Metaphysics (Aristotle)

The Metaphysics is considered to be one of the greatest philosophical works. Its influence on the Greeks, the Muslim philosophers, Maimonides thence the scholastic philosophers and even writers such as Dante[2] was immense. Aristotle gives an epistemology of causation: his theory of four causes to supplement the material and formal causes of earlier theories. Also his ontological theory of immanent realism critiqued Plato's theory of forms which Aristotle had studied as Plato's pupil at the Academy in Athens, in that its dialectic method of definition was unsuited to account for matter or change. The "physical method" of Democritus and the atomists, on the other hand, engaged a scientific method to facts and problems, but no direct inquiry into the nature of definitions. This reduced the essence of things to material configurations, with a chain of causal necessities depending ultimately on chance. Aristotle sought to combine the virtues of these two methods. His metaphysics is directed against unified systems like the dialectic idealism of Plato, which reduces philosophy to mathematics, or the materialism of Democritus, which reduces it to physics. His worldview is rooted in an analysis of natural language, common sense, and the observations gathered from the natural sciences. The result is a synthesis of the naturalism of empirical science, with a critical enquire into language, ontology and epistemology which has now informed intellectual traditions around the world for more than two thousand years.[3]

At the heart of the book lie three questions. What is existence, and what sorts of things exist in the world? How can things continue to exist, and yet undergo the change we see about us in the natural world? And how can this world be understood?

By the time Aristotle was writing, the tradition of Greek philosophy was only two hundred years old. It had begun with the efforts of thinkers in the Greek world to theorize about the common structure that underlies the changes we observe in the natural world. Two contrasting theories, those of Heraclitus and Parmenides, were an important influence on both Plato and Aristotle.

Heraclitus emphasized the constantly changing nature of apparent reality. By contrast, Parmenides argued that we can reach certain conclusions by means of reason alone, making no use of the senses. What we acquire through the process of reason is fixed, unchanging and eternal. The world is not made up of a variety of things in constant flux, but of one single Truth or reality. Plato's theory of forms is a synthesis of these two views. Given, any object that changes is in an imperfect state. Then, the form of each object we see in this world is an imperfect reflection of the perfect form of the object. For example, Plato claimed a chair may take many forms, but in the perfect world there is only one perfect form of chair.

Aristotle encountered the theory of forms when he studied at the Academy, which he joined at the age of about 18 in the 360s BCE[4] but its conception in the Metaphysics is re-elaborated. Aristotle thought that in every change there is something which persists (for example, Socrates), and something else which did not exist before, but comes into existence as a result of the change (musical Socrates). To explain how Socrates comes to be born (since he did not exist before he was born) Aristotle says that it is "matter" (hyle) that underlies the change. The matter has the "form" of Socrates imposed on it to become Socrates himself. Thus all the things around us, all substances, are composites of two radically different things: form and matter. This doctrine is sometimes known as Hylomorphism (from the Greek words for "matter" and "form").

Book 7 of the Metaphysics: Ens dicitur multipliciter- the word 'being' is meant in many ways. From a manuscript of William of Moerbeke's translation

Subsequent to the arrangement of Aristotle's works by scholars at Alexandria in the first century CE, a number of his treatises were referred to as τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά (ta meta ta physika; literally, "the [writings] after the Physics"). This is the origin of the title for collection of treatises now known as Aristotle's Metaphysics. Some have interpreted the expression "τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά" to imply that the subject of the work goes "beyond" that of Aristotle's Physics or that it is metatheoretical in relation to the Physics. But others believe that "τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά" referred simply to the work's place in the canonical arrangement of Aristotle's writings, which is at least as old as Andronicus of Rhodes or even Hermippus of Smyrna.[5] Within the Aristotelian corpus itself,[6] the metaphysical treatises are referred to as τὰ περὶ τῆς πρώτης φιλοσοφίας (literally, "the [writings] concerning first philosophy"); "first philosophy" was what Aristotle called the subjects of metaphysics. (He called the study of nature or natural philosophy "second philosophy" (Metaphysics 1037a15).)

It is notoriously difficult to specify the date at which Aristotle wrote these treatises as a whole or even individually, especially because the Metaphysics is, in Jonathan Barnes' words, "a farrago, a hotch-potch", and more generally because of the difficulty of dating any of Aristotle's writings.[7]

In the manuscripts, books are referred to by Greek letters. The second book was given the title "little alpha," apparently because it appears to have nothing to do with the other books (and, very early, it was supposed not to have been written by Aristotle) or, although this is less likely, because of its shortness. This, then, disrupts the correspondence of letters to numbers, as book 2 is little alpha, book 3 is beta, and so on. For many scholars, it is customary to refer to the books by their letter names. Thus book 1 is called Alpha (Α); 2, little alpha (α); 3, Beta (Β); 4, Gamma (Γ); 5, Delta (Δ); 6, Epsilon (Ε); 7, Zeta (Ζ); 8, Eta (Η); 9, Theta (Θ); 10, Iota (Ι); 11, Kappa (Κ); 12, Lambda (Λ); 13, Mu (Μ); 14, Nu (Ν).

The order in which the books were written is not known; their arrangement is due to later editors. Based on a careful study of the content and of the cross-references within them, W. D. Ross concluded that books A, B, Γ, E, Z, H, Θ, M, N, and I "form a more or less continuous work", while the remaining books α, Δ, Κ and Λ were inserted into their present locations by later editors. However, Ross cautions that books A, B, Γ, E, Z, H, Θ, M, N, and I — with or without the insertion of the others — do not constitute "a complete work".[8]

In the 20th century two general editions have been produced by W. D. Ross (1924) and by W. Jaeger (1957). Editing the Metaphysics has become an open issue in works and studies of the new millennium. New critical editions have been produced of the books Gamma (Myriam Hecquet, Aristote, Métaphysique Gamma, Peeters 2008), Alpha (Oliver Primavesi, Aristotle Metaphysics Alpha, OUP 2012), and Lambda (Silvia Fazzo, Il libro Lambda della Metafisica di Aristotele, "Elenchos", Bibliopolis 2012, and Stefan Alexandru, Aristotle's Metaphysics Lambda, Philosophia Antiqua, Brill 2014) books. Differences from their more-familiar 20th Century critical editions (W. D. Ross, 1924, W. Jaeger 1957) mainly depend on the stemma codicum of Aristotle's Metaphysics, of which different versions have been proposed since 1970 (Silvio Bernardinello, Eliminatio codicum della Metafisica di Aristotele, Padua, Antenore, 1970), most remarkably by Dieter Harlfinger in 1979 ("Zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Metaphysik", in Pierre Aubenque (ed.), Essais sur la Métaphysique d'Aristote, Paris, Vrin, 1979).[9]

Many scholars believe that Aristotle's works as we have them today are little more than lecture notes.[11] Many of his works are extremely compressed and thus baffling to beginners. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Metaphysics — Ibn Sina (Avicenna), one of the greatest Medieval Islamic philosophers, said that he had read the Metaphysics of Aristotle forty times, but still did not understand it. Only later, after having read al-Farabi's, Purposes of the Metaphysics of Aristotle, did he understand Aristotle's book.[12]

In the 19th century, with the rise of textual criticism, the Metaphysics was examined anew. Critics, noting the wide variety of topics and the seemingly illogical order of the books, concluded that it was actually a collection of shorter works thrown together haphazardly. Werner Jaeger further maintained that the different books were taken from different periods of Aristotle's life. Everyman's Library, for their 1000th volume, published the Metaphysics in a rearranged order that was intended to make the work easier for readers.

With the Fall of Rome in the latter half of the 5th century, knowledge of, and access to Metaphysics was lost to the non-Greek speaking world. The translation of Metaphysics into Arabic in Baghdad in the 9th century led to a rediscovery of Aristotle's work in the Arabic speaking world. These Arabic translations derived from early Syriac translations from the original Greek (see Medieval Philosophy). The flourishing of Arabic Aristotelian scholarship reached its peak with the work of Ibn Rushd (Latinized: Averroes), whose extensive writings on Aristotle's work led to his later designation as "The Commentator" by future generations of scholars.

Maimonides wrote the Guide to the Perplexed in the 12th century, to demonstrate the compatibility of Aristotelian science with Biblical revelation.

The Fourth Crusade (1202-1204) facilitated the discovery and delivery of many original Greek manuscripts back to the European centers of learning. Finally, after over 700 years of obscurity, the work could finally be studied in the original and properly translated into Latin. One of the first Latin translations was made by William of Moerbeke. William's translations are literal, and were intended faithfully to reflect the Greek word order and style. These formed the basis of the commentaries of Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus. They were also used by modern scholars for Greek editions, as William had access to Greek manuscripts that are now lost. Werner Jaeger lists William's translation in his edition of the Greek text in the Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis (Oxford 1962).[13]

• Stemma codicum of Aristotle's Metaphysics
• Energeia, potentiality and actuality
• Four causes
• Categories

• Greek text with commentary: Aristotle's Metaphysics. W. D. Ross. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924. Reprinted 1953 with corrections.
• Greek text: Aristotelis Metaphysica. Ed. Werner Jaeger. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford University Press, 1957. ISBN 978-0-19-814513-4.
• Greek text with English: Metaphysics. Trans. Hugh Tredennick. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library 271, 287. Harvard U. Press, 1933–35. ISBN 0-674-99299-7, ISBN 0-674-99317-9.
• Aristotle's Metaphysics. Trans. Hippocrates Gorgias Apostle. Bloomington: Indiana U. Press, 1966.
• Aristotle's Metaphysics. Translated by Sachs, Joe (2nd ed.). Santa Fe, N.M.: Green Lion Press. 2002. ISBN 1-888009-03-9..
• Aristotle's Metaphysics. Translated by Lawson-Tancred, Hugh. Penguin. 1998. ISBN 0140446192.
• Copleston, Frederick, S.J. A History of Philosophy: Volume I Greece and Rome (Parts I and II) New York: Image Books, 1962.
• Wolfgang Class: Aristotle's Metaphysics, A Philological Commentary:
  • Volume I: Textual Criticism, ISBN 978-3-9815841-2-7, Saldenburg 2014;
  • Volume II: The Composition of the Metaphysics, ISBN 978-3-9815841-3-4, Saldenburg 2015;
  • Volume III: Sources and Parallels, ISBN 978-3-9815841-6-5, Saldenburg 2017;
  • Volume IV: Reception and Criticism, ISBN 978-3-9820267-0-1, Saldenburg 2018.
• Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C. (in Greek, Latin, and English). Vol. 3. Translated by Aquinas, Thomas; Rowan, John P. William of Moerbeke (1st ed.). Chicago: Henry Regnery Company (Library of Living Catholic Thought). 1961. OCLC 312731. Archived from the original on October 28, 2011 – via archive.org. {{cite book}}: External link in |via= (help)CS1 maint: others (link) (rpt. Notre Dame, Ind.: Dumb Ox, 1995).

• Ackrill, J. L., 1963, Aristotle: Categories and De Interpretatione, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 1965, “Aristotle’s Distinction between Energeia and Kinesis,” in Bambrough 1965, pp. 121–141.
• –––, 1972, “Aristotle’s Definitions of Psyche,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 73: 119–133.
• Addis, L., 1972, “Aristotle and the Independence of Substances,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 54: 699–708.
• Ainsworth, Thomas, 2018, “Priority in Being in Aristotle,” Philosophy Compass, 13: 1–10.
• Albritton, Rogers, 1957, “Forms of Particular Substances in Aristotle’s Metaphysics,” Journal of Philosophy, 54: 699–707.
• Alexandrou, S., 2014, Aristotle’s Metaphysics Lambda: Annotated Critical Edition, Leiden: Brill.
• Allen, R. E., 1969, “Individual Properties in Aristotle’s Categories,” Phronesis, 14: 31–39.
• Anagnostopoulos, Andreas, 2011, “Senses of ‘Dunamis’ and the Structure of Aristotle’s ‘Metaphysics’ Theta,” Phronesis, 56: 388–425.
• Anagnostopoulos, Georgios (ed.), 2009, A Companion to Aristotle, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Angioni, Lucas, 2014, “Definition and Essence in Aristotle’s ‘Metaphysics’ vii 4,” Ancient Philosophy, 34: 75–100.
• Annas, J., 1974, “Individuals in Aristotle’s Categories: Two Queries,” Phronesis, 19: 146–152.
• Cohen, Sheldon M., 1981, “Proper Differentiae, the Unity of Definition, and Aristotle’s Essentialism,” The New Scholasticism, 55: 229–240.
• Cohen, Sheldon M., 1984, “Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Material Substrate,” Philosophical Review, 93: 171–194.
• Elders, L., 1972, Aristotle’s Theology: A Commentary on Book Λ of the Metaphysics, Assen: Van Gorcum.
• Engmann, J., 1973, “Aristotle’s Distinction Between Substance and Universal,” Phronesis, 18: 139–155.
• Gerson, Lloyd P. (ed.) and Joseph Owens, 2007, Aristotle’s Gradations of being in Metaphysics E-Z, South Bend: St Augustine’s Press.
• Gill, Mary Louise, 1989, Aristotle on Substance: The Paradox of Unity, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Green, Jerry, 2014, “The Underlying Argument of Aristotle’s ‘Metaphysics Ζ.3’,” Phronesis, 59: 321–342.
• Grene, M., 1974, “Is Genus to Species as Matter to Form? Aristotle and Taxonomy,” Synthèse, 28: 51–69.
• Grice, H. P., 1988, “Aristotle on the Multiplicity of Being,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 69: 175–200.
• Halper, E., 1987, “A Solution to the Problem of Sensible Substance,” Journal of Philosophy, 84: 666–672.
• Kosman, L. A., 1984, “Substance, Being, and Energeia,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 2: 121–149
• Makin, Stephen, 2004, “What Does Aristotle Mean by Priority in Substance?” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 24: 209–238.
• Malcolm, John, 1993, “On the Endangered Species of the Metaphysics,” Ancient Philosophy, 13: 79–93.
• Modrak, Deborah K., 1979, “Forms, Types, and Tokens in Aristotle’s Metaphysics,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 17: 371–381.
• Sharma, R. 2005. “‘What is Aristotle’s ‘Third Man’ Argument against the Forms?” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 28: 123–60.
• Wheeler, S., 1977, “The Theory of Matter from Metaphysics Ζ, Η, Θ,” International Studies in Philosophy, 13–22.
• White, Nicholas P., 1972, “The Origins of Aristotle’s Essentialism,” Review of Metaphysics, 26: 57–85.
• Yu, Jiyuan, 1997, “Two Conceptions of Hylomorphism in Metaphysics ΖΗΘ,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 15: 119–45.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Metaphysics (Aristotle).

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Metaphysics

Greek Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά

• Available bundled with Organon and other works – can be downloaded as .epub, .mobi and other formats.
• English translation and original Greek at Perseus. Translation by Hugh Tredennick from the Loeb Classical Library.
• English translation by W. D. Ross at MIT's Internet Classics Archive.
• Averroes' commentary on the Metaphysics, in Latin, together with the 'old' (Arabic) and new translation based on William of Moerbeke at Gallica.
• Aristotle: Metaphysics entry by Joe Sachs in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Cohen, S. Marc. "Aristotle's Metaphysics". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• A good summary of scholarly comments at: Theory and History of Ontology
• Metaphysics public domain audiobook at LibriVox