How Aristotle gets by in Metaphysics Zeta

Lewis, Franklin

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664016.001.0001

Cited by 28 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The influential commentary on Z by Frede and Patzig 1988 took Z's argument as self-contained and as having an end in Z17. This is still the view in several books (Wedin 2000, Angioni 2008, and Lewis 2013, but see the opposite view in Loux 1991. Frede 1994 saw H mainly as a preparation for the next discussion on separate substance in Λ7 and Λ9.…”

Section: Metaphysics Z17 In the "Phylogenetic Tree" Of Hmentioning

confidence: 88%

Refining the Material Substance: Aristotle’s Program in Metaphysics H1-5

Mié

2018

Síntesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMENEn Metaph. Z17, Aristóteles toma un nuevo punto de partida (1041a6) en su discusión sobre la sustancia: la forma sustancial es principio y causa (1041a6-10, 1041b8), mientras que la materia es un elemento (1041b31) de las sustancias materiales. Además, un compromiso de Aristóteles, quizá no totalmente aclarado en Z17, es que las sustancias materiales son todos unificados (1041b11-12). Éstas son dos tesis centrales de Z17, cuya aparente ausencia en el resumen de H1 (1042a3-23) ha despertado dudas entre los comentadores acerca del mismo proyecto de H; un libro que es visto comúnmente como un mero manojo de notas sobre temas de Z. En cuanto a la contribución positiva de H, los comentadores destacan poco más que la introducción del vocabulario modal de potencia y acto, en el cual se habría traducido la distinción de Z entre materia y forma; y encuentran recién en la solución que H6 (1045a23-25, 1045b18-19) ofrece al problema de la unidad la genuina contribución que hace el entero libro H. Como consecuencia de esta lectura, H1-5 quedan a la sombra de H6 y resultan escasamente atendidos. En contra de la tendencia todavía predominante a no considerar H1-5 en sí mismos, en este artículo intentaré mostrar que esos capítulos desarrollan un programa que prepara adecuadamente la conclusión de H6. H2-3 son la primera gran estación en ese programa; allí Aristóteles justifica la prioridad de la forma; posteriormente, en H4-5 hace algo similar con la unidad de los compuestos materiales. De tal manera, trataré de mostrar que H1-5 constituyen una pieza central en el acabamiento de la teoría sobre la sustancia material iniciada en Z17. ABSTRACTIn Metaph. Z17, Aristotle makes a fresh start (1041a6) in his discussion on substance. Accordingly, the substantial form is principle and cause (1041a6-10, 1041b8), whereas the matter is element (1041b31) of material substances. Besides, Aristotle assumes (probably without justifying in Z17) that material substances are unified wholes (1041b11-12). These are two main theses in Z17 whose apparent absence in the summary of H1 (1042a3-23) has raised doubts among commentators as to the very project of H a book commonly held to be a bunch of notes on Z. Regarding H's positive results, commentators mostly focus on the introduction of the modal vocabulary of potentiality and actuality into which Z's distinction between matter and form is translated. So they find book's H proper contribution only in H6's solution to the problem of unity (1045a23-25, 1045b18-19). As a consequence of this reading, H1-5 remain overshadowed by H6, and therefore they are often neglected. Contrarily to this still predominant trend towards not taking H1-5 on their own, I will here try to show that these chapters develop a program, in which H6's conclusion is properly prepared. Stations of this program are H2-3, where Aristotle justifies the priority of form, and then H4-5, where he does the same for the unity of material compounds. So, I aim to show that H1-5 are a centerpiece in the completion and fulfilment of Z1...

show abstract

Section: Metaphysics Z17 In the "Phylogenetic Tree" Of Hmentioning

confidence: 88%

Refining the Material Substance: Aristotle’s Program in Metaphysics H1-5

Mié

2018

Síntesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aristotle also identifies an intrinsic relationship between words (onómata) and hóroi (plural of hóros) in Topics and Posterior Analytics (cf. Deslauriers, 2007;Devereux, 1988;Lewis, 2013). This also introduces another term, hóros, that he transferred from the source frame of 'dwelling in a household' into the domain of lógos.…”

Section: Construction Alternation With Perception and Cognition Verbsmentioning

confidence: 99%

3 The embodied basis of discourse and pragmatic markers in Greek and Latin

Fedriani¹

2019

Toward a Cognitive Classical Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aspect and construal. A cognitive linguistic approach to iterativity, habituality and genericity in Greek 16 1.1 Introduction 16 1.2 Iterativity, habituality and genericity in cognitive linguistics 20 1.3 Types of construal in cognitive linguistics 22 1.4 Ancient Greek tense and aspect in iteratives, habituals and generics 27 1.5 Conclusion: Construal and embodiment 38 Bibliography 39 Annemieke Drummen 2 A construction-grammar analysis of ancient Greek particles 42 2.1 Introduction 42 2.2 Construction grammar 43 2.3 Ancient Greek particles 44 2.4 Interpreting particles with constructions 45 2.4.1 Kaί: From connecting to clarifying to indignation 45 2.4.2 Te: Connecting and shared knowledge 55 2.4.3 Dé: From a new step to epic style to hostility 58 2.5 Summary 61 2.5.1 Kaί-construction 1 62 2.5.2 Kaί-construction 2 62 2.5.3 Kaί-construction 3 62 2.5.4 Kaί-construction 4 62 2.5.5 Te-construction 63 2.5.6 Dé-construction 63 2.6 Beyond constructions 64 Bibliography 65 Chiara Fedriani 3 The embodied basis of discourse and pragmatic markers in Greek and Latin 69 3.1 Introduction 69 3.2 Discourse markers, pragmatic markers, and pragmaticalization 72 3.3 Image schemas of movement and exchange and their metaphorical extensions in the pragmatic domain 74 3.4 The embodied pragmaticalization of íthi, áge, age, phére and em 80 3.4.1 Íthi, áge, and age as pragmatic markers 81 3.4.2 Phére and em as discourse markers (and the specific status of phére) 84 3.5 Conclusions 88 Bibliography 90 Luisa Brucale 4 Reversive constructions in Latin: The case of re-(and dis-) 93 4.1 Introduction 93 4.2 Verbal prefixation 94 4.3 Reversivity and reversives 96 4.4 Re-and dis-98 4.5 Re-data 100 4.5.1 Spatial values 101 4.5.2 Abstract values 105 4.6 Dis-data 116 4.7 Conclusions 121 Bibliography 123 Anna Bonifazi 5 Autόs and the center-periphery image schema 126 5.1 Introduction 126 5.2 The image schema center-periphery 128 5.3 The syntax and the semantics of autόs 130 5.4 Intensifiers evoking a center and periphery 131 5.5 Autόs in Homer, and the link to au-adverbs and particles 132 5.6 The center-periphery scenarios evoked by autόs: Linguistic evidence in and beyond Homer 133 5.6.1 An individual at the center of the visual field, and more individuals around him/her 135 5.6.2 Individuals superior in rank to, or more important than, other people 137 5.6.3 Bodies without additional objects such as 'arms'/'corpses' 141 5.6.4 The internal self; subject of consciousness; one's true identity; proximity to the speaking "I" 142 5.7 Autόs-objects and referents "just mentioned" 144 5.8 Conclusion 145 Bibliography 146 Silvia Luraghi, Eleonora Sausa 6 Aspects of aural perception in Homeric Greek 149 6.1 Introduction 149 6.2 Experiential situations 150 6.2.1 Verbs of perception 151 6.3 Construction alternation with perception and cognition verbs 153 6.4 akoúō 155 6.4.1 Inanimate stimuli 156 6.4.2 Animate stimuli 158 6.5 Hear, listen, learn 163 6.5.1 klúō 164 6.5.2 Punthánomai 165 6.6 Discussion 169 6.6.1 Aspect and actionality 169 6.6.2 The function of constr...

show abstract

“…Why not? Because sin "is not honest error, but open rebellion" (64). There are "undeniable tensions" between the two claims, and this "irresolvable discrepancy .…”

Section:  Joy As a Value-based Love Of Desirementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even on our human level does any one feel that the passive voice of the word beloved is really exclusive-that to attract is a-what do you call it-the opposite of a deponent? 64 As we remember, Lewis ended with the resolute decision to "tackle him again. He has shaken me up extremely."…”

Section:  Joy As Human Endeavor Towards Godmentioning

confidence: 99%

Praeparatio Evangelica—or Daemonica? C. S. Lewis and Anders Nygren on Spiritual Longing

Lepojärvi

2016

H. Theolo. Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

C. S. Lewis read Anders Nygren's Agape and Eros in his mid-thirties, probably during the Christmas holiday of 1934. His first recorded thoughts, including the statement above, are from a letter dated “Jan 8th 1935” to his Oxford colleague Janet Spens. Despite his decisive criticism of what he calls Nygren's “central contrast”—that agape is selfless and eros self-regarding—Lewis ends this letter with a declaration of uncertainty: “However, I must tackle him again. He has shaken me up extremely.” It is remarkable, then, that Nygren is not mentioned by name in Lewis's The Four Loves (1960). Lewis's opening remarks on his theology of love, which do not directly refer to Nygren, “are critical of Nygren's main thesis in Agape and Eros.”

show abstract

How Aristotle gets by in Metaphysics Zeta

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

Refining the Material Substance: Aristotle’s Program in Metaphysics H1-5

Refining the Material Substance: Aristotle’s Program in Metaphysics H1-5

3 The embodied basis of discourse and pragmatic markers in Greek and Latin

Praeparatio Evangelica—or Daemonica? C. S. Lewis and Anders Nygren on Spiritual Longing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About