Page - 194 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics
Image of the Page - 194 -
Text of the Page - 194 -
(3) Therefore, a fortiori locomotion does not change the essence of its
subject. (1, 2)
Premise (1) takes up what is said in sentence (2) of our passage, namely that
changes in quality and quantity change their respective subject in being
while locomotion does not. Premise (2) refers to the fact that both of the
kinds that can change their subject’s being, because they are non-substantial
changes, cannot change its essence. The conclusion then seems correct. But
this argument involves an implicit premise that needs to be made explicit:
only a change that can change its subject in being can change its subject’s
essence. This is due to the fact that, as I stated above, every change in
essence is a change in being, while not every change in being is necessarily
also a change in essence. If change in quantity and quality, which are
changes in being, are incapable of making their subject depart from its
essence, how then could locomotion be capable of doing so? In other words,
if locomotion does not have the power to change x in being, this is even
more true of its power to change x in essence.
The argument then is correct. However, it does not explain why locomo-
tion should be less responsible, or even the least responsible, for its subject’s
departing from its essence (ἥκιστα τῆς οὐσίας ἐξίσταται) than alteration,
growth and diminution. Again, these are all non-substantial changes, and
thus all of them are incapable of changing their subject’s essence the same
way; none of them does so more or less than any of the others. But it is this
very attribute of changing its subject’s essence the least which is supposed
to make locomotion prior in essence to the other kinds of change.
Therefore, one should try to find a way in which it is appropriate to
speak of such a difference in degree. In what follows I will argue that, in a
certain respect, it is possible that the other two kinds of change are more
responsible for their subject’s change in essence than locomotion. By relat-
ing what I have said so far to a significant passage from Aristotle’s discus-
sion of alteration in Phys. VII 3, my first step will be to suggest that altera-
tion and change in quantity, in contrast to locomotion, seem to involve
their subject’s departing from its essence, as both may serve as necessary
parts of certain substantial changes (7.2.4). But since this proposal, as we
will see, turns out to be problematic in many respects, my second step will
be to argue that the true reason for the claimed difference between locomo-
tion and the other kinds of non-substantial change is that the latter in prin-
ciple may, but do not have to, result in a change in essence of their subject,
and that locomotion in this sense is indeed special (7.2.5).
194 Locomotion is prior in essence
ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060
© 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
Table of contents
- 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