Early Christian Views of Aristotle

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Direct teaching

Aristotle, who was a pupil of Plato, reduced philosophy to an art. He was distinguished especially for his skill in logical science. He supposed that the elements of all things are substance and accident. He said that there is one substance underlying all things, but nine accidents. These are quantity, quality, relation, where, when, possession, posture, action, and passion. He said that substance is something such as God, man, and each of the beings that can fall under a similar name. But regarding accidents, quality is seen in such things as white and black. Quantity is seen in such things as two cubits and three cubits. Relation is seen in such things as father and son. Where is seen in such things as at Athens and Megara. When is seen in such things as during the tenth Olympiad. Possession is seen in such things as having acquired. Action is seen in such things as to write, and in general to show any practical powers. Posture is seen in such things as to lie down. Passion is seen in such things as to be struck. He also supposed that some things have means, but others are without means, as we have declared concerning Plato also. And in most points he is in agreement with Plato,

Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata (Miscellanies) Direct teaching

and Plato withdrew to the Academy. Aristotle, after studying philosophy under Plato, withdrew to the Lyceum, and founded the Peripatetic sect.

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Direct teaching

Among logicians is Aristotle, pupil of Plato. He systematized the art of dialectics.

Origen, Against Celsus Supporting witness

Aristotle, indeed, is said to have been Plato's pupil for twenty years, and no inconsiderable period was spent by Chrysippus in the school of Cleanthes;

Origen, Against Celsus Direct teaching

...arge against Jesus, that one of His disciples became His betrayer? And since Celsus makes a show of philosophy, I would ask him this: was it then a charge against Plato that Aristotle, after being his pupil for twenty years, left him and attacked his teaching about the immortality of the soul, and called Plato's ideas mere trifles? And if I were still uncertain, I would go on and say this: after Aristotle left, was Plato no longer powerful in dialectic, or unable to defend his views? And because of that, are Plato's opinions false? Or is it not possible that Plato was true, as the students of his philosophy would claim, while Aristotle was guilty of wickedness and ingratitude toward his teacher? Yes, Chrysippus also, in many parts of his writings, seems to attack Cleanthes by bringing in new opinions opposed to his views, although Cleanthes had been his teacher when he was a young man and had begun to study philosophy. Aristotle, indeed, is said to have been Plato's pupil for twenty years, and Chrysippus spent no small amount of time in the school of Cleanthes, while Judas did not remain even three years with Jesus. But from the stories of the lives of philosophers, we could tak

Tatian, Address to the Greeks Direct teaching

What noble thing have you produced by your pursuit of philosophy? Which of your most famous men has been free from empty boasting? Diogenes, who made such a show of his independence with his tub, was struck with a bowel disease from eating a raw octopus, and so lost his life through gluttony. Aristippus, walking around in a purple robe, lived a morally corrupt life, in keeping with the opinions he claimed to hold. Plato, though a philosopher, was sold by Dionysius because of his greedy appetite. And Aristotle, who foolishly set a limit on Providence and made happiness consist in things that give pleasure, acted in a way unworthy of a teacher and flattered Alexander, forgetting that he was only a young man. And Alexander, showing how well he had learned his master's lessons, shut up his friend and carried him around like a bear or a leopard because his friend would not worship him. In fact, he closely followed his teacher's instructions in showing manliness and courage by feasting, and by stabbing with his spear his close and most beloved friend, and then, pretending to grieve, weeping and starving himself so that he would not bring on the hatred of his friends. I could also laugh a

Tatian, Address to the Greeks Direct teaching

...you take it on yourself to avenge yourself. If you receive nothing, you become abusive, and for you philosophy is the art of making money. You follow the teachings of Plato, and a disciple of Epicurus raises his voice against you. Again, you want to be a disciple of Aristotle, and a follower of Democritus attacks you. Pythagoras says that he was Euphorbus, and he is the heir of the teaching of Pherecydes. But Aristotle argues against the immortality of the soul. You receive from your predecessors teachings that conflict with each other. You, who are out of harmony, are fighting against what is harmonious. One of you says that God is a body, but I say that He is without a body; that the world cannot be destroyed, but I say that it is going to be destroyed; that a fiery destruction will happen at different times, but I say that it will happen once for all; that Minos and Rhadamanthus are judges, but I say that God Himself is Judge; that only the soul has immortality, but I say that the flesh also has it. What harm do we do to you, O Greeks? Why do you hate those who follow the word of God, as if they were the worst of mankind? It is not we who eat human flesh. Those among you who

Lactantius, The Divine Institutes Direct teaching

...lus is knowledge; for Zeno, to live in agreement with nature; for certain Stoics, to follow virtue. Aristotle placed the chief good in integrity and virtue. These are the views of nearly all. In such a difference of opinions, whom do we follow? Whom do we believe? All have equal authority. If we are able to choose what is better, then it follows that philosophy is not necessary for us, because we are already wise, since we judge the opinions of the wise. But since we come in order to learn wisdom, how can we judge when we have not yet even begun to be wise? Especially when the Academic is standing close by, pulling us back by the cloak, and forbidding us to believe anyone, without offering something that we may follow.

Tatian, Address to the Greeks Direct teaching

And Aristotle, who absurdly placed a limit to Providence and made happiness to consist in the things which give pleasure, quite contrary to his duty as a preceptor flattered Alexander, forgetful that he was but a youth;

Origen, Against Celsus Supporting witness

Or may it not be, that while Plato is true, as the pupils of his philosophy would maintain, Aristotle was guilty of wickedness and ingratitude towards his teacher?

Lactantius, The Divine Institutes Supporting witness

From these Aristotle was not far removed, who thought that virtue together with honour was the chief good;

Lactantius, The Divine Institutes Supporting witness

that of certain Stoics, to follow virtue. Aristotle placed the chief good in integrity and virtue.

Tatian, Address to the Greeks Supporting witness

Again, you wish to be a disciple of Aristotle, and a follower of Democritus rails at you.

Tatian, Address to the Greeks Supporting witness

but Aristotle impugns the immortality of the soul.

Lactantius, The Divine Institutes Supporting witness

... by their own sword? Why should you work to refute those whom their own speech refutes and crushes? Aristotle, Cicero says, while accusing the ancient philosophers, declares that they were either extremely foolish or extremely vain, since they thought that philosophy had been perfected by their talents. But he said that he saw, because a great addition had been made in a few years, that philosophy would be complete in a short time. What, then, was that time? In what way, when, or by whom was philosophy completed? For what he said, that they were extremely foolish in thinking that philosophy had been made perfect by their talents, is true. But he himself did not speak with enough judgment either, since he thought that philosophy had either been begun by the ancients, or increased by more recent men, or that it would soon be brought to perfection by later ones. For that which is not sought in its own way can never be investigated.

Lactantius, The Divine Institutes Supporting witness

What could be said that is more contradictory? If the teachings of philosophy ought to be known, they ought to be known for this reason: so that we may live well and wisely. But if we must live as members of a community, then philosophy is not wisdom, if it is better to live according to society than according to philosophy. For if what is called philosophy is wisdom, then the man who does not live according to philosophy certainly lives foolishly. But if the man who lives according to society does not live foolishly, it follows that the man who lives according to philosophy lives foolishly. Therefore, by your own judgment, philosophy is condemned as foolish and empty. And you also, in your Consolation, that is, not in a work of lightness and amusement, expressed this view about philosophy: "But I do not know what error has taken hold of us, or what miserable ignorance of the truth." Where, then, is the guidance of philosophy? Or what has that parent of life taught you, if you are miserably ignorant of the truth? But if this confession of error and ignorance has been forced from your inmost heart, almost against your will, why do you not finally admit to yourself the truth: that ph

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Direct teaching

... the one we have now tried to describe in outline, and there is a matching division in Aristotelian philosophy. However, his work called Concerning the Soul is obscure. For in the whole three books where he discusses this subject, it is not possible to state clearly what Aristotle's opinion about the soul is. As for the definition he gives of the soul, it is easy enough to repeat it. But it is hard to discover what the definition means. For he says that the soul is an entelecheia of a natural organic body. But explaining what this actually is would require a very large number of arguments and a long investigation. As for the Deity, the Maker of all those glorious things in creation, the nature of this First Cause is even harder to know than the soul itself, even for someone carrying on a longer inquiry than the one about the soul. The definition Aristotle gives of the Deity, I admit, is not hard to find out, but it is impossible to understand its meaning. For he says that the Deity is a conception of conception. But this is altogether a non-existent thing. The world, however, is incorruptible and eternal according to Aristotle. For it has nothing defective in itself, since it is

Justin Martyr, Hortatory Address to the Greeks Direct teaching

But Aristotle says that the soul is not so comprehensive as to include also corruptible parts, but only reason.

Tertullian, De Anima (On the Soul) Supporting witness

Democritus as the soul's indigence; Aristotle as the interruption of the heat around the heart.

Tertullian, De Anima (On the Soul) Supporting witness

which we can only believe if Aristotle, (who would fain help us to such an opinion,) lived prior to any other person.

Tertullian, De Anima (On the Soul) Supporting witness

For Aristotle makes even the senses passions, or states of emotion.

Tertullian, De Anima (On the Soul) Direct teaching

...rates it from all union with the soul. And yet in another passage he actually joins it to the soul. Aristotle also noticed this inconsistency. But I can hardly decide whether he meant his criticism to build up a system of his own, rather than simply destroy the principles of others. As for Aristotle himself, although he puts off his definition of the mind, he begins by mentioning, as one of the two natural parts of the mind, that divine principle which he supposes to be impassible, or incapable of emotion, and so removes it from all connection with the soul. For since it is clear that the soul is open to those emotions which it naturally must suffer, it must suffer either by the mind or with the mind. Now if the soul is naturally joined to the mind, it is impossible to conclude that the mind is impassible. Or again, if the soul suffers neither by the mind nor with the mind, then it cannot possibly be naturally joined to the mind, with which it suffers nothing, and which itself suffers nothing. Moreover, if the soul suffers nothing by the mind and with the mind, then it will feel nothing, gain no knowledge, and undergo no emotion through the agency of the mind, although they main

Justin Martyr, Hortatory Address to the Greeks Direct teaching

...hfully, many of his beliefs would be shown to be false. For Thales of Miletus, the founder of their philosophy, will contradict Aristotle's initial opinions about first principles. Aristotle himself, having said that God and matter are the first principles of all things, is contradicted by Thales, the eldest of their sages, who claims that water is the first principle of everything. He argues that all things come from water and eventually return to it. Thales bases this on the fact that the seed of all living creatures, which is their first principle, is moist, and because all plants grow and bear fruit in moisture but wither without it. Then, as if still unsatisfied with his reasoning, he cites Homer as a most trustworthy source, who said: “Ocean, who is the origin of everything.”

Justin Martyr, Hortatory Address to the Greeks Direct teaching

...created and gives God the chance for His work; and form is the type of each of the things produced. Aristotle, however, makes no mention of form as a first principle, but says that there are two: God and matter. And again, while Plato says that the highest God and the ideas exist in the prime place of the highest heavens, in a fixed sphere, Aristotle says that, next to the most high God, there are not ideas, but certain gods who can be perceived by the mind. So, they differ on heavenly matters. It is clear that they not only fail to understand earthly matters, but also, being in disagreement among themselves regarding these things, they appear untrustworthy when they talk about heavenly matters. That even their doctrine about the human soul as it currently exists does not align is evident from what each has said about it. For Plato says that it has three parts, with the faculties of reason, affection, and appetite. But Aristotle says that the soul is not so comprehensive as to include corruptible parts, but only reason. And Plato strongly asserts that "the whole soul is immortal." However, Aristotle, calling it "the actuality," believes it to be mortal, not immortal. Furthermore

Minucius Felix, Octavius Direct teaching

...over, Epicurus, the man who invents either idle gods or none at all, still places Nature above all. Aristotle varies, but nevertheless assigns a unity of power. For at one time he says that Mind is God, at another that the World is God, and at another time he sets God above the world. Heraclides of Pontus also, although in different ways, ascribes a divine mind to God. Theophrastus, and Zeno, and Chrysippus, and Cleanthes indeed have many forms of opinion, but they are all brought back to the one fact of the unity of providence. For Cleanthes spoke of God now as a mind, now as a soul, now as air, but for the most part as reason. Zeno, his master, wants the law of nature and of God, and sometimes the air, and sometimes reason, to be the beginning of all things. Moreover, by interpreting Juno to be the air, Jupiter the heaven, Neptune the sea, Vulcan to be fire, and in the same way by showing the other gods of the common people to be elements, he forcefully denounces and overcomes public error. Chrysippus says almost the same. He believes that a divine force, a rational nature, and sometimes the world, and a fatal necessity, is God. And he follows the example of Zeno in his physio

Justin Martyr, Hortatory Address to the Greeks Direct teaching

But Aristotle, in a book addressed to Alexander of Macedon, giving a compendious explanation of his own philosophy, clearly and manifestly overthrows the opinion of Plato, saying that God does not exist in a fiery substance: but inventing, as a fifth substance, some kind of ætherial and unchangeable body, says that God exists in it.

Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians Background

Then there are Plato and Aristotle — not that I am about to go through all that the philosophers have said about God, as if I wished to exhibit a complete summary of their opinions;

Justin Martyr, Hortatory Address to the Greeks Supporting witness

but Aristotle says that it is immoveable, since it must itself precede all motion.

Arnobius, Against the Heathen Supporting witness

He who adds a fifth element to the primary causes, to Aristotle, the father of the Peripatetics?

Lactantius, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes Direct teaching

Aristotle, his disciple, admits that there is one mind which presides over the world.

Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians Direct teaching

This same idea led Aristotle to say that the things below heaven are not under the care of Providence, even though God's eternal providence cares equally for us here below.

Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians Supporting witness

Aristotle, again, and his followers, recognising the existence of one whom they regard as a sort of compound living creature (ζῶον), speak of God as consisting of soul and body, thinking His body to be the etherial space and the planetary stars and the sphere of the fixed stars, moving in circles;