Aristotle Physics Bk. 1 Ch. 7
The follow was an essay I wrote for my class. Footnotes were not able to be copied.
Explain the argument of Physics Book 1, Chapter 7. Your explanation should address the following:
What question(s) is Aristotle attempting to answer? What role do linguistic considerations (considerations concerning “what we say”) play in the argument
The question Aristotle is attempting to answer is how to account for change, or coming to be. This includes coming to be in an accidental way and in an unqualified way. A thing is said to come to be from another thing. This is done in a few always by bringing our attention to how we understand a man becoming musical and the distinctions that arise from those considerations. So when we say, “man becomes musical” or “the not-musical man becomes musical” we say this in regards to its simplicity, or it being non-composed. However, these simple things do not survive change. But we also understand that something survives or persists through that change, so now we face the problem of what to predicate the change to: “man” or “musical”, both of which are simples. Aristotle answers this by saying that change or becoming is predicated to complex or composed things and not predicated to simples. And so the sentence we consider is, “the not-musical man becomes a musical man” and the subjects “not musical man” and “musical man” are composites, and so we can predicate the changing of going from “non-musical” to “musical”, which are a simple, to the man, the subject with whom is composed of being either musical or not.
The linguistic approach that Aristotle employs shows its benefits here. Sentences like “the not musical becomes musical” don’t properly capture our experiences of the world since they only express simples, and the world is furnished with composites. They may be useful in analyzing and drawing out distinctions in the abstract or useful for those which are virtually present in the world but don’t exist as complete distinct subjects or substances in the world. Sentences like “The unmusical man becomes a musical man”, or some other sentences that communicate the same thing, do capture reality as we experience it, that is composed, and so are said to be properly used.
That change is predicated to complex substances is demonstrated in another way. Things which come to be by way of addition, subtraction, alteration, and the like, in material or physical ways. In order to explain this, we have to posit some substratum, that which a thing comes to be which changed how a thing is. And if that’s the case, then things turn out to be complex after all. So far, these considerations have been limited to accidental changes. Aristotle does acknowledge coming to be in an unqualified sense, that is to say, it begins to exist and limits this kind of becoming to substances. The same sort of considerations we learned in accidental changes still apply, which is that there are three sorts of principles in things, and is what Aristotle begins to focus on next. They are the subject, the predicate, and the contrary predicate, two of which are the same in kind or nature. So for example, to be “musical” and “unmusical” are two of the same type of things but are different in nature or essence from being a man. Aristotle then seems to correlate or translate these three principles to matter, form, and the formless or privation. The underlying nature to substance, that is matter prior to receiving form, would be prime matter. Aristotle does note, however, that whether this or something else (form) is more fundamental of a physical object isn’t yet proved. That seems to be a task taken up in Metaphysics IX.8. So it seems like change, for Aristotle, will be accounted for in terms of form and matter.
Explain the argument of Physics Book 1, Chapter 7. Your explanation should address the following:
What question(s) is Aristotle attempting to answer? What role do linguistic considerations (considerations concerning “what we say”) play in the argument
The question Aristotle is attempting to answer is how to account for change, or coming to be. This includes coming to be in an accidental way and in an unqualified way. A thing is said to come to be from another thing. This is done in a few always by bringing our attention to how we understand a man becoming musical and the distinctions that arise from those considerations. So when we say, “man becomes musical” or “the not-musical man becomes musical” we say this in regards to its simplicity, or it being non-composed. However, these simple things do not survive change. But we also understand that something survives or persists through that change, so now we face the problem of what to predicate the change to: “man” or “musical”, both of which are simples. Aristotle answers this by saying that change or becoming is predicated to complex or composed things and not predicated to simples. And so the sentence we consider is, “the not-musical man becomes a musical man” and the subjects “not musical man” and “musical man” are composites, and so we can predicate the changing of going from “non-musical” to “musical”, which are a simple, to the man, the subject with whom is composed of being either musical or not.
The linguistic approach that Aristotle employs shows its benefits here. Sentences like “the not musical becomes musical” don’t properly capture our experiences of the world since they only express simples, and the world is furnished with composites. They may be useful in analyzing and drawing out distinctions in the abstract or useful for those which are virtually present in the world but don’t exist as complete distinct subjects or substances in the world. Sentences like “The unmusical man becomes a musical man”, or some other sentences that communicate the same thing, do capture reality as we experience it, that is composed, and so are said to be properly used.
That change is predicated to complex substances is demonstrated in another way. Things which come to be by way of addition, subtraction, alteration, and the like, in material or physical ways. In order to explain this, we have to posit some substratum, that which a thing comes to be which changed how a thing is. And if that’s the case, then things turn out to be complex after all. So far, these considerations have been limited to accidental changes. Aristotle does acknowledge coming to be in an unqualified sense, that is to say, it begins to exist and limits this kind of becoming to substances. The same sort of considerations we learned in accidental changes still apply, which is that there are three sorts of principles in things, and is what Aristotle begins to focus on next. They are the subject, the predicate, and the contrary predicate, two of which are the same in kind or nature. So for example, to be “musical” and “unmusical” are two of the same type of things but are different in nature or essence from being a man. Aristotle then seems to correlate or translate these three principles to matter, form, and the formless or privation. The underlying nature to substance, that is matter prior to receiving form, would be prime matter. Aristotle does note, however, that whether this or something else (form) is more fundamental of a physical object isn’t yet proved. That seems to be a task taken up in Metaphysics IX.8. So it seems like change, for Aristotle, will be accounted for in terms of form and matter.
Comments
Post a Comment