The Aristotlelian individual. Between Particularity and Singularity


  • Luis Fernando Fallas López Universidad de Costa Rica



Aristotle, individual, singular, particular, entity, knowledge


A revision of the use and implications of the expression in a grest part of the aristotelian work is made. The treatises that make up the Organon have an especial interest in this study, but the ontological, cosmological, ethical, political and biological texts are not left inside. The said formula designares the individual in the Discursive Logic of the Stagirite, but the ways in which it is understood are not completely congruent; therefore there is a change from a singularism, that entails a unique and irreplaceable identity, and therefore unknowable for a part of science, to a particularism, this is, a vislon from an universalist perspective that converts Individuals in participants of common conditions, with which the cognitive problems are solved, even though the Potency of Individuation, which could be in its pretended singularity, is left suspended. A fundamental pretense of this paper is to show how in Aristotelianism there is a strong universalist tendency as a formula to solve the apories that arise from individuation, and that therefore it is Formalism, which no doub arouse from Platonism which is to define the modes par excellence of access lo the real tangible.

= 382 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 114 veces|


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Luis Fernando Fallas López, Universidad de Costa Rica

Universidad de Costa Rica


Aristotelis. Analytica priora et posteriora. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1964 (ed. Ross). Versión española en Gredos, Madrid, 1988 (traductor Candel Sanmartín). Versión inglesa en: Great Books of the Western World. Trad. Jenkinson. London, Encyclopaedia Británica, 1952.

____________. De anima. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1961.

____________. Acerca del alma. Trad. T. Calvo. Madrid, Gredos, 2000.

____________. Categorice et liber de interpretatione. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1966.

____________ De cáelo. Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1965.

____________ . De generatione animalium. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1972.

____________ . De generatione et corruptione. Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1966.

____________ . De partibus animalium. Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1966. Versión inglesa por Ogle (Great Books...).

____________ . Ethica eudemia. Amsterdam, Hakkert, 1967.

____________ . Ethica nicomachea. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1962.

____________ . Historia animalium. Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1969.

____________ . Magna moralia. Cambridge, Harvard, 1969.

____________ . Metaphysica. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1970 (1924 y 1953).

____________ . Metafísica. Trad. T. Calvo. Gredos, Madrid, 2000;

____________ . Metafísica. Trad. A. García Y. Madrid, Gredos, 1996

Versión italiana de Reale, con un ensayo introductorio y comentario, en tres tomos, Vita e Pensiero, Milán, 1995.

____________ . Meteorologicorum libri quatuor. Cambridge, Harvard, 1967.

____________ . Parva naturalia. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1970.

____________ . Physica. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1966.

____________ . Física. Trad. G R. de Echandía. Madrid, Gredos, 1995

____________ . Física. Trad. J. L. Calvo. Madrid, CSIC, 1996.

____________ . Política. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1964.

____________ . Rhetorica. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1964.

____________ . Tópica et sophistici elenchi. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1970.

____________ . Tópicos y refutaciones sofisticas. Trad. Candel S., Gredos, Madrid, 1982.

Caspar, Philippe. “Le probleme de l’individu chez Aristote”, Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 84, 1986, pp. 173-186. DOI:

Düring, ¡.Aristóteles. México, UNAM, 1990.

Fallas, L. “Presencia y comprensión del tovde ti en el Organon de Aristóteles”, Hypnos 10(13), 2005, pp. 25-37.

Guthrie, W. K. C. Historia de la filosofía griega. Vol. VI. Madrid, Gredos, 1984- 1993.

G. B. Mattews; S. M. Cohen. “The one and many”, Review o f Metaphysics 21 (4), 1968, pp. 637—655.

Gail Fine. “Relational entities”, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 65, 1983, pp. 225-249. DOI:

Inciarte, Femando. “La identidad del sujeto individual según Aristóteles”, Anuario Filosófico, 26 (2),1993, pp. 289-302. DOI:

Jaeger, W. Aristóteles. México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1995 (1923).

Joja, Athanase. “Katholou et kath’ hekasto chez Aristotle”, Philosophie et Logique, 16, 1972, pp. 43-57.

Jones, Barrington. “Individuals in Aristotle’s Categories”, Phronesis, 17,1972, pp. 107-123. DOI:

Lear, J. Aristóteles. El deseo de comprender. Madrid, Alianza, 1994.

W. Leszl, “Knowledge of the universal and knowledge of the particular in Aristotle”, The Review of Metaphysics XXVI, 2 (102), dec., 1972, pp. 278-313.

Mulhem, J. J. Teorema. 5 (2), Universidad de Valencia, 1975, pp. 277-286. McPherran, M. “Plato’s particulars”, Southern Journal o f Philosophy XXVI, 4, 1988, pp. 527-553 DOI:

Nussbaum, M. La fragilidad del bien. Madrid, Visor, 1995 [1986].

Owen, G E. L. Logic, Science, and Dialectic. Cornell, Ithaca, 1986, pp. 192-3.

Raju, P. T. “The nature o f the individual”. Review of Metaphysics, 17, 1963, pp. 33-48.

White, F. C., “Plato’s middle dialogues and the independence of particulars”. The Philosophical Quarterly, 27 (108), 1977, pp. 193-213. DOI:

Yu, Jiyuan, “'Tode Ti’ and ‘Toionde’ in Metaphysics Z”, Philosophical Inquiry, 16(3-4), 1994, pp. 1-25. DOI:

Zagal, H. Retórica, inducción y ciencia en Aristóteles. México, Universidad Panamericana, 1993.



How to Cite

Fallas López, L. F. (2006). The Aristotlelian individual. Between Particularity and Singularity. Estudios De Filosofía, (34), 147–185.



Original or Research articles