Below we will analyze Aristotle's Categories 9a4-9a13 in which Aristotle shares his definitions of habit and disposition. This article will show how, even though Aristotle's Categories were written in 350 BC, his definitions of dispositions and habits are still used in science to better understand the human person. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Aristotle informs readers about the differences between habits and dispositions to clearly point out that the words are not and should not be used interchangeably. He begins by saying that «it is clear that men tend to name 'habits', which are by their nature more long-lasting and more difficult to remove”[1]. Habits were defined by one man as “enduring” and “hard to shift,” meaning they are difficult to break or change and carry forward in more than a few situations, they are persistently present. Aristotle gives the example that a person who cannot master knowledge but has a changeable temperament is rarely regarded as maintaining the "habit" of knowing. Contradicting people's common belief that their mind is inclined towards knowledge.[2] An informed person should be described as being disposed to knowledge and not by saying that he is in the habit of knowing. It is invalid to use habit in this context because no one is master of all knowledge as identified by Aristotle. Next, Aristotle informs readers of a direct difference between habit and disposition that always applies, “therefore habit is different from disposition; the first is long-lasting and stable, the second changes quickly"[3]. The provisions are "the latter" that "change", they are not constant and can change easily. The habit is “the first is long-lasting and stable”. Change is harder to achieve and often doesn't happen, so they remain constant most of the time. Aristotle clearly states that “habits are also dispositions; dispositions are not always habits”,[4] to differentiate the two things. This comparison is similar to how in elementary school, when learning shapes, students are taught that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Likewise, all habits are dispositions, not all dispositions are habits, in the sense that habits have all the characteristics of a disposition in that it explains why a person acts in a certain way. A disposition cannot always be a habit because habits are “lasting and stable” unlike dispositions that “change.” This sentence in Aristotle's paragraph shows that the words are related but have very clear differences. Finally, Aristotle states that "while those who have clothes are in one way or another disposed accordingly, those who are in some way disposed do not have a habit at all in any case".[5] This final sentence of the paragraph tells readers that habits can cause consequences and be dangerous to hold onto and that those who are eliminated do not always necessarily have a habit. Habits and dispositions can be easily confused with each other due to their similar definitions which differ only in that habits are more stable, are more difficult to change and last longer while dispositions change frequently. Aristotle recognized that these two words are often confused and uses this paragraph to break down their differences and explain how they are also related. Marjolein Oele wrote an article about affect and disposition titled Passive Dispositions: Onrelationship between affection and disposition in Aristotle. He writes about how Aristotle's beliefs about affect and delves into how someone can be passively influenced by causing them to be influenced to generate a passive or affective moral disposition. Oil argues that natural affects cause affective temperaments that relate to our developed passive moral dispositions and also that passive moral dispositions are more related to the qualitative change brought about by more consistent habitual exposure.[6] This article provides a clearer understanding of what clear examples of provisions are. Oele says that «once established, dispositions are actively expressed through our affections. For example, once we have formed the nature of kindness, we will allow ourselves to become angry under appropriate circumstances.”[7] Dispositions, though not habits, are nevertheless represented in every human being and are shown to “express” themselves through “affects.” ” which according to Aristotle are always present in daily life because they are identified as one of its qualities. [8] Therefore, the example that is given is that a “kindness disposition” is formed when people will allow themselves to have the affect of being angry in appropriate circumstances because they have the knowledge and behavior of being kind. If this disposition were to be developed and strengthened, a habit could be formed because Aristotle says that the habit is “lasting and stable” so if a disposition is developed to the point where it can be said to be stable and lasting then the would become a 'habit.[9] The example given by Oele regarding kindness as a disposition falls into the category of a disposition proposed by Aristotle as undergoing change which still shows the connection of the transition that can occur from deposition to habit. It is further stated that dispositions are "good or bad conditions in which we find ourselves with regard to affect, which also clearly establish that there is an important connection between our (temporary) affects and our (stable) dispositions." 10] Ole reads in Aristotle's definition that dispositions are the result of affects that are "'good or bad,'" meaning that affects affect how humans act in the future because they might result in new dispositions that they would later form habits down the line. The connection between affects and dispositions is emphasized and brought to our attention in this article, demonstrating that Aristotle thought deeply about how he would define his qualities, how they influenced each other, and how readers would take the information and use it in their lives. Today, Aristotle's definition of habit is useful for the progress of neuroscience. In Javier Bernacer and Jose Murillo's study The Aristotelian Conception of Habit and Its Contribution to Human Neuroscience we learn that “for Aristotle, a habit is an acquired disposition to perform certain types of actions. If this disposition involves greater cognitive control of actions, it can be considered habit-as-learning. Even the current view of habit in neuroscience, which lacks cognitive control and which we call “habit as routine,” is covered by the Aristotelian conception.”[11] The current view of habit, which lacks cognitive control, in neuroscience it is a “'habit as routine'” which is similar to “'habit as learning'” which was the original Aristotelian conception. The traces of the Aristotelian conception in neuroscience show how influential Aristotle's definitions of habit and disposition are as they are still cited and used today because they so perfectly explain each part.