Seite - 208 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics
Bild der Seite - 208 -
Text der Seite - 208 -
lying the first argument is the same as the one used in the second argu-
ment.87
But how does the reason why locomotion is said to be prior in essence in
the second argument relate to the understanding of priority in essence pre-
supposed by the first argument? One of the results of the discussion of the
first argument was that the relation of essential priority applies primarily to
individual substances, but in a derivative sense also to essential features of
individuals. In this way, locomotion as such a feature of certain living
beings may be prior to another essential feature, e.g. alteration. Of two fea-
tures, the one which is more specific to what its bearer is, i.e. its essence, is
prior in essence to the other one.
Aristotle does not tell us how the fact that locomotion does not change
its subject’s essence relates to this understanding of priority in essence. But
87 Philoponus, In Phys. 8, 900, 18–901, 3, thinks that locomotion is prior in essence (and
nature) as it is supposed to be more complete and belongs to things that are more complete
(τελειοτέρα καὶ τοῖς τελειοτέροις μᾶλλον ὑπάρχουσα 900, 19) insofar as they have
received their nature to a higher degree, yet, he does not say much more than what is stated in
Aristotle’s text. Simplicius seems to have something similar in mind and thinks that both argu-
ments show that locomotion is prior in nature and essence as it belongs to more complete
things. Like Philoponus, he does not explain why this is relevant, or how exactly the second of
the two arguments for priority in essence shows that (see In Phys. 8 1271, 35–37, and 1272, 23–
25). Aquinas, In Phys., L. VIII. l. XIV, 1094, follows either one or both of them in a sense when
he claims that locomotion in this argument is shown to be primary in perfection (“primus per-
fectione”). All three say that locomotion’s priority in essence (and nature) may be seen in the
fact that it belongs to more complete things and at the same time does not change things that
are complete. They do not say in what way there is one notion of priority in essence that
underlies both arguments. The only way in which this could be done would be to say that to
claim x is prior to y in this sense means that x is more responsible for the completeness of the
thing to which it belongs than y. As we will see, this sounds similar to what I think is the rea-
son for locomotion’s essential priority, yet, I hold that locomotion has this kind of priority in
virtue of being a necessary part of a thing’s essence, while they would be bound to say that it is
prior because it just in some loose way is connected to the state of completeness of a thing; but
this certainly is not in the spirit of the first argument. Also, most modern interpreters seem to
think that Aristotle equivocates two different concepts of priority in essence, since they pre-
sent the arguments in a way in which they cannot show locomotion’s primacy in essence
according to the same notion of priority in essence. Solmsen (1960), 237, n.50, for instance,
states that ‘prior’ with respect to essence stands for “a qualitative sense in which what is last in
the order of becoming is first in that of being”, but does not explain how this is supposed to fit
to the second argument that, as the first one, is supposed to show that locomotion is prior in
essence. Similar things may be said about what Wagner (1967), 690, and Graham (1999), 128–
129, 187, state in their commentaries. Peramatzis (2011), 205, n.5, briefly refers to the discus-
sion of priority κατ᾽ οὐσίαν in Phys. VIII 7, claiming that A is prior in essence to B “if and
only if A can be what it is independently of B being what it is, while the converse is not the
case” (204). As my discussion of the second argument has made clear, this notion of priority
clearly cannot underlie both arguments for locomotion’s priority in essence.
208 Locomotion is prior in essence
ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060
© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics
- Titel
- The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics
- Autor
- Sebastian Odzuck
- Herausgeber
- Dorothea Frede
- Gisela Striker
- Verlag
- Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co
- Datum
- 2014
- Sprache
- englisch
- Lizenz
- CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
- ISBN
- 9783647253060
- Abmessungen
- 15.5 x 23.2 cm
- Seiten
- 238
- Kategorien
- Geisteswissenschaften
- Naturwissenschaften Physik
Inhaltsverzeichnis
- Acknowledgements 9
- 1. Introduction 10
- 2. The importance of the primary kind of change 14
- 3. Change in quality and quantity of living beings depends on loco-motion, but not vice versa 42
- 4. Locomotion necessarily accompanies each of the other kinds of change, but not vice versa 71
- 4.1 Overview 71
- 4.2 What changes in quantity changes with respect to place 73
- 4.3 What undergoes generation or corruption changes with respect to place 89
- 4.4 What changes in quality changes with respect to place 98
- 4.4.1 Overview 98
- 4.4.2 What does it mean that condensation and rarefaction are principles of quality? 100
- 4.4.3 Every alteration involves a change in the four basic qualities 104
- 4.4.4 Every change in the four basic qualities involves con- densation or rarefaction 108
- 4.4.5 Condensation and rarefaction are forms of aggregation and segregation 110
- 4.4.6 What changes in quality changes with respect to place 112
- 4.4.7 Conclusion 113
- 4.5 Conclusion 113
- 5. All changes depend on the first locomotion, but not vice versa 115
- 6. Locomotion has temporal priority 144
- 6.1 Overview 144
- 6.2 Locomotion has priority in time, since it is the only change eternals can undergo 146
- 6.3 Objection: Locomotion is the last of all changes in perishable things 148
- 6.4 Coming to be presupposes an earlier locomotion 150
- 6.5 The locomotion of the sun as a cause of generation 154
- 6.6 Conclusion 162
- 7. Locomotion is prior in essence 164
- 7.1 Locomotion is prior in essence, since it is last in coming to be 164
- 7.2 Locomotion alone preserves its subject’s essence 186
- 7.2.1 Overview 186
- 7.2.2 Locomotion does not change its subject’s being 188
- 7.2.3 Locomotion preserves its subject’s essence best 190
- 7.2.4 Making x depart from its essence by being part of a change in essence? 195
- 7.2.5 Change in quality or quantity in principle may result in a change in essence 202
- 7.3 Conclusion: Locomotion’s priority in essence 207
- 8. Conclusion 211
- Bibliography 220
- List of Abbreviations 223
- Index Locorum 221
- Index Nominum 223
- Index Rerum 221