Aristotle: Lecture Three

1
Aristotle Lecture Three

• Categories.

2
Aristotles Theory of Change

• Parmenides mistake according to Aristotle.
• The first people to philosophize about the
  nature and truth of thingsgot..driven off course
  by inexperienceand said that nothing comes to be
  or passes away.
• Physics I.8 191a24
• N.B. Aristotles approach You know something has
  gone wrong whenever an argument leads to a
  conclusion that contradicts, a) common sense, b)
  most science and c) experience.

3

• Parmenides paradox
• (N.B. ancient meaning of the word paradox.)
• Parmenides said that nothing comes to be or
  passes away, because whatever comes to be must do
  so either out of something which is, or out of
  something which is not, and neither is possible.
  What is cannot come to be since it is already,
  and nothing can come to be out of what is not
  Aristotle, Phys I.8 191a 27-32

4

• Either something is or it is not
• Nothing can come to be (pass into existence) from
  nothing) things come to be for a reason.
• For change to happen, something must come into
  existence.
• If something (B) comes to be from something
  existing (A), either B is new in which case
  insofar s it is new it came from nothing (which
  by 2 is impossible) or it is not new in which
  case it is like A and is A, and not new.
• Therefore, (by 1, 2, 3 4) nothing new can come
  from something existing.
• Therefore change is impossible.

5

• there must be something underlying.
• There is something that lies under (and
  perdures) through the process of change. What?
• Hypokeimenon (the lying under thing) from the
  verb hypo-keisthai (to underly). N.B. this is
  often translated as subject and English noun
  which derives from the Latin verb to lie under.
  The trouble is that in English subject has
  other meanings especially a grammatical term. The
  Subject of the sentence Man is mortal.
• Often this hypokeimenon is called the subject,
  but it is better thought of as a substrate, or
  some underlying thing.

6

• Aristotles theory of change makes use of the
  thesis that, in any process of change there is
  something underlying.
• And his distinction between potentiality
  (dynamis) and actuality (energeia).
• Ar. Change is possible because something exists
  before the change that has the potential to
  become what emerges in the change.
• Change is the actualizing of potential being as
  such. Phys III.1 201a16-18.
• S. Waterlow ch.3 J Lear ch.3.

7
Aristotles Categories

• In the categories Aristotle puts forward his
  early theory of substance.
• A category is a predicate.
• S is p.
• Socrates is mortal.
• The horse is white.
• N.B. But not a linguistic predicate of a
  linguistic subject it is a material thing that
  is predicated of another thing. ( More like a
  property)
• So the categories is a list of the kinds of
  thing there are, or a catalog of the general
  kinds of entities into which reality divides up.

8

• Aristotles question in the Categories
• What is ontologically basic?
• Aristotles answer in the Categoreis
• Particulars are primary substances.
• (See J. Lear, p. 270)
• Primary Substance is a subject for predication,
  but is not predicable of anything further.
• Particulars are not predicable of anything
  further.
• Particulars are also subjects of predication.
• Therefore to be a primary substance is to be a
  particular.
• E.g. Socrates. Or this horse (say, Arkle).

9

• Chapter 4 opens with a list of 10 categories.1b25
• Substance (e.g., man, horse)
• Quantity (e.g., four-foot, five-foot)
• Quality (e.g., white, grammatical)
• Relation (e.g., double, half)
• Place (e.g., in the Lyceum, in the market-place)
• Date (e.g., yesterday, last year)
• Posture (e.g., is lying, is sitting)
• State (e.g., has shoes on, has armor on)
• Action (e.g., cutting, burning)
• Passion (e.g., being cut, being burned)

10

• How did Aristotle arrive at such a (to us) weird
  and somewhat ad hoc list?
• Ackrill a) by distinguishing the different
  questions that could be asked about something (in
  Greek).
• E.g. 1. What? 2. How big? 3. Of what kind? 4.
  Related to what? 5. Where? 6. when? 7.How
  situated? 8. Having (wearing) what? 9.What does
  it do? 10. What is done to it?
• b) By taking the various answers to appropriate
  wuestions that could be asked of any substance
  e.g. the horse Socrates, and ascending upward
  through species and genus until some limit is
  reached. As in Topics 1.9

11

• Aristotles classification of beings (t? ??ta)
  Chapter 2
• Among the things that are (ton onton) All beings
  are either i) said of something as subject
  (kath hypokeimou legetai) or
• ii) present in something as subject (en
  hypokeimenoi)
• Meaning of said of.Ackrill p. 75
• What is said of an individual, X, is what could
  be mentioned in answer to the question What is
  X?
• living being
• (Genus) animal
• Species) man
• (Individual) Socrates

12

• Meaning of in.
• Ackrill p. 74
• A is in B iff
• one could naturally say in ordinary language that
  A is in B (or something similar)
• A is not part of B
• A is inseparable from B
• e.g. Socratess pallor (the colour of his skin)
  or knowledge. But not man or animal.

13

• This gives rise to a fourfold classification
• a) said of and not in. (like man in Socrates
  is a man.
• b) in a subject but not said of it. (Socratess
  pallor.)
• c) said of and in a subject. (knowledge/whiteness)
  .
• d) not said of and not in. (This man. Socrates.
  This horse.)
• Ackrills gloss
• species and genera in the category of substance.
• Individuals in categories other than substance.
• Species and genera in categories other than
  substance.
• Individuals in the category of substance

14

• Ackrills gloss
• a) species and genera in the category of
  substance.
• b) Individuals in categories other than
  substance.
• c) species and genera in categories other than
  substance.
• d) individuals in the category of substance
• Studtmanns gloss
• said of universals not said of
  particulars in a subject accident not in
  a subject non-accidental.
• a) accidental universals
• b) essential universals
• c) Accidental particulars
• d) non-accidental particulars.

15

• In any case d) has pride of place and supplies
  the answer to his question, what is ontologically
  basic or what are primary substances.
• The answer seems to be that concrete particulars
  that are members of natural kinds are
  paradigmatic.
• This of course is deeply anti-Platonic.
• Compare Platos theory of forms What is
  ontologically basic are the forms universals.
• However, Aristotles theory of substance in the
  categories raises two difficulties.

16

• Aristotles doctrine of substance in the
  Categories precedes his development of form and
  matter.
• Once he has that distinction he need no longer
  claim that Socrates depends on nothing but
  himself and therefore is ontologically basic.
  Socrates is a composite of a living body
  (mattter) and a soul (form).
• Now ask does Socrates depend on his form or his
  matter for his exsitence? If the answer is yes
  Socrates is not a primary substance.

17

• The ultimate subject of predication with regard
  to each thing is the particular.
• Primary being (substance) consists in the
  particular.
• The essence with regard to each thing is the
  universal.
• The ultimate subject of predication of each thing
  is not the essence of that thing.
• Primary being with regard to each thing is not
  the essence of that thing.
• (Vasilis Politis p 117.)