{"title":"亚里士多德对物理学中埃利亚派论证的反驳1 .8","authors":"Takashi Oki","doi":"10.14746/pea.2021.1.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I show that Aristotle’s refutation of the Eleatic argument in Physics I.8 is based on the idea that a thing at the starting point of coming to be is composite and is made up of what underlies and a privation. In doing so, I clarify how the concept of accidentality as used in his solution should be understood in relation to the composite nature of what comes to be. I also suggest an explanation of why Aristotle’s discussion of the Eleatic dilemma in Physics I.8, unlike his discussion in the previous chapter, is not clear.","PeriodicalId":36201,"journal":{"name":"Peitho","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aristotle’s Refutation of the Eleatic Argument in Physics I.8\",\"authors\":\"Takashi Oki\",\"doi\":\"10.14746/pea.2021.1.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, I show that Aristotle’s refutation of the Eleatic argument in Physics I.8 is based on the idea that a thing at the starting point of coming to be is composite and is made up of what underlies and a privation. In doing so, I clarify how the concept of accidentality as used in his solution should be understood in relation to the composite nature of what comes to be. I also suggest an explanation of why Aristotle’s discussion of the Eleatic dilemma in Physics I.8, unlike his discussion in the previous chapter, is not clear.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Peitho\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Peitho\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14746/pea.2021.1.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Peitho","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14746/pea.2021.1.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
Aristotle’s Refutation of the Eleatic Argument in Physics I.8
In this paper, I show that Aristotle’s refutation of the Eleatic argument in Physics I.8 is based on the idea that a thing at the starting point of coming to be is composite and is made up of what underlies and a privation. In doing so, I clarify how the concept of accidentality as used in his solution should be understood in relation to the composite nature of what comes to be. I also suggest an explanation of why Aristotle’s discussion of the Eleatic dilemma in Physics I.8, unlike his discussion in the previous chapter, is not clear.