Particulars and Universals in Aristotelian Substance Theory

Erman KAR

doi:https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp.1012750

Article Details

Particulars and Universals in Aristotelian Substance Theory

Authors:

Erman KAR

Publisher:

Istanbul University

Main Topics:

Philosophy

Journal:

Archives of Philosophy 2021 Issue 55, pp.35-48

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2021

Document Language:

English

Document ID (Org No.):

2000708764

Frequency:

Bi-Annual

eISSN:

2667-7644

pISSN:

0378-2816

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp.1012750

Abstract:

 

There has been contemporary disagreement about Aristotles⊂stancetheory.Thisdisagreementhasma∈lyfocusedontheprob≤mofwhetherAris→telianformsarepartica––roruniversal.Aord∈g→themajorityofthecriteriawhicharestipa––tedbyAris→t≤∈MηphysicsZη,formsare⊂stances.However,Aris→t≤alsoexplicitlyoutl∈es∈theZη,andespecially∈chapters13and16,tˆnouniversalcanbea⊂stance.Atthesep∮s∈hiswork,Aris→t≤shod––havebeenc≤arerregard∈gwhetherformsareuniversalsorpartica––rs.IntermsoftheconclusionofChapter13ofZη,aswellassomeothercriteria,o≠mayconcludetˆ,ifthe⊂stanceisform,thenitshod––bepartica––r.Therearemany∈stances,however,whereAris→t≤saystˆsinceuniversalsareknowab≤,partica––rsca∩otbeknown.Itseemstˆif⊂stancesarepartica––rs,itishard→seehowtheycanbeknowab≤.Furthermore,iftheyareuniversal,itishard→saywhetherpartica––rformsare⊂stances.SinceAris→t≤≠vermentio≠dwhetherformscod––be⊥huniversalandpartica––r,thiscausesd⇔ict–ies.Toexaminethisprob≤m∈moredepth,Iwill¬onlyanalysesomealevncewhichisoftenused→justifytheviewtˆformsareuniversal,butalsosomealevncewhichisused→justifytheviewtˆformsarepartica––r.Insodo∈g,Iwillalsontifysomepossib≤solutionsregard∈gtheprob≤mofthestatusofforms∈Aris→t≤s⊂stancetheory.Thisdisagreementhasma∈lyfocusedontheprob≤mofwhetherAris→telianformsarepartica̲roruniversal.Aord∈g→themajorityofthecriteriawhicharestipa̲tedbyAris→t≤∈MηphysicsZη,formsare⊂stances.However,Aris→t≤alsoexplicitlyoutl∈es∈theZη,andespecially∈chapters13and16,tn^ouniversalcanbea⊂stance.Atthesep∮s∈hiswork,Aris→t≤shod̲havebeenc≤arerregard∈gwhetherformsareuniversalsorpartica̲rs.IntermsoftheconclusionofChapter13ofZη,aswellassomeothercriteria,o≠mayconcludet,^ifthe⊂stanceisform,thenitshod̲bepartica̲r.Therearemany∈stances,however,whereAris→t≤saystsinc^euniversalsareknowab≤,partica̲rsca∩otbeknown.Itseemstif^⊂stancesarepartica̲rs,itishard→seehowtheycanbeknowab≤.Furthermore,iftheyareuniversal,itishard→saywhetherpartica̲rformsare⊂stances.SinceAris→t≤≠vermentio≠dwhetherformscod̲be⊥huniversalandpartica̲r,thiscausesd⇔ict̲ies.Toexaminethisprob≤m∈moredepth,Iwill¬onlyanalysesomealevncewhichisoftenused→justifytheviewtf^ormsareuniversal,butalsosomealevncewhichisused→justifytheviewtf^ormsarepartica̲r.Insodo∈g,Iwillalsontifysomepossib≤solutionsregard∈gtheprob≤mofthestatusofforms∈Aris→t≤s substance theory. This disagreement has mainly focused on the problem of whether Aristotelian forms are particular or universal. According to the majority of the criteria which are stipulated by Aristotle in Metaphysics Zeta, forms are substances. However, Aristotle also explicitly outlines in the Zeta, and especially in chapters 13 and 16, that no universal can be a substance. At these points in his work, Aristotle should have been clearer regarding whether forms are universals or particulars. In terms of the conclusion of Chapter 13 of Zeta, as well as some other criteria, one may conclude that, if the substance is form, then it should be particular. There are many instances, however, where Aristotle says that since universals are knowable, particulars cannot be known. It seems that if substances are particulars, it is hard to see how they can be knowable. Furthermore, if they are universal, it is hard to say whether particular forms are substances. Since Aristotle never mentioned whether forms could be both universal and particular, this causes difficulties. To examine this problem in more depth, I will not only analyse some textual evidence which is often used to justify the view that forms are universal, but also some textual evidence which is used to justify the view that forms are particular. In so doing, I will also identify some possible solutions regarding the problem of the status of forms in Aristotles substance theory. Lastly, I will suggest that individual forms are substances because they are instances of universals and, hence, may be knowable. I will support my view by employing the neo-Aristotelian substance theory posited by Jonathan Lowe; namely, the “Four-Category Ontology.” .

 

Aristoteles’in töz anlayışı güncel bir anlaşmazlığa sebep olmaktadır. Bu anlaşmazlık temel olarak Aristoteles tözlerinin tekil mi yoksa tümel mi olduğu problemine dayanmaktadır. Aristoteles’in Metafizik Zeta’da ortaya koyduğu ölçütlerin çoğuna göre form töz olarak tanımlanır. Öte yandan Aristoteles, Zeta ve özellikle 13. ve 16. bölümlerde hiçbir tümelin töz olamayacağını açıkça belirtir. Zeta boyunca Aristoteles’in formun tekil mi yoksa tümel mi olduğu konusunda açık olmadığı da analiz edilebilir. Metafizik Zeta’nın on üçüncü bölümünden çıkarılacak sonuç gereğince eğer form töz ise onun aynı zamanda bireysel olması beklenmektedir. Ancak, Aristoteles’in öğretisinde tümeller bilinebilir olarak tanımlandıkları için tekillerin bilinemeyeceğini söylediği birçok örnek vardır. Bu bakımdan töz bir yandan tekil ise, tözlerin bilinebilirliği konusunda ciddi problemler ortaya çıkmaktadır. Bu problemler özetle Aristoteles’in formun hem tümel hem de tikel olabileceğini açıkça belirtmemesinden de kaynaklanmaktadır. Problemi daha net analiz edebilmek üzere bu çalışma Aristoteles metinlerinde formların dolayısıyla tözün tikel ve tümel olduğunun vurgulandığı pasajları incelemeyi, ve tekil şeylerin tümellerin birer örnekleri olarak hem töz olabileceği hem de bilinebilir şeyler olabileceklerini ileri sürmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu iddia Jonathan Lowe tarafından ortaya atılan Dört-Kategori Ontoloji isimli çalışma ile desteklenecektir.

Article Details

Particulars and Universals in Aristotelian Substance Theory

Authors: Erman KAR

Publisher: Istanbul University

Main Topics: Philosophy

Journal: Archives of Philosophy 2021 Issue 55, pp.35-48

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 12/2021

Document Language: English

Document ID (Org No.): 2000708764

Frequency: Bi-Annual

eISSN: 2667-7644

pISSN: 0378-2816

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp.1012750

Issues

Authors:

Erman KAR

Publisher:

Istanbul University

Main Topics:

Philosophy

Journal:

Archives of Philosophy 2021 Issue 55, pp.35-48

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2021

Document Language:

English

Document ID (Org No.):

2000708764

Frequency:

Bi-Annual

eISSN:

2667-7644

pISSN:

0378-2816

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26650/arcp.1012750