A Synchronic Justification for Aristotle's Commitment to Prime Matter

Bibliographic Data

ID11585468
AuthorsMargaret Scharle (1Reed College, 3203 SE Woodstock Ave, Portland, OR 97202, USA, corresponding author)
Year2009
Volume54
Issue4-5
Pages326-345
Publication date2009-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePhronesis (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0031-8868 • E-ISSN: 1568-5284
PublisherBrill (PUBLISHER • NL)
DOI10.1163/003188609x12486562883138
OpenAlexW2083207048
LanguageEN
References cited14

The current debate over Aristotle's commitment to prime matter is centered on diachronic considerations found in his theory of substantial change. I argue that an appeal to this theory is not required in order to establish his commitment to the existence of prime matter. By drawing on Physics II.1's conception of what it is for an element to have a nature – that is, to have an inner source of movement and rest – I introduce a synchronic justification for the existence of prime matter. By trading on the relationship between the thing that has a source of change and the source it has, I show that something that has a source in itself cannot be identical with its source, and that a type of matter that has no nature of its own (a kind of prime matter) is required to block this identification at the level of the elements

Ancient philosophy · Appeal · Economics · Element (criminal law · Epistemology · Identification (biology · Order (exchange · Political science · Prime (order theory · Classical Philosophy and Thought · Historical Philosophy and Science · Historical, Religious, and Philosophical Studies · Law · Mathematics · Philosophy

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub