The Problem of Katholou (Universals) in Aristotle
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 12-9-2010 12:00 AM The Problem of Katholou (Universals) in Aristotle Riin Sirkel The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Professor Henrik Lagerlund The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in Philosophy A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Riin Sirkel 2010 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons Recommended Citation Sirkel, Riin, "The Problem of Katholou (Universals) in Aristotle" (2010). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 62. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/62 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE PROBLEM OF KATHOLOU (UNIVERSALS) IN ARISTOTLE (Thesis format: Monograph) by Riin Sirkel Graduate Program in Philosophy A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada © Riin Sirkel 2010 THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION Supervisor Examiners ______________________________ _____________________________ Dr. Henrik Lagerlund Dr. Karen Margrethe Nielsen Co-Supervisor ______________________________ _____________________________ Dr. Devin Henry Dr. Benjamin Hill Supervisory Committee _____________________________ ______________________________ Dr. Kendall Sharp Dr. John Thorp ______________________________ _____________________________ Dr. Karen Margrethe Nielsen Dr. Verity Harte The thesis by Riin Sirkel entitled: The Problem of Katholou (Universals) in Aristotle is accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ______________________ _______________________________ Date Chair of the Thesis Examination Board ii ABSTRACT My dissertation focuses on what I call Aristotle’s “problem of katholou” in order to distinguish it from the “problem of universals” which is traditionally framed as the problem about the ontological status of universals. Aristotle coins the term katholou (traditionally rendered as “universal”) and defines it as “that which is by nature predicated of many things” (De Int. 17a38). Yet, the traditional focus on the ontological status of universals is not Aristotle’s. His positive remarks about universals remain neutral with regard to their ontological status and escape the standard divide of realism and nominalism. I start with Aristotle’s neutrality and focus on his problem concerning universals and particulars. The problem of katholou is to explain how what is most real can also be most knowable. It is generated by two of Aristotle’s philosophical commitments: (i) particulars are most real and (ii) universals are most knowable (since knowledge is of the universal). My central task is as follows. I show that Aristotle’s writings reveal three related solutions: one that appeals to the ontological interdependence between universals and particulars; one that appeals to the corresponding epistemological interdependence (and to notions of potentiality and actuality); and one that invokes the concept of form. In the last chapter of the dissertation, I show that Aristotle’s commentator, Alexander of Aphrodisias, adopted primarily the last solution, which appeals to forms. I suggest that Alexander influenced the future direction of discussions about Aristotle’s problem of katholou and the traditional problem of universals. Keywords: Aristotle, universals, particulars, essentialism, ontological priority, substance, Alexander of Aphrodisias, the problem of universals. iii ACKNOLWEDGEMENTS First and foremost I want to thank my supervisor Professor Henrik Lagerlund. He initiated the chain of events leading to my completion of this dissertation by encouraging me to enter the PhD program at the University of Western Ontario. My doctoral work has benefited greatly from his knowledge and ability to see the big picture. Our weekly discussions helped me to formulate several of the key ideas I defend in my dissertation. He has been both intellectually stimulating yet calming in his supportive and easy going attitude; a combination that has made writing this dissertation enjoyable. Secondly and equally importantly, I want to thank my co-supervisor Professor Devin Henry, who has read and commented on virtually every draft of everything I have written on ancient philosophy. He is one of the clearest thinkers I know, and his refusal to accept the first version of anything I wrote and his ability to spot the weakest part of an argument has helped me to sharpen my ideas and to become a better writer. His interest in my work and encouragement have contributed immensely to my professional development. I have been lucky to study at the supportive, stimulating, and sociable atmosphere of the philosophy department at the University of Western Ontario. I am especially thankful to all the members of the “Greek Gang”. I will fondly remember those evenings at Professor John Thorp’s house, sitting in front of the fireplace, sipping wine and discussing ancient philosophy. Finally, I am thankful to all my friends and fellow graduate students for making the last four years of my life enjoyable. I am especially thankful to O’Neal Buchanan, Sean Coughlin, and Toomas Lott for commenting and proofreading parts of my dissertation. iv Table of Contents CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION ...........................................................................ii ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................iii ACKNOLWEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................iv CHAPTER 1: Introduction..............................................................................................1 SEPARATION ....................................................................................................................3 ARISTOTLE’S PROBLEM OF KATHOLOU ..........................................................................13 CHAPTER 2: Essentialism and Ontological Interdependence in the Categories .....27 PARTICULARS AND UNIVERSALS....................................................................................28 PRIORITY CLAIM ............................................................................................................32 ESSENTIALISM ...............................................................................................................37 CONSEQUENCES .............................................................................................................50 CHAPTER 3: Aristotle’s Epistemology and Knowledge of Particulars....................57 PARTICULARS AND KNOWLEDGE ...................................................................................59 UNQUALIFIED AND QUALIFIED KNOWLEDGE IN THE POSTERIOR ANALYTICS ..................62 ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL KNOWLEDGE IN METAPHYSICS M 10......................................73 INDUCTION AND KNOWLEDGE OF UNIVERSALS IN POSTERIOR ANALYTICS B 19..............81 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................89 CHAPTER 4: Metaphysics Z and Forms......................................................................97 THE STATUS OF FORMS IN METAPHYSICS Z ....................................................................98 FORMS ARE UNIVERSAL...............................................................................................102 FORMS ARE PARTICULAR .............................................................................................109 PARTICULAR FORMS AS INSTANCES OF UNIVERSALS ...................................................122 CHAPTER 5: Alexander of Aphrodisias’ Solution ...................................................130 ALEXANDER’S “ACCIDENTIALITY THESIS”..................................................................131 ALEXANDER’S SOLUTION AND ITS PROBLEMS .............................................................137 ARISTOTLE AND THE ONTOLOGICAL STATUS OF UNIVERSALS.....................................147 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................156 Bibliography..................................................................................................................159 CURRICULUM VITAE...............................................................................................172 v 1 Introduction My dissertation focuses on the problem of how what is most real can also be most knowable in Aristotle. I call it the “problem of katholou” in order to distinguish it from the age-old, and occasionally bitter, controversy over the existence and ontological status of universals, which is known as the “problem of universals”. The “traditional” problem of universals asks whether or not universals exist – whether they exist in reality or only in thought. Aristotle clearly plays an important role in the evolution of the traditional problem. He is the first to give the concept “universal” a name, coining it to katholou. He is also the