{"title":"形而上学中的因果优先权Θ.8","authors":"Katherine Meadows","doi":"10.1515/agph-2018-0117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Aristotle’s Metaphysics Θ.8 argument for the priority of actuality to potentiality poses an immediate interpretive problem: the argument uses two distinct tests for priority, one of which threatens to reverse the results of the other. This paper argues that the standard approach to this passage, according to which one thing is prior to another when it satisfies the ontological independence test from Metaphysics Δ.11, fails to secure the argumentative unity of the passage. It introduces a new, causal account of priority which explains both Aristotle’s claims about priority and the way he argues for them.","PeriodicalId":44741,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIV FUR GESCHICHTE DER PHILOSOPHIE","volume":"105 1","pages":"197 - 240"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Causal Priority in Metaphysics Θ.8\",\"authors\":\"Katherine Meadows\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/agph-2018-0117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Aristotle’s Metaphysics Θ.8 argument for the priority of actuality to potentiality poses an immediate interpretive problem: the argument uses two distinct tests for priority, one of which threatens to reverse the results of the other. This paper argues that the standard approach to this passage, according to which one thing is prior to another when it satisfies the ontological independence test from Metaphysics Δ.11, fails to secure the argumentative unity of the passage. It introduces a new, causal account of priority which explains both Aristotle’s claims about priority and the way he argues for them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44741,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ARCHIV FUR GESCHICHTE DER PHILOSOPHIE\",\"volume\":\"105 1\",\"pages\":\"197 - 240\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ARCHIV FUR GESCHICHTE DER PHILOSOPHIE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2018-0117\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARCHIV FUR GESCHICHTE DER PHILOSOPHIE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2018-0117","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Aristotle’s Metaphysics Θ.8 argument for the priority of actuality to potentiality poses an immediate interpretive problem: the argument uses two distinct tests for priority, one of which threatens to reverse the results of the other. This paper argues that the standard approach to this passage, according to which one thing is prior to another when it satisfies the ontological independence test from Metaphysics Δ.11, fails to secure the argumentative unity of the passage. It introduces a new, causal account of priority which explains both Aristotle’s claims about priority and the way he argues for them.
期刊介绍:
The Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie [Archive for the History of Philosophy] is one of the world"s leading academic journals specializing in the history of philosophy. The Archiv publishes exceptional scholarship in all areas of western philosophy from antiquity through the twentieth century. The journal insists on the highest scholarly standards and values precise argumentation and lucid prose. Articles should reflect the current state of the best international research while advancing the field"s understanding of a historical author, school, problem, or concept. The journal has a broad international readership and a rich history.