Aristotle
...a meticulous organizer who wanted to clarify our concepts
While her mother was taking her afternoon nap, Sophie went down to the den. She had put a lump of sugar in the pink envelope and written "To Alberto" on the outside.
There was no new letter, but after a few minutes Sophie heard the dog approaching.
"Hermes!" she called, and the next moment he had pushed his way into the den with a big brown envelope in his mouth.
"Good boy!" Sophie put her arm around the dog, which was snorting and snuffling like a walrus. She took the pink envelope with the lump of sugar and put it in the dog's mouth. He crawled through the hedge and made off into the woods again.
Sophie opened the big envelope apprehensively, wondering whether it would contain anything about the cabin and the boat.
It contained the usual typed pages held together with a paperclip. But there was also a loose page inside. On it was written:
Dear Miss Sleuth, or, to be more exact, Miss Burglar. The case has already been handed over to the police.
Not really. No, I'm not angry. If you are just as curious when it comes to discovering answers to the riddles of philosophy, I'd say your adventure was very promising. It's just a little annoying that I'll have to move now. Still, I have no one to blame but myself, I suppose. I might have known you were a person who would always want to get to the bottom of things.
Greetings, Alberto
Sophie was relieved. So he was not angry after all. But why would he have to move?
She took the papers and ran up to her room. It would be prudent to be in the house when her mother woke up. Lying comfortably on her bed, she began to read about Aristotle.
PHILOSOPHER AND SCIENTIST
Dear Sophie: You were probably astonished by Plato's theory or ideas. You are not the only one! I do not know whether you swallowed the whole thing--hook, line, and sinker--or whether you had any critical comments. But if you did have, you can be sure that the self-same criticism was raised by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who was a pupil at Plato's Academy for almost twenty years.
Aristotle was not a native of Athens. He was born in Macedonia and came to Plato's Academy when Plato was 61. Aristotle's father was a respected physician-- and therefore a scientist. This background already tells us something about Aristotle's philosophic project. What he was most interested in was nature study. He was not only the last of the great Greek philosophers, he was Europe's first great biologist.
Taking it to extremes, we could say that Plato was so engrossed in his eternal forms, or "ideas," that he took very little notice of the changes in nature. Aristotle, on the other hand, was preoccupied with just these changes--or with what we nowadays describe as natural processes.
To exaggerate even more, we could say that Plato turned his back on the sensory world and shut his eyes to everything we see around us. (He wanted to escape from the cave and look out over the eternal world of ideas!) Aristotle did the opposite: he got down on all fours and studied frogs and fish, anemones and poppies.
While Plato used his reason, Aristotle used his senses as well.
We find decisive differences between the two, not least in their writing. Plato was a poet and mythologist; Aristotle's writings were as dry and precise as an encyclopedia. On the other hand, much of what he wrote was based on up-to-the-minute field studies.
Records from antiquity refer to 170 titles supposedly written by Aristotle. Of these, 47 are preserved. These are not complete books; they consist largely of lecture notes. In his time, philosophy was still mainly an oral activity.
The significance of Aristotle in European culture is due not least to the fact that he created the terminology that scientists use today. He was the great organizer who founded and classified the various sciences.
Since Aristotle wrote on all the sciences, I will limit myself to some of the most important areas. Now that I have told you such a lot about Plato, you must start by hearing how Aristotle refuted Plato's theory of ideas. Later we will look at the way he formulated his own natural philosophy, since it was Aristotle who summed up what the natural philosophers before him had said. We'll see how he categorizes our concepts and founds the discipline of Logic as a science. And finally I'll tell you a little about Aristotle's view of man and society.
No Innate Ideas
Like the philosophers before him, Plato wanted to find the eternal and immutable in the midst of all change. So he found the perfect ideas that were superior to the sensory world. Plato furthermore held that ideas were more real than all the phenomena of nature. First came the idea "horse," then came all the sensory world's horses trotting along like shadows on a cave wall. The idea "chicken" came before both the chicken and the egg.
Aristotle thought Plato had turned the whole thing upside down. He agreed with his teacher that the particular horse "flows" and that no horse lives forever. He also agreed that the actual form of the horse is eternal and immutable. But the "idea" horse was simply a concept that we humans had formed after seeing a certain number of horses. The "idea" or "form" horse thus had no existence of its own. To Aristotle, the "idea" or the "form" horse was made up of the horse's characteristics--which define what we today call the horse species.
To be more precise: by "form" horse, Aristotle meant that which is common to all horses. And here the metaphor of the gingerbread mold does not hold up because the mold exists independently of the particular gingerbread cookies. Aristotle did not believe in the existence of any such molds or forms that, as it were, lay on their own shelf beyond the natural world. On the contrary, to Aristotle the "forms" were in the things, because they were the particular characteristics of these things.
So Aristotle disagreed with Plato that the "idea" chicken came before the chicken. What Aristotle called the "form" chicken is present in every single chicken as the chicken's particular set characteristics--for one, that it lays eggs. The real chicken and the "form" chicken are thus just as inseparable as body and soul.
And that is really the essence of Aristotle's criticism of Plato's theory of ideas. But you should not ignore the fact that this was a dramatic turn of thought. The highest degree of reality, in Plato's theory, was that which we think with our reason. It was equally apparent to Aristotle that the highest degree of reality is that which we perceive with our senses. Plato thought that all the things we see in the natural world were purely reflections of things that existed in the higher reality of the world of ideas--and thereby in the human soul. Aristotle thought the opposite: things that are in the human soul were purely reflections of natural objects. So nature is the real world. According to Aristotle, Plato was trapped in a mythical world picture in which the human imagination was confused with the real world.
Aristotle pointed out that nothing exists in consciousness that has not first been experienced by the senses. Plato would have said that there is nothing in the natural world that has not first existed in the world of ideas. Aristotle held that Plato was thus "doubling the number of things." He explained a horse by referring to the "idea" horse. But what kind of an explanation is that, Sophie? Where does the "idea" horse come from, is my question. Might there not even be a third horse, which the "idea" horse is just an imitation of?
Aristotle held that all our thoughts and ideas have come into our consciousness through what we have heard and seen. But we also have an innate power of reason. We have no innate ideas, as Plato held, but we have the innate faculty of organizing all sensory impressions into categories and classes. This is how concepts such as "stone," "plant," "animal," and "human" arise. Similarly there arise concepts like "horse," "lobster," and "canary."
Aristotle did not deny that humans have innate reason. On the contrary, it is precisely reason, according to Aristotle, that is man's most distinguishing characteristic. But our reason is completely empty until we have sensed something. So man has no innate "ideas."
The Form of a Thing Is Its Specific CharacteristicsHaving come to terms with Plato's theory of ideas, Aristotle decided that reality consisted of various separate things that constitute a unity of form and substance. The "substance" is what things are made of, while the "form" is each thing's specific characteristics.
A chicken is fluttering about in front of you, Sophie. The chicken's "form" is precisely that it flutters--and that it cackles and lays eggs. So by the "form" of a chicken, we mean the specific characteristics of its species--or in other words, what it does. When the chicken dies--and cackles no more--its "form" ceases to exist. The only thing that remains is the chicken's "substance" (sadly enough, So-phie), but then it is no longer a chicken.
As I said earlier, Aristotle was concerned with the changes in nature. "Substance" always contains the potentiality to realize a specific "form." We could say that "substance" always strives toward achieving an innate potentiality. Every change in nature, according to Aristotle, is a transformation of substance from the "potential" to the "actual."
Yes, I'll explain what I mean, Sophie. See if this funny story helps you. A sculptor is working on a large block of granite. He hacks away at the formless block every day. One day a little boy comes by and says, "What are you looking for?" "Wait and see," answers the sculptor. After a few days the little boy comes back, and now the sculptor has carved a beautiful horse out of the granite. The boy stares at it in amazement, then he turns to the sculptor and says, "How did you know it was in there?"
How indeed! In a sense, the sculptor had seen the horse's form in the block of granite, because that particular block of granite had the potentiality to be formed into the shape or a horse. Similarly Aristotle believed that everything in nature has the potentiality of realizing, or achieving, a specific "form."
Let us return to the chicken and the egg. A chicken's egg has the potentiality to become a chicken. This does not mean that all chicken's eggs become chickens--many of them end up on the breakfast table as fried eggs, omelettes, or scrambled eggs, without ever having realized their potentiality. But it is equally obvious that a chicken's egg cannot become a goose. That potentiality is not within a chicken's egg. The "form" of a thing, then, says something about its limitation as well as its potentiality.
When Aristotle talks about the "substance" and "form" of things, he does not only refer to living organisms. Just as it is the chicken's "form" to cackle, flutter its wings, and lay eggs, it is the form of the stone to fall to the ground. Just as the chicken cannot help cackling, the stone cannot help falling to the ground. You can, of course, lift a stone and hurl it high into the air, but because it is the stone's nature to fall to the ground, you cannot hurl it to the moon. (Take care when you perform this experiment, because the stone might take revenge and find the shortest route back to the earth!)
The Final Cause
Before we leave the subject of all living and dead things having a "form" that says something about their potential "action," I must add that Aristotle had a remarkable view of causality in nature.
Today when we talk about the "cause" of anything, we mean how it came to happen. The windowpane was smashed because Peter hurled a stone through it; a shoe is made because the shoemaker sews pieces of leather together. But Aristotle held that there were different types of cause in nature. Altogether he named four different causes. It is important to understand what he meant by what he called the "final cause."
In the case of window smashing, it is quite reasonable to ask why Peter threw the stone. We are thus asking what his purpose was. There can be no doubt that purpose played a role, also, in the matter of the shoe being made. But Aristotle also took into account a similar "purpose" when considering the purely lifeless processes in nature. Here's an example:
Why does it rain, Sophie? You have probably learned at school that it rains because the moisture in the clouds cools and condenses into raindrops that are drawn to the earth by the force of gravity. Aristotle would have nodded in agreement. But he would have added that so far you have only mentioned three of the causes. The "material cause" is that the moisture (the clouds) was there at the precise moment when the air cooled. The "efficient cause" is that the moisture cools, and the "formal cause" is that the "form," or nature of the water, is to fall to the earth. But if you stopped there, Aristotle would add that it rains because plants and animals need rainwater in order to grow. This he called the "final cause." Aristotle assigns the raindrops a life-task, or "purpose."
We would probably turn the whole thing upside down and say that plants grow because they find moisture. You can see the difference, can't you, Sophie? Aristotle believed that there is a purpose behind everything in nature. It rains so that plants can grow; oranges and grapes grow so that people can eat them.
That is not the nature of scientific reasoning today. We say that food and water are necessary conditions of life for man and beast. Had we not had these conditions we would not have existed. But it is not the purpose of water or oranges to be food for us.
In the question of causality then, we are tempted to say that Aristotle was wrong. But let us not be too hasty. Many people believe that God created the world as it is so that all His creatures could live in it. Viewed in this way, it can naturally be claimed that there is water in the rivers because animals and humans need water to live. But now we are talking about God's purpose. The raindrops and the waters of the river have no interest in our welfare.
Logic
The distinction between "form" and "substance" plays an important part in Aristotle's explanation of the way we discern things in the world.
When we discern things, we classify them in various groups or categories. I see a horse, then I see another horse, and another. The horses are not exactly alike, but they have something in common, and this common something is the horse's "form." Whatever might be distinctive, or individual, belongs to the horse's "substance."
So we go around pigeonholing everything. We put cows in cowsheds, horses in stables, pigs in pigsties, and chickens in chicken coops. The same happens when Sophie Amundsen tidies up her room. She puts her books on the bookshelf, her schoolbooks in her schoolbag, and her magazines in the drawer. Then she folds her clothes neatly and puts them in the closet--underwear on one shelf, sweaters on another, and socks in a drawer on their own. Notice that we do the same thing in our minds. We distinguish between things made of stone, things made of wool, and things made of rubber. We distinguish between things that are alive or dead, and we distinguish between vegetable, animal, and human.
Do you see, Sophie? Aristotle wanted to do a thorough clearing up in nature's "room." He tried to show that everything in nature belongs to different categories and subcategories. (Hermes is a live creature, more specifically an animal, more specifically a vertebrate, more specifically a mammal, more specifically a dog, more specifically a Labrador, more specifically a male Labrador.)
Go into your room, Sophie. Pick up something, anything, from the floor. Whatever you take, you will find that what you are holding belongs to a higher category The day you see something you are unable to classify you will get a shock. If, for example, you discover a small whatsit, and you can't really say whether it is animal, vegetable, or mineral--I don't think you would dare touch it.
Saying animal, vegetable, and mineral reminds me of that party game where the victim is sent outside the room, and when he comes in again he has to guess what everyone else is thinking of. Everyone has agreed to think of Fluffy, the cat, which at the moment is in the neighbor's garden. The victim comes in and begins to guess. The others must only answer "yes" or "no." If the victim is a good Aristotelian--and therefore no victim--the game could go pretty much as follows:
Is it concrete? (Yes!) Mineral? (No!) Is it alive? (Yes!) Vegetable? (No!) Animal? (Yes!) Is it a bird? (No!) Is it a mammal? (Yes!) Is it the whole animal? (Yes!) Is it a cat? (Yes!) Is it Fluffy? (Yeah! Laughter. . .)
So Aristotle invented that game. We ought to give Plato the credit for having invented hide-and-seek. Democritus has already been credited with having invented Lego.
Aristotle was a meticulous organizer who set out to clarify our concepts. In fact, he founded the science of Logic. He demonstrated a number of laws governing conclusions or proofs that were valid. One example will suffice. If I first establish that "all living creatures are mortal" (first premise), and then establish that "Hermes is a living creature" (second premise), I can then elegantly conclude that "Hermes is mortal."
The example demonstrates that Aristotle's logic was based on the correlation of terms, in this case "living creature" and "mortal." Even though one has to admit that the above conclusion is 100% valid, we may also add that it hardly tells us anything new. We already knew that Hermes was "mortal." (He is a "dog" and all dogs are "living creatures"--which are "mortal," unlike the rock of Mount Everest.) Certainly we knew that, Sophie. But the relationship between classes of things is not always so obvious. From time to time it can be necessary to clarify our concepts.
For example: Is it really possible that tiny little baby mice suckle just like lambs and piglets? Mice certainly do not lay eggs. (When did I last see a mouse's egg?) So they give birth to live young--just like pigs and sheep. But we call animals that bear live young mammals--and mammals are animals that feed on their mother's milk. So--we got there. We had the answer inside us but we had to think it through. We forgot for the moment that mice really do suckle from their mother. Perhaps it was because we have never seen a baby mouse being suckled, for the simple reason that mice are rather shy of humans when they suckle their young.
Nature's Scale
When Aristotle "clears up" in life, he first of all points out that everything in the natural world can be divided into two main categories. On the one hand there are nonliving things, such as stones, drops of water, or clumps of soil. These things have no potentiality for change. According to Aristotle, nonliving things can only change through external influence. Only living things have the potentiality for change.
Aristotle divides "living things" into two different categories. One comprises plants, and the other creatures. Finally, these "creatures" can also be divided into two subcategories, namely animals and humans.
You have to admit that Aristotle's categories are clear and simple. There is a decisive difference between a living and a nonliving thing, for example a rose and a stone, just as there is a decisive difference between a plant and an animal, for example a rose and a horse. I would also claim that there definitely is a difference between a horse and a man. But what exactly does this difference consist of? Can you tell me that?
Unfortunately I do not have time to wait while you write the answer down and put it in a pink envelope with a lump of sugar, so I'll answer myself. When Aristotle divides natural phenomena into various categories, his criterion is the object's characteristics, or more specifically what it can do or what it does.
All living things (plants, animals, humans) have the ability to absorb nourishment, to grow, and to propagate. All "living creatures" (animals and humans) have in addition the ability to perceive the world around them and to move about. Moreover, all humans have the ability to think--or otherwise to order their perceptions into various categories and classes.
So there are in reality no sharp boundaries in the natural world. We observe a gradual transition from simple growths to more complicated plants, from simple animals to more complicated animals. At the top of this "scale" is man--who according to Aristotle lives the whole life of nature. Man grows and absorbs nourishment like plants, he has feelings and the ability to move like animals, but he also has a specific characteristic peculiar to humans, and that is the ability to think rationally.
Therefore, man has a spark of divine reason, Sophie. Yes, I did say divine. From time to time Aristotle reminds us that there must be a God who started all movement in the natural world. Therefore God must be at the very top of nature's scale.
Aristotle imagined the movement of the stars and the planets guiding all movement on Earth. But there had to e something causing the heavenly bodies to move. Aristotle called this the "first mover," or "God." The "first mover" is itself at rest, but it is the "formal cause" of the movement of the heavenly bodies, and thus of all movement in nature.
Ethics
Let us go back to man, Sophie. According to Aristotle, man's "form" comprises a soul, which has a plant-like part, an animal part, and a rational part. And now he asks: How should we live? What does it require to live a good life? His answer: Man can only achieve happiness by using all his abilities and capabilities.
Aristotle held that there are three forms of happiness. The first form of happiness is a life of pleasure and enjoyment. The second form of happiness is a life as a free and responsible citizen. The third form of happiness is a life as thinker and philosopher.
Aristotle then emphasized that all three criteria must be present at the same time for man to find happiness and fulfillment. He rejected all forms of imbalance. Had he lived today he might have said that a person who only develops his body lives a life that is just as unbalanced as someone who only uses his head. Both extremes are an expression of a warped way of life.
The same applies in human relationships, where Aristotle advocated the "Golden Mean." We must be neither cowardly nor rash, but courageous (too little courage is cowardice, too much is rashness), neither miserly nor extravagant but liberal (not liberal enough is miserly, too liberal is extravagant). The same goes for eating. It is dangerous to eat too little, but also dangerous to eat too much. The ethics of both Plato and Aristotle contain echoes of Greek medicine: only by exercising balance and temperance will I achieve a happy or "harmonious" life.
Politics
The undesirability of cultivating extremes is also expressed in Aristotle's view of society. He says that man is by nature a "political animal." Without a society around us, we are not real people, he claimed. He pointed out that the family and the village satisfy our primary needs of food, warmth, marriage, and child rearing. But the highest form of human fellowship is only to be found in the state.
This leads to the question of how the state should be organized. (You remember Plato's "philosophic state"?) Aristotle describes three good forms of constitution.
One is monarchy, or kingship--which means there is only one head of state. For this type of constitution to be good, it must not degenerate into "tyranny"--that is, when one ruler governs the state to his own advantage. Another good form of constitution is aristocracy, in which there is a larger or smaller group of rulers. This constitutional form must beware of degenerating into an "oligarchy"--when the government is run by a few people. An example of that would be a junta. The third good constitutional form is what Aristotle called polity, which means democracy. But this form also has its negative aspect. A democracy can quickly develop into mob rule. (Even if the tyrannic Hitler had not become head of state in Germany^ all the lesser Nazis could have formed a terrifying mob rule.)
Views on Women
Finally, let us look at Aristotle's views on women. His was unfortunately not as uplifting as Plato's. Aristotle was more inclined to believe that women were incomplete in some way. A woman was an "unfinished man." In reproduction, woman is passive and receptive whilst man is active and productive; for the child inherits only the male characteristics, claimed Aristotle. He believed that all the child's characteristics lay complete in the male sperm. The woman was the soil, receiving and bringing forth the seed, whilst the man was the "sower." Or, in Aristotelian language, the man provides the "form" and the woman contributes the "substance."
It is of course both astonishing and highly regrettable that an otherwise so intelligent man could be so wrong about the relationship of the sexes. But it demonstrates two things: first, that Aristotle could not have had much practical experience regarding the lives of women and children, and second, it shows how wrong things can go when men are allowed to reign supreme in the fields of philosophy and science.
Aristotle's erroneous view of the sexes was doubly harmful because it was his--rather than Plato's--view that held sway throughout the Middle Ages. The church thus inherited a view of women that is entirely without foundation in the Bible. Jesus was certainly no woman hater!
I'll say no more. But you will be hearing from me again.
When Sophie had read the chapter on Aristotle one and a half times, she returned it to the brown envelope and remained sitting, staring into space. She suddenly became aware of the mess surrounding her. Books and ring binders lay scattered on the floor. Socks and sweaters, tights and jeans hung half out of the closet. On the chair in front of the writing desk was a huge pile of dirty laundry.
Sophie had an irresistible desire to clear up. The first thing she did was to pull all the clothes out of the closet and onto the floor. It was necessary to start all over. Then she began folding her things very neatly and stacking them all tidily on the shelves. The closet had seven shelves. One was for underwear, one for socks and tights, and one for jeans. She gradually filled up each shelf. She never had any question about where to put anything. Dirty laundry went into a plastic bag she found on the bottom shelf. One thing she did have trouble with--a white knee-length stocking. The problem was that the other one of the pair was missing. What's more, it had never been Sophie's.
She examined it carefully. There was nothing to identify the owner, but Sophie had a strong suspicion about who the owner was. She threw it up onto the top shelf to join the Lego, the video cassette, and the red silk scarf.
Sophie turned her attention to the floor. She sorted books, ring binders, magazines, and posters--exactly as the philosophy teacher had described in the chapter on Aristotle. When she had done that, she made her bed and got started on her writing desk.
The last thing she did was to gather all the pages on Aristotle into a neat pile. She fished out an empty ring binder and a hole punch, made holes in the pages, and clipped them into the ring binder. This also went onto the top shelf. Later on in the day she would have to bring in the cookie tin from the den.
From now on things would be kept neat. And she didn't only mean in her room. After reading Aristotle, she realized it was just as important to keep her ideas orderly. She had reserved the top shelf of the closet especially for that kind of thing. It was the only place in the room that she did not yet have complete control over.
There had been no sign of life from her mother for over two hours. Sophie went downstairs. Before she woke her mother up she decided to feed her pets.
She bent over the goldfish bowl in the kitchen. One of the fishes was black, one orange, and one red and white. This was why she called them Black Jack, Gold-top, and Red Ridinghood.
As she sprinkled fish food into the water she said:
"You belong to Nature's living creatures, you can absorb nourishment, you can grow and reproduce yourselves. More specifically, you belong to the animal kingdom. So you can move around and look out at the world. To be precise, you are fish, and you breathe through your gills and can swim back and forth in the waters of life."
Sophie put the lid back on the fish food jar. She was quite satisfied with the way she had placed the goldfish in Nature's scale, and she was especially pleased with the expression "the waters of life." So now it was the budgerigars' turn.
Sophie poured a little birdseed in their feeding cup and said:
"Dear Smit and Smule. You have become dear little budgerigars because you grew out of dear little budgerigar eggs, and because these eggs had the form of being budgerigars, luckily you didn't grow into squawking parrots."
Sophie then went into the large bathroom, where the sluggish tortoise lay in a big box. Every now and then when her mother showered, she yelled that she would kill it one day. But so far it had been an empty threat. Sophie took a lettuce leaf from a large jam jar and laid it in the box.
"Dear Govinda," she said. "You are not one of the speediest animals, but you certainly are able to sense a tiny fraction of the great big world we live in. You'll have to content yourself with the fact that you are not the only one who can't exceed your own limits."
Sherekan was probably out catching mice--that was a cat's nature, after all. Sophie crossed the living room toward her mother's bedroom. A vase of daffodils stood on the coffee table. It was as if the yellow blooms bowed respectfully as Sophie went by. She stopped for a moment and let her fingers gently brush their smooth heads. "You belong to the living part of nature too," she said. "Actually, you are quite privileged compared to the vase you are in. But unfortunately you are not able to appreciate it."
Then Sophie tiptoed into her mother's bedroom. Although her mother was in a deep sleep, Sophie laid a hand on her forehead.
"You are one of the luckiest ones," she said, "because you are not only alive like the lilies of the field. And you are not only a living creature like Sherekan or Govinda. You are a human, and therefore have the rare capacity of thought."
"What on earth are you talking about, Sophie?"
Her mother had woken up more quickly than usual.
"I was just saying that you look like a lazy tortoise. I can otherwise inform you that I have tidied up my room, with philosophic thoroughness."
Her mother lifted her head.
"I'll be right there," she said. "Will you put the coffee on?"
Sophie did as she was asked, and they were soon sitting in the kitchen over coffee, juice, and chocolate.
Suddenly Sophie said, "Have you ever wondered why we are alive, Mom?"
"Oh, not again!"
"Yes, because now I know the answer. People live on this planet so that someone can go around giving names to everything."
"Is that right? I never thought of that."
"Then you have a big problem, because a human is a thinking animal. If you don't think, you're not really a human."
"Sophie!"
"Imagine if there were only vegetables and animals. Then there wouldn't have been anybody to tell the difference between 'cat' and 'dog,' or 'lily' and 'gooseberry.' Vegetables and animals are living too, but we are the only creatures that can categorize nature into different groups and classes."
"You really are the most peculiar girl I have ever had," said her mother.
"I should hope so," said Sophie. "Everybody is more or less peculiar. I am a person, so I am more or less peculiar. You have only one girl, so I am the most peculiar."
"What I meant was that you scare the living daylights out of me with all that new talk."
"You are easily scared, then."
Later that afternoon Sophie went back to the den. She managed to smuggle the big cookie tin up to her room without her mother noticing.
First she put all the pages in the right order. Then she punched holes in them and put them in the ring binder, before the chapter on Aristotle. Finally she numbered each page in the top right-hand corner. There were in all over fifty pages. Sophie was in the process of compiling her own book on philosophy. It was not by her, but written especially for her.
She had no time to do her homework for Monday. They were probably going to have a test in Religious Knowledge, but the teacher always said he valued personal commitment and value judgments. Sophie felt she was beginning to have a certain basis for both.
亚理斯多德
……一位希望澄清我们观念的严谨的逻辑学家，
妈妈睡午觉时，苏菲跑到密洞去。之前她已经把一块糖放在那个粉红色的信封里，信上并写着“艾伯特收”。
密洞中并没有任何新的信，但几分钟后她听到狗儿走近的声音。
“汉密士！”她喊。一转眼，它已经钻进密洞，嘴里衔着一个棕色的大信封。
“乖狗狗!”汉密士正像海象一般在咻咻喘气。苏菲一手抱着它，一手拿起装有一块糖的粉红色信封，放在它的嘴里。然后汉密士便钻过树篱，奔回树林中。
苏菲焦急地打开大信封，心想信里不知是否会提到有关木屋与小船的事。
信封里还是像往常那样装了几张用纸夹夹住的打字信纸过这次里面还有另一张信纸，上面写着：
亲爱的侦探小姐(或小偷小姐)：
有关阁下擅闯小屋的事，我已经报警处理了。
说着玩的。其实，我并不很生气。如果你在追求哲学问题的答案时，也有同样的好奇心，那你的前途真是不可限量。只是我现在非搬家不可了，这是颇恼人的一点。不过我想我只能怪自己，我应该早就知道你是那种喜欢打破砂锅问到底的人。
祝好。
艾伯特笔
苏菲松一口气，放下心中的一块大石头。原来他一点也不生气，但他为何非搬家不可呢?
她拿了这一沓信纸，跑到楼上的房间去。她想，妈妈醒来时，她还是待在屋里比较好。不久她便舒适地躺在她的床上，开始读有关亚理斯多德的种种。
亲爱的苏菲：
柏拉图的理型论也许使你很震惊。其实有这种感觉的不只你 一个人而已。我不知道你对这个理论是否照单全收，还是有所批 评。不过，即使你不能完全同意，你也大可放心，因为同样的批评亚理斯多德(公元前三八四～公元前三二二年)都曾经提出过。
亚理斯多德曾经在柏拉图的学园中进修了二十年。他并不是雅典当地的人士，他出生于马其顿，在柏拉图六十一岁时来到他的学园进修。他的父亲是一位很受人敬重的医生(所以也算是一位科学家)，这个背景对于亚理斯多德的哲学事业影响颇大，他因此对研究大自然极感兴趣。他不仅是希腊最后一位大哲学家，也是欧洲第一位大生物学家。
我们可以说柏拉图太过沉迷于他那些永恒的形式(或“理型”)，以至于他很少注意到自然界的变化。相反的，亚理斯多德则只对这些变化(或我们今天所称的大自然的循环)感到兴趣。
说得夸张一些，我们可以说柏拉图无视于感官世界的存在，也无视于我们在周遭所见的一切事物。（他只想逃离洞穴，观察永恒的概念世界。）
亚理斯多德则正好相反：他倾全力研究青蛙与鱼、白头翁与罂粟等事物。
我们可以说，柏拉图运用他的理性，而亚理斯多德则同时也运用他的感官。
他们有很大的不同，这些差异也显现于他们的写作上。柏拉图是一位诗人与神话学家，亚理斯多德的文章则朴实精确，一如百科全书。此外，他有许多作品都是他进行实地研究的结果。
根据古籍记载，亚理斯多德写了一百七十本书，其中只有四十七本保存至今。这些作品都不完整，大部分都是一些演讲的笔记。
在他那个时代，哲学主要仍是一种口头的活动。
亚理斯多德在欧洲文化的地位并不仅是因为他创造了许多现代科学家使用的辞汇，同时也是因为他是一位伟大的组织家，他发明了各种科学并且加以分类。
亚理斯多德的作品涉及各种科学，但我只想讨论其中较为重要的领域。由于我们已经谈了许多柏拉图的哲学，因此一开始我们要听听亚理斯多德如何驳斥柏拉图的理型论。然后，我们再来看他
如何总结前人的理论，创立他自己的自然哲学。
我们也会谈到他如何将我们的概念加以分类，并创建理则学(或称逻辑学)这门学科。最后，我将略微讨论亚理斯多德对人与社会的看法。
如果你可以接受这种安排，那就让我们卷起袖子开始吧!
没有的概念
柏拉图和他的前辈一样，想在所有变化无常的事物中找出永恒与不变之物。因此他发现了比感官世界层次更高的完美理型。他更进一步认为理型比所有的自然现象真实。他指出，世间是先有“马”的理型，然后才有感官世界里所有的马匹，它们就像洞壁上的影子一般达达前进。因此“鸡”的理型要先于鸡，也先于蛋。
亚理斯多德则认为柏拉图将整个观念弄反了。他同意他的老 师的说法，认为一匹特定的马是“流动”的，没有一匹马可以长生不死，他也认为马的形式是永恒不变的。但他认为马的“理型”是我们人类在看到若干匹马后形成的概念。因此马的“理型”或“形式”
本身是不存在的。对于亚理斯多德而言，马的“理型”或“形式”就是马的特征，后者定义了我们今天所称的马这个“种类”。
更精确地说，亚理斯多德所谓马的“形式”乃是指所有马匹都共有的特征。在这里姜饼人模子的比喻并不适用，因为模于是独立于姜饼人之外而存在的。亚理斯多德并不相信自然界之外有这样一些模子或形式放在他们所属的架子上。相反的，亚理斯多德认为“形式”存在于事物中，因为所谓形式就是这些事物的特征。
所以，亚理斯多德并不赞成柏拉图主张“鸡”的理型比鸡先有的说法。亚理斯多德所称的鸡的“形式”存在于每一只鸡的身上，成为鸡之所以为鸡的特色，例如：鸡会生蛋。因此真正的鸡和鸡的“形式”就像身体与灵魂一般是不可分割的。
这就是亚理斯多德批评柏拉图的理型论的大要。这是思想上的一大转变。在柏拉图的理论中，现实世界中最高层次的事物乃是那些我们用理性来思索的事物。但对亚理斯多德而言，真实世界中最高层次的事物乃是那些我们用感官察觉的事物。柏拉图认为，我们在现实世界中看到的一切事物纯粹只是更高层次的概念世界（以及灵魂）中那些事物的影子。亚理斯多德的主张正好相反。他认为，人类灵魂中存在的事物纯粹只是自然事物的影子。因此自然就是真实的世界。根据亚理斯多德的说法，柏拉图是陷入了一个神话世界的图像中不可自拔，在这个世界中人类的想像与真实世界混淆不清。
亚理斯多德指出，我们对于自己感官未曾经验过的事物就不可能有意识。柏拉图则会说：不先存在于理型世界中的事物就不可能出现在自然界中。亚理斯多德认为柏拉图如此的主张会使“事物的数目倍增”。他用“马的理型”来解释马，但那是怎样的一种解释呢?苏菲，我的问题在于：这个“马的理型”从何而来?世间会不会有另外一匹马，而马的理型只不过是模仿这匹马罢了?
亚理斯多德认为，我们所拥有的每一种想法与意念都是透过我们看到、听到的事物而进入我们的意识。不过我们也具有与生俱来的理性，因此天生就能够组织所有的感官印象，并且将它们加以整理与分类，所以才会产生诸如“石头”、“植物”、“动物”与“人类”等概念。而“马”、“龙虾”、“金丝雀”这些概念也是以同样的方式形成的。
亚理斯多德并不否认人天生就有理性。相反的，根据他的说法，具有理性正是人最大的特征。不过在我们的感官经验到各种事物之前，我们的理性是完全真空的。因此人并没有天生的“观念”。
一件事物的形式乃是它的特征
在批评柏拉图的理型论后，亚理斯多德认为实在界乃是由各种本身的形式与质料和谐一致的事物所组成的。“质料”是事物组成的材料，“形式”则是每一件事物的个别特征。
苏菲，假设现在你眼前有一只鼓翅乱飞的鸡。这只鸡的“形式”正是它会鼓翅、会咕咕叫、会下蛋等。因此我们所谓的一只鸡的“形式”就是指鸡这种动物的特征，也可以说是鸡的各种行为。当这只鸡死时(当它不再咕咕叫时)，它的“形式”也不再存在。唯一剩下的就是鸡的“物质”(说起来很悲哀)，但这时它已经不再是鸡了。
就像我先前所说的，亚理斯多德对于自然界的变化很感兴趣。
“质料”总是可能实现成某一特定的“形式”。我们可以说“质料”总是致力于实现一种内在的可能性。亚理斯多德认为自然界的每一种变化，都是物质从“潜能”转变为“实现”的结果。
这点显然我必须加以解释，我将试着用一个小故事来说明。有一位雕刻家正在雕凿一块大花岗石。他每天一斧一斧的雕凿着这块没有形状的岩石。有一天，一个小男孩走过来问他：“你在找寻什么?”雕刻家答道：“你等着瞧吧！”几天后小男孩又回来了，看到雕刻家已经将花岗岩雕成了一匹骏马。小男孩惊异的注视着这只马，
然后转向雕刻家问道：“你怎么知道马在里面呢?”
的确，就某一方面来说，雕刻家确实在那块花岗岩里看到了马的形式，因为这块花岗岩具有变成一匹马的潜能。同样的，亚理斯多德相信自然界的每一件事物都可能实现或达成某一个特定的形式”。
让我们回到鸡与蛋的问题。鸡蛋有成为一只鸡的潜能，这并不表示每一个鸡蛋都会变成鸡，因为许多鸡蛋到头来会变成人们早餐桌上的煎蛋、蛋卷或炒蛋等佳肴，因而未能实现它们的潜能。同理，鸡蛋显然不能变成一只鹅，因为鸡蛋没有这样的潜能。因此，一件事物的“形式”不但说明了这件事物的潜能，也说明了它的极限。
当亚理斯多德谈到事物的“质料”与“形式”时，他所指的不仅是生物而已。正如鸡的“形式”就是会咕咕叫、会鼓翅、会下蛋，石头的形式就是会掉在地上。正如鸡无法不咕咕叫一般，石头也无法不掉在地上。当然你可以捡起一块石头，把它丢向空中，但由于石头的天性就是要掉在地上，因此你无法把它丢向月亮。(你做这个实验的时候可要小心，因为石头可能会报复，并且由最短的一条路径回到地球上。希望上帝保佑那些站在它的路径上的人!)
目的因
在我们结束“所有生物、无生物的‘形式’都说明他们可能采取的‘行动’”这个话题前，我必须声明亚理斯多德对自然界的因果律的看法实在很高明。
今天当我们谈到一件事物的“原因”时，我们指的是这件事物为何会发生。窗子之所以被砸破是因为彼德丢了一块石头穿过它；
鞋子之所以被制造出来，是因为鞋匠把几块皮革缝在一起。不过亚理斯多德认为自然界有各种不同的原因。他一共举出了四种原因。
我们必须了解他所谓的“目的因”是什么意思。
在窗予被砸破后，问问彼德为何要丢石头是一件很合理的事。
我们所问的就是他的目的。在这里，目的无疑扮演了一个重要的角色。在制鞋的例子中也是如此。同样的，亚理斯多德认为自然界种种循环变迁中也可能有类似的“目的”存在。我们用一个简单的例子来说明好了：
苏菲，你认为天为什么会下雨?不用说，你曾在学校里念过天之所以下雨，是因为云层中的湿气冷却凝结后变成雨滴，然后受重力的吸引，降落在地上。对这个说法，亚理斯多德应该会点头同意。
但是，他也会补充说你只提到其中的三种肇囚。“质料因”是在空气冷却时湿气(云层)正好在那儿。“主动因”是湿气冷却，“形式因”则是水的“形式”(或天性)就是会降落地面。不过假如你只提到这三者，亚理斯多德会补充说，天空下雨的原因是因为植物和动物需要雨水才能生长，这就是他所谓的“目的因”。因此，你可以看出来，亚理斯多德赋予雨滴一个任务或“目的”。
我们也许可以反过来说，植物之所以生长是因为它们有了湿气，你应该可以看出这两种说法之间的不同，是不是?亚理斯多德相信自然界的每一件事物都有其目的。天空下雨是因为要让植物生长，柳橙和葡萄之所以生长是为了供人们食用。
这并不是现代科学思维的本质。我们说食物、雨水是人类与动物维生的必要条件。如果没有这些条件，我们就无法生存。不过，水或柳橙存在的目的并不是为了供人类食用。
因此，就因果律的问题而言，我们往往会认为亚理斯多德的想法是错误的。但我们且勿遽下定论。许多人相信上帝创造这个世界，是为了让它所有的子民都可以生活于其间。从这种说法来看，我们自然可以宣称河流里面之所以有水是因为动物与人类需要水才能生存。不过，话说回来，这是上帝的目的。雨滴和河水本身对我们人类的福祉可是一点也不感兴趣。
逻辑
亚理斯多德说明人类如何区别世间事物时，强调了“形式”与“质料”的差别。
我们区别事物的方法是将事物分门别类。例如，我先看到一匹马，然后又看到另外两匹。这些马并非完全相同，但也有一些相似之处。这些相似之处就是马的“形式”。至于每匹马与其他马不同
之处就是它的“质料”。
就这样，我们把每一件事物都加以分类。我们把牛放在牛棚里，把马放在马厩里，把猪赶进猪圈里，把鸡关在鸡舍里。你在清理房间时，一定也是这样做的。你会把书放在书架上，把书本放在书包里，把杂志放在抽屉里。然后再把衣服折得整整齐齐的，放在衣橱里：内衣放一格、毛衣放一格、袜子则单独放在抽屉里。注意，我们心里也是做着类似的工作，我们把事物分成石头做的、羊毛做的或橡胶做的；我们也把事物分成活的、死的、植物、动物或人类。
你明白了吗?苏菲。亚里斯多德想把大自然“房间”内的东西都彻底地分门别类。他试图显示自然界里的每一件事物都各自有其所属的类目或次类目。(例如，我们可以说汉密士是一个生物，但更严格地说，它是一只动物，再严格一点说，它是一只脊椎动物，更进一步说，它是一只哺乳类动物，再进一步说，它是一只狗，更精确地说，它是一只猎狗，更完整地说，它是一只雄猎狗。)
苏菲，假设你进入房间，从地上捡起某样东西。无论你捡的是什么，你会发现它属于一个更高的类目。如果有一天你看到了一样你很难分类的东西，你一定会大吃一惊。举例来说，如果你发现了一个小小的、不知道是啥玩意的东西，你不确定它是动物、植物还是矿物，我想你大概不敢碰它吧!
说到动物、植物与矿物，让我想到一个大伙聚会时常玩的游戏：当“鬼”的人必须要离开房间，当他再回来时，必须猜出大家心里面在想什么东西。在此之前，大家已经商量好要想的东西是那只正在隔壁花园里玩耍的猫咪“毛毛”。当“鬼”的人回到房间后就开始猜。其他人必须答“是”或“不是”。如果这个“鬼”受过良好的亚理斯多德式训练的话，这个游戏的情形很可能会像下面描述的一样：
是具体的东西吗?(是门是矿物吗?(不是!)是活的吗?（是！）是植物吗?(不是！)是动物吗?（是！）是鸟吗?（不是！）是哺乳类动物吗?(是!)是一整只动物吗?(是!)是猫吗?（是！）是“毛毛”吗?(猜对了！大伙笑……)
如此看来，发明这个游戏的人应该是亚理斯多德，而捉迷藏的游戏则应该是柏拉图发明的。至于堆积木的游戏，我们早已经知道是德谟克里特斯发明的。
亚理斯多德是一位严谨的逻辑学家。他致力于澄清我们的概念。因此，是他创立了逻辑学这门学科。他以实例显示我们在得出合乎逻辑的结论或证明时，必须遵循若干法则。
我们只单一个例子就够了。如果我先肯定“所有的生物都会死”(第一前提)，然后再肯定“汉密士是生物”(第二前提)，则我可以从容地得出一个结论：“汉密士会死”。
这个例子显示亚理斯多德的推理是建立在名词之间的相互关系上。在这个例子中，这两个名词分别是“生物”与“会死”。虽然我们不得不承认这两个结论都是百分之百正确，但我们可能会说：这些都是我们已经知道的事情呀。我们已经知道汉密士“会死”。(他是一只“狗”，而所有的狗都是“生物”，而所有的生物都“会死”，不像圣母峰的岩石一样。)不用说，这些我们都知道，但是，苏菲，各种事物之间的关系并非都是如此明显。因此我们可能需要不时澄清我们的概念。
我举一个例子就好了：一丁点大的小老鼠真的可能像小羊或不猪一样吸奶吗?对于小老鼠来说，吸奶当然是一件很吃力的工作。但我们要记得：老鼠一定不会下蛋。(我们什么时候见过老鼠蛋?)因此，它们所生的是小老鼠，就像猪生小猪，羊生小羊一般。同时，我们将那些会生小动物的动物称为哺乳动物，而哺乳动物也就是那些吃母奶的动物。因此，答案很明显了。我们心中原来就有答案，但必须要想清楚，答案才会出来。我们会一下子忘记了老鼠真是吃奶长大的。这也许是因为我们从未见过老鼠喂奶的缘故。理由很简单：老鼠喂奶时很怕见人。
自然的层级
当亚理斯多德将人类的生活做一番整理时，他首先指出：自然界的万事万物都可以被分成两大类。一类是石头、水滴或土壤等无生物，这些无生物没有改变的潜能。亚理斯多德认为无生物只能透过外力改变。另外一类则是生物，而生物则有潜能改变。
亚理斯多德同时又把生物分成两类：一类是植物，一类是动物。而这些“动物”又可以分成两类，包括禽兽与人类。
我们不得不承认亚理斯多德的分类相当清楚而简单。生物与无生物(例如玫瑰与石头)确实截然不同。而植物与动物(如玫瑰与马儿)之间也有很大的不同。我们也会说，马儿与人类之间确实是不相同的。但这些差异究竟何在呢?你能告诉我吗?
很遗憾我没有时间等你把答案写下来，和一块糖一起放在一个粉红色的信封内。所以我就直接告诉你答案好了。当亚理斯多德把自然现象分成几类时，他是以对象的特征为标准。说得详细一些，所谓标准就是这个东西能做什么或做些什么。
所有的生物(植物、动物与人类)都有能力吸收养分以生长、繁殖。所有的动物(禽兽与人类)则还有感知周遭环境以及到处移动
的能力。至于人类则更进一步有思考(或将他们感知的事物分门别类)的能力。
因此，实际上自然界各类事物中并没有清楚分明的界线。我们看到的事物从简举的生物到较为复杂的植物，从简单的动物到较为复杂的动物都有。在这些层级之上的就是人类。亚理斯多德认为人类乃是万物中最完全的生命。人能够像植物一般生长并吸收养分，也能够像动物一般有感觉并能移动。除此之外，人还有一个与众不同的特质，就是理性思考的能力。
因此，苏菲，人具有一些神的理性。没错，我说的是“神”的理性。亚理斯多德不时提醒我们，宇宙间必然有一位上帝推动自然界
所有的运作，因此上帝必然位于大自然层级的最顶端。
亚理斯多德猜想地球上所有的活动乃是受到各星球运转的影响。不过，这些星球必定是受到某种力量的操控才能运转。亚理斯多德称这个力量为“最初的推动者”或“上帝”。这位“最初的推动者”本身是不动的，但他却是宇宙各星球乃至自然界各种活动的“目的因”。
伦理学
让我们回到人类这个主题。根据亚理斯多德的看法，人的“形式”是由一个“植物”灵魂、一个“动物”灵魂与一个“理性”灵魂所组成。同时他问道：“我们应该如何生活?…‘人需要什么才能过良好的生活?”我可以用一句话来回答：“人唯有运用他所有的能力与才干，才能获得幸福。”
亚理斯多德认为，快乐有三种形式。一种是过着享乐的生活， 一种是做一个自由而负责的公民，另一种则是做一个思想家与哲学家。
接着，他强调，人要同时达到这三个标准才能找到幸福与满足。他认为任何一种形式的不平衡都是令人无法接受的。他如果生在现今这个时代，也许会说：一个只注重锻炼身体的人所过的生活就像那些只动脑不动手的人一样不平衡。无论偏向哪一个极端，生活方式都会受到扭曲。
同理也适用于人际关系。亚理斯多德提倡所谓的“黄金中庸”。
也就是说：人既不能懦弱，也不能太过鲁莽，而要勇敢(不够勇敢就是懦弱，太过勇敢就变成鲁莽)；既不能吝啬也不能挥霍，而要慷慨(不够慷慨即是吝啬，太过慷慨则是挥霍)。在饮食方面也是如此。
吃得太少或吃得太多都不好。柏拉图与亚理斯多德两人关于伦理道德的规范使人想起希腊医学的主张：唯有平衡、节制，人才能过着快乐和谐的生活。
政治学
亚理斯多德谈到他对社会的看法时，也主张人不应该走极端。
他说人天生就是“政治动物”。他宣称人如果不生存在社会中，就不算是真正的人。他指出，家庭与社区满足我们对食物、温暖、婚姻与生育的基本需求。但人类休戚与共的精神只有在国家中才能表现得淋漓尽致。
这就使我们想到一个国家应该如何组织起来的问题。(你还记得柏拉图的“哲学国度”吗?)亚理斯多德描述了三种良好的政治制度。
一种是君主制，就是一个国家只有一位元首。但这种制度如果要成功，统治者就不能致力于谋求私利，以免沦为“专制政治”。另一种良好的制度是“贵族政治”，就是国家由一群人来统治。这种制度要小心不要沦于“寡头政治”(或我们今天所称的“执政团”式的政治制度)。第三种制度则是亚理斯多德所称的Polity，也就是民主政治的意思。但这种制度也有不好的一面，因为它很容易变成暴民政治。(当年即使专制的希特勒没有成为德国元首，他乎下那些纳粹分子可能也会造成可怕的暴民政治。)
对女人的看法
最后，让我们来看看亚理斯多德对女性的看法。很遗憾的，他在这方面的观点并不像柏拉图那般崇高。亚理斯多德似乎倾向于认为女性在某些方面并不完整。在他眼中，女性是“未完成的男人”在生育方面，女性是被动的，只能接受，而男性则是主动且多产的。亚理斯多德宣称小孩只继承男性的特质。他相信男性的精子中具有小孩所需的全部特质，女性只是土壤而已，她们接受并孕育种子，但男性则是“播种者”。或者，用亚理斯多德的话来说，男人提供“形式”，而女人则仅贡献“质料”。
像亚理斯多德这样有智慧的男人居然对两性关系有如此谬误的见解，的确令人震惊而且遗憾。但这说明了两件事：第一，亚理斯多德对妇女与儿童的生活大概没有多少实际的经验。第二，这个例子显示如果我们任由男人主宰哲学与科学的领域的话，可能发生何等的错误。
亚理斯多德对于两性错误的见解带来很大的负面作用，因为整个中世纪时期受到他（而不是柏拉图）的看法的影响。教会也因此继承了一种歧视女性的观点，而事实上，这种观点在圣经上是毫无根据的。耶稣基督当然不是一个仇视妇女的人。
今天就到此为止吧。我会再和你联络的。
苏菲把信又读了一遍，读到一半时，她把信纸放回棕色的信封内，仍然坐着发呆。
她突然察觉到房间内是如何凌乱：地板上到处放着书本与讲义夹，袜子、毛衣、衬衣与牛仔裤有一半露在衣橱外，书桌前的椅子上放着一大堆待洗的脏衣服。
她突然有一股无法抗拒的冲动，想要把房间清理一下。首先她把所有的衣服都拉出衣橱，丢在地板上，因为她觉得有必要从头做起。然后她开始把东西折得整整齐齐的，叠在架子上。衣橱共有七格，一格放内衣，一格放袜子与衬衣，一格放牛仔裤。她轮流把每 一格放满。她从不曾怀疑过什么东西应该放哪里。脏衣服总是放在最底下一格的一个塑胶袋内。但是现在有一样东西她不知道该放哪里，那就是一只白色的及膝的袜子。因为，另外一只不见了。何况，苏菲从来没有过这样的袜子。
苏菲仔细地看着这只袜子，看了一两分钟。袜子上并没有任何标记，但苏菲非常怀疑它的主人究竟是谁。她把它丢到最上面一格，和积木、录影带与丝巾放在一起。
现在，苏菲开始把注意力放在地板上。她把书本、讲义夹、杂志与海报加以分类，就像她的哲学老师在讲到亚理斯多德时形容的一般。完成后，她开始铺床并整理书桌。
最后，她把所有关于亚理斯多德的信纸叠好，并找出一个没有用的讲义夹和一个打孔机，在每一张信纸上打几个洞，然后夹进讲义夹中，并且把这个讲义夹放在衣橱最上一格，白袜子的旁边。她决定今天要把饼干盒从密洞中拿出来。
从今以后，她将把一切收拾得井然有序。她指的可不止是房间而已。在读了亚理斯多德的学说后，她领悟到她应该把自己的思想也整理得有条不紊。她已经将衣橱的最上面一格留作这样的用途。
这是房间内唯一一个她还没有办法完全掌握的地方。
妈妈已经有两个多小时没有动静了。苏菲走下楼。在把妈妈叫醒之前，她决定先喂她的宠物。
她躬身在厨房里的金鱼缸前看着。三条鱼中，有一条是黑色的，一条是橘色的，另一条则红、白相间。这是为什么她管它们叫黑水手、金冠与小红帽的缘故。
当她把鱼饲料撒进水中时，她说：“你们属于大自然中的生物。
你们可以吸收养分、可以生长并且繁殖下一代。更精确地说，你们属于动物王国，因此你们可以移动并且看着外面的这个世界。再说得精确些，你们是鱼，用鳃呼吸，并且可以在生命的水域中游来游去。”
苏菲把饲料罐的盖子合上。她很满意自己把金鱼放在大自然的层级中的方式，更满意自己所想出来的“生命的水域”这样的词句。现在，该喂那些鹦哥了。
苏菲倒了一点鸟食在鸟杯中，并且说：“亲爱的史密特和史穆尔，你们之所以成为鹦哥是因为你们从小鹦哥的蛋里生出来，也是因为那些蛋具有成为鹦哥的形式。你们运气不错，没有变成叫声很难听的鹦鹉。”
然后，苏菲进入那间大浴室。她的乌龟正在里面一个大盒子里缓缓爬动。以前妈妈不时在洗澡时大声嚷嚷说，总有一天她要把那只乌龟弄死。不过，到目前为让，她并没有这样做。苏菲从一个大果酱罐子里拿了一片莴苣叶，放在盒子里。
“亲爱的葛文达，”她说，“你并不是世间跑得最快的动物之一，但是你当然能够感觉到一小部分我们所生活的这个伟大世界。你应该知足了，因为你并不是唯一无法超越自己限制的生物。”
雪儿也许正在外面抓老鼠，毕竟这是猫的天性。苏菲穿过客厅，走向妈妈的卧室。一瓶水仙花正放在茶几上，苏菲经过时，那些黄色的花朵仿佛正向她弯腰致敬。她在花旁停驻了一会儿，用手指轻轻抚摸着那光滑的花瓣。
她说：“你们也是属于大自然的生物。事实上，比起装着你们的花瓶来说，你们是非常幸福的。不过很可惜的是你们无法了解这点。”
然后苏菲蹑手蹑脚地进入妈妈的房间。虽然妈妈正在熟睡，但苏菲仍用一只手放在她的额头上。
“你是最幸运的一个。”她说，“因为你不像原野里的百合花一样，只是活着而已，也不像雪儿或葛文达一样，只是一种生物。你是人类，因此具有难能可贵的思考能力。”
“苏菲，你到底在说什么?”妈妈比平常醒得更快。
“我只是说你看起来像一只懒洋洋的乌龟。还有，我要告诉你，我已经用哲学家般严谨的方法把房间收拾干净了。”
妈妈抬起头。
“我就来。”她说，“请你把咖啡拿出来好吗？”
苏菲遵照妈妈的嘱咐。很快地，她们已经坐在厨房里，喝着咖啡、果汁和巧克力。
突然间，苏菲问道；“妈，你有没有想过为什么我们会活着?”
“天哪!你又来了!”
“因为我现在知道答案了。人活在这个星球上是为了替每东西取名字。”
“是吗?我倒没有这样想过。”
“那你的问题可大了，因为人是会思考的动物。如果你不思考，就不算是人。”
“苏菲！”
“你有没有想过，如果世间只有植物和动物，就没有人可以区分猫和狗、百合与鹅莓之间的不同。植物和动物虽然也活着，但我们是唯一可以将大自然加以分类的生物。”
“我怎么会生出像你这样古怪的女儿?”妈妈说。
“我倒希望自己古怪一点。”苏菲说。“每一个人或多或少都有些古怪。我是个人，因此或多或少总有些古怪。你只有一个女儿，因此我可以算是最古怪的。”
“我的意思是你刚才讲的那些话可把我吓坏了。”
“那你真是太容易受到惊吓了。”
那天下午，苏菲回到密洞。她设法偷偷地将大饼干盒运回楼上的房间，妈妈一点也没有发现。
回到房间后，她首先将所有的信纸按次序排列。然后她把每一张信纸打洞，并放在讲义夹内亚理斯多德那一章之前。最后她在每一页的右上角写上页序。总共有五十多页。她要自己编纂一本有关哲学的书。虽然不是她写的，却是专门为她写的。
她没有时间写星期一的功课了。明天宗教知识这门课或许会考试，不过老师常说他比较重视学生用功的程度和价值判断。苏菲觉得自己在这两方面都开始有一些基础了。
