Page - 26 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics

needs to determine what change is45 and after that the same is necessary for the related concepts of the infinite, place, and so forth.46 Thus, Aristotle obviously considers his discussion of the definition of change to be com- pleted when he moves on to his inquiry into related concepts that need to be examined in the same fashion. But if Aristotle has already presented a definition of change that seems to serve the purpose of understanding nat- ure, what is his reason for taking up the topic of change once again in Books V–VIII? This might lead one to conclude that even though we now know those aspects of change that are important for dealing with nature as a principle of change and rest there are still many things about change which have not been examined so far and need further investigation, because they were not necessary for understanding nature as a source of change as presented in the first half of what we call the Physics. But one also cannot deny that there, of course, is a close connection between what goes on in the first and the second half of the Physics. Both are pieces of Aristotle’s natural philosophy, or more precisely, of a work that serves as a kind of preliminary to any more specific inquiry into natural phenomena.47 However, the only way in which the books On Change may be understood as a follow-up to Book IV, is in that they also deal with change and take for granted certain things that were said about this phe- nomenon in the previous books. For instance, they do not present a new or different definition of what change is, but obviously work with the one developed in Book III.48 Moreover, this definition seems to include or at least foreshadow certain aspects of change that Aristotle unfolds and devel- ops fully in the later books. Again, despite this close relation, Aristotle has different reasons for examining change in the second part of the Physics, which is why one may not argue that the treatment of change from Book V onwards continues the inquiry that was started in the first half of the Physics. If one thinks that the analysis of change in V–VIII is done for the sake of understanding what nature is, one needs to explain what exactly these books contribute to the 45 See Phys. III 1, 200a25. 46 διορισαμένοις δὲ περὶ κινήσεως πειρατέον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπελθεῖν τρόπον περὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς. (Phys. III 1, 200b15–16) The aspect of the aorist participle διορισαμένοις indi- cates that the defining of change is completed and hence needs to precede the examination of the other terms. In addition, also the fact that the definition of the four named concepts should be executed in the same way as it was done for change, presupposes that the definition of change is accomplished before trying to find one for the related concepts. Hardie & Gaye (in Barnes (1984)), Carteron (1952), Wagner (1967), Hussey (1983), and Zekl (1987) translate this passage accordingly. Also Brunschwig (1991), 30, points out that the plan laid out at the beginning of Phys. III is fulfilled at the end of Book IV. 47 See Phys. IIII 1, 200b24–25. See also p.25, n.40. 48 See for instance Phys. V 2, 224b10–11, and VIII 1, 251a8–10. 26 The importance of the primary kind of change ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060 © 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen