Priority in Aristotle's Metaphysics

Peramatzis, Michail

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588350.001.0001

Cited by 113 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…23 That is, an explanation of a feature that is peculiar to the kind (but non-basic) will again flow from the complex interaction between features that are peculiar and basic, and features that are basic but not peculiar-there is no explanatory core of features that are both peculiar and basic. 24 Among recent commentators, those who maintain that definitions of living beings must mention matter include Whiting (1991), Devereux (2011), andPeramatzis (2011). Their opponents include Frede and Patzig (1988), Gill (1991), Heinaman (1997), Code (2011), andMalink (2013).…”

Section: § 22 Difficulties With the Basic Picturementioning

confidence: 99%

Definition and the Epistemology of Natural Kinds in Aristotle

Stein

2018

Metaphysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have reason to think that a fundamental goal of natural science, on Aristotle's view, is to discover the essence-specifying definitions of natural kinds-with biological species as perhaps the most obvious case. However, we have in the end precious little evidence regarding what an Aristotelian definition of the form of a natural kind would look like, and so Aristotle's view remains especially obscure precisely where it seems to be most applicable. I argue that if we can get a better understanding of how the forms of natural kinds are or come to be known, and how they make things intelligible, we can get a better appreciation of the nature of form in general, as well as solve certain puzzles about form and definition.Keywords: Aristotle; definition; hylomorphism; essentialism; natural kinds § 1. The Epistemology of Form and a Puzzle About DefinitionThe resurgence in interest in Aristotelian hylomorphism among both scholars and philosophers has yielded a variety of questions and puzzles about Aristotle's own position, as well as concerns about how hylomorphism in general ought to be developed. The questions about Aristotle's position are not just matters of detail either: they arise from some of his most well-known and foundational commitments regarding form, essence, and definition. He claims, in particular, that forms are the essences of natural beings, 1 that essences are the objects of definition, 2 and that definition is a fundamental goal of scientific knowledge or understanding (epistêmê).3 There is also good reason to think, further, that natural kinds, especially living beings and biological species, represent paradigm cases for Aristotle of substance and definable form. 4 Broadly speaking, then, we have reason to think that a fundamental goal of natural science, on Aristotle's view, is to discover the essence-specifying definitions of natural kinds-with biological species as perhaps the most obvious case. However, we have in the end precious little evidence regarding what an Aristotelian definition of the form of a natural kind would look like, and so Aristotle's view remains especially obscure precisely where it seems to be most applicable.In the various debates to which these questions have given rise, little explicit attention has been paid to epistemological questions about how we are supposed to come to grasp Aristotelian forms. This is surprising, since, for Aristotle, forms are what make nature and natural kinds intelligible, and so an understanding An. 74b5-12, 90a15, 31-34, B 8-10; Phys. 194b16-29, 198a14-35, 200a10-15; Met. 1031b6-7, 1039b31-1040a2. 4 See, e.g. Phys. 192b33-34, 200b3-5; Met. 1028b8-15, 1031a1-14, 1037a10-20, Z 12; Parts of Animals [Part. An.] 639a15-19; cf.Met. 1039a19-20. There are well-known questions and disputes about the relation between forms as they pertain to (biological) species and to the individual members of those species (for example, and perhaps most controversially, whether there are numerically distinct forms of individuals, or only forms of species). F...

show abstract

Section: § 22 Difficulties With the Basic Picturementioning

confidence: 99%

Definition and the Epistemology of Natural Kinds in Aristotle

Stein

2018

Metaphysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a matter of fact, in Metaph. VII 17 and VIII 2-4, Aristotle applies to substances the theory of definition developed in APo II 8 (see Charles 2000;Peramatzis 2011;. One may argue, as Bronstein does (p. 101), that the idea that sensible substances are analysable as compounds of form and matter (crucial to the arguments in the Metaphysics) is absent in the APo.…”

Section: Stagementioning

confidence: 99%

Book review: David Bronstein, Aristotle on Knowledge and Learning: The Posterior Analytics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. (pp.xiii-272).

Zuppolini

2017

Manuscrito

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…I will not concern myself with an analysis of these differences, for they have already been discussed extensively (e.g. Klima 2002, Peramatzis 2011, Koslicki 2012a. All I wish to conclude from this section is that it is legitimate to understand Aristotelian priority in terms of essence.…”

Section: Fundamentality Grounding Ontological Dependence and Essencementioning

confidence: 99%

Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics

Feser¹

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Series Editors: Stephen Boulter and Constantine SandisPhilosophers in Depth is a series of themed edited collections focusing on particular aspects of the thought of major figures from the history of philosophy. The volumes showcase a combination of newly commissioned and previously published work with the aim of deepening our understanding of the topics covered. Each book stands alone, but taken together the series will amount to a vast collection of critical essays covering the history of philosophy, exploring issues that are central to the ideas of individual philosophers. This project was launched with the financial support of the Institute for Historical and Cultural Research at Oxford Brookes University, for which we are very grateful.Constantine Sandis and Stephen Boulter Oxford You can receive future titles in this series as they are published by placing a standing order. Please contact your bookseller or, in case of difficulty, write to us at the address below with your name and address, the title of the series and one of the ISBNs quoted above.Customer Services Department, Macmillan Distribution Ltd, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS, England This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. Aristotle on Method and MetaphysicsA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition

show abstract

Priority in Aristotle's Metaphysics

Cited by 113 publications

References 0 publications

Definition and the Epistemology of Natural Kinds in Aristotle

Definition and the Epistemology of Natural Kinds in Aristotle

Book review: David Bronstein, Aristotle on Knowledge and Learning: The Posterior Analytics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. (pp.xiii-272).

Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About