priority of actuality over potentiality
As we look at Aristotle views on metaphysics and read his Metaphysics, we can simply conclude that one of his main questions is what being is and what the things that are. Trying to answer this question; to make clear his understanding, he draws a broad perspective about the subject by using some certain and also key terms. In this essay, I will mainly focus on two of these terms which are actuality and potentiality, and their positions in the universe/in the nature.
Because both potentiality and actuality have various aspects; it is, in fact, not so completely true to give certain definitions for these terms; instead, they can be understood extensively with the examples or with certain cases. To illustrate, we can go on with this sentence: bricks has the potentiality to become houses (actuality). By this example, maybe it can be concluded that; potentiality is an aspect, which refers to beings (the bricks), that have the capacity, capability or power to be actuality (houses). Namely with potentiality, beings produce a being (or it may be also an action) which may considered as an ‘end’, and refers to the actuality. But by saying ‘end’, it must NOT be understood as a certain result which will not be a new beginning (or which will not has a potentiality for any other actuality) , or the actuality, the house, must not be seen as the unchangeable result of bricks, rather being actual of a potentiality is only a change in process.
Aristotle has a conception of world as a process.[1] According to him, there is a process in the world and this process includes changes with beings which have potentiality or actuality. The idea of process, in fact, a distinctive notion which determines Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics and make both Aristotle and us ask further questions: what has priority in this process? In Aristotle’s point of view, the answer is: actuality is prior to potentiality.(Metaphysics,272) He explains his theses in three ways, by claiming it in thought, in time and in substance.
To make clear Aristotle’s claim on priority of actuality over potentiality in time we can suppose that, we have a circular material thing, but we have not seen it before, we do not call it even with a name. It is something which is given us in some way (by not questionnaire how it is given). For one last thing, also the knowledge of this thing is given that it is a potential being. Can we know what this thing will be in actuality?
In Aristotelian perspective, because actuality precedes potentiality, we cannot answer this question with an answer like that it will be a man or it will be an apple. Because, we do not see its actuality in advance. There is no thought in our minds about that thing.
Now, we assume that the thing which we mentioned above is an egg. If we ask repeatedly the same question that how we know it will be what, this time we can say it will be a chicken, because we saw a chicken before, namely before see the potential thing (egg), we see the actuality (the chicken). Actuality must be prior, because we have the thought of it in our minds to say for a thing that it is a potential being.
To explain actuality in time we can go on with the same example: chicken-egg. As we mention above, there is a process in the world. Aristotle says in his book Theta 8 that: “In all cases, there is some primary initiator of the process, and this process-initiator already is in actuality.” (Metaphysics,272) By this citation, we understand the initiator of the process must be the egg, but how? The priority of actuality in time is thought by species rather than individual chicken by Aristotle. He suggests that the species of chickens has a priority over a chicken.
One more explanation is given by substantial priority of actuality. He raises two reasons for this. One of them is that substance includes also form and it must be a model for the potential being. (For example a chicken has its form/its substance, so it has the priority.) Secondly, he mentions about coming to an end (actuality). In relation to this, he says purpose of potentiality. It is not in order to possess sight that animals see, but in order to see they possess sight.[2] With this sentence we can see that the determining thing is the actuality in the causation, so it is prior.
By the way, Aristotle establish his theses with three kinds of different based arguments, it can be clearly seen some interrelated points behind them. Firstly, the notion of process is the dominant theme in all of these arguments. Priority of actuality is in time, in substance and in thought is explained around the process. Secondly transition from potential to actual is another determining and common characteristic of Aristotle’s arguments. Thirdly, we can say that there is priority of existence in all three arguments.
To make clear this intersection points, I want to explain them in our example: the initiator thought of a chicken before egg and chicken species’ priority in time, and knowing substantial/formed thing, chicken, first direct us towards the idea of process. We can conclude that actualization realized in process, and also the actuality initiates it. We can also see that there is a transition from potential to actual in every argument, this also give sufficient argument for diversity of these terms. Lastly, the existence is another factor which determines the priority. The actual thing must be in existence all in time, in substance and in thought firstly.
Now, in the following of the paper, I will disscuss about Aristotle’s argument in terms of strengths and possible weaknesses. Initally, it is said that this is strength argument which effect the metaphysical thought even today, we study not only some basic metaphysical questions, but also Aristotle’s arguments which is constructed many years ago.
Similar to all philosophical arguments, it can be objected in some way. For example by philosophers who are close to platonic thought, accepts, the form of ideas, namely some eternal beings or also monists could be reject the ideas of Aristotle.
In my point of view, Aristotle’s metaphysics depends on the experiences of him, especially on his observations, as a result of this, he sees a causation and so he generalize it and also he make a unity between philosopher which are prior to him. According to me, the diversity between potentiality and actuality may not be accepted, and also the idea of substance. Because same thing can be both actual and potential, but they are so in the process, what is the initiator, if it is actuality how it is reveal? I could not answer this question at the end of the argument. And also several arguments about possibility of beings, we may be dreaming now everything around us may only images not materials. Or there are arguments about the knowledge of things and their perception. So we cannot trust our observation or reality of thing around us.
Eventually, according to Aristotle, there are actual and potential beings in the world and they are n process. In this process, actuality has a priority over potentiality, it can be seen by thinking it in relation to time, thought and substance. There are several intersection points between them and there are some objectoins to this argument.
[1] John Watson, (1898)The Metaphysics of Aristotle The Philosophical Review , http:\\links.jstor.org vol.7 no.4 337-354
[2] John Watson, (1898)The Metaphysics of Aristotle The Philosophical Review , http:\\links.jstor.org vol.7 no.4 337-354
As we look at Aristotle views on metaphysics and read his Metaphysics, we can simply conclude that one of his main questions is what being is and what the things that are. Trying to answer this question; to make clear his understanding, he draws a broad perspective about the subject by using some certain and also key terms. In this essay, I will mainly focus on two of these terms which are actuality and potentiality, and their positions in the universe/in the nature.
Because both potentiality and actuality have various aspects; it is, in fact, not so completely true to give certain definitions for these terms; instead, they can be understood extensively with the examples or with certain cases. To illustrate, we can go on with this sentence: bricks has the potentiality to become houses (actuality). By this example, maybe it can be concluded that; potentiality is an aspect, which refers to beings (the bricks), that have the capacity, capability or power to be actuality (houses). Namely with potentiality, beings produce a being (or it may be also an action) which may considered as an ‘end’, and refers to the actuality. But by saying ‘end’, it must NOT be understood as a certain result which will not be a new beginning (or which will not has a potentiality for any other actuality) , or the actuality, the house, must not be seen as the unchangeable result of bricks, rather being actual of a potentiality is only a change in process.
Aristotle has a conception of world as a process.[1] According to him, there is a process in the world and this process includes changes with beings which have potentiality or actuality. The idea of process, in fact, a distinctive notion which determines Aristotelian understanding of metaphysics and make both Aristotle and us ask further questions: what has priority in this process? In Aristotle’s point of view, the answer is: actuality is prior to potentiality.(Metaphysics,272) He explains his theses in three ways, by claiming it in thought, in time and in substance.
To make clear Aristotle’s claim on priority of actuality over potentiality in time we can suppose that, we have a circular material thing, but we have not seen it before, we do not call it even with a name. It is something which is given us in some way (by not questionnaire how it is given). For one last thing, also the knowledge of this thing is given that it is a potential being. Can we know what this thing will be in actuality?
In Aristotelian perspective, because actuality precedes potentiality, we cannot answer this question with an answer like that it will be a man or it will be an apple. Because, we do not see its actuality in advance. There is no thought in our minds about that thing.
Now, we assume that the thing which we mentioned above is an egg. If we ask repeatedly the same question that how we know it will be what, this time we can say it will be a chicken, because we saw a chicken before, namely before see the potential thing (egg), we see the actuality (the chicken). Actuality must be prior, because we have the thought of it in our minds to say for a thing that it is a potential being.
To explain actuality in time we can go on with the same example: chicken-egg. As we mention above, there is a process in the world. Aristotle says in his book Theta 8 that: “In all cases, there is some primary initiator of the process, and this process-initiator already is in actuality.” (Metaphysics,272) By this citation, we understand the initiator of the process must be the egg, but how? The priority of actuality in time is thought by species rather than individual chicken by Aristotle. He suggests that the species of chickens has a priority over a chicken.
One more explanation is given by substantial priority of actuality. He raises two reasons for this. One of them is that substance includes also form and it must be a model for the potential being. (For example a chicken has its form/its substance, so it has the priority.) Secondly, he mentions about coming to an end (actuality). In relation to this, he says purpose of potentiality. It is not in order to possess sight that animals see, but in order to see they possess sight.[2] With this sentence we can see that the determining thing is the actuality in the causation, so it is prior.
By the way, Aristotle establish his theses with three kinds of different based arguments, it can be clearly seen some interrelated points behind them. Firstly, the notion of process is the dominant theme in all of these arguments. Priority of actuality is in time, in substance and in thought is explained around the process. Secondly transition from potential to actual is another determining and common characteristic of Aristotle’s arguments. Thirdly, we can say that there is priority of existence in all three arguments.
To make clear this intersection points, I want to explain them in our example: the initiator thought of a chicken before egg and chicken species’ priority in time, and knowing substantial/formed thing, chicken, first direct us towards the idea of process. We can conclude that actualization realized in process, and also the actuality initiates it. We can also see that there is a transition from potential to actual in every argument, this also give sufficient argument for diversity of these terms. Lastly, the existence is another factor which determines the priority. The actual thing must be in existence all in time, in substance and in thought firstly.
Now, in the following of the paper, I will disscuss about Aristotle’s argument in terms of strengths and possible weaknesses. Initally, it is said that this is strength argument which effect the metaphysical thought even today, we study not only some basic metaphysical questions, but also Aristotle’s arguments which is constructed many years ago.
Similar to all philosophical arguments, it can be objected in some way. For example by philosophers who are close to platonic thought, accepts, the form of ideas, namely some eternal beings or also monists could be reject the ideas of Aristotle.
In my point of view, Aristotle’s metaphysics depends on the experiences of him, especially on his observations, as a result of this, he sees a causation and so he generalize it and also he make a unity between philosopher which are prior to him. According to me, the diversity between potentiality and actuality may not be accepted, and also the idea of substance. Because same thing can be both actual and potential, but they are so in the process, what is the initiator, if it is actuality how it is reveal? I could not answer this question at the end of the argument. And also several arguments about possibility of beings, we may be dreaming now everything around us may only images not materials. Or there are arguments about the knowledge of things and their perception. So we cannot trust our observation or reality of thing around us.
Eventually, according to Aristotle, there are actual and potential beings in the world and they are n process. In this process, actuality has a priority over potentiality, it can be seen by thinking it in relation to time, thought and substance. There are several intersection points between them and there are some objectoins to this argument.
[1] John Watson, (1898)The Metaphysics of Aristotle The Philosophical Review , http:\\links.jstor.org vol.7 no.4 337-354
[2] John Watson, (1898)The Metaphysics of Aristotle The Philosophical Review , http:\\links.jstor.org vol.7 no.4 337-354
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder