Page - 73 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics

lowed by an analysis of the second (4.3) and the first argument (4.4). In a last step I will summarize the outcome of my discussion and evaluate to what extent the second argument taken as a whole shows the priority of locomotion over the other kinds of change (4.5). In the course of my inquiry it will be necessary to look at selected passages from other works by Aristotle, especially from his De Generatione et Corruptione, since without an acquaintance with these passages the second argument for the priority of locomotion cannot be properly understood. 4.2 What changes in quantity changes with respect to place 4.2.1 Overview The third of the three sub-arguments aims at showing that whatever under- goes a change in quantity necessarily changes with respect to place in some sense. This means that growth and diminution must always be accompa- nied by locomotion, but not vice versa. From this it follows that locomotion has ontological priority over change in quantity, since in this sense any change in quantity depends on this concomitant change in place, while the occurrence of locomotion does not entail any quantitative change. In my view, the reason for this claim is that in growing or diminishing, the sub- ject’s parts change in place so that the whole may also be said to change in place in a certain sense, namely with respect to its parts, while, as my dis- cussion will also make clear, the fact that something undergoes a change in place does not ipso facto entail any other change. I take this idea to be of utmost importance for making sense of the second argument as a whole, since, as I will show, the way in which the relation between change in place and change in quantity is characterised by Aristotle, may serve as a para- digm for relating locomotion to change in quantity and in substance. In order to show this I will proceed as follows. By making use of passages from Phys. IV 4 and GC I 5 I will explain in what way it is basically correct to say that what grows or diminishes changes in respect of place (4.2.2). This will be followed by a further elaboration of this claim, which will lay the groundwork for a discussion of certain problems that this thesis seems to imply. This discussion, I will argue, leads to a substantial claim about locomotion, namely that what changes in place need not change the inner spatial order of its parts in any way (4.2.3 and 4.2.4). Finally, I will explain that although change in quantity is characterized as change with respect to place this does not, as one might think, lead to a reduction of change with respect to quantity to that with respect to place, which clearly would contra- What changes in quantity changes with respect to place 73 ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060 © 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen