Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'Aristotle. Matter'

This thesis is an investigation into the simplest material entities recognised by Aristotle's theory of nature. In general, the position I defend is that the four 'so-called elements' fire, air, water, and earth are, for Aristotle, genuine elements, i.e., the simplest material constituents, of bodies. In particular, I deal with two problems, the first concerning the relationship between the four 'so-called elements' and the primary contraries, hot-cold, dry-wet; and the second concerning the nature of the matter from which the latter come to be. Responses to these problems in the secondary literature tend to conclude that the contraries (usually together with 'prime matter'), are constitutive of the so-called elements. I reject this conclusion. In the first part of this thesis I consider, and dismiss, the alleged evidence that Aristotle denies to fire, air, water, and earth the status of genuine elements, and I argue that the status of the contraries as the differentiae of the elements effectively rules out the possibility that they could be the constituents of the latter. In the second part of this thesis I attempt to unpack Aristotle's assertion at De Gen. et Cor. II. 1 that the matter of the perceptible bodies is that from which the so-called elements come to be. I argue that the matter of the perceptible bodies, although it is that from which the elements come to be, is not the 'matter of the elements', in the sense of a matter that composes the elements. On the contrary, the 'matter of the perceptible bodies', i.e., the constitutive matter of composite bodies, is itself composed of the elements: it is a mixture of the four elements. Thus the latter can be said to come to be 'from' the 'matter of the perceptible bodies', but this must be understood in a non-constitutive sense of 'from'.

Strawson famously classified Aristotle as a descriptive metaphysician, alongside himself, and in contrast to more revisionary philosophers like Plato. The extent to which Aristotle was merely concerned to describe our conceptual scheme has, however, been over-estimated by some. Although common-sense beliefs are among the starting-points from which Aristotle pursues his metaphysical inquiries, the conclusions of those inquiries are in fact quite radical. In chapter one, we identify three interpretative questions about Aristotle's notion of substance: (1) does Aristotle change his mind about what things are the substances between writing the Categories and the Metaphysics? (2) are matter, form and the compound of the two all substances, albeit to different extents, or are only forms substances? (3) however we resolve these questions about hylomorphism, what range of forms count as substantial, and why? In chapter two, we examine the criteria of being a substance. These provide evidence for Aristotle's changing his mind between the Categories and Metaphysics. An examination of the 'χωρıστóv' criterion also supports the view that only forms are substances: Aristotle claims that compounds are separate simpliciter, since they can exist without items in other categories, and not vice versa, but this claim cannot be supported. Only forms are separate in definition, and so, on the assumption that being separate is necessary for being a substance, only forms are substances. If we are to understand the claim that only forms are substances, we should acquire a better understanding of what is meant by 'form', and why Aristotle thinks there are such things. Chapters three to five undertake this task. Chapter three discusses Aristotle's introduction of matter and form in the Physics to account for substantial generation, and his argument in Z.17 that form is substance, since it is what makes some matter one thing. In chapter four, this unificatory role is distinguished from the role of a principle of individuation, and it is argued that only individual forms are suitable to play the latter role. In chapter five, we examine some recent attempts to blur the distinction between matter and form, by maintaining that form is essentially matter-involving. We argue that the view according to which form is defined independently of matter is preferable. In chapters six and seven, we address the third interpretative question. Chapter six argues that artefacts are not substances (and not merely substances to a lesser degree than organisms) because they are not separate, since they depend on the intentional activity of their creators or users. Chapter seven considers Aristotle's views about mixtures. These are also compounds of matter and form, but fail to be substances because, like matter, they depend on a higher form to make them one thing.

The concept of matter as it is treated in the philosophical systems of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and John Duns Scotus is examined, partly to ascertain the influence which the original Aristotelian concept of matter had on the two medieval thinkers, and partly to determine which of these two thinkers remained more faithful to the original Aristotelian concept. An analysis is carried out of the views of the three philosophers regarding the ontological status of matter; the intelligibility of matter; the issue of the real distinction between matter and form; the role played by matter in individuating composite substances; and its role in defining composite substances and determining their essences. Finally, the views of Aquinas and Scotus regarding the theory of universal hylomorphism and the theory of the plurality of forms are discussed and compared. It is shown that, while most of the Franciscan philosophical tradition up to Scotus's time was far more influenced by Platonist than by Aristotelian principles, Scotus, though a Franciscan, was much closer to Aristotle than to Plato in his views regarding matter. In fact, the few deviations from the original Aristotelian concept found in Scotus's theory can be ascribed to theological concerns. It is argued, furthermore, that Scotus's views on the concept of matter are far closer to the original Aristotelian theory than our analysis shows Aquinas himself to be.

The main aim of my work - "Matter and Explanation. On Aristotle's Metaphysics Book Η" - is to show the argumentative unity of Book Η (VIII), which has been usually regarded as a mere collection of appendices to the previous Book Ζ. In my thesis I take on the main suggestion provided by M. Burnyeat in "A Map of Metaphysics Ζ" (2001). According to Burnyeat, Η accomplishes the enquiry of Ζ by developing Ζ17's fresh start into the analysis of sensible substances. Starting from Ζ17, Aristotle regards the notion of substance in its explanatory role as "principle and cause" and, as a consequence, he searches for "the cause by reason of which a certain matter is some definite thing". Burnyeat's suggestion has been so far followed in order to look at Η as at that place where this search is accomplished. Thus, Η would play a didactical-expository role. In my work I aim at showing how in Book Η Aristotle does not confine himself to a mere exposition of the previous outcomes. By contrast, he provides a deep revision of the status of matter's substancehood. Namely of that ontological subject whose organization must be explained. Such a revision concerns those criteria, which in Book Ζ have provided a deflationary reading of the notion of ὕλη. On the contrary, in Η matter is read as subject of physical changes and in its dispositional role within the biological wholes. Such a framework is accomplished in Η6, where Aristotle shows the explanatory primacy of his own hylomorphism over the Platonic Doctrine of Forms.

Cette thèse vise à mener une étude détaillée sur la manière dont les penseurs du XIIIème siècle ont appréhendé et utilisé le fameux dictum d’Aristote du De anima II : « l’âme est l’acte premier du corps organique qui est potentiellement en vie » En effet, nous examinons les modalités philosophiques qui ont poussé Bonaventure et Thomas d’Aquin à proposer chacun une lecture originale de ce passage tout en admettant tous les deux que l’âme humaine et le corps ne sont pas à prendre comme deux substances distinctes, mais comme deux parties qui constituent l’essence d’une personne humaine. Nous tentons ainsi de décrire, dans leur processus d’élaboration et de mise en œuvre, ces théories qui visent à nous démontrer l’unité naturelle de l’être humain, ce qui constitue au final des solutions aux problèmes issus de la « two substances view », c'est-à-dire celui du dualisme des substances
The objective of this thesis is to understand how 13th century thinkers have adopted the famous dictum of Aristotle's De anima II that “the soul is the first act of the organic body potentially having life”. In this perspective, this thesis examines the way in which Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas, each with his own creativity, elaborated to establish the unity of human being that consist in their claim that the human soul and body are not two distinct substances, but two essential parts of the human nature or a human person. In so doing, this thesis analyses the concepts like “substance”, “hoc aliquid”, “intellective soul” “intellect” etc and their meaning in respective contexts where Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas give us relevant solutions that can deal with problems arising from the "two substances view", or substance dualism

In light of the long-lived, on-going debate surrounding the Aristotelian doctrines of prime matter and the four simple bodies (or 'elements'), the general message of this thesis is surprising: that Aristotle's theory is centred on neither. I argue that Aristotle does in fact have a substantial prime matter, but not the single, featureless, immutable prime matter of tradition.
More particularly, the thesis defends three main points:
Firstly, Aristotle’s discussion of pre-Socratic and Plato’s philosophies of nature reveals a commitment to finding elements in the sense of the most fundamental things knowable. These elements apply to not just matter, but to the whole of nature. The evidence for Aristotle’s commitment to absolute fundamentals is in his word usage: he speaks of the various kinds of elements (roots, first principles, etc.) as absolute fundamentals, and uses the terms interchangeably. The evidence for his interest in nature (rather than only matter) is found within his argument, where the assumptions give away his motives.
Secondly, since Aristotle considers nature to be, as he puts it, a principle of change, his elements turn out to be his familiar three elements of change: form, privation, and substratum. While change is the focus of this framework, the approach allows matter to be analysed, leading Aristotle to a substantial substratum underneath each change. Thus, he confirms the existence of the four simple bodies (earth, water, air and fire), and deduces, from the premise that they change, that there is another substratum beneath them.
And thirdly, since this substratum underneath the four simple bodies is known only by deduction, Aristotle cannot sense its features, and his three-element framework is powerless to analyse it any further. That last substratum is therefore at the edge of his knowledge, and in a purely epistemic sense, it is featureless and prime.
This epistemically prime matter is of no great importance to Aristotle - its primality is not even important enough to warrant extended discussion, and he certainly leaves the way open for further analysis, if ever that substratum turns out to suffer sensible change. In the hands of scholars focussed on the elements of matter, this last knowable substratum was perhaps the inspiration behind the traditional prime matter.
Many recent works deny Aristotle’s support for traditional prime matter. There is a danger that refutations of traditional prime matter refute also my epistemically prime matter, and thus attack the heart of this thesis. However, because they focus on matter rather than on change and nature more generally, those refutations in fact prove harmless, their analysis indeed often agreeing with mine in the course of their discussion.

I inquire into the ethical significance of emotions in Aristotle’s thinking. Commentators who have thus far argued for the importance of emotions in Aristotle’s philosophy claim that they can be useful for ethical judgment or support premises of ethical reasoning. I claim that (1) emotions are indispensable for good ethical discernment or, what we may call, moral perception and they usefully constrain the possibilities of action and deliberation. They are indispensable because they register ethically significant information in a unique way; they do so in virtue of their intensity, duration, and the felt quality of pain or pleasure associated with them. (2) Emotions are also necessary for good ethical judgment (gnōmē) in at least some cases in legal (and political contexts) especially where the law fails to provide sufficient guidance or when the relevant wrong is not yet conceptualised. In these cases, emotions, I argue, can be elicited in a non-coercive way that respects and even enlists the agency of the listener.

In recent decades, a number of philosophers have sought to explain the nature of human action using Aristotle’s theory of material constitution. According to these neo-Aristotelian accounts, material objects serve as the paradigm cases for analysing the concept of action. As composites of matter and form, material objects—and, in particular, biological organisms—possess a kind of constitutive unity: they are “hylomorphic wholes”. The same kind of unity purportedly exists with regard to actions, which are constituted likewise. My task in this paper will be to give a precise articulation of this thesis and what it entails. If the neo-Aristotelian claim is right, then material objects really do serve as the paradigm cases for understanding the constitution of action. In Chapter III, I will simply presume the truth of this general claim, in order to focus my attention on the relative merits and weaknesses of specific arguments given in support of it. Before considering these arguments, however, we will need to first clarify Aristotle’s thesis concerning material objects. This will be my aim in Chapter II. In general, I will accept the conventional Aristotelian position that a material thing, qua concrete substance, is constituted by substantial form in matter, a unified whole. I will presume as correct the Thomistic conception of such composites, which employs the distinction between act and potency: matter is pure potentiality for the reception of form, and form is “a determinate actualisation of this potentiality”.
text

Il est souvent dit que l’aristotélisme représente un renversement du platonisme. Or, une lecture de Mét. N.2 nous porte à croire qu’il s’agit moins d’un renversement que d’un dépassement. Cette thèse a l’ambition d’étudier ce dépassement selon un point de vue spécifique, celui de l’être en puissance. En effet, dans le deuxième chapitre du livre N de la Métaphysique, Aristote critique les platoniciens pour avoir cru que tous les étants seraient « un » s’ils ne réfutaient pas l’argument de Parménide selon lequel il est impossible de contraindre le non-être à être. Aristote identifie ensuite l’erreur fondamentale des platoniciens comme étant d’avoir dit que le non-être « est » et il suggère à la fin de N.2 que le principe que Platon cherchait était véritablement celui de l’être en puissance. Ainsi, faute d’avoir bien distingué les sens de l’être et du non-être, Platon aurait été incapable de penser la distinction entre être en acte et être en puissance, ce qui, selon Aristote, le condamnerait à rester un penseur de l’être en puissance, voire de l’être matériel. L’analyse portera d’abord sur l’importance du Sophiste pour le projet platonicien, car Aristote soutient que ce dialogue est le lieu où s’enracine l’erreur de son maitre. Ensuite, nous démontrerons l’importance du non-être dans la conception aristotélicienne de l’être en puissance par une lecture des passages pertinents du livre Q de la Métaphysique. Ayant établi que Platon intègre le non-être au sein de l’être dans le Sophiste et que l’être au sein duquel il y a non-être est l’être en puissance pour Aristote, nous serons à même de lire N.2 de près dans notre chapitre central, afin de libérer entièrement la conception aristotélicienne du non-être de celle de Platon. Enfin, notre dernier chapitre mettra en évidence à la fois les raisons pour lesquelles le principe « matériel » de Platon est insuffisant pour Aristote et les raisons pour lesquelles de toute façon, un principe premier ne peut jamais être une matière. Cela nous permettra de conclure que selon Aristote, les idées platoniciennes ne sont que des composés matériels, des êtres en puissance, voire de simples possibles.
It has often been said that Aristotle’s philosophy represents an overturning of Platonism. Yet, a close reading of the second chapter of Book N of the Metaphysics reveals that we call an overturning might be closer to a surpassing. This thesis will explore this surpassing from a specific point of view, that of potential being. Indeed, in the aforementioned second chapter of Book N, Aristotle criticizes Platonists for having believed that all beings would form a single one if they did not refute Parmenides’ argument against the being of non-being. Aristotle then situates the Platonists’ fundamental mistake as having argued that non-being in some way « is ». However, Plato did not need to make non-being « be » he simply needed to think the multiplicity of ways which being can be said. Only then would he have found the principle of multiplicity that he wanted : potential being (dunamei on). Hence, having failed to notice that being is said in many ways, he could never think « matter » through properly. This, according to Aristotle, condemns Plato to a thought of potential being and material being. In order to argue for this position, we will firstly establish the importance of the Sophist in the platonic project, for as we have said, Aristotle places the Platonist mistake squarely in this dialogue. Secondly, we will need to show how Aristotle’s concept of non-being is central to his conception of potential being. We will do this by offering a close reading of the relevant passages of Book Q of the Metaphysics. Having established in the first chapter that Plato does indeed integrate non-being into being in the Sophist and in the second that Aristotle considers being penetrated by non- being to be merely potential being, we can read N.2 with more precise knowledge of the platonic « error » and in turn liberate Aristotle’s conception of non-being from Plato’s ; the topic of our third chapter. Finally, in our fourth chapter we will show why platonic conceptions of matter can never be adequate for Aristotle and explore the consequences of not having properly distinguished actual being from potential being, namely all of Plato’s principles are merely potential principles and not actual ones. Hence, we can conclude that for Aristotle, Plato’s ideas and principles of being are composite potential beings, close to mere possibilities.