Notes on Eta and Theta of Aristotle's ''Metaphysics'': A Study Guide

\JNlVERSilY OF GEORGIA ltBRARIU

/~OTES

ON BOOKS

ETA AND THETA OF ARISTOTLE'S METAPHYSICS

being the record

by

MYLES BURNYEAT and others of a seminar held in London, 1979-1982

i.

PREFACE

This

monograph

is

a

sequel

to Notes on Zeta,

by the Oxford Philosophy sub-Faculty.

published

The London Group,

in

1979

started by

G.E.L. Owen in 1976, and described by Christopher Kirwan in the preface to Notes on Zeta,

has continued its discussions

totle's

Metaphysics

in

the

Institute

Square,

and we were encouraged,

of

of the text of Aris-

Classical

Studies

in Gordon

by reviewers of Notes on Zeta among

others, to publish the record of our discussions of Books Eta and Theta. The

form

before. some a

in which the material

No major

of

revisions

the material

given

passage

of

so as to bring the

text

(and

the dates on which the sessions consistency

of

is

presentation;

presented is much the same as

have been made;

but

together all

accordingly

occurred),

but

some

I

have rearranged

the discussions of

deleted

and

tried

references

to

to achieve some

inconsistencies

remain

-

for

example in the transliteration of Greek words. The

majority

of

the

minutes

of

sessions

are

the work of Myles

Burnyeat, and a substantial number of others are by Bob Sharplesi others Apart from those per-

were recorded by Lesley Brown and Alan Lacey.

sons,

the meetings were

Heinaman, Lloyd,

Gerald

Malcolm

attended

Hughes,

fairly regularly by Julia Annas, Bob

Christopher

Scholfield,

Richard

Kirwan,

Jonathan

Sorabji,

Julius

Lear,

Geoffrey

Tomin,

Kathleen

Wilkes, and Michael Woodsi and most of them were presided over by Gwilym Owen. A

focus

incisive circulated this by

to our discussions was given by some characteristically

and

challenging

or

tabled

Monograph

Bob

the

Heinaman,

included course,

in

a

paper

the

full

by

Introductory

appropriate

Richard read

Notes

Gwilym Owen.

Sorabji

to

one

place, and

session

on

individual

chapters

These have been included as

Bob Sharples. by

in

have been contributions There

Sarah Waterlow,

is

also

though,

of

development of her ideas on the subject of the paper

can now be found in her Passage and Possibility (Oxford, 1982). The meetings of Metaphysics our died

took

discussions

the Group that

place of

in July 1982.

Book

between Theta

discussed

May

1979

and

were

almost

these

two books of the

November

1982.

Thus,

complete when Gwilym Owen

We should like to dedicate this Monograph to his

memory.

The debt

to him,

Group and

presided over

it

as for

the

person who established

seven years

is

only one

the London

of many that

we, like so many other Aristotelian scholars, owe to him. clay 1984

MICHAEL WOODS

ii. 111.

ABBREVIATIONS

D.K.

Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, ed. H. Diels and W. Kranz, Berlin. 1903.

Jaeger

Aristotelis Metaphysica, W.Jaeger, Oxford Classical Texts, 1957.

Kirwan

Aristotle, Metaphysics translated with notes by Christopher Kirwan, Oxford 1970.

Oxford translation

Volume VIII (Metaphysica, translated W.D. Ross) in The Works of Aristotle translated into English, Oxford 1928.

Ps. Alexander

Commentary on Z (in fact by a later hand) in Alexander of Aphrodisias, In Aristotelis Metaphysica Commentaria, ed. M. Hayduck, Berlin 1891.

Reale

Aristotelis, la Metafisica, traduzione, introduzione e commento, Giovanni Reale, Loffredo 1968.

Ross

Aristotle's Metaphysics, text and commentary, W.D. Ross, Oxford 1924.

The works of Aristotle are sometimes referred to by the following abbreviations: Posterior Analytics

An. Post. or A. PQ. An. Prior

Prior Analytics

Cat.

Categories

De Gen. An. or GA

De Generatione Animalium

De Gen. et Corr. or G&C

De Generatione et Corruptione

De Int.

De Interpretatione

DMA

De Motu Animalium

De Mem.

De Memoria

E.E.

Eudemian Ethics

E.N.

Nicomachean Ethics

Met.

Metaphysics

neteor.

Meteorologic a

PA

De Partibus Animalium

Parv. Nat.

Parva Naturalia

Phys.

Physics

Rhet.

Rhetoric

So ph. El. or SE

De Sophisticis Elenchis

Top.

Topics

Capital Greek

letters

refer

to

books

of

the

Metaphysics

The convention has usually been Greek words without inverted commas.

unless

otherwise specified. Unprefixed page numbers, as in 'l019a 10' refer to the Metaphysics.

Other references: Ackrill

Aristotle's Categories and DeInterpretatione, translated with notes by J.L. Ackrill, Oxford, 1963.

Apostle

Aristotle's Metaphysics, translated with commentaries by Hippocrates G. Apostle, Indiana, 1966.

Bonitz

Index Aristotelicus, H. Bonitz, Berlin 1870. •lr

Aristotelis netaphysica, H. Bonitz, Bonn 1848-9.

followed

of

writing

mentioned

CHAPTER

l042a 3-24

The

first

to have a summary of was it e[pT'J'ta.l.

seeks

as

placed

strongly

suggests

we

but the next jolts our expectations.

are

Where

that the object of enquiry is the causes and principles

and elements of which

sentence

Z,

substance?

(~

Not Zl

Ross).

Not El (Apostle),

and causes of 'tciiv Ov-rwv as

principles

r

substances but everything.

l-2

(cf.

including not

l003b 18)?

just

A 1-2 fits better

still, offering several parallels to what is to come in Hl. Further difficulties:

and

the

elements

(1)

1C42a 6-10 goes against Zl6 on parts

('agreed by all'

might mean

'agreed by all but

the

speaker'

but l042a 24 resumes talk of agr~ed substances as if the list

had

contained

not

stance

controversial

items).

(2)

It

seems

remarkably

fiv eTvcu. and b1toxeC~evov side by side as cases of sub-

bland to set 'tC which

are

consideration

of

established what

people

by

I

argument

will

say

which

under

are arrived at

dialectical

by

pressure.

It is going back to where we started out at the beginning of Z3, before the hard work of Z was done. genus and universal. blished

by

even by

his

genus

is

argument

( a:x:~.wQ'

opponents

more

( 1038b 7 is

1

it

is

not

arguments

in

Z.

substance

the

nearest

15

to

take

advance

cases

are

can yield

xa.e6Xou

just

one

intended, both:

plus Forms (1.

than £roo,, parallel

have to go back to B for sible

Still worse (3)

to conjoin these with

If the latter also are cases of substance estaI

For

arguments

5

universal ~ood

not

more

there

is

a

not

problem as

definability

z,

nor

particular You really

[It was thought pos-

c!6wv

two. to

than

enough).

yfvo,, 1:Wv xa.e'~,QC"'t'a. substance,

in

these do not urge that

that line of argument. "=

case of

e.g.

but

by Ar

If,

how a

so

that

14-

however,

two

single

argument

selects universal over particular,

16), but not genus over eT6ov6e:cn.c; - see Ross' note), 6e:cr)..liil

(rhough xpCcrCa. 13,

vtz. o6aCa. We;, S.vtpye:~a.,

seeking,

for of>o-Ca.

look

is

differentia

ciently clearly by

C:HAPTER l

There

So we come to the main conclusion of the chapter.

is

a

precisely

it

is

The conn2:ction between what

patch of ice to exist and what sort of

for

2:

patch of

a substantive thesis,

ice

to

thing ice as such

olxTC« displayed in a definition

the

the o('tCa. -ro1'S e!va.L,

is

a

a

exist

and moreover

what (so

it

is

you

get

when you

'Snares',

p. 82).

a

that

thesis

has

say This

to be

understood, as Ar would understand it, with some appropriate restriction is

no

one

answer

to

the

question

'What

is

substance

as

actuality?' on

(nor

a

mere

the

the differentiae

which

our

definitions

connect

with

the

equally

case

that

of

terms

On

matter.

the

variety

of

the

types

of matter,

the

for

which

it

definition of

is

claimed true.

bachelor

tells

For it

you what

it

is

is not for a

various bachelor

types

of

range

three answers as Democritus supposed), but as many as the to

exist;

a

bachelor

does

not

cease

to exist when he ceases

note that to be an unmarried man.

a lO-ll includes the high-low range of sound as matter in the definition But

of <J"U~ ,l.'lbi guous

this

">oul

but

supposj

inn

t

(NB xa.(,

1.7

on

principles)

Zll.

the

face

what

of

it

the .1mbiguity thesis

from

term

ambiguity

is

the

H3

or

is

thesis is

of

type

-

these

(But

Yet

the

is

.1nother

4-ways ambiguous

-

sentential context ~t:l_ect~ one of

the

t::"NO

would

not

it

36-7?)

'There's a man

it can happen that a

meanings

be

whether

point of

to ~he view Lha.t

ttnless

the

is

questions about

reading

definition,

then what would be

would commit one

Or

(on Aris-

definition discussed

,,..,e face

right

is simply

another?

Platonist

in the chapter,

which

int~re"itingly

!Jy Ar

ZlO-ll.

and

ambiguous.

house'

'vhether

elsewhere

doubtful

is

the

the

believed,

between

The in

as

Here,

relation

that

it

the

thesis actually espoused than a consequence deducible

totelian

At

'dnimal'

The ~ passage remains to be considered, together

problem: is

hypothetical

a

dS

less

a

import

,md

Wuxf)again, l. 6).

so

1~43b

4-14

eluded

La L.ll

given

of the term.

This

'2xploitell in a p!lper by ~1.J. Lo•lx in !'!_ind,

approached

perhaps

its

this

with

some

bark was uorse

dismdy,

but eventually con-

than its bite.

Ar's general

purpose seemed reasonably clear; the ctifftculties were those of detailed lnterpretation.

::r6v8EO'"I.C,: nor cerned;

Ar

a

iJ,tl;1..:~ertaln

2.J -d

qnly

used

father language

r_o

,\ntlSthenes.

L~a_t3tetus

the and

content

(A)

Dream

and

for

its

"lpplies.

allowing definition for composites could not be the consequence (ilx;-r',

of

28)

an d.JtopCa. about

Burnyeat 's paper to

think

defining

necessary

it

to

follow

against

'point'

Ross'

Jaeger's

from

the

accepted

from

a disinclination

emending

or

translation

'plausibility',

so

of

26-l [xa.C] •••

of xotov ~lv ~c x~X.

as

Socratic -r(-Jto'tov contrast),

for xaLp6v,

that

Ar

'timeliness'

should

not

part not

the ~~opCa.

of

a

concession

of

himself

sort.

The objection here was that 'Silver is like tin'seems a striking example which any

should

have

some

non-definitional

like tin'

part

tifully

in Cyprus', to

play.

descriptive

it

whereas

statement

(m

would

8urnyeat 's

serve.

reading

'Silver

could

be an (imperfect)

applied is

the

'silver'

H3.

The

next

question

which

specifically

'the

Antisthenians enough of a

sistent problems from can

said

out

at

definition be

and

how

Ant.

l043b

where

similarly

of

of

the

once: being

it,

two

(1)

23-8

fits

with tJ.29

persons'.

Perhaps Ant.

passages,

but

if

one

does

try,

A 29 can be read as saying that

impossible)

nothing else;

either that "X.6yo< is

'It is

32-4,

there to be no call to make a con-

only (ii)

a even

thing's

proper

if X6yoc:;

is

definition, only one X6yo.; is admitted for each thing, so: case,

l024h

H3 has the more diffuse reference

uneducated

paradox-monger for

position arise

was

names

like tin',

two

(so far

definition

broader

than

the very thing that H3 allows. 'Nhy

impossibility 0f

falsehood

in of

consequence

Any solution must be such as to explain of

contradicting

( 1024b

33-4).

his

thesis

Ant.

and

practically

was to

the

to

the

~v

Socrates,

thesis

is

8:

that

the context

roughly, su bj ec t s one description

only

f.~hich

a unity in virtue of itself or in virtue of something else?

The analogies between sub-

was

derived time

particuJ ar set

oi

of

that substances ~ numbers in 1043b 33-34, even though this is quali-

by ·i'l'.oH;

be as

that

\.Jhere

analogy (1043b 34-36) applies "!!re easily

than to numbers.

l 1 V~2a

!17

help.

that,

this

stance and number were felt to be rather weak to justify the assertion

fied

could

act

ra.ve:p6v in 32 and oU~wc; in 33 referred

rather

than back,

l044a 7 being advanced as a parallel in the

case of the latter.

1044a 2-9

The

(e.g.)

sense

given by the various corrections in a 3 is conIt would in any case be odd to say that the number

was

a

Ihe Platonists

principle of referred

to

and so can't,

for

unity

have his

principle an

own

l045a 7f.

answer in

of to

order

this

(cf.

demand,

to make

the

unity in

standing of number, a

ff.,

33

more

of

composite

substance

may

admit

and

,,....hich

less.

si.mply

fhe

This

:t.sserts

that

the

nf

appears

to contradict

~ubs~-~~-~ does

suggestion was made that

not

admit

the present passage

might be explained by the doctrine of tl1e 1mperfect mastering of matter

firmed by 1044a 7. seven

3b

':'a...'::...

The

substance xa~& ~b El&o~ cannot.

although

M7

among

l043b

34

the have

a

l082a

20

ff.);

but

it

numbered.

different

in Aristotle's view,

under-

meet his demand does

he himself

and does he have to have an answer of objection against

refers to the problem again,

but

might

even

22

be

the

Platonists?

H6

the discussion that follows

is concerned with substances rather than numbers, that xa.t .~~:e:pt ~oi;c; dpL8uo6.hl>.ou),

l035a

278a

14-16),

this

13-15;

cf.

De

1035a Gen.

et

indicate

the

either

issue

the

form

of

the

or

the

ambiguity of composite

certain

terms

and Heinaman' s

that

can

contention

that this is parallel to Aristotle's usage elsewhere and not in itself anything this of

It

unusual.

position

through

predication,

and

Aristotle's point at tinguishing is

not,

many

but

cases

the

where

suggested

concern

that

difficulty

the beginning of

cases

rather

was

the

where

the

it

-

that

Aristotle

substance of

should

applying

this

'snub'.

not arise

But

in

the

had

arrived

at

be

the

subject

to

the

form.

H3 is not the difficulty of dis-

sharp

the

referring

distinction

grounds

to

the

that.

house,

between

even

the

if

in

difference

what

is

house

form

the

to

1043a

understanding

it

soul)

was

the

two

its

form,

involve understanding

contended,

saying that the term -

that

(though there were problems as to

But,

composite

37

was conceded on all sides

included

for

below).

in

It

in some cases (e.g.

see

opposed

claim

it

even in

as

the

primary.

(e.g.)

not,

too;

on

is

which he

this

'house'

scarecly

can mean the

certainly does

say,

and

took him to be expressing his own view; still less, therefore, would

Is Aristotle

saying

(I)

that a shelter made of bricks and stones

is a house because a shelter (a permanent shelter, is;

or (II)

and

stones

to exclude cloaks?)

that a shelter is a house because a shelter made of bricks is?

(1)

any

seemed

suggestion

excessively

of

Platonist

transcendent

forms

to

some,

The point was made that in ordinary usage

tainly applies to the composite,

rather than to the form;

totle

order

necessarily

usage? that

It was

'shelter'

composite, form

of

exist

bound

suggested

appears

house

in

in

the that

the

of

priority

point

apart

from

'house'

cer-

but is Aris-

implied

of 7tp0(xnc;

the concrete individual,

Consequently

identical

in

and

i.n the ?;O

l044a

from bile, becdU3e that 1s Lube under-

the

n•~ed

no Jl)uht he

:, 44a

determined

in

cveryth1ng comes

, rihutes

then

uf CaxWt:; yO.p x-rA..,

light

resolved

I3

is

And they remain such,

derive from Y

sw~~t-anJ-che-~itter-

,lJ\o.'

so,

both

to

example

the

start

it were.

rudd

(the

in 23

phlegm might Jerive

m,JV

r t-'lJssibly

:·ut

thing

not commit

'taU cd.noU 19-2(1.

Phlt~gm

>fl.m>-.•

to

the

still

the ultimate derivation story,

you by

water,

does, for as 31 shows he is thinking of the form as the efficient cause,

The Presocratic style of reply is not sufficiently explanatory.

)-]),

t

and

:044a 25

products;

(2)

different matter-

is due to the effi·tor:n'!

thing, But

here

proposed has

to

not

all

which means the

the

potentialities

unavoidable

reference

explanation circular. explain

is

can

be

realized

by

Socrates and Callias must realize them differently.

how Socrates

to

What

'by

and Callias

13

a

single

thing'

'difference in matter' are

two

rather

:nakes

the

precisely than

one.

: .44b )

U'44b R So the problem is not solved by taking matter as potentiality for change, :1ence

Is

difference

it

solved

in matter

by

taking

two parcels of matter, this

[f

r.wo

if

if

one.

have

'.i'~ere :1 f

are

trick,

knows

Partial

in

potentiality

matter

distinct.

why

fixate

French and reply:

as

the

for

that

already

we

left

one

os

picked

it,

but

~

Objection:

on material

that doesn't,

difference

composition?

they

are

two

E.g.

persons,

this is red-haired/ snubnosed/ 5'

not)

out NB

presuppose

the this

subject whole

for

as

their

tall/

ascription

one whole

discussion

that

efficient

human

wondering whether

8-20

We

an eclipse.

the

they

are

one man or

:3uffers

the

us \JXT} to

move

to

(what

There

is

no matter

eclipse.

the

rawc; (Ross:

So

it

we would call) which

i.s

(Elsehwere Ar

attributes.)

natural

the

events,

presumably)

there

is

prefers

to

let

such as

substance

no

final

cause

analyze ob<JCa. We; lvlpye::l.a.

presumably

to

be

i~fining

(an important

where

the

'hy

the

subject

but

it

must

is

interposition of

be

specified but

unclear the

unless

Earth'.

you Why

not add

put into the the

unclear?

efficient That i t

sufficiently illuminating for explanatory purposes seemed more thanthatit issimplyincomplete.

With sleep

he dispelled concerns which is the first ~leep.

Or rather, which is the first under~o

something

-

what?

the

unclarity

to

bit of the animal to undergo

bit of

the animal (perhaps the

( 't'C 't'O xd.8oc;

18-19),

H2

began

by

why

So

go

back

saying so

that

that

to \5ATJ

it in

there was remained H4?

duce a PS, which in the case of H3 is explicitly said not to be relevant to the main project ( l043a 38-b l).

Perhaps some relevant connections

thing

to

could

have

alert

us

be

done,

to

them.

the

that

the

but it cannot be said that Ar does anyE.g.

he

fails

matter we are

specified ol"XeCa \SAT).

correctly

that Ar context.

is

patching also

We

in material thought

it

to

Bonitz only in

say,

as

he so easily

We

had

the

now familiar

originally put noteworthy

express.ion va.(• dX\6. occurs

otherwise according

to

comparing with actuality has

twice

the

together

that

here

for

the

brightly

(16-17,

19) but

~gna Moralia three times,

and that such examples of va.C as Bonitz 1 ists are all from early works plus Z9 10J4a 17.

text

You can say 'An eclipse is a deprivation of light'

formula?),

4

H3 and H4 both begin by telling us not to forget something, as if to intro-

CHAPTER FIVE

With the formal cause there

by the moon - did Ar notice that this is an instance of the 'snub'

likely

as well,

count

( sc.

not

sought

the Earth.

complication.

phenomenon,

chap,

to

feeling another

matter of 3.n eclipse.

is an efficient cause,

There

the limits ofAristotelian teleology).

cause

be

is

is a

·4as

to

about :Jfxr-(a. J>~ 'b1toxe::C1-1.E\1Tl xa.t ill8E!pEcr8a•. o<e ~l:v OWn~

O<e Oe

obx OUOU.8etp'riL CtVEU '8E(pEetVEp6v. H3

l043b

14-16 dvd.yxT] 07)

'{

there-

:;ic k

wine.

vi

1~e~a

r.

l'he

12~4 whcrn a dist.inction is dr<Jwn i.n

li.ne:•s

IJotentiality

rnalrer,

as well as 5uvd.fJ-E4 A?

:..JZJ.ter,

1 ' ' 1 1 ' '·

about

Ou\IO.j..LE~ A, and B L_; the kva.v1:Cov ot -\,

If X is

&uvn~E"

2 examples: · •Hl\1\

dp11ri.1i

oppnsitcschauging into

- s.Jmewhat tenuous- cor.nection wit~ the first

the

foro

~

a

i.ntr(Jduced

..

l I ! '\

-, ' · r

(_()1\'.jOT r:S UN

~I

fH ETA ~I)~

fl~namisl~4 (5, 6) correspond of 1::.12.

1046a

primary cases

6-9

is

(Contrast

nymy.

J,

which

insists

more

meaning without

that

tn

the

~un~ton 1 _ 4

:.,horthand

the relation between derivative and

EE

VII

l236a

'.~hich

7-33

similarity

and

similarity without

EN

explains \'Ill

using

focal

p_~ilia

by

1156b 19-21, meaning;

focal

35-1157a

and

explain

What is the str0nger relation bP.tween primary and deri-

as you will.)

A case

(1) ~~

of

sense

1, of

in

(e.g.

in a

ousia.

h.')

derivative sense coincides directly with A case

(ii)

requires

(iii)

servative others

~

of

viz.

seemingly

viz. iatros.

but

of

iatrikon

in

a

derivative

not coincide wi.th one of !~ 1 '

need

A case of hugieinvn in one derivative sense ('pre-

requires

and

h.')

'sign of

coincide

may

rloubtful.

with

(iv)

one

hugieinon 1 ,

of

A case of

philia_ in (v)

a derivative sense does not expressly require one of philia 1 . cases .\~d

of

may

if

the

is

no

dunaton coincide

and

dunamis

qualification regular

some

with

in

of

'partly'

requirement,

derivative

senses

logical

priority

does

rz

did

not

here at

into

Notes

46a

( i.s

something, 24-8,

I+Sb becoming)

and

that

b 29-34a 5;

on Zeta, of

lv 271

not

that

something

(ii)

6)

p.

the

1

ZH

in

asserted

entail

natural

the

back in

general, lv "tott; ( 1028a

35-6),

as

that the account of substance

derivative

cases,

-rO.~ 1t€p\ -ri'\~ o!xrCn.; }.t\yoL~

l..s

everything

that

from

~omethlng

same

in

form',

as

implied

is

to ZH in 8:

(i)

[cf. •ep\ -roil

6

do,

In

in

becomes

{is

becoming)

and

the

agency

by

referring to ZB

ni.ng

32

16.

in

the

first

34,

taken

from

H6,

esp.

until with

6. Zl

1 i045b 35-46a 1, "'hat is most useful

l045a

that

20-33:

All this suggests that

(tv

"tat'~

~s

what

we

expect to

1(p!j.rto~c;

A6yo~Q,

ZH

l7-9

existed as a unit, "ueginbe in~

already

a

proper

part of Z; which is compa(ible Y-'ith the hypothesis of H's pre-existence, us discussed earlier.

the

10,

b

17.

the

same

contrast and

14,

21,

in

b 6,

uses

chapters

(2),

11.

27,

26-7

general

9.

Llrsl

of

49b

'!2:1namei in 87

2).

connection

In

with

94

he

by

the

later

at

the

both

dunamis,

scope

at

i.n ~16

(thus

49a

37,

in

the

dunamei 1,

second

l050a 3,

0,

5,

at 8-

6,

occurs:

(e.g. In '.:18

9).

to

of dunamis

sections dunaton

~~_naton

of

is about

dominance

l048b

l047a 24-47b 2 (note 0-~namei

enlarges

l