Discussions of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Z tend to treat it either as an independent treatise on substance and essence or as preliminary to the main conclusions of the Metaphysics. I argue instead that Z is central to Aristotle’s project of first philosophy in the Metaphysics: the first philosopher seeks the first causes of being qua being, especially substances, and in Z, Aristotle establishes that essences or forms are the first causes of being of perceptible substances. I also argue that the centrality (...) of Z to first philosophy is compatible with its status as theology. (shrink)

This paper argues that the discussion in which Aristotle engages in Metaphysics ΖΗ has the same starting-point as natural science: the principles of changing substances. These inquiries are nonetheless distinct because natural science uses these principles in its detailed investigations into natural substances, whereas ΖΗ reflect on the principles themselves. ΖΗ are an integral part of Aristotle’s inquiry into the principles of all substances, changing and unchanging: they are not merely preliminary to an inquiry into the latter kind. They are (...) also an integral part of Aristotle’s ‘first philosophy’, alongside theology’s study of the nature and activity of unchanging substances. (shrink)

In Metaphysics B 3 Aristotle sets out a famous argument for the thesis that being is not a genus. In his commentary on Metaphysics B, Syrianus criticizes this argument and explains in what sense being is to be regarded as a genus. I reconstruct both Syrianus’ criticisms and his own view. I bring out ways in which they can help us rethink key assumptions of Aristotle’s ontology and shed light both on Syrianus’ critical attitude towards Aristotle and on some of (...) Syrianus’ main views in metaphysics. (shrink)

La place qu’occupe la matière dans la définition de la substance sensible évolue au cours des livres Z et H de la Métaphysique : là où les chapitres 10 et 11 du livre Z affirment que la matière doit être exclue du definiens de la substance sensible, le chapitre 2 du livre H affirme, au contraire, qu’il se doit de l’inclure. Le présent article montrera que cette différence de doctrine est issue d’un approfondissement de la manière dont la priorité causale (...) de la forme est exprimée dans la définition. Elle l’est d’abord, dans le livre Z, au moyen d’une réduction des termes du definiens aux seules « parties de la forme », réduction qui est d’emblée jugée superflue et insatisfaisante. Elle le sera ensuite, dans le livre H, par la position de prédicat de la matière qu’elle occupe et qui a précisément vocation à exprimer sa priorité. En ce sens, les deux ensembles de textes ne constituent pas une volte-face théorique de la part d’Aristote, mais l’approfondissement d’un seul et unique modèle de définition visant à exprimer la priorité de la forme. (shrink)