
18
Ibid., 190a18-20 and Dr. Condella’s PowerPoint slides on Aristotle and Being.

4
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

this idea, another example is possible: a rubber tree becomes a tire and still remains a

form of rubber; however, the new thing is not an ‘untree.’

Thus, when Aristotle says “the form is the nature more than the matter is,”19 he is

noting that the physis is what is the essence of a thing. The physis of the rubber tree is

the rubber (or the tree with rubber sap). Moreover, the form has duality: e.g., if a tree

catches on fire, the tree and its ash are affected by the causality of the fire.20 Aristotle

focuses on a bifurcation of things: there is “either the subject or the opposite”21

While Aristotle provides three principles – “being,” “account,” and “privation”22 – his

comment on creation is more instructive: “nothing comes to be without qualification from

what is not, but we say that things come to be in a way – for instance, coincidentally –

from what is not.”23

What follows, then, are two “sorts:” “the subject or the opposite.”24 His example

of the tree and the rubber tire appears to fit here. However, another example Aristotle

uses of medical treatment is even more worthwhile: medical care, per se, “is a road not

toward medical science but toward health.”25 So remembering the purpose or goal of

19
Aristotle, Physics, 19b7.
20
Ibid., 190b25-30.
21
Ibid., 190b13.
22
Ibid., 191a12-16.
23
Ibid., 191a13-15.
24
Ibid., 190b14.
25
Ibid., 193b13-15.

5
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

something provides a focus. Learning from this health example, one can see that

turning trees into raw rubber is not to create rubber but to use the rubber in the creation

of tires. The two sorts he describes are applicable even for the creation of the universe:

he notes how the unmoved mover26 created both night and day, which are the most

visible of opposites in the natural world, says Plato.27 Aristotle’s concept of the

unmoved mover is worth further discussion.

Aristotle explains that chance is not the same as luck, which ultimately links in to

the development of the universe and the natural world. Chance occurs when there is an

“external cause” whose result is not what was expected.28 This idea of chance has

applicability toward technology, too: ‘things’ are created not by mere happenstance

alone but because of causes. Aristotle further defines luck as being the result of

someone “capable of decision” doing something.29 Luck, then, implies making

decisions that influence an outcome.30 Chance does contain an element of luck but the

external causes affecting the former drive the outcome to a degree.

So perhaps there was a small element of luck in involved in the unmoved mover,

always having been in motion and whose motion never ends.31 Such an entity is the

26
Aristotle, Physics, 259a6.
27
Plato, 63c-d.
28
Aristotle, Physics, 197b19-20.
29
Ibid., 197b22.
30
Ibid., 197b33-198a1.
31
Ibid., 259a7-8.

6
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

catalyst for external change. The “unmoved mover” is not defined by shape as its

essence is beyond any physical realm; Aristotle posits that the unmoved mover initially

“moved by its own agency.”32 Thus, the unmoved mover moved itself. The idea that

something can move itself by its own consciousness would imply the unmoved mover

was self-aware, at least enough to begin movement. Moreover, the movement will

always exist: the “motion is everlasting,” states Aristotle.33 This constantly-in-motion

universe aids in explaining the consistency of man’s technological innovation, albeit

over a long arc of history.

Does this mean the motion of the universe will never stop? Or does this mean

the motion is ongoing and has always been so? Either this conundrum of “everlasting”

movement34 is a problem of language or this is a problem of human comprehension.

This seems very prescient, insightful, on the philosopher’s part: Aristotle is recorded as

thinking of the problem of understanding the origin(s) of the universe that continues

today. Further, he writes, “one mover is sufficient.”35 Aristotle comprehended the

potential of more than one unmoved mover and its accompanying catalyst; perhaps he

was the original predictor of the so-called ‘multiverse’, which could really affect form and

technology.

32
Aristotle, Physics, 256a20-21.
33
Ibid., 259a7.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid., 259a14.

7
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

Aristotle discusses the power of the unmoved mover as if this entity is

omnipotent. Aristotle’s “unmoved mover” is, again, not defined by shape, but because

this entity initially “moved” itself,36 there exists the possibility that the unmoved mover is

capable of metamorphosis, of change, as noted above. However, the unmoved mover

is not defined by action other than its self-movement. The idea that something can

move itself by its own consciousness would imply the unmoved mover was self-aware,

at least enough to begin movement. Because the “motion is everlasting,” states

Aristotle,37 one can surmise the unmoved mover is aware throughout its movement.

This awareness is key, since with that comes knowledge, and maybe even

sentience. So Aristotle has defined something, particularly something in nature that

rationally caused the movement that resulted in the existence of all things. Aristotle, in

keeping with the logical understanding of nature he had, used inductive reasoning to

explain the existence of the unmoved mover, which here can be synonymous with a

god-like being. Man, in contrast, is of a lower form, less sentient, but still capable of

creating change, albeit imperfectly, of his environment.

Interestingly, Aristotle’s description of the unmoved mover is more organic than

spiritual in nature. He describes only what he can derive from logical analysis,

seemingly devoid of speculation. He does not discuss the reasons why the unmoved

mover started the process, only that this was an eternal movement.38 Aristotle does

36
Aristotle, Physics, 250a20.
37
Ibid., 259a7.
38
Ibid.
8
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

note that the unmoved mover is sui generis: one mover is enough.39 That which the

one unmoved mover created was sufficient and because the essence of what was

created is retained, the original continues to exist even though man has altered his

world. Finally, Aristotle claims that nature and the four elements, fire, air, water, and

earth, occur on their own, though their effects are not the reason for their being.40

Certainly, their existence is proof that they have form.

Aristotle’s Metaphysics

In Metaphysics, Aristotle points out that perception and appearances are not the

same.41 This concept points to the physis of people, or even animals or plants. He

makes the analogy that three healthy people in a room full of sick ones may not appear

as the healthy ones to the sick, for the former are different in techne. 42 The perception

of the healthy by the sick is that they are different. Later, Aristotle says there is not

certainty if the appearance is true or false.43 The sick, or the healthy, could actually be

both.

As Aristotle stated earlier in the discussion of man-musicman-man in Physics,

the sick and healthy retain elements of each other’s current states. By noting their

appearance as one and the other, one can acknowledge that they are both, per

39
Aristotle, Physics, 259a7-8.
40
Ibid., 198b10-20.
41
Aristotle, Metaphysics 1009b1-7.
42
Ibid., 1009b1-10.
43
Ibid., 1009b10.

9
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

Aristotle’s logic on being. So, states or conditions exist simultaneously. This also

pertains to the discussion of potentiality and actuality: the sick may be actualized

because they are what they are supposed to be, as are the healthy ones.44 Referring

back to the earlier example of the tree and ash, the tree possesses the potentiality of

becoming furniture or ash, while those two substantive states show the actuality. This

example further acknowledges that perception and appearances are neither identical

nor equal.45

Significant differences concerning nature between Plato and Aristotle

There are significant differences in the view of nature by Plato and Aristotle.

Plato recognizes that there is an ‘eternal’ essence of the universe; this comes through

dialogue from Timaeus, who poses the question, “What is that which always is and has

no becoming, and what is that which becomes but never is?”46 and answers later with

“the maker” of the world.47 This maker created the “Living Thing,” and the four

elements, fire, air, water, and earth.48 Plato sees that the elements are just part of a

process, and are not the foundation of all things. He understands these elements to be

transformational: they can both change other things and be changed themselves. Thus,

44
Professor Condella’s PowerPoint on Aristotle and Being.
45
Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1009b1-7.
46
Plato, 27d. Italics are as they appear in the text.
47
Ibid., 30c.
48
Ibid., 30c, 32b-c.

10
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

the physis of the thing is still present in this transition; from this change, the techne of

the thing is revealed.

Aristotle notes that in the natural world, there is an ongoing metamorphosis of

“change,” “addition,” “composition,” and “subtraction.”49 Through these actions, the

thing affected retains its essence after the transformation – this is the key difference

between Plato and Aristotle. When Aristotle says, “the form is the nature more than the

matter is,”50 he is noting that the physis is what is the essence of a thing. He writes,

“What is composed of form and matter – for instance, a man – is not nature, but is

natural.”51 Even though there is a transformation, what is changed into techne still has

the same physis. Further, Aristotle’s view of potentiality, which is something that is

“acting on or for being acted on,”52 provides the ability to do something “in some time”

and “in some way.”53 Plato sees that things can change and become a techne, though

he does not see them retaining their essence as Aristotle does.

How technology fits within the author’s natural frameworks

Both authors see that the creation of the universe involved some superior entity

and this type of (coincidental or deliberate) founding myth sets up the idea of

technological development for them. Plato’s view of the universe and the world is one

49
Aristotle, Physics, 190b5-10.
50
Ibid., 193b7.
51
Aristotle, Physics, 193b5-6.
52
Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1046a15-18.
53
Ibid., 1048a1-2.

11
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

where order is created from chaos,54 which was done rationally and through “wisdom.”55

Timaeus character provides Plato’s perception on technology: the universe is

“completely and perfectly consistent and accurate” but that anything else that follows is

not going to reach that level of quality and consistency because, as Timaeus says,

everyone is “only human”56 and therefore imperfect. Plato thus expects the

development of artifacts, of techne, because of man’s “Necessity and Intellect;” the

latter drives the former “to direct most of the things that come to be toward what is

best.”57

Aristotle’s is comfortable with the idea that from physis comes the techne. In a

his primary example of this process, Aristotle sees that the artifact created from the

nature of a thing is not only different from its natural foundation but also beneficial to

man. His example of “medical treatment” being “a road not toward medical science but

toward health,”58 shows progression not scientific self-study. While Aristotle notes that

“the form is the nature more than the matter is,”59 and metamorphosis of the nature can

occur through different actions – “change,” “addition,” “composition,” or “subtraction”60 –

54
Plato, 30a.
55
Ibid., 29a.
56
Ibid., 29c-d.
57
Ibid., 47c-48a.
58
Aristotle, Physics, 193b13-15.
59
Ibid., 193b7.
60
Ibid., 190b5-10.

12
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

he is noting that the physis is the essence and this is retained even in the creation of a

new artifact.

Prometheus Bound: Differences between authors

In Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus, like in the writings of Plato and Aristotle,

there were four elements: earth, water, air, and, of course, fire. Of the elements, fire is

the only one that man did not have. A reader of Prometheus Bound senses that

Prometheus provided fire as a “gift” to mankind.61 Fire, as the last of the four elements,

was unique: man walked on earth, breathed the air, and drank the water, but he could

not use fire as a technological means to eat cooked food nor warm himself nor clear

land. With the possession of fire, humans would “find out many arts,”62 per Aeschylus.

In this aspect, the ‘arts’ could potentially be the new technologies man will discover

through fire.

In the story, Prometheus is fastened to a rock using metal chains. The links in

the chain came from rock, of course. Aristotle would describe the process of changing

the nature of the ore into the artifact of chains as a natural act. The rock was affected

by fire and turned into metal chains. The sequence is thus: rock affected by fire and

hammering becomes metal chains. The chains exist in both the rock and the metal.

Aristotle would argue that the rock has the potentiality of being chains just as the chains

61
Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound. Translated by Deborah H. Roberts (Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett,
2012) 275-280.
62
Ibid., 279.

13
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

maintained their ‘rockness.’ Supposedly, the metal chains, given enough time and fire,

could be transformed into a mass that would eventually be subsumed back into rock.

As Plato states, four elements comprise nature and man,63 and all four are

present in Prometheus Bound. Fire is different from the other three as this element

causes things to come to “be…and subsequently perish.”64 In Aeschylus’s story, rock

represents the earth and man resides on earth. Therefore, Zeus is chaining

Prometheus symbolically to man, who inhabits the earth, by using the element that

Prometheus had given to man, fire. Plato would argue that Prometheus has gifted

humanity the key to the future, which Zeus denied humanity. Aristotle would say that

fire will provide the “change”65 in objects and show what artifact is within them. In

Timaeus, fire’s potential as a “strong power” is known to the creator of the universe.66

Of course, fire is the key natural element in the works by Plato and Aeschylus.

The universe itself is linked to the story of Prometheus. Fire is foretold to be that

element that will change the entire paradigm of the existence of humanity. In this

regard, Prometheus’ gift of fire to mankind is like that of the “unmoved mover” releasing

the universe, as Aristotle claims.67 Both are catalyzing acts that release a whole host of

subsequent activities and actions – the creation of new artifacts. Fire is thus always

63
Plato, 42c-d; 42e-43a.
64
Ibid., 50a.
65
Aristotle, Physics, 190b5-10.
66
Plato, 33a.
67
Aristotle, Physics, 256a-256b.

14
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

transforming; Aristotle would say that which is transformed still maintains the physis of

what preceded. Plato in Timaeus describes the element of fire as ‘transformational’

and, in that aspect, can destroy the status quo. 68 Thus, the nature of fire can provoke

the act that challenges Zeus.

The gift Prometheus provided changed the equation of the relationship between

the gods and man. All of the four elements existed in ‘nature’ and though their effects

were not the reason for their being,69 fire was denied to humanity, says Aristotle. Upon

receiving this final element, man may have received “the truth” about nature, Aristotle

writes in Metaphysics, for he was no longer deceived nor denied about the nature of

fire.70 So upon receiving the fourth element, man’s knowledge of nature would be

deeper, if not complete. Aristotle would say that the “form”71 or nature of fire is,

perhaps, destructive, but definitely transformative.

Essential differences between nature and technology

Plato believes that nature comes from the creator of the universe but that through

transition, particularly involving the elements, change occurs. When this happens, the

techne of the thing undergoing change is revealed and the new technology or artifact

comes into existence. Aristotle says that the “form”72 or nature of an object is set and

68
Plato, 56c.
69
Aristotle, Physics, 198b10-21.
70
Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1010b1-3.
71
Aristotle, Physics, 193b2-5.
72
Ibid., 193b2-5.

15
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

continues to exist even through the object undergoes a transformation into something

else. Thus, an oak bookcase still maintains its essential nature as wood just a set of

stairs keep their wooden nature. Aristotle would argue that that new artifact always has

the element of its true nature within and a combination of elements in a new or

complicated technology also keeps the components’ natures.

Unique revelations about human beings

There may be come confusion, then, on what is and what is not the theory that

the best describes the nature and technology ideas from the ancient Greeks. Aristotle

provides a caveat to accompany his, Plato’s, and others’ theories when he says in

Metaphysics, “As for the truth, we say that not everything that appears is true. First,

even if perception, at least of its proper objects, is not false, still, appearance is not the

same as perception.”73 Thus, some things are hidden from humanity and are not

revealed but through time and discovery. Finally, Plato gives a worthwhile conclusion

concerning humans: they have souls, senses, and emotions,74 but humanity also has

the power of “Necessity” and “Intellect,”75 which like the maker of the universe, crave

order. Therefore, man’s invention of tools and technology is an attempt to continue to

create order.

Conclusion

The ancient Greeks understood there were things they could touch and things

they could only observe – such as their own bodies, the natural world, the greater

73
Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1010b1-3.
74
Plato, 42a-b.

16
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

heavens, or the ‘unmoved mover’ of the universe. Their views of nature, meaning

physis, and technology, or techne, emphasized that which existed and that which came

to be from some catalyst, either human or another. Plato understands that the physis of

an artifact holds the techne, within its essence and that techne is revealed when the

change occurs. Plato’s description of the light and warmth of a log on fire as always

being within the wood of a tree is a good example of his theory. Aristotle sees that in

the metamorphosis from physis to techne, the artifact or techne retains that which

comes from the nature of object itself. Though different in their processes, these two

methods of describing nature and technology provide humanity ways of viewing the

constant discovery happening around them.

TOP

75
Plato, 48a.

17
 Peter Moons, PhD Program, Salve Regina University

Bibliography

Aeschylus. Prometheus Bound. Translated by Deborah H. Roberts. Indianapolis,

Indiana: Hackett, 2012.

Aristotle. Introductory Readings. Translated by Terence Irwin and Gail Fine.

Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett, 1996.

Condella, Craig, PhD. PowerPoint Slides on Aristotle and Being.

Heidegger, Martin. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. New York:
Harper & Row, 1977.

Plato. Timaeus. Translated by Donald J. Zeyl. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett, 2000.

18