Abstract
This paper presents a reading of Metaphysics Z.10–11 according to which both chapters outline two main definienda: forms and material substances or compounds, each of which is governed by its own peculiar constraints. Forms include formal parts alone; furthermore, they are the main definable items and enjoy the strictest possible unity. However, this does not preclude Aristotle from upgrading material compounds (whose essence is stated in hylomorphic terms) to the status of definable items in their own right. Z.10 explains this contention by making the compound’s sensible functional matter dependent on its form. This dependence affords the resulting compound an unusually tight form-matter relationship, strong enough to ensure its definability, despite falling short of the highest kind of unity that only forms display.
Article note
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial and institutional support coming from a number of sources: Research Fellowship for experienced researchers of the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, hosted by Prof. Dr. Christof Rapp at the LMU-München; ANPCyT 2016–2128 (Argentina); Fondecyt Research Program, Project number 1200465 (ANID, Chile); Universidad de los Andes’ fund for scholarly exchange (FAI, Chile). This paper has also benefited from the generous help of several scholars who offered their insightful criticism over the last few years: among them, Andreas Anagnostopoulos, Lucas Angioni, Timothy Clarke, Klaus Corcilius, Colin Guthrie King, Pieter Sjoerd Hasper, Marko Malink, Stephen Menn, Christian Pfeiffer, Christof Rapp, Simone Seminara, Raphael Zillig, Marco Zingano, Breno Zuppolini, deserve special thanks. Last but not least, the detailed comments provided by Rhizomata’s anonymous reviewers and copy-editor proved essential to the drafting of this final version.
References
Ackrill, John L. (1972/73): “Aristotle’s Definition of psuchē”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 73, pp. 119‒33.10.1093/aristotelian/73.1.119Search in Google Scholar
Bostock, David (1994): Aristotle’s Metaphysics: Books Z and H. Translated with a Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Burnyeat, Myles (2001): A Map of Metaphysics Z. Pittsburgh: Mathesis.Search in Google Scholar
Caston, Victor (2009): “Commentary on Charles”, Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 24/1, pp. 32‒37.Search in Google Scholar
Charles, David (1984): Aristotle’s Philosophy of Action. London: Duckworth.Search in Google Scholar
Charles, David (2009): “Aristotle’s Psychological Theory”, Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium of Ancient Philosophy 24/1, pp. 1‒29.Search in Google Scholar
Charles, David (2021): The Undivided Self. Aristotle and the ‘Mind-Body Problem’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198869566.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Chiaradonna, Riccardo (2014): “Le chair et le bronze. Remarques sur Métaphysique Z, 11 et l’interpretation de M. Frede and G. Patzig”, Les Études Philosophiques 110/3, pp. 375‒88.10.3917/leph.143.0375Search in Google Scholar
Code, Alan (2011): “Comments on Devereux: Aristotle on the Form and Definition of a Human Being: Definitions and Their Parts in Metaphysics Ζ 10 and 11”, Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 26/1, pp. 197–210.Search in Google Scholar
Corcilius, Klaus (2022): “The Undivided Self: Aristotle and the ‘Mind–Body Problem’”, by David Charles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, Pp. xiii + 303, Mind, fzab091 (https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzab091)10.1093/mind/fzab091Search in Google Scholar
Detel, Wolfgang (2009): Aristoteles, Metaphysik, Bücher VII und VIII. Griechisch-Deutsch. Kommentar. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Search in Google Scholar
Devereux, Daniel (2011): “Aristotle on the Form and Definition of a Human Being: Definition and Their Parts in Metaphysics Z 10 and 11”, Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 26/1, pp. 167‒96.Search in Google Scholar
Ferejohn, Michael (1994): “The Definition of Generated Composites in Aristotle’s Metaphysics”. In: T. Scaltsas, D. Charles, M.L. Gill (eds.): Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 291‒318.Search in Google Scholar
Frede, Michael (1990): “The Definition of Sensible Substances in Met. Z”. In: D. Devereux and P. Pellegrin (eds.): Biologie, Logique et Métaphysique chez Aristote. Paris: Éditions du CNRS, pp. 113‒29.Search in Google Scholar
Frede, Michael, and Patzig, Günther (1988): Aristoteles, Metaphysik Z. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar, 2 vols. München: Beck.Search in Google Scholar
Frey, Christopher (2015): “From blood to flesh: homonymy, unity, and ways of being in Aristotle”, Ancient Philosophy 35.2, pp. 375–94.10.5840/ancientphil201535227Search in Google Scholar
Gill, MaryLouise (1989): Aristotle on Substance. The Paradox of Unity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Heinaman, Robert (1997): “Frede and Patzig on Definition in Metaphysics Z.10 and 11”, Phronesis 42/3, pp. 284‒98.10.1163/15685289760518171Search in Google Scholar
Jaeger, Werner (1957): Aristotelis Metaphysica. Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kosman, Aryhe (1987): “Animals and other beings in Aristotle”. In: Allan Gotthelf and James Lennox (eds.): Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology. Cambridge (UK), Cambridge University Press, pp. 360–91.10.1017/CBO9780511552564.020Search in Google Scholar
Kullmann, Wolfgang (2007): Aristoteles, Über die Teile der Lebewesen. Übersetzt und erläutert. Berlin: Akademie.Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, Frank (1991): Substance and Predication in Aristotle. Cambridge (UK): Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, Frank (1994): “Aristotle on the Relation between a Thing and its Matter”. In: T. Scaltsas, D. Charles, and M. L. Gill (eds.): Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 247–77.Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, Frank (1996): “Aristotle on the Unity of Substance”. In: F. Lewis and R. Bolton (eds.): Form, Matter and Mixture in Aristotle. Los Angeles: Blackwell, pp. 39‒81.10.1111/j.1468-0114.1995.tb00150.xSearch in Google Scholar
Lewis, Frank (2013): How Aristotle gets by in Metaphysics Z. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664016.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Londinenses (Myles Burnyeat, et alii) (1986): Notes on Zeta. 2nd impr. Oxford: Sub-Faculty of Philosophy, University of Oxford.Search in Google Scholar
Loux, Michael (1991): Primary ‘Ousia’. An Essay on Aristotle’s Metaphysics Z and H. Ithaca (New York): Cornell University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Marmodoro, Anna (2020): “Hylomorphic Unity”. In: Ricki Bliss, and J. T. M. Miller (eds.): The Routledge Handbook of Metametaphysics. London: Routledge, pp. 284–99.10.4324/9781315112596-22Search in Google Scholar
Meister, Samuel (2020): “Aristotle on the Purity of Forms in Metaphysics Z.10–11”, Ergo 7/1, pp. 1–33. (http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0007.001).Search in Google Scholar
Morel, Pierre-Marie (2007): De la matière à l’action. Aristote et le problème du vivant. Paris: Vrin.Search in Google Scholar
Morel Pierre-Marie (2010): “Parties du corp et fonctions de l’âme en Métaphysique Z”. In: Gerd Van Riel and Pierre Destrée (eds.): Ancient Perspectives on Aristotle’s De Anima. Leuven: Leuven University Press, pp. 125‒39.Search in Google Scholar
Morel, Pierre-Marie (2015): Aristote, Métaphysique, Livre Eta. Introduction, traduction et commentaire. Paris: Vrin.Search in Google Scholar
Morrison, Donald (1990): “Some Remarks on Definition in Metaphysics Z”. In: Daniel Devereux and Pierre Pellegrin (eds.): Biologie, Logique et Métaphysique chez Aristote. Paris: Éditions du CNRS, pp. 131‒44.Search in Google Scholar
Peramatzis, Michail (2011): Priority in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588350.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Peramatzis, Michail (2015): “What is a Form in Aristotle’s Hylomorphism?”, History of Philosophy Quarterly 32/3, pp. 195‒216.Search in Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, Christian (2021): “What is Matter in Aristotle’s Hylomorphism”, Ancient Philosophy Today: Dialogoi 3:2, pp. 148–71 (doi: 10.3366/anph.2021.0050).10.3366/anph.2021.0050Search in Google Scholar
Primavesi, Oliver and Corcilius, Klaus (2018): Aristoteles, De Motu Animalium. Historischkritische Edition des griechischen Textes und philologische Einleitung von O. P. Deutsche Übersetzung, philosophische Einleitung und erklärende Anmerkungen von K. C. Hamburg: Meiner.Search in Google Scholar
Rapp, Christof (2020): “Introduction Part I: The Argument of De Motu Animalium”. In: Christof Rapp and Oliver Primavesi (eds.): Aristotle’s De Motu Animalium. Symposium Aristotelicum. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–66.10.1093/oso/9780198835561.003.0001Search in Google Scholar
Ross, William David (1924): Aristotle’s Metaphysics. A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary, 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Scaltsas, Theodore (1994): “Substantial Holism”. In: T. Scaltsas, D. Charles, and M. L. Gill (eds.): Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 107–28.10.5840/philinquiry201539110Search in Google Scholar
Wedin, Michael V. (2000): Aristotle’s Theory of Substance. The Categories and Metaphysics Z. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard (1986): “Hylomorphism”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 4, 189‒99.Search in Google Scholar
Whiting, Jennifer E. (1986): “Form and individuation in Aristotle”. History of Philosophy Quarterly 3, pp. 359‒77.Search in Google Scholar
Yu, J. (1997): “Two Conceptions of Hylomorphism in Metaphysics ZHΘ”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 15, pp. 119‒45.Search in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
