Page 109
[paragraph continues] Socrates, and is inclined to attribute authorship to Plato himself. If however, we take into consideration the fact that the subject matter of the Republic was in circulation long before the time of Plato: for Protagoras is supposed to have lived from 481â411 B.C. and Plato, from 427â347 B.C., reason forbids the assignment of the authorship to Plato.
But the important question remains: From what source did Protagoras draw the ideas of the Republic which were circulated in the Controversies?
Text books on Greek philosophy tell us that Protagoras was a pupil of Democritus; but when we turn to the writings of Democritus we are unable to discover any connection between them and the (a) educational system and the (b) paternal government which are advocated in the Republic.
This fact forces us to the conclusion that the subject matter of Plato's Republic was neither produced by Plato, nor any Greek philosopher.
(C) The Authorship of Timaeus.
According also to Diogenes Laertius Book VIII p. 399â401, when Plato visited Dionysius at Sicily, he paid Philolaus, a Pythagorean, 40 Alexandrian Minae of silver, for a book, from which he copied the whole contents of the Timaeus.
Under these circumstances it is clear that Plato wrote neither the Republic nor the Timaeus, whose subject matter identifies them with the purpose of the Mysteries of Egypt.
(Roger's Students Hist. of Philosophy p. 76; 78; and 104).
(Zeller's Hist. of Philosophy: Introduction p. 13 and 103).
(Wm. Turner's Hist. of Philosophy p. 79 and 95).
(Plato; Apology, Crito, and Phaedo).
(Xenophon: Memorabilia; Strabo; Ancient Mysteries by C. H. Vail).
(Clement: Stromata Bk. V. C. 7 and 9).
Page 110
VI. The Chariot was not a culture pattern of the Greeks, at the time of Plato, nor was it used by them in warfare:â
Greek culture and traditions did not furnish Plato with the idea of the chariot and winged steeds, for nowhere in their brief military history, (i.e., up to the time of Plato) do we find the use of such a war machine by the Greeks.
The only nearby nation who specialized in the manufacture of chariots and the breeding of horses was the Egyptians. When Joseph was Governor in Egypt, the horse and war chariot were in use; and when the Israelites fled from the country, Pharaoh pursued them to the Red Sea in chariots. Even Homer and Diodorus who visited Egypt, testify that they saw a great multitude of war chariots and numerous stables along the banks of the Nile, from Memphis to Thebes.
And since the Judgment Drama in the Egyptian Book of the Dead reveals the entire philosophy contained in the allegory, Plato cannot be credited as its author.
The following sketch of the military history of the Greeks shows that the chariot was not used by them, nor was it their culture pattern:â
A. External wars or wars with the Persians.
(a) The Ionian revolt against Persian rule, 499â494 B.C. This climaxed in a naval engagement at Lade, where the Ionian fleet was defeated.
(b) The battle of Marathon, 490 B.C.
During the summer of 490 B.C., the Greeks met the Persians at the bay of Marathon, and after a brief fight with bows and arrows, both belligerents withdrew to prepare for more decisive engagements.
(c) The battle of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.
Ten years after Marathon, the Persians and Greeks met again to settle their grievances. The Persians anchored in the Gulf of Pagasae, while the Greeks anchored off Cape Artimesium. A battle followed and Thermopylae was captured by the Persians.
Page 111
(d) The battle of Salamis, 479 B.C.
Both Persians and Greeks met again at Salamis in 479 B.C., and a naval engagement followed, with considerable loss of ships on both sides. Both belligerents withdrew without any decision.
(e) The confederacy of Delos and their wars with the Persians, 478â448 B.C.
The purpose of the confederacy was defense against Persian aggression, and two naval battles were fought: one at the river Eurymedon in 467 B.C., when the Greeks gained a minor victory, and the other at Cyprus in 449 B.C., when the island was captured by the Persians.
N.B.
Chariots were not used in any of these engagements.
B. Internal wars, i.e., the Peloponnesian wars, 460â445 B.C., and 431â421 B.C. respectively.
These wars were fought between the different Greek states, and their major engagements were maritime.
In 432 B.C. Athens blockaded Potidaea and Megara was excluded from Greek markets. In 431 B.C. Thebes attacked Plataea, and while a Peloponnesian army occupied Attica, an Athenian fleet raided Peloponnesus.
Pericles conducted the evacuation of Attica, the oligarchs at Corcyra were massacred, and after the seizure of Amphipolis; Nicias sued for peace 422 B.C.
N.B.
It is evident that Greek culture and tradition did not furnish Plato with the idea of the charioteer and winged steeds, for nowhere in their brief military history, (i.e., up to the time of Plato) do we find the use of such a war machine by the Greeks as a chariot. The only nearby nation who specialized in the manufacture of chariots and horse breeding was the Egyptians, as already mentioned.
And since the Judgment Drama in the Egyptian Book of
Page 112
the Dead depicts the allegory of the charioteer and winged steeds, credit for its authorship cannot be given to Plato, but to the Egyptians.
(Sandford: Mediterranean World, c. 12, p. 197; 202; 203; 205; c. 13, p. 220â221).
(Genesis, c. 45, 27; c. 47, 17; Deut. c. 17, 16).
(I Kings, c. 10, 28).
(Homer II. i, 381; Diodorus; Roger's Hist. of Phil., p. 8384).
(John Kendrick: Ancient Egypt, Vol. I, p. 166).
(The Egyptian Book of the Dead). 3. Aristotle: (i) (a) Early Life and Training and (b) His Own List of Books (c) Other Lists of Books (ii) Doctrines (iii) Summary of Conclusions: A. His Doctrines B. (i) The Library of Alexandria B. (ii) True Source of his Unusual Number of Books C. The Discrepancies and Doubts in His Life.
(i) (a) Birth and early life and training.
According to the textbooks on the history of Greek philosophy, Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. at Stagira, a town in Thrace. His father, Neomachus is said to have been a physician to Amyntas, King of Macedonia. Nothing is mentioned in books about his early education, only that he became an orphan and at the age of 19 he went to Athens, where he spent twenty years as a pupil of Plato.
We are also informed that after the death of Plato, his nephew, became the master of his school, and that Aristotle left immediately for Mysia, where he met and married the niece of Hermeias.
Likewise, that after the death of Amyntas of Macedon, his son Phillip having become king, appointed Aristotle as Tutor of his son Alexander a boy of 13 years (later to be called the Great in consequence of his conquest of Egypt).
After Phillip's assassination in 336 B.C. Alexander became
Page 113
king, and we are informed that he immediately planned an Asiatic campaign and included Egypt, during which time Aristotle is said to have returned to Athens and founded a school in a gymnasium called the Lyceum. We are further informed that Aristotle conducted this school for only twelve years, that Alexander the Great advanced him the funds to purchase a large number of books, that his pupils were called Peripatetics, and that owing to an indictment for impiety, brought against him by a priest named Eurymedon, he fled from Athens to Chalcis in Euboea, where he remained in exile until his death in 322 B.C.
(Roger's Student's History of Phil. p. 104).
(Zeller's History of Philosophy, p. 171â172).
(Fuller's History of Philosophy, Aristotle's Life).
(B. D. Alexander's Hist. of Phil. p. 91â92).
(Diogenes Laertius Bk. V. p. 449).
(b) His own list of books.
Aristotle is credited with classifying his own writings as follows:â
(i) The Theoretic, whose object is truth, and which included (a) Mathematics (b) Physics and (c) Theology.
(ii) The Practical, whose object is the useful, and which included (a) Ethics (b) Economics and (c) Politics.
(iii) The Productive or Poetic whose object is the beautiful, and which included (a) Poetry (b) Art and (c) Rhetoric.
N.B.
Neither Logic nor Metaphysics was in this list. (History of Philosophy, B. D. Alexander, p. 92).
(c) Other lists of books.
There are two lists of books which have come down to modern times from Alexandrine and Arabian sources.
(i) The older list, derived from the Alexandrine Hermippus (200 B.C.), who estimated the books of Aristotle at 400, which, according to Zeller's suggestion, must have been in
Page 114
the Alexandrine Library, at the time of the compilation of the list, since works which are now considered to be Aristotle's are not found in the list.
(ii) The later, derived from Arabian sources, was compiled by Ptolemus, of the First or Second Century A.D. This list mentions most of the works in the modern collection, and has a total of one thousand books.
(Zeller's History of Philosophy, p. 172â173; B. D. Alexander's History of Philosophy, p. 92â93).
(ii) DOCTRINES OF ARISTOTLE
I. Metaphysics: or The Principles of Being, in the Metaphysical realm.
1. Aristotle defines Metaphysics as the science of Being as Being.
2. He names the Attributes of Being as
(a) actuality (entelecheia) i.e., perfection and
(b) potentiality i.e., the capacity for perfection. (dynamis).
3. He states that all created beings are composed of actuality and potentiality.
These two principles are present and are mixed in all created beings except one, whose being is actuality, and includes the composition of (a) matter and form (b) substance and accident (c) soul and its faculties (d) active and passive intellect.
II. Principles of being in the physical realm.
There are four principles of being in the physical realm which are called Causes:â
(1) Matter (hyle) the material cause, is the potentiality or capacity of existence (hyle prole). It is that out of which being is made.
(2) Form or Essence (morphe) i.e., the formal cause is that which gives actuality to existence. It is that into which a thing is made. When matter is united with form the result is organized or realized being that has come to existence in the processes of nature (synolon, ousia prote).
Page 115
(3) Final Cause, is that for which everything exists. Everything has a purpose and that purpose is the final cause. A final cause always implies intelligence: but this is not always true in the case of the efficient Cause.
Consequently in the realm of nature, every being or living organism is the complex effect of four causes:â
(1) The substance out of which it is made (i.e., material cause).
(2) The type or idea, according to which the embryo tends to develop (i.e., formal cause).
(3) The act of creation or generation (i.e., efficient cause).
(4) The purpose or end for which the organism is created (i.e., final cause). In other words, matter, type, creation and purpose are the four principles which underlie all existing things.
(B. D. Alexander's History of Philosophy, p. 97â100; Aristotle, Meta. I, 3; Wm. Turner's History of Philosophy, p. 136140. Alfred Weber's Hist. of Phil., p. 80â84).
III. Doctrines concerning the existence of God.
(1) Although motion is eternal, there cannot be an indefinite series of movers and the moved, therefore there must be One, the first in the series which is unmoved (proton kinoun akineton) i.e., The Unmoved Mover.
(2) The actual is antecedent to the potential for although last in appearance, is really first in nature. Therefore before all matter and the composition of actual and potential, pure actuality must have existed. Therefore actuality is the cause of all things that exist and since it is pure actuality, its life is essentially free from all material conditions. It is the thought of thought, the absolute spirit, who dwells in eternal peace and self enjoyment, who knows himself and the absolute truth, and is in need of neither action nor virtue.
(3) God is one, for matter is the principle of plurality, and the First Intelligence is free from material conditions. His life is contemplative thought: neither providence nor will is
Page 116
comparable with the eternal repose in which He dwells. God is not concerned with the world.
IV. The doctrine of the origin of the world.
The world is eternal, because matter, motion and time are eternal.
V. The doctrine concerning Nature.
Nature is everything which has the principle of motion and rest. It is spontaneous and self determining from within. Nature does nothing in vain, but according to definite law. It is always striving for the best according to a plan of development, which is obstructed only by matter. The striving of nature is through the less perfect to the more perfect.
VI. The doctrine concerning the Universe.
The world is globe shaped, circular and most perfect in form. The heaven, which is composed of ether, stands in immediate contact with the First Cause. The stars, which are eternal come next in order, the earth-ball is in the middle, and is the furthest from the prime mover, and least participant of divinity.
(Eth. Wic 10, 8; 1178b, 20) (Op. cit. 10: 8, 9; 1179).
(Wm. Turner's History of Philosophy, p. 141â143; B D. Alexander, History of Phil. p. 102â103; Zeller's History of Philosophy, p. 221; Roger's History of Philosophy, p. 109).
(Aristotle's Physics II, I, 192b 14) (De Caelo, I, 4, 271a, 33).
(De Part. An. IV, 2, 677a 15)
(Aristotle's Physics II, 8, 199).
(B. D. Alexander's Hist. of Phil. p. 104).
(De Generatione Animalium, IV, 4, 7706, 9).
VII. The doctrine of the soul.
The soul is not merely a harmony of the body or the blending of opposites. It is neither the four elements nor their compound, for it transcends all material conditions.
Page 117
The soul and body are not two distinct things: but one in two different aspects, i.e., just as form is related to matter.
The soul is the power which a living body possesses, and it is the end for which the body exists, i.e., the final cause of its existence.
While the soul which is the radical principle of life, is one, yet it has several faculties. Those faculties are:â(1) Sensitive (2) Rational (3) Nutritive (4) Appetitive (5) Locomotive.
Of these, the sensitive and the rational are the most important: sensation being the faculty by means of which the forms of sen'sible things are received, just as impression is made as by a seal; and intelligent knowledge being the faculty by means of which intellectual knowledge is acquired.
It is the seat of ideas only, it does not create them, since knowledge comes through the senses.
(B. D. Alexander's History of Philosophy, p. 105â106).
(Wm. Turner's History of Philosophy, p. 147â153).
(Zeller's History of Philosophy, p 201â204).
(iii) SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS.
A. His Doctrines.
1. The doctrine of Being (To on).
By declaring the attributes of Being as (a) actuality or the determining principle, and (b) potentiality or the indeterminate principle: Aristotle attempted to explain Reality in terms of the principle of opposites.
But this principle was used not only by the Pythagoreans, Parmenides, and Democritus in a similar manner but also by Socrates in his attempt to prove the immortality of the soul, and by Plato who saw reality as the concept of things as distinguished from the things themselves: as the noumena as distinct from phenomena, and as the real, distinct from the unreal.
But the principle of opposites originated from the Egyptian Mystery System, whose Gods were male and female, and whose
Page 118
temples carried in front of them two pillars as symbols of the principle of opposites. It is obvious that Aristotle was not the author of this doctrine, but the Egyptians.
(Aristotle's Metaphysics I, 5, 985b, 24; Aristotle's Metaphysics I, 5, 98b, 31).
(Aristotle's Metaphysics I, 6, 987b, 9; Wm. Turner's Hist. of Phil., p. 41; 47; 48).
(Plato's Phaedo, c. 15; c. 16 and c. 49; Parmenides 132D). (Memphite Theology, King-ship and the Gods, by Frankfort, c. 3, p. 25, 26, 35).
(Egyptian Religion by Frankfort, p. 64, 73, 88).
2. The existence of God.
(a) The teleological concept has not only been embraced by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, but also by the peoples of the remotest antiquity. In the accounts found in the first chapter of Genesis and in the Memphite Theology, found in chapters 20 and 23 of Frankfort's Ancient Egyptian Religion, creation proceeds from chaos to order, by definite and gradual steps, showing design and purpose in nature, and suggesting that it must be the work of a divine Intelligence. The dates of these sources carry us far back into antiquity, many centuries before the time of Aristotle, between 2000 and 5000 B.C.
We are also told that in addition to the teleological concept, Aristotle introduced the concept of the "Unmoved Mover" in order to prove the existence of God. But the "Unmoved Mover" is none other than the Atum of the Memphite Theology of the Egyptians, the Demiurge, through whose command (logos) four pairs of Gods were created out of different parts of his body and who accordingly moved out of him. This act of creation took place while Atum remained unmoved; as he embraced Ptah. Thus the family of Nine Gods was created, and has been named the Ennead. It is quite clear that the concept of the "Unmoved Mover" is derived from the Egyptian theological or mystery system, and not from Aristotle, as the modern world has been made to believe.
Page 119
N.B.
Incidentally, but no less important, it might be mentioned here that in this story of the created Gods by Atum the Sun God into a family of nine, i.e., the Ennead, we have the original source of two important scientific hypotheses of modern times:â
(1) There are nine major planets and (2) The Sun is the parent of the other planets (This latter being supported by the Nebular Hypothesis). Let us remember also that
(a) the worship of the planets began in Egypt and
(b) the Egyptian temples were the first observatories of history.
(c) In attempting to prove the existence of God or a First Cause by reference to actuality and potentiality, Aristotle simply followed the traditional custom of the Ancients, who used the principle of Opposites in order to explain the functions of nature.
(d) Plato used it, through the theory of Ideas, to explain the real and unreal in the phenomena of nature.
(e) Socrates used it in order to establish the fact of immortality by showing that the death of one form of life of existing things, is but the beginning of another form of life of these things. In other words life is perpetual, it only changes its form in its course of progress.
Democritus applied the principle of opposites in their interpretation of a particular phase of reality. We cannot therefore consider Aristotle's use of the terms, actuality and potentiality in the problem of the existence of God as a new method of interpretation.
Furthermore, Aristotle's review of the doctrines of all previous philosophers including Plato, together with his exposure of their errors, and inconsistencies, shows that he had become confident not only of the fact that he was in possession of a new and correct knowledge one that had not before been made available to the Greeks, but also that he could then speak with
Page 120
great authority. Right here I must say that I am convinced that Aristotle represents a culture gap of 5000 years or more between his innovation and the Greek level of civilization; because it is impossible to escape the conviction that he obtained his education and books from a nation outside of Greece, the Egyptians who were far in advance of the culture of Greeks of his day.
(Memphite Theology in Kingship & The Gods by Frankfort c. 3. p. 25, 26, 35).
(Herodotus I, 6â26) (Egyptian Religion by Frankfort p. 64, 73, 88).
(Plato's Phaedo c. 15, 16, 49) (Zeller's History of Philosophy p. 61).
(Aristotle's Eth., Nic. 10, 8; 1178b, 20) (Op. cit. 10: 8, 9; 1179).
(Zeller's History of Philosophy p. 221) (Roger's History of Philosophy p. 109).
(William Turner's History of Philosophy p. 141â143).
(B. D. Alexander's History of Philosophy, p. 102, 103).
(B D. Alexander's History of Philosophy p. 92, 93; Roger's Student History of Philosophy p. 104).
(William Turner's History of Philosophy p. 126â127, 135).
(Zeller's History of Philosophy p. 171â173) (Plutarch's Alexander) (Aristotle's Metaphysics) (William Turner's History of Philosophy, p. 128 footnote also Noct. Mt. 20: 5).
(Strabo).
3. The doctrine of the origin of the world.
According to the doctrine that has been ascribed to Aristotle: "because matter, motion and time are eternal, therefore the world is also eternal", he plainly accepts and repeats a doctrine which has also been ascribed to Democritus (400 B.C.), whose dictum we are all quite familiar with: ex nihillo nihil fit (nothing comes out of nothing), and consequently matter or the world must always have existed.
But the antiquity of the doctrine of the eternal nature of
Page 121
matter, takes us back to the creation story of the Memphite Theology of the Egyptians, in which Chaos is represented by the Primeval Ocean Nun, out of which there arose the Primeval Hill Ta-tjenen. Under these circumstances we cannot give Aristotle credit for the authorship of this doctrine.
In addition to the false authorship that has been attributed to Aristotle, he contradicts himself in his physics VIII 1. 25; when he also speaks of the world as caused. A thing cannot be eternal and infinite, and at the same time finite.
(Memphite Theology in Egyptian Religion by Frankfort p. 20).
(Intellectual Adventure of Man by Frankfort p. 10, 21, 52).
4. The doctrine of the attributes of nature.
Aristotle defines nature as that which possesses the principle of motion and rest and also adds that the motion is an effort to move from the less perfect to the more perfect by a definite law: supposedly what we would today call evolution.
As we examine this definition, we find that Aristotle has only applied the principle of opposites to explain one of the modes by which nature has revealed herself just as he has done in his attempt to explain Being in the dual terms of actuality and potentiality.
But change and motion, permanence and rest, were by no means new problems at the time of Aristotle; since they appear to have been investigated not only by Parmenides, Zeno and Melissus, but also by Democritus, who stressed the notion of permanence in his famous dictum: ex nihillo nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes) implying thereby that nature is permanent and eternal.
Similarly, his reference to nature's movement from the less perfect to the more perfect, was by no means a new discovery of a principle of nature.
The creation account found in the first chapter of Genesis speaks of the gradual development of life, in which the Demiurge or Logos was engaged at work during six stages and
Page 122
rested on the seventh. Similarly, the creation account of the Egyptians pound in the Memphite Theology, also speaks of nature's movement from Chaos to order.
These accounts by many thousand years antedate Aristotle's time for the former is about 2000 B.C. while the latter 4000 B.C., and since the principle of opposites has already been shown to originate from the Egyptians, as well as that of the gradual development of life, it is clear that this doctrine on the attributes of nature did not originate from Aristotle.
(Zeller's History of Philosophy, p. 60â65;) (William Turner's History of Philosophy p. 44â52).
(Genesis c. 1).
(Roger's History of Philosophy p. 28â32).
(Intellectual Adventure of Man by Frankfort, p. 21, 51â60).
(Ancient Egyptian Religion by Frankfort, p. 20, 23).
5. The Soul.
According to Aristotle the soul possesses the following attributes (1) Identity with body, as form with matter (2) The power which a living body possesses, i.e., the radical principle of life, manifesting itself in the following attributes:â
(a) sensitive
(b) rational
(c) nutritive
(d) appetitive
(e) locomotive.
This description of the soul by Aristotle, seems to vary somewhat from the more familiar and current ideas held by the Atomists, on the one hand and Socrates, Plato and the Pythagoreans on the other; for while the former believed that the soul is material and is composed of fire atoms; the latter regarded it as a harmony of the body and a blending of opposites.
(William Turner's History of Philosophy, p. 42, 67â68).
Page 123
(Plato Phaedo, c. 15) (Zeller's History of Philosophy, p. 61).
(De Respiratione, 4, 30, 47a).
Naturally we are now forced to ask the question: Did this doctrine of the soul originate from Aristotle? It is clear that he did not get it from his teacher Plato, nor from the Pythagoreans and Atomists; but from some other source outside of Greece.
As we turn our attention to ancient history, we happily discover that there are two such sources outside of Greece (1) The Creation story in Genesis first chapter and (2) The Egyptian Book of the Dead, which does not only contain attributes of the soul, identical with those mentioned by Aristotle, but far more in an elaborate system of philosophy in which human nature is explained as a unity of nine inseparable parts consisting of different bodies and souls interdependent one upon another, the physical body being one of them. (The Egyptian Book of the Dead by Sir E. A. Budge. Introduction, p. 29â64).
In the Genesis story, it is asserted that God made man out of matter (i.e., the dust of the earth), and breathed into his nostrils, the breath of life, and "man became a living soul". Here we have a clear statement of the identity of "body and soul", taken from a document (Genesis) which antedates Aristotle by many centuries.
In the Egyptian Book of the Dead, we also find that the human soul is composed of the following nine inseparable parts:â
(1) The Ka, which is an abstract personality of the man to whom it belongs possessing the form and attributes of a man with power of locomotion, omnipresence and ability to receive nourishment like a man. It is equivalent to (Eidolon), i.e., image.
(2) The Khat, i.e., the concrete personality, the physical body, which is mortal.
(3) The Ba, i.e., the heart-soul, which dwells in the Ka and
Page 124
sometimes alongside it, in order to supply it with air and food. It has the power of metamorphosis and changes its form at will.
(4) The Ab, i.e., the Heart, the animal life in man, and is rational, spiritual and ethical. It is associated with the Ba (heart-soul) and in the Egyptian Judgment Drama it undergoes examination in the presence of Osiris, the great Judge of the Unseen World.
(5) The Kaibit, i.e., shadow. It is associated with Ba (heart-soul) from whom like the Ka, it receives its nourishment. It has the power of locomotion and omnipresence.
(6) The Khu, i.e., spiritual soul, which is immortal. It is also closely associated with the Ba (heart-soul), and is an Ethereal Being.
(7) The Sahu, i.e., spiritual body, in which the Khu or spiritual soul dwells. In it all the mental and spiritual attributes of the natural body are united to the new powers of its own nature.
(8) The Sekhem, i.e., power or the spiritual personification of the vital force in a man. Its dwelling place is in the heavens with spirits or Khus.
(9) The Ren, i.e., the name, or the essential attribute for the preservation of a Being. The Egyptians believed that in the. absence of a name, an individual ceased to exist.
N.B.
It must be noted that according to the Egyptian concept
(1) The soul has nine parts, whose unity is so complete, that even the Ren, i.e., the name, is an essential attribute, since without it, it cannot exist.
(2) The Ba (or heart-soul), is connected with the Ka, Kaibit and Ab (Abstract personality or Shadow and Animal life) on the one hand, and also with Khu and Sekhem (spiritual Soul and spiritual personification of vital force) on the other hand, as the power of Nourishment.
Page 125
(3) The Sahu is a spiritual body which is used both by Khu and Sekhem.
(4) The Khat, i.e., the physical body, is essential to the soul while manifesting itself upon the physical plane.
(5) The soul has the additional following attributes:â
(a) omnipresence
(b) metamorphosis
(c) locomotion
(d) nutritive
(e) mortality (in case of one khat)
(f) immortality
(g) rationality
(h) spirituality
(i) morality
(j) ethereal
(k) shadowy
(6) It is clear therefore from such a comparison as this, that the Aristotelian doctrine of the soul is identical and coincides with only a very small portion of the Egyptian philosophy of the soul, which therefore stands in relation to it as a whole to its part. Consequently we must conclude that Aristotle obtained his doctrine of the soul from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, directly or indirectly.
B (i) The Library of Alexandria was the true source of Aristotle's large numbers of books:
It is to be expected that the library of Alexandria was immediately ransacked and looted by Alexander and his party, no doubt made up of Aristotle and others, who did not only carry off large quantities of scientific books: but also frequently returned to Alexandria for the purpose of research. Just as these books were captured in Egypt by the army of Alexander and fell into the hands of Aristotle, so after Aristotle's death, these very books were destined to be captured by a Roman army and conveyed to Rome according to the following story taken from the histories of Strabo and Plutarch:â
Page 126
The books of Aristotle fell into the hands of Theophrastus who succeeded him as Head of his School. At the death of Theophrastus, they were bequeathed to Neleus of Scepsis. After the death of Neleus, the books were hidden in a cellar, where they remained for almost two centuries.
When Athens was captured by the Romans in 84 B.C., the books were captured by Sulla and carried to Rome, where Tyrannio a grammarian secured copies and enabled Andronicus of Rhodes to publish them.
(Strabo; Plutarch; Wm. Turner's Hist. of Phil., p. 128 footnote).
(Noct., Mt, 20; 5)
The fragmentary character of Aristotle's writings and their lack of unity, reveal the fact that he himself made notes hurriedly from books while doing his research at the great Egyptian Library. The ancient teaching method was oral; not by lecture and note taking.
Right here I must repeat that I am convinced that Aristotle represents a culture gap of 5000 years between his innovation and the Greek level of civilization; because it is impossible to escape the conviction that he obtained his education and books from a nation outside of Greece, who was far ahead of the culture of the Greeks of his day, and that was the Egyptians.
(B. D. Alexander's History of Philosophy, p. 92 and 93).
(Roger's Student History of Philosophy, p. 104).
(Alfred Weber's History of Philosophy, p. 77 and 78).
(Wm. Turner's History of Philosophy, p. 126, 127, 135).
(Zeller's History of Philosophy, p. 171â173).
(Plutarch's Alexander, c. 8).
(Aristotle's Metaphysics) (Wm. Turner's History of Phil., p. 128 footnote also Noct., Mt., 20; 5).
(Strabo).
The so-called books of Aristotle deal with scientific knowledge which was not in circulation among the Greeks, and
Page 127
consequently, it was impossible, as has already been stated, for him to have purchased them from other so-called Greek philosophers.
It is for the purpose of concealing the true source of his books and of his education, that history tells the very strange stories about Aristotle (a) that he spent 20 years, as a pupil under Plato, whom we know was incompetent to teach him; and (b) that Alexander the Great also gave him money to buy the large number of books to which his name has been attached; but at the same time, fails to tell us when, where and from whom Aristotle bought the books.
Furthermore, as already pointed out, Aristotle's review of the doctrines of all previous philosophers including Plato, together with his exposure of their errors and inconsistencies, shows that he had become confident not only of the fact that he was in possession of correct knowledge, one that had not before been made available to the Greeks; but also that he could then speak with great authority.
B (ii) The lack of uniformity between the lists of books points to doubtful authorship.
1. There are at least three lists of books. One list is said co be Aristotle's own classification of his writings, and naturally it must be dated within the period of his own life time 384â322 B.C. In this list Aristotle has told the world that he wrote texts on (a) Mathematics, Physics and Theology, (b) Ethics, Economics and Politics and (c) Poetry, Art and Rhetoric.
Now, in order to write these texts one must have received his education and training in the subjects on which they are written. We are told in the history of Greek philosophy, that Socrates taught Plato and that Plato taught Aristotle. But there is no evidence that Socrates ever taught mathematics or economics or politics.
Consequently, it was impossible for him to teach Plato these subjects, and also impossible for Plato to teach Aristotle
Page 128
these subjects, under the Egyptian Mystery System which was graded, and which required proof of efficiency before promotion.
We are therefore unable to accept the claim of Aristotle to have been the author of those books.
2. Two lists are derived from different sources and the two together differ widely in (a) number (b) subject matter and (c) date.
The list of Hermippus the Alexandrine (200 B.C.) contains 400 books. The list compiled by Ptolemus, between First and Second Centuries A.D. contains 1000 books. The very fact that there is no uniformity in the lists points to a doubtful authorship. Also, if Aristotle in 200 B.C. had only 400 books, by what miracle did they increase to 1000 in the Second Century A.D.? Or was it forgery?
C. The discrepancies and doubts in his life.
(i) He wastes 20 years as a pupil under Plato:
It is said that he went to Plato at the age of 19 and spent 20 years with him as a pupil. But this is doubtful and unreasonable. Doubtful because Plato is regarded as a Philosopher, while Aristotle as a Scientist, who has been credited with all the scientific knowledge of the Ancient World, and it is impossible for a master to teach a pupil what he himself does not know.
It is also unreasonable to expect a man who has been credited with Aristotle's knowledge, to waste 20 of the best years of his life, under a master who was incompetent to teach him.
(B. D. Alexander, Hist. of Phil., p. 92; Roger's Student History of Philosophy, p. 104).
(ii) The truth of how he got such a large number of books is misrepresented:â
He is said to have received financial aid from Alexander the Great, and was able to purchase a large number of books in order to advance his studies.
Page 129
(Zeller's Hist. of Phil., p. 171; Wm. Turner's History of Phil. p. 127).
But this sounds more like a fable than the truth, for up to the time of Aristotle, Greek education was represented by the Sophists who taught Rhetoric and dialectics; while the study of elementary science was confined to a few unknown philosophers. This was the standard of Greek education, for the Sophists were the only authorized teachers.
Yet Aristotle is credited with producing a thousand different books dealing with all branches of the scientific knowledge of antiquity. Certainly he could not have obtained them from the Greeks, for that vast body of knowledge, which bears his name and which was presented as new, would really have been the traditional common possession of all who were members of the Greek schools of philosophy for they would have been the only persons inside Greece permitted to own such books; for knowledge was protected as secret.
Under these circumstances it is evident that the vast body of scientific knowledge ascribed to Aristotle, was neither in the possession of the Greeks of his time, nor was there any one in Greece competent to teach him Science and, least of all, on so vast a scale.
(iii) He got the books by looting the Library of Alexandria:â
The question must now be asked: How did Aristotle, a single individual, come to possess such a vast number of scientific works, a body of knowledge which took the Ancient World five thousand years or more to accumulate? It is evident that Aristotle's fame as a scholar has been grossly exaggerated: for such an accomplishment would have been both a physical and mental impossibility. Throughout the intellectual advancement of man, the world has witnessed many a genius; but those have always been specialists in particular fields, not specialists in every branch of science.
And the modern world is no exception, for our great men
Page 130
of science are not specialists in every branch of science, but only in a particular one. That appears to be nature's way.
As a matter of fact, the many discrepancies and doubts in the life and activities of Aristotle lead us to the only reasonable solution of the problem that instead of the tales (a) that Alexander the Great gave him money to buy books (b) that he spent 20 years of his life as a pupil with Plato and (c) that he left the Palace of Alexander for Athens, when Alexander started on his Egyptian invasion, he, on the contrary, must have spent a large part of those 20 years under the tutorship of the Egyptian Priests, and also must have accompanied Alexander on the Egyptian invasion, which gave him the opportunity, not only to carry away from the Alexandrian Library, the vast number of books which are now said to be his, but also to copy notes from a large number of volumes. Indeed modern scholarship has shown that the writings of Aristotle bear all the marks of hurriedly copied notes which of course suggests that Aristotle himself copied these notes from the books of the Alexandrian Library. The historical account of Aristotle's life is incredible.
(iv) It was the custom of ancient armies to capture books as valuable war booty:â
When a victorious army takes possession of a country, it is customary for special companies to search for and seize war booty, i.e., to help themselves to everything that is considered valuable. The Greeks, among all the surrounding nations, were the most anxious to obtain the valuable secrets of the Egyptians, in the Ancient Sciences, and it would appear that the greatest opportunity came to them to accomplish the desire when Alexander the Great invaded Egypt. As stated elsewhere, ancient invading armies looted libraries, because of the great value attached to books; and temples were also looted, not only for books, but also for the gold and silver, out of which the gods and ceremonial vessels were made.
