On the primacy of χωριστόν in the Aristotelian substance. Alexander’s commentary on Metaphysics V 8, 1017b 23-26
Keywords:Aristotle, Alexander, form, substratum
This paper discusses Alexander’s commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics V.8 1017b23-26. There Aristotle maintains that substance is said in two ways: (i) the ultimate substrate, and (ii) the structure and form of each thing. Regarding the first meaning, the commentator properly makes emphasizes upon the fact that there is a perfect biunivocity between being substance and being substratum. This biunivocity, Abbate suggests, can be seen in the three entities that, according to Aristotle himself, since the of the Categories, a formula rewritten by Alexander as, can be called, in increasing order, matter, compound, and form. In fact, these entities show how being the ultimate substratum means not to be predicated of anything, a character that form, called by Alexander, is realized completely when it is entirely immaterial, insofar as it is not constituted by reference of one thing to another, let alone what its substratum is, that is, form as essence. Regarding the second meaning, the commentator seems to individualize three different meanings, according to which form can be called 1) it can be only, as a natural form which is immanent to bodies; 2) as a simple, that is, separated, in a passive sense, from matter, to which it is constitutively linked. This is the reason why form cannot subsist separately, if not virtually; as an eternal form of divine bodies, not subsisting in relation to any substratum, since it is not according to the last acception, the of form as a divine mover indicates a complete separation: both the individuality of a first substance as the trascendence as a pure form in actuality. It is a supre-sensible substance, which is separated as much as is the first mover. Therefore, Abbate concludes claiming Alexander authorizes us to think that the is the first character, that is, the character which more than any other accepts the distinction between that which is substance, and all that which is not substance, if it is true that the higher substances, the immaterial ones, are distinguished from the material substances in carrying this character to the maximum ful llment.
ABBATE, Giampaolo. Il luogo in Aristotele. Traduzione e commento di Fisica Δ 1-5. Macerata, 2007.
ABBATE, Giampaolo. “La problematica della separazione nella Metafisica di Aristotele”, en: Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filoso a dell’Università di Macerata, XXXII, 1999, pp. 9 - 38.
ARISTOTELE. Le categorie. Introduzione, traduzione e note di M. Zanatta. Milano, 1989.
ARISTOTELE. Metafisica. Saggio introduttivo, testo greco con traduzione a fronte e commentario a cura di G. Reale. Milano, 1993.
ARISTOTELES. Kategorien. Uebersetzt und erlaeutert von K. Oelher. Berlin, 1984.
Aristotelis Opera cum Averrois Commentariis, Venetiis apud Iunctas, 1562-1574, firist. anast. Vol. I. Frankfurt/Main, 1962.
ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS. On Aristotle Metaphysics 5. Translated by W. E. Dooley, S. J. London, 1993, No 189.
AUBENQUE, P. Le problème de l’être chez Aristote. Paris, 1962, pp. 307-309, 407-409.
BASTIT, M. “Aristote et la séparation”, en: Revue philosophique de Louvain, 90, 1992, pp. 297-315.
BERTI, E. “Aristote était-il un penseur 1977. 24, 30-31.
BONITZ, H. Commentarius in Aristotelis Metaphysicam. Bonn, 1849; Hildesheim - New York, 1992.
CHEN, Chung-Hwan. Das Chorismos-Problem bei Aristoteles. Berlin, 1940.
CHERNISS, H. Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato and the Academy. New York, Russell&Russell, 1944, 1962.
DE STRYCKER, É. “La notion aristotélicienne de séparation dans son application aux Idées de Platon”, en: AA.VV., Autour d’Aristote. Recueil d’études de philosophie ancienne et médiévale offert à Mgr. A. Mansion. Louvain, 1955, pp. 119-139.
DÜRING, I. Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens. Heidelberg, Universtätsverlag, 1966; traduzione italiana di Donini, P. “La controversia sulla dottrina delle Idee” (Cap. IV), en: Aristotele. Mursia, Milano, 1976, pp. 283-334.
FINE, G. “Separation: a reply to Morrison”, en: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 3, 1985, pp. 159-165.
FINE, G. “Separation”, en: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 2, 1984, pp. 31-88.
GIANNI, M. “Aristotele e la nozione di separazione”, en: Annali del Dipartimento di Filoso a di Firenze, III, 1987, pp. 29-51, 34-42.
GILL, M. L. Aristotle on substance. Princeton University Press, 1989.
IRWIN, T. Aristotle’s first principles. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1988.
KRAEMER, H. “La noesis noeseos e la sua posizione nella Metafisica di Aristotele”. Traduzione italiana di E. Cattanei, en: Rivista di filosofia neoscolastica, 85, 1993, pp. 171 – 185.
MORAUX, P. Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, vol. III: Alexander von Aphrodisias, hrsg. v. J. Viesner. Berlin - New York, 2001.
MORRISON, D. “Separation: a reply to Fine”, en: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 3, 1985, pp. 167-173.
MORRISON, D. “Separation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics”, en: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 3, 1985, pp. 125-139.
MORRISON, D. “χωριστός in Aristotle”, en: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 89, 1985, pp. 89-105.
ORÍGENES. Commentarium in Ioannem. Commentaire sur San Jean, Text grec, avant-propos, traduction et notes par C. Blanc [SC = 157], 2 voll., Paris 1970.
PHILIPPE, M. D. “Αφαίρεσις, Πρόσθεσις, Χωρίζειν dans la philosophie d’Aristote”, en: Revue Thomiste, 48, 1948, pp. 461-479.
REALE, G. Storia della filosofia antica. Milano, 1975-1980, 1991; vol. II, pp. 429-431.
ROSS, W. D. Aristotle’s Metaphysics. A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford, 1953.
SEXTO EMPÍRICO, Sexti Empirici Opera, edidit H. Mutschmann, Lipsiae 1912-1914, vol. I, Pyrrhoneion hypotypuseon, libros tres continens, editionem stereotypam emendatam curavit, addenda et corrigenda adiecit I. Mau, Lipsiae 1958.
SHARPLES, R. W. “On being a ‘tode ti’ in Aristotle and Alexander”, en: Méthexis 12, 1999, pp. 77-87, p. 84.
SPELLMAN, L. Substance and separation in Aristotle. Cambridge, 1995.
VUILLEMIN, J. “Le système des Catégories d’Aristote et sa signification logique et métaphysique”, en: De la Logique à la Théologie. Cinq Etudes sur Aristote. Paris, 1967, pp. 44-125.”, en: Thêta-pi, 2, 1973, pp. 73 – 111.
How to Cite
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term "Work" shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher a nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoCommercia-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions: (a) Attribution: Other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;(b) Noncommercial: Other users (including Publisher) may not use this Work for commercial purposes;
4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal;
5. Authors are permitted, and Estudios de Filosofía promotes, to post online the preprint manuscript of the Work in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work is expected be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Estudios de Filosofía's assigned URL to the Article and its final published version in Estudios de Filosofía.