DOCSLIB.ORG

Matter and Explanation. on Aristotle's Metaphysics Book H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Matter and Explanation. on Aristotle's Metaphysics Book H Matter and Explanation. On Aristotle’s Metaphysics Book H Simone Giuseppe Seminara To cite this version: Simone Giuseppe Seminara. Matter and Explanation. On Aristotle’s Metaphysics Book H. Philosophy. Ecole normale supérieure de lyon - ENS LYON, 2014. English. NNT : 2014ENSL0903. tel-01061421 HAL Id: tel-01061421 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01061421 Submitted on 5 Sep 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. THÈSE en vue de l'obtention du grade de Docteur de l’Université de Lyon, délivré par l’École Normale Supérieure de Lyon En cotutelle avec Roma Tre University Discipline : Philosophie Laboratoire: INSTITUT D'HISTOIRE DE LA PENSEE CLASSIQUE UMR 5037 École Doctorale: ECOLE DOCTORALE DE PHILOSOPHIE HISTOIRE, REPRESENTATION, CREATION, 487 présentée et soutenue publiquement le 13 Juin 2014 par Monsieur Simone Giuseppe SEMINARA MATTER AND EXPLANATION. ON ARISTOTLE'S METAPHYSICS BOOK H Directeur de thèse : M. Pierre-Marie MOREL Co-directeur de thèse : M. Riccardo CHIARADONNA Devant la commission d'examen formée de : M.Bruno CENTRONE, Università degli Studi di Pisa, Examinateur M.David CHARLES, Oxford University, Rapporteur M. Riccardo CHIARADONNA, Università degli Studi Roma Tre, Directeur et Examinateur M. Gabriele GALLUZZO, Exeter University, Rapporteur M. Jean-Baptiste GOURINAT, Centre Leon Robin CNRS, Examinateur M. David LEFEBVRE, Univ. Paris Sorbonne, Rapporteur et Examinateur M. Pierre-Marie MOREL, Paris 1, Directeur et Examinateur M. Franco TRABATTONI, Università degli Studi di Milano, Examinateur 1 CONTENTS: INTRODUCTION p.3 PART I: Η1. On the relation between Ζ and Η p.4 §1.1 The main aim of Η1 p.4 §1.2 The summary of Z's arguments p.7 §1.3 The lacunous character of the summary p.14 §1.4 The account of matter in Η1 p.22 §1.5 The search for the principles of substances and the emergence of hylomorphism p.43 §1.6 Matter and explanation: Ζ17 and Η p.51 PART II: Η2-Η3. Matter and Composition p.60 §2.1 The main aim of Η2 p.60 §2.2 The many meanings of being p.63 §2.3 The differentiae as principles of being p.75 §2.4 Η2's account of definition p.79 §3.1 H3: Composite and Form p.95 §3.2 The substance as cause of the composite thing p.108 §3.3 A digression: Ungenerability of Forms and Generability of Composites p.123 §3.4 Definability and undefinability p.131 PART III: Η4-5. Matter, Generation and Corruption p.141 §4. H4: Matter, Generation and Causes p.142 §5. Η5: Matter, Contraries and Corruption p.158 CONCLUSION §Η6: Matter and Unity p.175 BIBLIOGRAPHY p.205 2 INTRODUCTION In this work I provide a detailed commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics Book Η. The main aim is to show the theoretical unity of Η, which scholars usually read as a mere collection of appendices to the previous Book Ζ. In developing my commentary I take three key points on: 1) in Η Aristotle provides us with a less deflationary account of the notion of matter than that of Book Ζ; 2) this mainly depends on the fact that Η somewhat develops Ζ17's search for the cause by reason of which a certain matter is some definite thing; 3) in Η Aristotle applies the explanatory pattern of Ζ17 through a dynamic understanding of the notion of matter and form regarded as potentiality and actuality; I aim at showing how these three points allow us to give a unitary account of the six chapters which compose Η. In Η1 Aristotle provides a dynamic understanding of matter's determinateness. Such understanding rules both chapters 2-3, where Aristotle deals with the relation between matter and composition, and chapters 4-5, where he deals with the role of matter in the processes of generation and corruption. In the final chapter of Η6 such perspectives on matter's way of being are brought together in order to challenge the Platonic ontology. Roughly speaking, Aristotle's account of matter and form secures a unitary account of both things and definitions which the Platonic Doctrine of Forms fails to secure. The main conclusion of my work is that Η, far from being a collection of scattered remarks, plays a key role in Aristotle's Metaphysics. 3 PART I: Η1. On the relation between Ζ and Η §1.1 The main aim of Η1 At first glance, Η1's text can be easily divided into two parts. In the first part (1042a1-24) Aristotle recalls the main issues of Book Ζ, while in the second part (1042a24-b8) he deals especially with the concept of matter. Preliminarily, it can be argued that these two main topics will be at the core of Book Η as a whole. For, as we shall see in the following, the six chapters of Η seem to accomplish Ζ's enquiry moving from the assumption of Η1 1042a25-26 that “sensible substances all have matter”. The link between Η and Ζ emerges clearly from the introductory lines of Η1. At 1042a3-4 Aristotle says that: “we must reckon up the results arising from what has been said, and having computed1 the sum of them, put the finishing touch to our inquiry”2. This first statement qualifies the two main tasks of Η: on the one hand, it must summarize some arguments, on the other hand, it must accomplish a certain enquiry. Granting the fact that in Η1 1042a6-24 Aristotle makes a synthesis of the main issues dealt with in Ζ, it seems likely that the arguments to be summarized are those of Ζ and that Η's enquiry must somewhat accomplish the enquiry that was started in Ζ3. However, two elements 1 In this work I follow both Ross's edition (1924) and translation (1928) of Aristotle's Metaphysics. Those places where my translation differs are in italics. Here I follow the suggestion in M. Burnyeat (2001) p. 66. He notes that “the participle συναγαγόντες (in Ross: “compute the sum”) is aorist, indicating a time prior to the time of the main verbs συλλογίσασθαι and ἐπιθεῖναι. So I substitute Ross's translation compute with having computed. This choice, as will become clearer in the following, helps us to understand the summary of Ζ's arguments in Η1 as a prelude to the completion, not the completion itself. In his unpublished Book The Aim and the Argument of Aristotle's Metaphysics also S. Menn seems to agree on this point, see Part Two IIε p.15. 2 Ἐκ δὴ τῶν εἰρημένων συλλογίσασθαι δεῖ καὶ συναγαγόντας τὸ κεφάλαιον τέλος ἐπιθεῖναι. 3 Here too I follow the suggestion in M. Burnyeat (2001), p. 66, according to 4 challenge this reading: (1) Η1's following statement, at 1042a4- 6, where Aristotle argues that “we have said that the causes, principles and elements of substances are the object of our search”4, would not describe clearly the theoretical path of Ζ; (2) the so-called summary of Ζ, present in Η1, seems to be lacunous for several aspects or even inaccurate. These two puzzles have been raised in the Notes on Books Η and Θ of Aristotle's Metaphysics by the group of scholars which I will refer to in this work with the conventional name of “Londinenses”5. For what concerns the reference to an enquiry carried out elsewhere on “the causes, the principles and elements of substances”, they argue that this reference is neither in Ζ1, as argued by Ross6, nor in Ε1 as argued by Apostle, since “that chapter seeks principles and causes of τῶν ὄντων as including non just substances but everything”. Thus, they ask whether the recall is to Γ1-2, concluding that Λ1-2 “fits better still, offering several parallels to what is come to in Η1”. The same point is developed in Bostock's Commentary on Metaphysics Ζ and Η7, though remaining unsolved. As a matter of fact, in Ζ1 Aristotle does not mention the sort of enquiry declared in 1042a4-6, but he says that we must investigate “what is substance”8. By contrast, in Γ2 1003b17-19, after explaining how it is possible to unify the different meanings of “being”, he claims that if the first meaning of being is substance “it will be of substances that the philosopher must grasp the principles and the causes”9. Similarly, in Λ1 he starts off in this way: “the subject of our which is not the summary of Ζ's arguments of Η1, but the whole Η that constitutes the conclusion of Ζ's enquiry. 4 εἴρηται δὴ ὅτι τῶν οὐσιῶν ζητεῖται τὰ αἴτια καὶ αἱ ἀρχαὶ καὶ τὰ στοιχεῖα. 5 See Londinenses (1984) pp. 1-2. 6 W.D. Ross (1924) p. 226. Truth be told, Ross says that 1042a 4-6 roughly follows Ζ1. 7 D. Bostock (1994) p. 248. 8 See especially 1028b 2-7. 9 εἰ οὖν τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν ἡ οὐσία, τῶν οὐσιῶν ἂν δέοι τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς αἰτίας ἔχειν τὸν φιλόσοφον. 5 inquiry is substance; for the principles and the causes we are seeking are those of substances”10. However, the fact that these two passages fit better with Η1 1042a4-611, is not fatal for the link between the beginning of Book Η and the enquiry on substance developed in Ζ12.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Dualists Should (Not) Respond to the Objection from Energy
    c 2019 Imprint Academic Mind & Matter Vol. 17(1), pp. 95–121 How Dualists Should (Not) Respond to the Objection from Energy Conservation Alin C. Cucu International Academy of Philosophy Mauren, Liechtenstein and J. Brian Pitts Faculty of Philosophy and Trinity College University of Cambridge, United Kingdom Abstract The principle of energy conservation is widely taken to be a se- rious difficulty for interactionist dualism (whether property or sub- stance). Interactionists often have therefore tried to make it satisfy energy conservation. This paper examines several such attempts, especially including E. J. Lowe’s varying constants proposal, show- ing how they all miss their goal due to lack of engagement with the physico-mathematical roots of energy conservation physics: the first Noether theorem (that symmetries imply conservation laws), its converse (that conservation laws imply symmetries), and the locality of continuum/field physics. Thus the “conditionality re- sponse”, which sees conservation as (bi)conditional upon symme- tries and simply accepts energy non-conservation as an aspect of interactionist dualism, is seen to be, perhaps surprisingly, the one most in accord with contemporary physics (apart from quantum mechanics) by not conflicting with mathematical theorems basic to physics. A decent objection to interactionism should be a posteri- ori, based on empirically studying the brain. 1. The Objection from Energy Conservation Formulated Among philosophers of mind and metaphysicians, it is widely believed that the principle of energy conservation poses a serious problem to inter- actionist dualism. Insofar as this objection afflicts interactionist dualisms, it applies to property dualism of that sort (i.e., not epiphenomenalist) as much as to substance dualism (Crane 2001, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Chemistry
    Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Chemistry Jaap van Brakel Abstract: In this paper I assess the relation between philosophy of chemistry and (general) philosophy of science, focusing on those themes in the philoso- phy of chemistry that may bring about major revisions or extensions of cur- rent philosophy of science. Three themes can claim to make a unique contri- bution to philosophy of science: first, the variety of materials in the (natural and artificial) world; second, extending the world by making new stuff; and, third, specific features of the relations between chemistry and physics. Keywords : philosophy of science, philosophy of chemistry, interdiscourse relations, making stuff, variety of substances . 1. Introduction Chemistry is unique and distinguishes itself from all other sciences, with respect to three broad issues: • A (variety of) stuff perspective, requiring conceptual analysis of the notion of stuff or material (Sections 4 and 5). • A making stuff perspective: the transformation of stuff by chemical reaction or phase transition (Section 6). • The pivotal role of the relations between chemistry and physics in connection with the question how everything fits together (Section 7). All themes in the philosophy of chemistry can be classified in one of these three clusters or make contributions to general philosophy of science that, as yet , are not particularly different from similar contributions from other sci- ences (Section 3). I do not exclude the possibility of there being more than three clusters of philosophical issues unique to philosophy of chemistry, but I am not aware of any as yet. Moreover, highlighting the issues discussed in Sections 5-7 does not mean that issues reviewed in Section 3 are less im- portant in revising the philosophy of science.
    [Show full text]
  • Matter and Minds: Examining Embodied Souls in Plato's Timaeus
    Matter and Minds: Examining Embodied Souls in Plato’s Timaeus and Ancient Philosophy By Emily Claire Kotow A thesis submitted to the Graduate Program in Philosophy in conformity with the requirements for the Master of Arts Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada September, 2018 Copyright © Emily Claire Kotow, 2018 Abstract With the rise of Platonism influenced by Plotinus and Descartes, philosophers have largely overlooked the fact that Plato directly acknowledges that there is a practical and valuable role for the body. The Timaeus clearly demonstrates that Plato took the idea of embodied minds seriously, not just as an afterthought of the immortal soul. Ultimately this research demonstrates that Plato did not fundamentally have a problem with the mind-body relationship. In offering an argument for Plato’s positive ideas of embodied minds and the necessity thereof, I will also demonstrate, through a historical comparative, why I think the emphasis on mind rather than on embodied mind might have occurred. ii Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Jon Miller and the Philosophy Department of Queen’s University for allowing me to pursue my interests freely -a great privilege that few are fortunate enough to experience. iii Table of Contents Abstract………………………………….………………………………….…………………………………. ii Acknowledgments………………………………….………………………………….………………….. iii Table of Contents………………………………….………………………………….…………………….iv Introduction………………………………….………………………………….……………………………5 Chapter One: Plato’s Embodied Soul.……………………………….……………………………12 i. Plato and
    [Show full text]
  • Theory of Forms 1 Theory of Forms
    Theory of Forms 1 Theory of Forms Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1] [2] [3] asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.[4] When used in this sense, the word form is often capitalized.[5] Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own views are much in doubt.[6] Plato spoke of Forms in formulating a possible solution to the problem of universals. Forms Terminology: the Forms and the forms The English word "form" may be used to translate two distinct concepts that concerned Plato—the outward "form" or appearance of something, and "Form" in a new, technical nature, that never ...assumes a form like that of any of the things which enter into her; ... But the forms which enter into and go out of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their patterns in a wonderful and inexplicable manner.... The objects that are seen, according to Plato, are not real, but literally mimic the real Forms. In the allegory of the cave expressed in Republic, the things that are ordinarily perceived in the world are characterized as shadows of the real things, which are not perceived directly. That which the observer understands when he views the world mimics the archetypes of the many types and properties (that is, of universals) of things observed.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 9 Plato's Theory of Matter
    Lecture 9 Plato's Theory of Matter Patrick Maher Scientific Thought I Fall 2009 Necessity and intellect Both play a role We must describe both types of causes, distinguishing those which possess understanding and thus fashion what is beautiful and good, from those which are devoid of intelligence and so produce only haphazard and disorderly effects every time. [46e] Timaeus calls these \intellect" and \necessity," respectively. Now in all but a brief part of the discourse I have just completed I have presented what has been crafted by Intellect. But I need to match this account by providing a comparable one concerning the things that have come about by Necessity. For this ordered world is of mixed birth: it is the offspring of a union of Necessity and Intellect. [47e] Contrast with Phaedo In Phaedo Socrates said he wanted to explain everything by showing it is for the best. In Timaeus's terminology, he wanted to explain everything by intellect. But Timaeus says that in addition to intellect there is necessity and we need to take account of both. Role of intellect in matter Use of Platonic solids The creator gave fire, air, earth, and water forms that make them as perfect as possible. The regular polyhedra are the best shapes, so he gave the elements those shapes. See diagrams. Tetrahedron: fire Octahedron: air Cube: earth Icosahedron: water Elementary triangles The faces of the tetrahedron, octahedron, and icosahedron are equilateral triangles. Timaeus says these triangles are composed of six smaller ones, each of which is half an equilateral triangle. The faces of the cube are squares.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontologies and Representations of Matter
    Ontologies and Representations of Matter Ernest Davis Dept. of Computer Science New York University [email protected] Abstract 2. Benchmarks We carry out a comparative study of the expressive We will use the following eleven benchmarks: power of different ontologies of matter in terms of the Part-Whole: One piece of matter can be part of another. ease with which simple physical knowledge can be rep- resented. In particular, we consider five ontologies of Additivity of Mass: The mass of the union of disjoint models of matter: particle models, fields, two ontolo- pieces of matter is the sum of their individual masses. gies for continuous material, and a hybrid model. We Rigid solid objects: A solid object moves continuously evaluate these in terms of how easily eleven benchmark and maintains a rigid shape. Two objects do not overlap. physical laws and scenarios can be represented. Continuous motion of fluids: The shape of a body of fluid deforms continuously. 1. Introduction Chemical reactions. One combination of chemicals can Physical matter can be thoughtof, and is thoughtof, in many transform into a different combination of chemicals. Chem- different ways. Determining the true ontology of matter is ical reactions obey the law of definite proportion. a question for physicists; determining what ontologies are Continuity at chemical reactions: In a chemical reac- implicit in the way people think and talk is a question for tion, the products appear at exactly the same time and place cognitive scientists and linguists; determining the history of as the reactants disappear. views of the true ontology is a question for historians of sci- Gas equilibrium: A gas in a stationary or slowly moving ence.
    [Show full text]
  • Plotinus on the Soul's Omnipresence in Body
    Plotinus on the Limitation of Act by Potency Gary M. Gurtler, S.J. Boston College The limitation of act by potency, central in the metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas, has its origins in Plotinus. He transforms Aristotle’s horizontal causality of change into a vertical causality of participation. Potency and infinity are not just unintelligible lack of limit, but productive power. Form determines matter but is limited by reception into matter. The experience of unity begins with sensible things, which always have parts, so what is really one is incorporeal, without division and separation. Unity is like the esse of Thomas, since it is the act that makes a thing what it is and has its fullness in God. 1. Introduction Over fifty years ago Norris Clarke, S.J., published “The Limitation of Act by Potency: Aristotelianism or Neoplatonism,” The New Scholasticism, 26 (1952) 167–194, which highlighted the role of Plotinus in formulating some of the fundamental distinctions operative in medieval philosophy. He singled out the doctrine of participation and the idea of infinity and showed how they went beyond the limits of classical Greek thought. At the same time, his work challenged some of the basic historical assumptions of Thomists about the relation of scholastic philosophy, especially St. Thomas’s, to Plato and Aristotle. I have appreciated more and more the unusual openness and self critical character of Fr. Clarke’s historical method, and am pleased to have the chance in this response to Sarah Borden’s paper to explore some of the issues raised by Fr. Clarke’s seminal article in light of my own work on Plotinus.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Chemistry: an Emerging Field with Implications for Chemistry Education
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 434 811 SE 062 822 AUTHOR Erduran, Sibel TITLE Philosophy of Chemistry: An Emerging Field with Implications for Chemistry Education. PUB DATE 1999-09-00 NOTE 10p.; Paper presented at the History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference (5th, Pavia, Italy, September, 1999). PUB TYPE Opinion Papers (120) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Chemistry; Educational Change; Foreign Countries; Higher Education; *Philosophy; Science Curriculum; *Science Education; *Science Education History; *Science History; Scientific Principles; Secondary Education; Teaching Methods ABSTRACT Traditional applications of history and philosophy of science in chemistry education have concentrated on the teaching and learning of "history of chemistry". This paper considers the recent emergence of "philosophy of chemistry" as a distinct field and explores the implications of philosophy of chemistry for chemistry education in the context of teaching and learning chemical models. This paper calls for preventing the mutually exclusive development of chemistry education and philosophy of chemistry, and argues that research in chemistry education should strive to learn from the mistakes that resulted when early developments in science education were made separate from advances in philosophy of science. Contains 54 references. (Author/WRM) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** 1 PHILOSOPHY OF CHEMISTRY: AN EMERGING FIELD WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR CHEMISTRY EDUCATION PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS Office of Educational Research and improvement BEEN GRANTED BY RESOURCES INFORMATION SIBEL ERDURAN CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproducedas ceived from the person or organization KING'S COLLEGE, UNIVERSITYOF LONDON originating it.
    [Show full text]
  • Matter in Plotinus's Normative Ontology
    Phronesis 143_266-294 11/18/04 1:30 PM Page 266 Matter in Plotinus’s Normative Ontology* CHRISTIAN SCHÄFER ABSTRACT To most interpreters, the case seems to be clear: Plotinus identifies matter and evil, as he bluntly states in Enn. I.8[51] that ‘last matter’ is ‘evil’, and even ‘evil itself’. In this paper, I challenge this view: how and why should Plotinus have thought of matter, the sense-making ¶sxaton of his derivational ontology from the One and Good, evil? A rational reconstruction of Plotinus’s tenets should nei- ther accept the paradox that evil comes from Good, nor shirk the arduous task of interpreting Plotinus’s texts on evil as a fitting part of his philosophy on the whole. Therefore, I suggest a reading of evil in Plotinus as the outcome of an incongruent interaction of matter and soul, maintaining simultaneously that nei- ther soul nor matter are to be considered as bad or evil. When Plotinus calls mat- ter evil, he does so metonymically denoting matter’s totally passive potentiality as perceived by the toiling soul trying to act upon it as a form-bringer. As so often, Plotinus is speaking quoad nos here rather than referring to ‘matter per se’ (for Plotinus, somewhat of an oxymoron) which, as mere potentiality (and noth- ing else) is not nor can be evil. In short: matter is no more evil than the melan- choly evening sky is melancholy – not in itself (for it isn’t), but as to its impression on us who contemplate it. As I buttress this view, it will also become clear that matter cannot tritely be considered to be the aÈtÚ kakÒn as a prima facie-reading of Enn.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Prime Matter: an Analysis of Hugh R. King's Revisionist
    Abstract: Aristotle’s Prime Matter: An Analysis of Hugh R. King’s Revisionist Approach Aristotle is vague, at best, regarding the subject of prime matter. This has led to much discussion regarding its nature in his thought. In his article, “Aristotle without Prima Materia,” Hugh R. King refutes the traditional characterization of Aristotelian prime matter on the grounds that Aristotle’s first interpreters in the centuries after his death read into his doctrines through their own neo-Platonic leanings. They sought to reconcile Plato’s theory of Forms—those detached universal versions of form—with Aristotle’s notion of form. This pursuit led them to misinterpret Aristotle’s prime matter, making it merely capable of a kind of participation in its own actualization (i.e., its form). I agree with King here, but I find his redefinition of prime matter hasty. He falls into the same trap as the traditional interpreters in making any matter first. Aristotle is clear that actualization (form) is always prior to potentiality (matter). Hence, while King’s assertion that the four elements are Aristotle’s prime matter is compelling, it misses the mark. Aristotle’s prime matter is, in fact, found within the elemental forces. I argue for an approach to prime matter that eschews a dichotomous understanding of form’s place in the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato. In other words, it is not necessary to reject the Platonic aspects of Aristotle’s philosophy in order to rebut the traditional conception of Aristotelian prime matter. “Aristotle’s Prime Matter” - 1 Aristotle’s Prime Matter: An Analysis of Hugh R.
    [Show full text]
  • Kronos 1-2018 Angielski 40 Do Internetu.Indd
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2018 Mortality of the Soul and Immortality of the Active Mind (ΝΟΥΣ ΠΟΊΗΤΊΚÓΣ) in Aristotle. Some hints Ferber, Rafael Abstract: The paper gives (I) a short introduction to Aristotle’s theory of the soul in distinction to Plato’s and tries again (II) to answer the question of whether the individual or the general active mind of human beings is immortal by interpreting “When separated (฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ì฀)” (de An. III, 5, 430a22) as the decisive argument for the latter view. This strategy of limiting the question has the advantage of avoiding the probably undecidable question of whether this active ฀฀฀฀ is human or divine. The paper closes with an outlook (III) on the Christian belief in the resurrection of body and soul in a spiritual body (฀฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ó฀) (1 Corinthians: 15, 44) by accentuating the ethical aspect of the belief in individual immortality as a “need of reason” (Vernunftbedürfnis) (Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, A 256–258). Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-169760 Journal Article Published Version Originally published at: Ferber, Rafael (2018). Mortality of the Soul and Immortality of the Active Mind (ΝΟΥΣ ΠΟΊΗΤΊΚÓΣ) in Aristotle. Some hints. Kronos : philosophical journal, 7:132-140. VOLUME VII / 2018 / ISSN 2392-0963 Wawrzyniec Rymkiewicz, Szukalski – A Transgression in Search of Identity Stanisław Szukalski, Drawings André Laks, Articulating the De Motu Animalium. The Place of the Treatise within the Corpus Aristotelicum Claudia Baracchi, Unheard-of Friendship.
    [Show full text]
  • AVERROES on CHANCE Introduction After Discussing
    CHAPTER FOUR AVERROES ON CHANCE Introduction After discussing chance and determinism in Avicenna, we now turn to Averroes’ views. His theory of chance, like that of Avicenna, is based on Aristotle’s discussion in Physics II (195b31–200b8) and is expounded in his commentaries. Averroes thus explains chance in his three commentaries on the Physics, short, middle and long, but obviously his most detailed discussion is to be found in his Long Commentary on the Physics, since his long commentaries contain point for point analyses of Aristotle’s text. This commentary shall consti- tute the starting point for my study of Averroes’ views on chance. Passages from other works by the Commentator (as Averroes was known in medieval Latin philosophical circles) both commentaries and his original works, will complement this study. Following the order of Aristotle’s text, the Andalusian philosopher first considers and refutes his predecessors’ positions and then pre- sents his own solution. In discussing the meaning of chance for Aristotle, Averroes, as is his wont, discusses the views not only of Aristotle’s predecessors such as the Presocratics but also those of late Aristotelians and of Avicenna. Reversing the order of his argument, I shall start with his own position before presenting his criticism of his predecessors and drawing a comparison between his and Avicenna’s position. In view of the fact that Averroes’ commentaries were meant to expound and elucidate Aristotle’s philosophy, question arises whether his exposition reflects the true meaning of his text. However in gen- eral the issue of Aristotle’s own views and whether Averroes expo- sitions truly reflect those of Aristotle cannot be here discussed at length, because what Aristotle exactly meant has itself been the object of controversy and has engaged the interpretive efforts of commen- tators and scholars for centuries if not millennia.
    [Show full text]