2014PhronesisRequires access

The Underlying Argument of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Z.3

Jerry Green

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

This paper argues that Aristotle’sMetaphysicsZ.3 deploys areductioagainst the claim that ‘substances underlie by being the subjects of predication’, in order to demonstrate the need for a new explanation of how substances underlie. Z.13 and H.1 corroborate this reading: both allude to an argument originally contained in Z.3, but now lost from our text, that form, matter and compound ‘underlie’ in different ways. This helps explain some of Z’s peculiarities—and it avoids committing Aristotle to self-contradiction about whether matter is substance, a claim denied in thereductiobut endorsed elsewhere.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This paper argues that Aristotle’sMetaphysicsZ.3 deploys areductioagainst the claim that ‘substances underlie by being the subjects of predication’, in order to demonstrate the need for a new explanation of how substances underlie. Z.13 and H.1 corroborate this reading: both allude to an argument originally contained in Z.3, but now lost from our text, that form, matter and compound ‘underlie’ in different ways. This helps explain some of Z’s peculiarities—and it avoids committing Aristotle to self-contradiction about whether matter is substance, a claim denied in thereductiobut endorsed elsewhere.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This paper argues that Aristotle’sMetaphysicsZ.3 deploys areductioagainst the claim that ‘substances underlie by being the subjects of predication’, in order to demonstrate the need for a new explanation of how substances underlie. Z.13 and H.1 corroborate this reading: both allude to an argument originally contained in Z.3, but now lost from our text, that form, matter and compound ‘underlie’ in different ways. This helps explain some of Z’s peculiarities—and it avoids committing Aristotle to self-contradiction about whether matter is substance, a claim denied in thereductiobut endorsed elsewhere.

Key concepts: Reductio ad absurdum, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Contradiction, Argument (complex analysis), Epistemology, Reading (process), Ancient philosophy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Underlying Argument of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Z.3 — Research Paper | ScholarLens