Page - 202 - in The Priority of Locomotion in Aristotle’s Physics

involves a change in place of x with respect to its parts, whereas change in place itself can occur without any other kind of change being involved.77 But if against this background one considers again what I have just pre- sented as an answer to the question in what way one can say that changes in quality and in quantity change their subject x’s essence to a higher degree than change in place, it becomes obvious that what seemed to be a good explanation does not really help us make sense of Aristotle’s claim at all. For again: I have just shown that there are changes in substance of which change in quality or quantity are a necessary part and have presented this as the reason why alteration, growth and diminution may lead to their subject x’s change in essence. But if the fact that change in quality and in quantity may be necessary parts of at least some cases of change in substance is a rea- son for saying that they may be responsible for their subject x’s change in essence, then the same is even more true with respect to change in place, which, as I have shown in my discussion of the second argument, is a neces- sary concomitant of every case of change in substance. Thus, it clearly seems wrong to argue that because change in quality and in quantity can be essen- tial parts of substantial changes, they therefore change their subject’s essence to a higher degree than change in place; the same is even more true for locomotion. Therefore, at least in this sense it is wrong to say that loco- motion makes its subject depart to a lesser extent from its essence than the other kinds of change, and thus another explanation for how Aristotle might be right in making this claim needs to be found.78 7.2.5 Change in quality or quantity in principle may result in a change in essence To summarize what I have just stated: as we have seen, locomotion, on the one hand, seems to be what one might call the weakest kind of change, in that it does not change the being of its subject in any way and leaves its inner attributes completely untouched, which is in perfect accordance with what Aristotle says about locomotion in the second argument for locomo- tion’s priority in essence. On the other hand, however, every change in sub- stance necessarily requires that its subject change with respect to place in a 77 See the relevant sections in chapter 4. 78 Another reason why this explanation is problematic lies in the fact that it is essentially based on Phys. VII 3, which certainly is far from being a very reliable source of information about Aristotle’s theory of change, since there, as I already pointed out, he espouses unortho- dox doctrines without presenting any further support for them—for example the one that change in shape, contrary to what is stated for instance in GC I 4 and in many other places, does not count as an alteration. 202 Locomotion is prior in essence ISBN Print: 9783525253069 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647253060 © 2014, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen