Studies on Being in Aristotle's Metaphysics Beta
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Title Studies on Being in Aristotle's Metaphysics Beta Author(s) Karuzis, Joseph Citation 北海道大学. 博士(文学) 甲第11057号 Issue Date 2013-09-25 DOI 10.14943/doctoral.k11057 Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/53782 Type theses (doctoral) File Information Joseph_Karuzis.pdf Instructions for use Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP Studies on Being in Aristotleʼs Metaphysics Beta Joseph Karuzis Hokkaido University Graduate School of Letters ʻIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.ʼ -Sir Isaac Newton Studies on Being in Aristotleʼs Metaphysics Beta Joseph Karuzis Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Hokkaido University, Graduate School of Letters. Abstract In Book Beta of the Metaphysics, Aristotle presents fifteen aporias, or puzzles, whose subject matter is centered on fundamental and foundational issues in first philosophy. This study analyzes the subject matter and it presents Aristotelian solutions to the first five aporias to appear in Book Beta. The first four aporias deal with puzzles concerning the possibility of there being a science called prôtê philosophia, or, first philosophy, and the fifth aporia deals with a fundamental puzzle within metaphysics. Considered as a group, the first five aporias serve as an introduction to the science of being qua being, and in conjunction with their solutions function in a preliminary sense and a preparatory sense for the remaining aporias that are presented in Metaphysics, Book Beta. The solutions to the aporias also function as evidentiary support for the claim that the Metaphysics is a philosophical unity. This is because it is Aristotleʼs task within the Metaphysics to address the puzzles presented in Book Beta and to offer reasonable solutions. All of the solutions to the five aporias analyzed are found directly within the Metaphysics, with the partial exception to the second solution to the fifth aporia, where it is necessary to refer to passages in the Physics and De Anima for perspective and an introduction to hylomorphism as it relates to both matter and the soul. This study is philosophical and historical, and claims that the solutions to the first five aporias are based on considering the puzzles from an ontological context. The first aporia raises the issue of whether it is the duty of one science or more than one science to investigate all the kinds of causes. Through an analysis of Metaphysics, Book Gamma and Book Epsilon Aristotle states that it is indeed the duty of one science, the most universal and general science, prôtê philosophia, to investigate all the kinds of causes. The second aporia raises the issue of whether it belongs to one science or more than one science to study the principles of demonstration. Through a complete analysis of Metaphysics Book Gamma it is ascertained that it is indeed the duty of one science, prôtê philosophia, to study both the ultimate principles of being and the principles of demonstration. The third aporia raises the issue of whether it belongs to just one single science or more than one science to investigate all substances and their attributes. Aristotleʼs solution to this puzzle is found in Metaphysics, Book Gamma, chapters two and three and is based on his classification of prôtê philosophia and the division of the study of philosophy into its respective branches. The branches investigate being as it is related to that specific iii subject matter, yet all the branches are divisions within the unified study of philosophy. The fourth aporia raises the issue of whether the proper subject of prôtê philosophia is substance only, or also the essential attributes of substance. Aristotleʼs solution is found in Metaphysics, Book Gamma, chapter two, and is based on his notion that prôtê philosophia is the most general investigation into substance, and as so, indeed also studies its essential attributes. The fifth aporia raises a fundamental and foundational issue within the study of prôtê philosophia by examining the puzzle of whether only sense-perceptible things exist, or in addition to these, also non- sense-perceptible things exist. This study claims that there exists a tripartite set of solutions that resolve this puzzle. First, Aristotle criticizes and rejects the Platonic theory of Forms in Metaphysics Book Alpha chapters six and nine. Secondly, Aristotle raises the theory of hylomorphism that explains generation in the sense-perceptible world without the need for separate, and causally empty Forms. Aristotleʼs presentation of the theory of hylomorphism is analyzed from passages in Physics, Book II, chapters two and three, De Anima, Book II, chapter one, and Metaphysics, Book Zeta, chapters one, seven, eight, and nine. The third solution to this puzzle is the positing of the Unmoved Mover in Metaphysics Book Lambda chapters one, six, seven, nine, and ten. The positing of the Unmoved Mover and nous affirms that indeed non-sense-perceptible substances exist. There has been a renewed interest in the study of the aporias in Metaphysics, Book Beta, in recent years, and perhaps this study will serve as a lucid introduction to the ontologically significant issues that are raised within the first five puzzles. Hokkaido, November 2012 iv Acknowledgements There are many people that I must show appreciation to for their assistance in the completion of this doctoral thesis. First and foremost I would like to thank my advisor and teacher, Professor Kei Chiba, of the Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University, for his instruction and criticism. For without his assistance this dissertation would not have been possible. In addition to ten years of study on Aristotle and ancient Greek philosophy, Professor Chiba also instructed me in ancient Greek, for which I am also very grateful. I must thank Professor Koji Nakatogawa, of the Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University, for his friendship, support, and many philosophical discussions. From Sapporo University I must thank especially Professor Tetsu Horikawa for all of the philosophical discussions. I must thank from Sapporo University the late Professor Thomas Guerin, Professor Yuriya Kumagai, and Professor Takafumi Kudo. At Hokkai Gakuen University, I would like to especially thank Professor Haruko Ishii and Professor Yukie Ueno. It has been a pleasure to be colleagues together. From Hokkaido University Hospital I must thank Dr. Mototsugu Kato. I would like to thank Professor Yoshio Arai from Fuji Womenʼs University. I would like to thank Dane A. Hampton, from Hokusei Gakuen University, for his assistance with the reading and pronunciation of ancient Greek. I am very thankful to Mike OʼConnell for his proofreading and many helpful suggestions. I must thank my professors of philosophy from Boston, starting with the late Professor John Cleary of the Department of Philosophy, Boston College. I must also thank Professor Arthur Madigan, SJ, Professor Richard Cobb-Stevens, and Professor James Bernauer, SJ, all of the Department of Philosophy at Boston College. I wish to thank with great appreciation my professors from Boston University, most especially Professor Carl Ruck from the Department of Classics, for his instruction in Latin. From the Department of Philosophy I am especially grateful to Professor Sahotra Sarkar, the late Professor Bernard Elevich, Professor Klaus Brinkmann, Professor Jaakko Hintikka, the late Professor Leroy Rouner, Professor Charles Griswold, Professor Stanley Rosen, Professor Victor Kestenbaum, and Professor Lawrence Cahoone. I am especially grateful to Professor Krzysztof Michalski of the Department of Philosophy at Boston University and the Director at the Institute of Human Sciences in Vienna, Austria. I wish to thank my parents, Carol Karuzis and the late John Karuzis for all of their support and love. Finally, I wish to thank my lovely wife, Mika Karuzis, for her wonderful support and understanding. This thesis would not have been completed without Mikaʼs constant assistance and loving support. v Studies on Being in Aristotleʼs Metaphysics Beta Table of Contents Abstract iii Acknowledgements v Part One: Introduction to the Study of the Science of Being qua Being Through the Metaphysical Puzzles of Book Beta Chapter One Introduction I. Introduction to the Present Study 1 II. The History of Aporia in Ancient Greek Thought 3 III. Reading Beta as a Passageway into Metaphysics 9 IV. List of the Fifteen Aporias 17 Part Two: Puzzles Concerning the Possibility of the Existence of the Science of Being qua Being Chapter Two The First Aporia: Whether it is the duty of one science or more than one science to investigate all the kinds of causes I. Introduction and Presentation of the First Aporia in Met. Book Beta, Ch. 2 19 II.1 Solutions to the First Aporia in Met. Book Gamma Ch. 1, & Met. Epsilon Ch. 1 & 2 24 II.2 Theology and the science of being qua being 30 Chapter Three The Second Aporia: Whether it belongs to one science or more than one science to study the principles of demonstration I. Introduction and Presentation of the Second Aporia in Met. Book Beta, Ch. 2 40 II. Solutions to the Second Aporia a. The Solutions in Met. Book Gamma, Ch. 1, 2, 3, 4 43 b. The Solutions in Met. Book Gamma Ch. 5 and the Arguments Against the Relativists 59 c. The Group A Relativists 61 d. Met. Book Gamma Ch. 6 and The Group B Relativists 71 Chapter Four The Third Aporia: Whether it belongs to just one single science or more than one science to investigate all substances and their attributes I. Introduction & Presentation of the Third Aporia in Met. Book Beta, Ch. 2 76 II. The Solution to the Third Aporia in Met. Book Gamma, Ch. 2 & 3 78 Chapter Five The Fourth Aporia: Whether the proper subject of our investigation is substance only, or also the essential attributes of substance I. Introduction & Presentation of the Fourth Aporia in Met.