Page - 199 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics

Yet, Aristotle states elsewhere that in a looser sense we may say that it is the statue that undergoes a change in quality, i.e. is the subject of the altera- tion: as we have already seen in my discussion of the second argument, at the beginning of Phys. V 1 Aristotle points out that two of the ways in which something x may be said to change is that x changes accidentally (κατά συμβεβήκος) or with respect to its parts (κατὰ μέρη).71 Of course, Aristotle also contrasts this looser everyday notion of change with a stricter, more scientific one, according to which something is said to change in the proper and primary sense, only if the subject of the change undergoes this change per se (καθ᾽ αὑτό).72 As in the discussion of the second argument for the priority of locomo- tion, Aristotle appears to apply the looser notion of change here in this con- text as well. It is in this wider sense that one may say that the statue is sub- ject to an alteration, since its matter is being altered. This point of view emphasizes that the alteration affects the statue as a hylomorophic com- pound and that this change may lead to or be involved in this compound’s change in essence. To sum up, it seems to be the case that what is subject to an alteration in this wider sense may depart from its essence to a higher degree than what is subject to locomotion—provided that, as I will argue, what undergoes loco- motion does not change in essence in any way. I have shown that the reason may be found in the fact that change in quality sometimes serves as an indispensable part of change in essence. Now it remains to examine whether it is also the case that what under- goes growth or diminution, i.e. changes in quantity, departs from its essence. Only then would it possible that, of the four changes, locomotion changes its subject in essence the least (ἥκιστα) as Aristotle claims. To show that this is true, however, one would also have to analyse the role locomotion plays in substantial changes. I will now continue by focusing on the first of the two points and will deal with the second afterwards. 7.2.4.2 Growth and diminution as part of change in essence In contradistinction to the passage from Phys. VII 3 that we discussed pre- viously, as far as I can see, there is no text in which Aristotle explicitly points to a connection between change in essence and change in quantity, i.e. growth and diminution. Nevertheless, I think that there may be a rela- 71 See Phys. V 1, 224a21–24. 72 See Phys. V 1, 224a26–28. For this see also section 4.2.2, p.77f., in my discussion of the second argument for the priority of locomotion. Locomotion alone preserves its subject’s essence 199 ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060 © 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen