Page - 198 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics

as they should. In this case as well, an alteration of the matter is a necessary part of this process of this kind of corruption. It is important to keep in mind that what happens in the processes of corruption stated in the examples is more than the mere alteration of the respective matter, even though the alteration of the matter seems to operate as a cause of the corruption. In a change with respect to essence or sub- stance the form of the subject is changed. Such a change may involve a change that occurs on what one might call the material level, but the cor- ruption as a whole must not be reduced to what happens there, since this is not an appropriate explanation of a change in essence. The alteration involved is a necessary part of, but not identical with, the corruption. Aris- totle considers things as compounds of matter and form, in which the form or essence of a given thing determines what it is. A human being, as such a compound, is more than its body or the mere aggregation of some atoms and molecules, and cannot be reduced to its material constituents. But this is exactly what happens when I mistakenly explain Socrates’ dying from a fever as nothing but an alteration of Socrates’ body. From what we have seen, however, it became clear that an alteration— although belonging to the kinds of non-substantial change—may be partly responsible for a change in essence in a certain way. This then, however, one might think, might serve as a reason for Aristotle’s assumption that what undergoes an alteration departs from its essence to a higher degree than what undergoes locomotion. Yet, even if this is the way in which this passage needs to be read, one still has to deal with the following problem. In the case of a statue undergoing locomotion, it is clear that the subject of this change (τὸ κινούμενον) indeed does not change in essence in undergoing a change in place (ἐν τῷ φέρεσθαι): when I buy a statue in Athens and bring it to Berlin, the statue that is subject to locomotion does not change merely in virtue of under- going a change in place. But this is different in the case of alteration that is involved in a change in essence. Let us return to the example of the corruption of a bronze statue. In this process the statue completely departs from its essence. The subject of this change in essence of course is the statue. Of the alteration that the cor- ruption entails, however, not the statue, but its matter is the primary sub- ject. The matter is altered by being heated. However, the matter, which is the subject of the alteration, clearly does not step out of its essence by becoming warmer. Therefore, strictly speaking it is not correct to say that the subject of alteration departs from its essence to a higher degree than the subject of locomotion. Accordingly, one might think that, although altera- tion may be a necessary part of a change in essence, Aristotle’s assertion that the subject of an alteration (τὸ ἀλλοιούμενον) departs from its essence to a higher degree than that of a locomotion is wrong. 198 Locomotion is prior in essence ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060 © 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen