Aristotle: Metaphysics

In Metaphysics Θ 1, Aristotle claims that the active power is definitionally prior to the passive power. Commentators have been puzzled by this claim, because the definitions appear, and seemingly should be, symmetric. However, their attempts to address this difficulty are dissatisfying, for commentators have not adequately appreciated what the difficulty is: they show (at most) how every kind of active power can be definitionally prior to every kind of passive power, but do not address how the active power as (...) such can be definitionally prior to the passive power as such. We undertake three tasks. First, we clarify the puzzle, demonstrating that it is the claim that the active power as such is definitionally prior to the passive power as such that stands in need of justification. Second, we defend a reading of the definitions which dissolves the appearance of symmetry. Third, we explain why the view that the active power is prior to the passive is philosophically attractive. (shrink)

Nosso principal objetivo é analisar, a partir de uma interpretação explanatório-causal da teoria aristotélica da demonstração científica, se o projeto de uma ciência do ser enquanto ser, proposto por Aristóteles na Metafísica (Met.), é compatível com o modelo de ciência demonstrativa encontrado nos Segundos Analíticos (APo.). Mais especificamente, a questão sobre a qual nos debruçamos neste artigo é: o projeto de ciência do ser enquanto ser desenvolvido na Met. (IV.1-4 e VI.1-2) pode ser tomado como uma ciência demonstrativa, em conformidade (...) com o modelo explanatório-causal de ciência demonstrativa desenvolvido nos APo. (I.2, 6, 9, 13 e II.1-2)? Dividimos o artigo em duas partes principais. A primeira parte apresenta os princípios do modelo de ciência demonstrativa dos APo., especialmente os conceitos de necessidade explanatória e de concomitância, que são particularmente fundamentais para a interpretação explanatório-causal. A segunda parte explora o método, o escopo e o propósito da ciência do ser enquanto ser, em contraste com outras disciplinas que também lidam com os princípios cujo conhecimento cabe a ela, como, por exemplo, as as ciências particulares, bem como a sofística e a dialética. Também discutimos brevemente, ao final da segunda parte do artigo, interpretações concorrentes à aqui proposta, e sugerimos uma possibilidade de contornar um dos problemas relativos a uma interpretação compatibilista entre o modelo de ciência demonstrativa e a ciência do ser enquanto ser de Aristóteles. (shrink)

In Metaphysics Λ, Aristotle appeals to the prime mover: an unmoved mover that is the first moving cause of the world. Elsewhere, he calls the science concerned with the prime mover ‘theology’ (Meta. E.1, 1026a19). But what is the point of this science? On a common view, its purpose is to give an account of the prime mover itself, and especially to prove its existence. By contrast, I argue that Aristotle’s theology in Metaphysics Λ is ‘nature-bound’: it ultimately aims at (...) explaining facts about the perceptible world, in particular the motion of heavenly bodies and the cycle of generation of perishable substances. (shrink)

It is generally agreed that Aristotle’s aim in De Interpretatione 9 is to rebut arguments purporting to show that bivalence entails fatalism. But the nature of his rebuttal is controversial. Some have argued that Aris- totle accepts the arguments as valid and responds by limiting biva- lence; others have argued that he accepts unlimited bivalence and responds by showing the arguments to be invalid. This paper develops and defends a novel version of the latter view, one which diverges from extant (...) varieties in four main ways. First, it shows that there is good reason to view the chapter’s opening sentences as revealing a commitment to unlimited bivalence. Second, it argues that Aristotle rejects the fatalist arguments on the grounds that they equivocate bet- ween two distinct senses of necessity – absolute and hypothetical. Third, it explains the distinction between the two senses of necessity as deriving from their different explanatory bases. Fourth, it describes the distinct ways in which the two forms of necessity apply to states of affairs and assertions. The paper concludes by discussing the fatalist arguments and how Aristotle’s criticism applies to them. (shrink)

The argument from thinking in Aristotle’s On Ideas deals with the problem of ‘presence in absence’. It argues that, to solve it, one must posit Forms. Scholars claim that Aristotle takes the argument as valid either for Forms or for his own universals. I argue against both alternatives, for Aristotle thinks that the problem that motivates the argument does not require a metaphysical solution, but only a psychological solution.

In Metaphysics N 2, Aristotle criticizes Plato and the Academics for setting up the problem of principles “in an obsolete way”. For they thought all things would be one (viz. Being itself) if they did not demonstrate, against Parmenides, that not-being is. And this assumption, for Aristotle, betrays a more fundamental and questionable Eleatic debt in their ontology, namely their commitment to the obsolete view that being, taken in its own right, is one. By contrast, Aristotle believes being is originally (...) multiple and said in many ways, so there is no need to demonstrate that not-being is, to justify as much. In his commentary on Book N, Syrianus replies to Aristotle and argues, among other things, both that his criticisms are flawed and that his own ontology can only stand if the Platonist account of multiplicity, difference and not-being is also endorsed. I scrutinize these counterobjections and argue that this debate reflects two essentially different ways of explaining fundamental facts in the structure of reality. (shrink)

Conocer los elementos que forman parte del mundo advierte de la presencia de un saber general que responde a definiciones universales, al ser estos rasgos de un saber que explica las causas y principios de todo ente lo cual implica comprender aquello por lo que las cosas son. En efecto, los conceptos del ser, de ente y substancia adquieren un nuevo sentido en el pensamiento de Aristóteles dejando un claro nexo entre estos, precisamente en el consorcio entitatividad-esencialidad que define a (...) la sustancia. Por eso, este artículo es un esclarecimiento de la novedad de Aristóteles frente a una tradición metafísica de la cual se hace heredero, además de crítico. (shrink)

In this paper I show that Aristotle’s widely criticised exclusion of Platonic efficient causes at Metaph. A 6.988a7–17 is defensible as an interpretation of Plato, and that alternative accounts are unpersuasive. I argue that Aristotle is only interested in – what he supposes to be – Plato’s first principles and that the usual candidates that are brought forward in scholarship as possible first principles and efficient causes (e.g. from the Timaeus and the Philebus) all fall short in crucial respects according (...) to Aristotle. This reading has the dual benefit of illuminating Aristotle’s strategy in book A and of letting him appear as a more trustworthy doxographer of his predecessors’ views. (shrink)

Aristotle offers apparently inconsistent explanations for paronymous expressions derived from matter: on the received picture, derived from Metaphysics Θ.7, such expressions are used in all and only cases of substantial change, because predicating the matter directly of a substance would be false; on the error picture, derived from Metaphysics Z.7, the same expressions are used in all and only cases of change from an unclear and nameless privation, because ordinary language users conflate such privations with matter. I propose a resolution: (...) the received picture explains why the usage is fitting, but the error picture explains how the usage originated. (shrink)

The Stoic theory of movement has never been the object of a deep investigation despite the considerable number of sources in Neoplatonist commentators. This paper explores for the first time the Stoic notion of ἐνέργεια, which plays a fundamental role in the Stoic conception of movement and generally in the characterization of interaction between bodies. I will show that the Stoics identified movement and activity, so that everything that is active is necessarily moved. This implies that the Stoics merely characterized (...) ἐνέργεια in a dynamic or kinetic sense, namely by connecting it with movement. In order to prove the coherence of this philosophical position to the Stoic doctrine, I will display the compatibility of Neoplatonists’ reports with other sources. Accordingly, I will claim that the Stoics conceived this peculiar sense of ἐνέργεια in reaction to Aristotle, who clearly distinguished between ἐνέργεια and κίνησις in his physical theory. (shrink)

Aristotle discusses divine intellect in Metaphysics XII.9. This chapter, however, seems incomplete, as a question posed in it (1074b36–8) remains unaddressed. On the other hand, there is another passage (1072b14–30) in Metaphysics XII.7 that seems to address a similar topic. Nevertheless, the latter passage appears, in several respects, to be extraneous to its present chapter. This article argues that the placement of the aforementioned passage within Metaphysics XII.7 is incorrect, and its original position is actually at the end of Metaphysics (...) XII.9. This alternative reading not only offers a better understanding of 1072b14–30 but also has the potential to finalize the unfinished discussion in Metaphysics XII.9. (shrink)

This major new study of Aristotle's natural philosophy connects it to modern theories of causation and provides fresh interpretations of classic issues. Structured around close readings of the Physics and the Metaphysics and informed by contemporary theories of causation, it offers a rich treatment of some of Aristotle's core texts.

The present article locates for the first time the four medieval Greek-Latin translations of the Aristotelian Metaphysics in the Greek manuscript tradition, based on representative collations. Two of the translations, the Translatio Guillelmi of Wilhelm of Moerbeke, cited up to now in the text editions (Ross, Jaeger), and the Translatio Composita, can be neglected in a new edition of the Metaphysics. On the other hand, the Translatio Iacobi and the Translatio anonyma must be consulted for the constitution of the text: (...) the latter actually turns out to be the oldest accessible witness to the meagerly transmitted _β_ -branch. (shrink)

Aristotle is often taken to define priority in being in Metaphysics Δ.11, where he says that those things are prior in being which “admit of being without other things, while these others cannot be without them: a division which Plato used” (1019a3-4). But Aristotle’s pattern of arguments about priority – some of which use Plato’s Test and others of which use distinct, causal tests – looks puzzling if Plato’s Test is his definition. This paper offers a new interpretation of Δ.11 (...) on which it offers a guide to the Aristotelian use of Plato’s Test, given that being is said in many ways, rather than endorsing it as Aristotle’s own definition of priority. This reading illuminates Aristotle’s pattern of arguments in the corpus – explaining why Aristotle uses Plato’s Test in some cases and departs from it in others – and suggests a plausible story about how these arguments were shaped by engaging with Plato. (shrink)

This paper presents a detailed reconstruction of Theophrastus’ account of human ontogeny, which is built around Aristotle’s notoriously difficult claim in Generation of Animals II 3 that “νοῦς alone enters from without.” I argue that this account (which is known to us via quotes from Theophrastus’ de Anima II and On Motion I) provides a viable alternative to the traditional trilemma between naturalist traducianism, creationism, and pre-existence, as well as offering an attractive but so far unappreciated interpretation of Aristotle’s account (...) of human ontogeny. More specifically, I argue that the extant evidence poses a challenge to the two dominant interpretations of “νοῦς from without” in the last decades: a dialectical one, according to which Aristotle ultimately rejects this claim, and a naturalizing one (often inspired by Alexander of Aphrodisias) that obliterates the essential difference between νοῦς and the other parts of the soul. (shrink)

Book synopsis: Aristotle's probing inquiry into some of the fundamental problems of philosophy, The Metaphysics is one of the classical Greek foundation-stones of western thought, translated from the with an introduction by Hugh Lawson-Tancred in Penguin Classics. The Metaphysics presents Aristotle's mature rejection of both the Platonic theory that what we perceive is just a pale reflection of reality and the hard-headed view that all processes are ultimately material. He argued instead that the reality or substance of things lies in (...) their concrete forms, and in so doing he probed some of the deepest questions of philosophy: What is existence? How is change possible? And are there certain things that must exist for anything else to exist at all? The seminal notions discussed in The Metaphysics - of 'substance' and associated concepts of matter and form, essence and accident, potentiality and actuality - have had a profound and enduring influence, and laid the foundations for one of the central branches of Western philosophy. Hugh Lawson-Tancred's lucid translation is accompanied by a stimulating introduction in which he highlights the central themes of one of philosophy's supreme masterpieces. Aristotle (384-22 BC) studied at the Academy of Plato for 20 years and then established his own school and research institute, 'The Lyceum'. His writings, which were of extraordinary range, profoundly affected the whole course of ancient and medieval philosophy and are still eagerly studied and debated by philosophers today. (shrink)

The article proposes a follow up contribution, possibly an almost final word, of our previous ones to the paleographical section of this journal – 2015 and 2022 especially but also 2018 – on the textual tradition of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Based on Maas theory of Trennfehler, along the two latest decades, we collected and evaluated any possible counter arguments for the sake of a unified stemma codicum, topped by Π. We also add further details. As a result, Π is a fourth (...) century AD parchment manuscript. This unified Π stemma stands as an alternative to the previous two branched stemmas topped by two disconnected α and β without a single archetype (by Bernardinello 1970 and by Harlfinger 1979). One is recalled that those stemmas were ultimately based on Jaeger’s 1912, 1957 theory of the two versions of the Metaphysics, one which does not carry conviction since decades. As an alternative, according to our exploration and research on all the fourteen books of the Metaphysics, Π has been found to be the source not only of J, of E and of other alpha manuscripts (via J or via E) but of all extant Greek manuscripts of the Metaphysics, including Ab and the other representative of the so called β branch. This, without being identical, fits remarkably well with Marwan Rashed findings concerning the Greek exemplar of the Arabic tradition : one can figure the size, the columns layout, the capital scriptio continua handwriting of that exemplar, based on the magnificent Vatican ms. B (Vet. gr. 1219) of the Bible – possibly the earliest extant Greek manuscript of all the books of the Ancient and of the New Testament. Both as a proof and as a possible means for independent counter arguments, Laura Folli and Marco Ghione make available here fresh collations for two central books of the Metaphysics, Zeta and Eta. Variant readings from Ab (β) are thus contrasted with Π’s manuscripts : J, E. Eb is also being added as an early representative of the important delta group. Based on Paul Maas’ theory of errors, we are now in condition to face the crucial issue : does not Ab depend on the former and, if so, to what extent ? This helps to resolve any residual opacity or incertitude concerning the upper part of the stemma. As a consequence, manuscript sources for the text constitution of the Metaphysics are reduced to a very tight minimum : J, with its corrector J2 ; E’s first hand can be eventually taken into account. Other sources – including Ab and all so‑called β and δ manuscripts, are relevant, so far as our present knowledge goes, as sources for improvement and correction only. (shrink)

On three occasions Aristotle judges explanations by earlier thinkers to be simply ‘beyond us’ (ὑðὲñ ἡìᾶò), namely, at Meta. iii 4, GA i 18, and GA ii 8. What failure is Aristotle charging earlier scientists with when he says this? I argue that the phrase ‘beyond us’ introduces a carefully considered charge (as opposed to an empty dismissal): an explanation of fact p is ‘beyond us’ when and only when it posits an explainer q that is (i) empirically unverifiable and (...) (ii) will explain only this one fact p and no other facts. (shrink)

I present a problem concerning the predication of elemental qualities in Aristotle’s On Generation and Corruption: What is the subject of predication for the elemental qualities? The usual answer in the scholarship is either the elements themselves, or prime matter (traditionally conceived). I argue that neither can perform this role. Instead, I explore the possibility that the elemental qualities are individually predicated of their own material principle. I show that this solution fits the text and solves the problem of predication (...) of elemental qualities. I conclude by offering some comments on the status of the elemental contraries and demonstrate the benefits of my view in conjunction with some recent scholarship on the elemental contraries. (shrink)

Aristotle’s divine nous of Metaphysics Λ.9 is generally understood to exclusively characterise the Prime Mover-God. This paper challenges this view by (1) drawing out the strong congruity between our ‘best state’ and that of the Prime Mover in Λ.7 and (2) removing certain key obstacles to a more inclusive reading of Λ.9: our thought is not limited to the ‘human’ kind (ho anthrōpinos nous, 1075a7), nor is our self-knowledge always a ‘by-product’ (en parergōi, 1074b36). Noēsis noēseōs, I contend, equally applies (...) to some forms of our thought. Hence, divine thought is accessible—indeed, even commendable—to us, just as the ‘divine life’ of Nicomachean Ethics X.7 is. (shrink)

Aristotle thinks that the Platonic theory of Forms is vulnerable to the Third Man regress. According to Alexander of Aphrodisias, the regress arises from the conjunction of three Platonist claims, which I label ‘Exemplification’, ‘Similarity’, and ‘Distinctness’. It is clear why, taken together, these three claims generate an infinite regress of Forms. What is not clear is why Aristotle thinks that a Platonist should have to accept each of the claims. My answer begins from the fact that, in Metaphysics A (...) and M, Aristotle mentions the Third Man as a consequence, not of positing Forms, but of certain ways of arguing for Forms. By working out what these arguments are likely to have been, we can understand why he took the Platonist to have been committed to all three claims, and thus why he saw the Third Man as a serious difficulty. (shrink)

This book brings together a number of researchers of different nationalities to reflect on religion and philosophy in ancient Greece. These scholars have been convened by the Brazilian research group Delphos and discuss, in particular, how religious and philosophical thought intertwined during this period. Among the papers collected here, several are devoted to epic and philosophical literature before Plato. The others deal, alongside this great classical philosopher, with Aristotle and Philo of Alexandria. These contributions allow us to recognise how the (...) vision of the cosmos, metaphysics and human life are intertwined in Greek thought. A journey is made from traditional Greek religion to its philosophical reinterpretations, reaching as far as the monotheistic God of Judaism made known in the Hellenic language. The nature of the cosmos, investigated scientifically, is no stranger to the Greeks' view of the divine, but neither is ethics, with all its demands. Thus, these studies provide a kaleidoscopic view of the various points of view from which nature, the human condition and divinity are approached through the eyes of ancient Greek literature. (shrink)

Balthasar impiega in tutta la sua Trilogia fattori fondamentali del pensiero di Platone: il bello, l’eros e l’analogia entis che chiama “Selbstbewegung” ignorando completamente la dottrina dei principi primi che la Scuola di Tübingen ha ricostruito grazie alle testimonianze dei suoi allievi nell’Accademia antica. Per parte sua, la Scuola di Tübingen esclude sistematicamente dall’indagine l’eros e la definizione di psychè del Fedro come “ciò che si muove sempre” e “muove sé stesso”. Non si occupa affatto del bello, perché lo assimila (...) senz’altro all’idea del bene. Propongo perciò una ricerca più filologica in cui espongo il Platone di Balthasar e quello della Scuola di Tübingen e una parte più storico-sistematica in cui delineo il divenire dell’estetica drammatica. Infine, propongo una soluzione del paradosso che ho identificato. La presenza di Platone nell’opera di Balthasar non è stata ancora riconosciuta. Solo due saggi ne parlano, ma sono problematici: in realtà si tratterebbe di Plotino, che sarebbe il vero compimento della filosofia greca. Non viene però preso in considerazione il fatto che Balthasar critica Plotino. (shrink)

In De interpretatione 9, Aristotle argues against the fatalist view that if statements about future contingent singular events (e.g. ‘There will be a sea battle tomorrow,’ ‘There will not be a sea battle tomorrow’) are already true or false, then the events to which those statements refer will necessarily occur or necessarily not occur. Scholars have generally held that, to refute this argument, Aristotle allows that future contingent statements are exempt from either the principle of bivalence, or the law of (...) excluded middle. This paper offers a new interpretation of Aristotle’s refutation of fatalism. According to this interpretation, each member of a pair of contradictory future contingent statements, in virtue of expressing modal necessity, is simply false. (shrink)

The Aristotelian view of universals, according to which each universal generically depends for its existence on its instantiations, has recently come under attack by a series of ground-theoretic arguments. The last such arguments, presented by Raven, promises to offer several significant improvements over its predecessors, such as avoiding commitment to the transitivity of ground and offering new reasons for the metaphysical priority of universals over their instantiations. In this paper, we argue that Raven's argument does not effectively avoid said commitment (...) and that Raven's new reasons fail. Moreover, we present a novel ground-theoretic interpretation of the Aristotelian view, referred to as strong immanence, and introduce a new argument against the Aristotelian view, intended to sidestep any commitment to the transitivity of ground. (shrink)

In Metaphysics Z 8 Aristotle offers an infinite regress argument to deny that forms come to be. Briefly put, the argument states that, if we assume that every time an x composed of matter (m1) and form (f1) comes to be, f1 also comes to be, then there would be infinitely many xs coming to be – for f1 would itself be a compound, if it comes to be, and the same reasoning would in turn apply to it. This argument (...) has great significance in the history of philosophy, for some later thinkers take Aristotle to allow or make room for the creation ex nihilo of forms. However, the only direct Greek engagement with this argument in its proper context is provided by Asclepius of Tralles’ commentary on Book Z. A close study of Asclepius’ interpretation shows that he endorsed the argument on the tacit condition that it refers to the forms αὐτὰ καθ’ αὑτά as different from both Platonic Ideas and enmattered forms. At the same time, however, its elaboration includes alongside forms αὐτὰ καθ’ αὑτά also eternal separate forms and generated forms. His reconstruction also displays a sophisticated toning-down of the potential disagreements between Plato and Aristotle on the conception of pre-existing form which is assumed in the argument. Asclepius’ interpretation offers yet further proof of the commentators’ camouflaged and stratified way of tackling philosophical issues of paramount importance. (shrink)

It is commonly believed that Aristotle merely uses artefacts as examples or analogical cases. This book, however, shows that Aristotle gives a specific, coherent account of artefacts that in various ways owes much to Plato. Moreover, it proposes a new, definitive solution to the problem of artefacts' substantiality, which comprises two controversial positions: (i) that Aristotle holds a binary view of substantiality according to which artefacts are not substances at all; (ii) that artefacts fail to be substances because they exhibit (...) less of a unity than natural wholes. Finally, responding to the contemporary debate on ordinary objects, the book identifies the main propositions for an ontology of artefacts that aspires to use Aristotle as its authority and can serve as a guideline for current metaphysical discussions. (shrink)

In In V Metaphysics, lec. 9, Aquinas distinguishes between “being by accident” (ens per accidens) and “being by itself” (ens per se) and includes the nine accidental categories under the latter. But isn’t substance a being per se while accidents are, by definition, accidental beings? Several authors—including Ralph McInerny, Paul Symington, and Greg Doolan—have offered explanations of this strange classification. Drawing on an overlooked parallel text in the Posterior Analytics commentary and on Aquinas’s critique of Avicenna’s understanding of accidental denominatives, (...) this paper presents an alternative explanation of the lecture. In the process, it clarifies how Aquinas views the relation of the ten categories to predication and suggests important implications for how we should understand the analogy of being and the phrase “substantial being” (esse substantiale). -/- [Winner of the Leo Elder's Junior Scholar Essay Contest (2024)]. (shrink)

O presente artigo tem como objetivo principal esclarecer a concepção da tradição megárica acerca do conceito de capacidade (δύναμις), tal como apresentada no livro Theta da Metafísica de Aristóteles. A análise se faz necessária devido à falta de atenção aristotélica na formulação da tese adversária dos megáricos, pois em nenhum momento Aristóteles parece nos oferecer argumentos plausíveis que justifiquem de maneira adequada a tese de seus oponentes. Partindo desta dificuldade de reconstrução do argumento megárico e visando lhe oferecer uma maior (...) dignidade, o estudo irá, em primeiro lugar, destrinchar possíveis argumentos que sustentem a tese no contexto da referida obra. Em seguida, irá provar que, mesmo a tese megárica não sendo tão facilmente refutável como uma primeira leitura poderia sugerir, há em sua estrutura problemas graves, que se evidenciam diante da concepção aristotélica da capacidade. (shrink)

This translation of the central books of the Metaphysics aims at no literary value, only literalness.

Aristotle (in)famously claims that “femaleness” is “as it were a deformity”, though “natural” (GA 4.6, 775a15-6), and that women’s deliberative faculties are “without authority” (Pol. 1.13, 1260a14). How are these claims – one biological, one political – to be understood? How (if at all) do they fit together? And how can Aristotle make them while also holding – as he seems to – that females are somehow valuable? -/- Deslauriers’ impressive new book takes on these questions. It defends two main (...) theses. The first concerns Aristotle’s biological and political accounts of sexual difference and the questions they address. It is that while Aristotle does think females are inferior to males, in both domains, his project is nevertheless to figure out why it is better to have them around: to show why sexual difference is good. This allows Deslauriers to defend her second thesis: that there is a connection between those domains. (shrink)

In book Λ. of the Metaphysics, Aristotle suggests that an unmoved, unmoving being (God) is the source of all movement in the cosmos. He explains that this being instigates movement through desire. But how does desire affect movement? And what would make Aristotle’s God an object of desire? I attend to both questions in this paper, arguing that God’s existence as pure actuality (energeia) is crucial to understanding God’s status as the primary and ultimate source of wonder, and that it (...) is as the ultimate source of wonder that we can make sense of how God affects desire. (shrink)

The discussion of the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC) in Aristotle’s Metaphysics Γ is usually taken to include three ‘versions’ of the principle: an ontological, psychological, and logical one. In this article I develop an interpretation of Metaphysics Γ3 and a parallel text, De interpretatione 14, in order to show that these texts are concerned with two related but different principles: a version of the Principle of Identity, and a corollary to this, which concerns the ability to accept two ‘opposite’ items (...) at the same time. I argue that these principles must be considered separately in order to properly understand Aristotle’s remarks about PNC in Metaphysics Γ, and in order to defend his approach in these remarks against certain objections raised against the discussion in Metaphysics Γ by Jan Łukasiewicz in his "Über den Satz des Widerspruchs bei Aristoteles". The main result of my interpretation is to distinguish in the discussion of PNC in Metaphysics Γ three principles: one concerning linguistic items (words and statements), one concerning thoughts (δόξαι), and one concerning objects or states of affairs. (shrink)

El desarrollo humano es, en el contexto de los estudios del desarrollo internacional, un concepto difundido a partir de 1990 por el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD). Este artículo propone una interpretación alternativa del concepto de desarrollo humano que resuelve algunas inconsistencias producidas por la confluencia de las distintas corrientes teóricas que dieron origen al concepto. La nueva interpretación propuesta proviene de los aportes del enfoque aristotélico de Martha Nussbaum y, más directamente, de la antropología aristotélica (...) y las nociones de acto y potencia. Se argumenta que el desarrollo humano puede ser entendido como el cambio que busca la realización plena del potencial humano. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that Aristotle was already aware in his earlier texts of the fundamental distinction between motion and activity and of the criterion which structures this contrast. Moreover, I will present textual evidence which suggests that Aristotle’s original concept of ἐνέργεια applies primarily to activities which contain their ends in themselves, and not to motions, which are different from their ends.

This paper argues that the discussion in which Aristotle engages in Metaphysics ΖΗ has the same starting-point as natural science: the principles of changing substances. These inquiries are nonetheless distinct because natural science uses these principles in its detailed investigations into natural substances, whereas ΖΗ reflect on the principles themselves. ΖΗ are an integral part of Aristotle’s inquiry into the principles of all substances, changing and unchanging: they are not merely preliminary to an inquiry into the latter kind. They are (...) also an integral part of Aristotle’s ‘first philosophy’, alongside theology’s study of the nature and activity of unchanging substances. (shrink)

According to the Categories, predicates can be ‘said of’ their subjects or they can be ‘present in’ their subjects. The said-of relation has received relatively little scholarly attention, and scholars disagree on the answers to four foundational questions about the relation. (i) What is it? (ii) Is it an essential relation? (iii) How is it related to predication? (iv) Is it primitive? I argue that A is said-of B just in case A is a formal part of B. On this (...) account, said-of is an essential relation and it is definable, but it is not defined in terms of predication. (shrink)

The intelligibility of nature was a persistent theme of William A. Wallace, OP, one of the most prolific Catholic scholars of the late twentieth century. This Reader aims to make available a representative selection of his work in the history of science, natural philosophy, and theology illustrating his defense and development of this central theme. Wallace is among the most important Galileo scholars of the past fifty years and a key figure in the recent revival of scientific realism. Further, his (...) long and productive scholarly career has been shaped by a continuous effort to bring the resources of the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition to the solution of contemporary problems of philosophy and science. Through all of these contributions, Wallace has provided the foundation for a renewed confidence in the capacity of human knowers to attain understanding of the natural order. Consequently, the overall aim of this volume is to secure continued access to his scholarship for readers in the new millennium. -/- Intelligibility of Nature contains twenty-nine previously published essays written by Wallace over a period of some forty years. Many of these essays are currently not readily accessible. They are arranged in five thematic groups, each representing a major subject-area of Wallace's scholarly interests. The first group is devoted to essays on making nature intelligible through the use of scientific models. The second group of essays investigates various ways in which the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition is foundational to contemporary scientific research. Essays in the third group are historical studies on the origins of modern science. The fourth group of essays discuss the viability of the cosmological argument for the existence of God in light of natural science. The final group of essays consider the relation of science and religion. Together these essays provide a representative sample of Wallace's multifaceted contributions to scholarship. (shrink)

One of the unresolved issues in Aristotle’s hylomorphism is the part-whole puzzle. Some scholars suppose that in Metaphysics Z 17, 1041b11-33 he endorses non-mereological hylomorphism. This kind of interpretation, however, has been challenged by K. Koslicki who argues that if the evidence in Metaphysics Z 17 is combined with some related textual and conceptual considerations, then a convincing case can be made for a mereological construal of Aristotelian hylomorphism. This paper does four things. First, it scrutinizes these opposing approaches to (...) Aristotle’s theory. Second, it suggests that to adjudicate the dispute at hand one ought to determine how Aristotle deals with what has come to be known as ‘Ackrill’s problem’. It is proposed that if we consider Aristotle’s theory in light of some distinctions drawn in contemporary discussions of hylomorphism, then it transpires that he does have a solution to Ackrill’s problem. Third, it is shown that his solution to this problem suggests a particular way of settling the debate over the part-whole puzzle. And finally, it is argued that the suggested reconstruction of Aristotelian hylomorphism is consistent with the textual evidence in Metaphysics Z 17 and its associated texts. (shrink)

The object of our reflection is to examine whether Aristotle's proof of the eternity of the Universe has a scientific character or only a dialectical one, as Thomas Aquinas claims. On this response depends faith in Creation. -/- L’objet de notre réflexion est d’examiner si la preuve de l’éternité de l’Univers avancée par Aristote a un caractère scientifique ou bien seulement dialectique, comme le prétend Thomas d’Aquin. De cette réponse dépend la foi en la Création.

In this essay, I respond to a problem raised by Sarah Broadie in her 1987 article “Nature, Craft and Phronesis in Aristotle.” Broadie analyzes Aristotle’s famous craft analogy for natural causation in order to determine whether or not it requires importing a psychological dimension to natural teleology. She argues that it is possible to make sense of the analogy without psychology, but that the tradeoff is a conception of craft so thoroughly de-psychologized that it is rendered unrecognizable, perhaps even incoherent (...) as a referent. I dispute this suggestion and argue, rather, that Aristotle’s insistence on removing psychology from the craft side of the analogy points to his prioritization of techne itself, rather than any particular craftsman, as primary efficient agent. The lack of psychology that characterizes a techne ensures stability and reliability in the causal process that could not be guaranteed by the idiosyncratic psychologies of various craftspeople. The same kind of stability and reliability belong to nature as an efficient cause, forming the basis of the comparison between craft and natural teleology. It is therefore the craft, not the craftsman, that must stand as analog to nature. I demonstrate the value of this revision by applying the analogy to the case of natural teleology: reproduction as depicted in Aristotle’s Generation of Animals. The result is a reading of Aristotle’s analogies that can assuage Broadie’s concerns and allow for a natural thing’s own nature to more fully inhabit its intended role as an inner source of change. (shrink)

Les interprétations et traductions habituelles de l’affirmation d’Aristote en Métaphysique Λ, 1075b12-13 πάντες δ᾽ οἱ τἀναντία λέγοντες οὐ χρῶνται τοῖς ἐναντίοις, ἐὰν μὴ ῥυθμίσῃ τις se fondent sur une compréhension contestable de la signification du verbe ῥυθμίζω. Une brève analyse de la signification et de l’usage du verbe au ve et ive siècle av. J.-C., ainsi qu’une étude des principaux interprètes anciens et médiévaux (le Ps.-Alexandre, Thomas d’Aquin, Averroès, Thémistius), dévoilent les difficultés que la compréhension de ce passage d’Aristote suscitaient (...) dès l’Antiquité et permettent de supposer que ῥυθμίζω doit ici être entendu dans son sens technique, métaphysique (« former », « ajouter une forme »), selon un usage que l’on trouve aussi chez Démocrite et Antiphon. La compréhension correcte de ce verbe autorise alors à présenter une nouvelle interprétation de ce bref passage d’Aristote et d’y découvrir une critique plus complète et précise des thèses qu’il entend dénoncer. (shrink)

Aristotle famously holds that there is no such thing as a single genus of being, or of what is (τὸ ὄν). This paper aims to offer a comprehensive account of his arguments in defence of this stance. I begin by examining a renowned passage of Metaphysics B3, where Aristotle argues that being is not a genus based on the somewhat controversial assumption that a genus cannot be predicated of its own differentiae. Part of my aim is to show that this (...) assumption is adequately supported by certain predicational principles which Aristotle lays out in Topics IV.2 and VI.6. I then aim to draw attention to two lesser-known arguments, to be found in Topics IV.6 and VI.3. I will mainly focus on the latter passage. Aristotle here insists that a genus must distinguish its members from members of other genera: since it is predicated of absolutely everything, being cannot distinguish the items of which it is predicated from anything else; as such, it fails to qualify as a genus. Having considered the most serious challenges which this argument may face, I will show that these can be overcome by invoking certain principles of predication deriving from Topics IV.1. (shrink)

Many contemporary philosophers hold that comparison requires a common, monistic ‘covering value’, and Aristotle is often described as a forerunner of this view. This paper reconsiders that claim. First, its textual warrant is substantially weaker than has been thought. Philosophically, moreover, Aristotle’s theory of non-synonymous predication allows for comparisons to be made using the special kind of non-synonymous terms that he calls pros hen legomenon, literally those ‘said with reference to a single thing.’ His favourite example is ‘healthy’ as said (...) of food, organisms, and medical procedures: these various senses are not entirely synonymous, yet are not simply unconnected. This has significant implications. Aristotle famously holds that goodness is species-specific, and it would then seem that species cannot be ranked according to how good they are. Yet Aristotle does—frequently—rank species. The paper shows us that he is not, pace other scholars, thereby caught in a contradiction. -/- . (shrink)

This article proposes a follow up of Fazzo’s contributions on the stemma codicum of Aristotle’s Metaphysics – including her Chora 2015 paper, its completion in the 2017 Revue d’Histoire des Textes and, most recently, a contribution on the text of Zeta 17 in Aristotelica 1 2022. All of these are summarized and framed here in the context of today’s lively debate. We then introduce the data of Marco Ghione’s collation and comparison of the readings of the two oldest manuscripts J (...) and E : J, the Vind. phil. gr. 100, early 9th century – the so‑called “Aristotle of Vienna” – is thus extensively compared with E, Paris. gr. 1853, early 10th century, with selected reference to the earliest hands at work (J, J2, E1). Based on Paul Maas’ theory of errors, we are now in condition to face the crucial issue : does the latter depend on the former? This helps resolving the one residual opacity or incertitude concerning the upper part of the Metaphysics’ stemma. (shrink)