4.

Aristotle
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) was born Stagirus, which was a Thracian coastal city. He was
the son of Nichomacus, the Macedonian court physician, which allowed for a lifelong
connection with the court of Macedonia. When he was 17, Aristotle was sent to Athens to
study at Plato’s Academy, which he did for 20 years. After serving as tutor for the young
Alexander (later Alexander the Great), Aristotle returned to Athens and started his own
school, the Lyceum. Aristotle walked as he lectured, and his followers therefore later
became known as the peripatetics, those who walked around as they learned. When
Alexander died in 323, and the pro-Macedonian government fell in Athens, a strong anti-
Macedonian reaction occurred, and Aristotle was accused of impiety. He fled Athens to
Chalcis, where he died a year later.
Unlike Plato, Aristotle wrote treatises, and he was a prolific writer indeed. He wrote
several treatises on ethics, he wrote on politics, he first codified the rules of logic, he
investigated nature and even the parts of animals, and his Metaphysics is in a significant
way a theology. His thought, and particularly his physics, reigned supreme in the Western
world for centuries after his death.

Aristotle on Change
The Physics

The Physics is a study of nature (ta phusika), as opposed to the Metaphysics (ta meta ta
phusika—lit., “the stuff that comes after the stuff on nature”) which studies beings in
general, not just natural objects.

What is the difference? “Natural things are some or all of them subject to change”
(Physics I.2, 185a12-13). So the study of nature is basically a study of change and the
things that are subject to change.

Puzzles about Change

We know this was a topic that puzzled Aristotle’s predecessors. Plato said that real things
(Forms) don’t change, and restricted change to the realm of appearances—the physical
world. Parmenides went farther still, denying the existence of change altogether.

Change is often described (both by Aristotle and his predecessors) as coming-to-be

(genesis), and Aristotle gives an example of an argument against coming-to-be that sounds
typically Parmenidean (191a30-31):

For what is does not come-to-be (since it already is), and nothing comes-to-be from
nothing.
The argument is basically that there are only two ways that something can come-to-be:
either from what is, or from what is not. But neither is possible. Therefore, nothing can
come-to-be.

Aristotle wants to give an analysis of coming-to-be, i.e., change, that will enable him to
avoid this dilemma. His account is designed to explain both how change in general is
possible, and how coming into existence is possible. We will first look at Aristotle’s account,
and then see how it manages to evade the Parmenidean dilemma.

Aristotle’s Account

Aristotle’s account is contained in Physics I.7. He insists that there must be three basic
ingredients in every case of change. (Plato’s treatment only mentions two: a pair of
opposites). In addition to a pair of opposites, there must be an underlying subject of
change.

The basic case of change involves a pair of opposed or contrary properties and a subject
that loses one of them and gains the other. But Aristotle does not even insist that there be
an opposed pair of properties (191a6-7):

But in another way this is not necessary. For one or the other of the contraries would, by its
presence or absence, be sufficient to bring about a change.

So the ingredients Aristotle insists on are: an underlying subject, a form (i.e., a positive
property) and a lack (or privation) of that form. Aristotle’s examples illustrate these
ingredients:

a. A man who was unmusical becomes musical.

b. Some bronze (which was shapeless) becomes a statue.

In case (a), the subject is man, the form is musical and the privation is unmusical. In case
(b), the subject is bronze, the form is statue and the privation is shapeless. The subject—
the man, or the bronze—persists through the change. Of the other terms involved, the
earlier ones (unmusicality, shapelessness) cease to exist, while the later ones (musicality,
the statue) come into existence.

These were cases of coming-to-be (generation), since lacks or privations were replaced by
forms. Ceasing-to-be (destruction) occurs when a form is replaced by a privation—when
matter is deprived of form. This would happen, for example, when a statue is melted down
into a shapeless pool of bronze. The bronze persists, but the statue has ceased to exist.

Response to Parmenides

Aristotle gives his response to Parmenides in chapter 8. He begins (191a30-31) by

summarizing the Parmenidean argument against coming-to-be that we mentioned above:

What is does not come-to-be (since it already is), and nothing comes-to-be from nothing.

The idea of this argument seems to be this: in a case of coming-to-be, the resulting object
is clearly a being, something that is. From what initial object does it come-to-be?
Parmenides offers us only two choices: either what is or what is not. But if the initial object
is what is, and the resultant object is also what is, we don’t really have a case of coming-to-
be—there is no change. And if the initial object is what is not, we have another kind of
impossibility, for nothing can come-to-be from what is not (ex nihilo nihil fit).

Aristotle’s response is to reject the Parmenidean dilemma “that something comes-to-be

from what is or from what is not” (191a30). He does so, characteristically, by drawing a
distinction where his opponents did not. At 191b4 he says that:

comes-to-be “from what is” … is said in two ways …

Is the initial object a being or a not-being, Parmenides asks? Aristotle’s answer is: in a way
it’s a being, and in a way it’s a not-being. And in a way, it’s not a being, and in a way it’s
not a not-being.

In effect, the trouble with the Parmenidean argument is that it treats the initial and
resultant objects as if they were simples: not being and being. But, as Aristotle has shown,
both are compounds. The initial object, for example, might be an unmusical man. And this
is both in one way a being and in another way a not being: the initial object is something
that is (for it is a man) and something that is not (for it is not musical).

As for Parmenides’ claim that nothing can come-to-be from what is not, Aristotle agrees
that, on one reading, this is perfectly correct (191b13):

we agree with them that nothing comes-to-be simply from what is not …

That is, the musician does not come into existence out of thin air, out of sheer nothingness.
(We should probably take “simply” (or “without qualification”) here to modify “what is not”
rather than “comes-to-be”—“comes-to-be from what is unqualifiedly not” or “comes-to-be
from what is simply a not-being.”) But this leaves room, Aristotle says, for the musician to
come-to-be from what in a way is not (191b15).

… we still think that in a way there is coming-to-be from what is not, for example,
coincidentally. For a thing comes-to-be from a privation, which is intrinsically not [what it
will become], and does not belong [to what eventually comes-to-be].

(Similarly, we should take “in a way” to modify “what is not” rather than “comes-to-be.”) In
other words, since the musician comes to be from the compound unmusical man, what he
comes-to-be from is in one way a not-being, since he comes-to-be from a privation—the
unmusical. But in a way, what he comes-to-be from is a being, as well, for the initial object
is something that exists, a man. Parmenides, in other words, offers us a false dilemma: that
the initial object is either being or not being. But since the initial object is a compound, in a
way it is a being (it is a man) and in another way it is a not-being (it is not musical).

Accidental vs. Substantial Change

Aristotle notes (190b11) an important feature of change: that which comes to be is

always composite. For example, what comes-to-be is the musical man. But what about
Aristotle’s other case? What is the statue a compound of? Aristotle’s
answer: matter and form.
We thus see two different kinds of change in Aristotle’s account:

a. Accidental change (e.g., alteration of a substance): the subject is a substance.

E.g., the man becomes a musician, Socrates becomes pale.
b. Substantial change (generation and destruction of a substance): the subject
is matter, the form is the form of a substance. E.g., the bronze becomes a statue, a
seed becomes a tiger, an acorn becomes an oak tree.

Accidental change can be accommodated within the world of the Categories, a world in
which primary substances (individual horses, trees, etc.) are the basic individuals. But what
of substantial change? This seems to threaten the ontology of the Categories. For
substantial change requires a subject (viz., matter) that seems more basic than the
individual plants and animals of the Categories.

But this creates a problem: if the primary substances of the Categories turn out to be
compounds of form and matter, how can they be the basic ingredients of the world?

Example: a builder is not a basic individual, for Aristotle. A builder is a compound of a

subject and a property: a substance (a human being) and a characteristic (s)he happens to
have—the knowledge of building. How, then, can a tiger retain its status as a basic
individual? After all, it, too, is a compound of a subject and a property: matter and a form
that supervenes, a form that the matter happens to have.

This problem is not addressed in the Physics, but it is one that Aristotle returns to in
the Metaphysics. His answer, as we shall see, is not altogether clear.
ARISTOTLE’S CONCEPT OF CHANGE
by Expert Prof. Bill | 28 Jul 2016

Aristotle was the last of the famous Greek Triumvirate. The first one was Socrates
probably the most enigmatic figure in the history of philosophy. The second was Plato, a
poet who was regarded as Socrates’ brightest students. And the last was Aristotle, the
most famous student of Plato. Aristotle was born at Stagira, in Thrace, in 384 B.C. His
father was a physician which is an indication that science was his main philosophic
background. He was also the famous tutor of Alexander the Great.

Need essay sample on

"Aristotle’s Concept of Change" topic?

We will write a custom essay sample specifically for you

Proceed
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS VERY OFTEN TELL ESSAYLAB SUPPORT:

I'm not in the mood to write my essay now. I don't have the time
PROFESSIONAL WRITERS SUGGEST:
Choose The Qualified Help In Writing Papers

Buy Essay Online Writing ServiceMy Paper WritingCheap Custom Writing ServiceCheap
Essay Writing Service

The Pre-Socratic Philosophers

Every famous philosopher in the history of philosophy wanted to provide a solution the
prevailing problems of his time. Aristotle was no exception. He wanted to correct the
problems involving the metaphysical speculations of the philosophers before him, even
that of his teacher, Plato. Aristotle thought that the previous philosophers, including
Plato, grossly failed to appreciate the nature of reality in saying that there is no change
and neither is their motion. It bears stressing that though he was Plato’s student, they
disagreed about almost anything.

Parmenides and the Eleatic Philosophers were the first Greek Philosophers who
attempted to provide an answer to the problem of change. (Wesley Wildman) They
thought that everything that exists, in reality, had always existed. It is not capable of
changing or moving. For them, only our reason should be trusted and that senses
should not be relied upon because they may be deceiving us. Thus, they thought that
“What is cannot come to be (since it already is), while nothing can come to be from what
is not (because it is not possible)” (191a28-29)
For Parmenides, there are only two ways by which something can change. Either from
what already exists or from what does not exist. But what already exists cannot come
into existence because it already exists. On the other hand, what does not exist cannot
come into existence because from anything comes nothing. It is also not possible for
something that exists to become nothing. The premise of this argument is quite simple.
The basis of change is that things must involve a pair of opposites such that change
may happen only if a subject loses what it presently has and gains what it does not
have.

Plato, on another hand, was particularly interested in the difference between what is
real and what is not real. He thought that change does not exist. He thought that change
is not real. For something to be real it must have the qualities of permanence and
immutability. (Marc Cohen, 2004) He did not deny that this world we live in changes. It
is also imperfect and mutable. Despite this, however, Plato noticed that we still have
knowledge of concepts such as permanence and immutability. He concludes that
perhaps there is another world different from the world that we have now. This world
exists independently of our world which is not only permanent and immutable but is also
the source of our knowledge of permanence and immutability. On the other hand, our
present world is a mere reflection of the real world.

Aristotle’s Philosophy of Change

If the past philosophers before him rejected the changes that are happening around
them, Aristotle, the scientist that he is, embraced the concept of change. He thought
that everything is subject to change. In fact, change is the only thing that is permanent
and immutable in the natural universe. If Plato thought that there are two worlds that
exist, one is real while the other is a mere reflection or shadow of the other, Aristotle
thought that there is only one world and that is our own world, the real world. If Plato
thought that the “form” or “idea” horse is what is real and the “actual horse”, the one that
we see, hear and touch, is the illusion, Aristotle thought otherwise. He argued that the
actual horse is the real horse while the “form” or “idea” horse has no independent
existence apart from the actual horse.

Aristotle offered an example of change that avoids the dilemma presented by

Parmenides that either you exist or you are not. He cites as an example, a man who
was unmusical suddenly becomes musical or a block of stone which was initially
shapeless becomes a horse. According to Aristotle, the concept of change should not
presuppose the existence of opposites e.g. light and dark, nothingness and being, good
and bad. There are only three essential ingredients for change to take place and they
do not involve the existence of a pair of opposites. These are a subject of change, a
form or his positive character and a privation. In the previous example, the subject is the
man; the form is musical and the privation is unmusical. In the second example, the
subject is the block of stone, the form is the horse and the privation is its
shapelessness.
In response to Parmenides’ theory of change, Aristotle declared that the problem with
Parmenides’ theory is that it treats the subject of change as either it exists or it does not
exist. And so for him, it is not possible for something to come out of nothing or from
nothing to become something. He, Aristotle thought, oversimplified things.

Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that it is possible for the subject of change to be
both. This means that the subject of change could be a being but at the same time not
being. It could both be something that is but at the same time it is, in a way, something
that is not. In the first example, a subject is a man who in one sense is a being because
it exists. In another sense, however, it could also be a not-being because it lacks the
quality of being musical. Thus, the subject man has both the qualities of being and in a
way not-being. The same is true for the block of stone which has both the qualities of
being and not being. In a way, it has the qualities of being since it exists e.g. we can
touch it, see it and feel it. In another sense, however, it is in a way not-being since it
lacks shape. Thus for Aristotle change is possible so long as the subject of change has
a particular form and a privation.

Change, for Aristotle, is, therefore, the actuality of that which exists potentially, insofar
as it is potentially this actuality.” To explain this concept, a distinction must be made
between form and substance. Aristotle believed that every creature in this world
constitutes a unity of form and substance. The ‘form’ is the thing’s specific
characteristics, while the substance is that which a thing is made up of. It is the
substance of a thing that contains the potentiality to realize a specific form. For
example, the form of a block of stone is that it is hard, heavy and it has a rough surface.
Its substance is its potentiality to become a statue of a man or an animal.

Thus, in our former example, the unmusical man always had the potentiality to become
musical. When the unmusical man changed and became musical it only realized its
potentiality and so there is change. In the case of a stone, it always had the potentiality
to become a horse. When it realized its potentiality to become a beautiful statute, then
there is change.

Having delved into the concept of change we now go to the reason why things change.
Aristotle was also interested with causality in the natural universe. He thought there
must be a cause on why things in the universe keep on changing and moving. We
wanted to answer these questions: a) what causes things to come into existence? b)
what causes things to pass into existence. Aristotle outlined the four causes of things in
the universe – the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause and the final
cause. (Richard Hooker, 1999) Thus, if Aristotle will be asked about what causes plants
to grow, the answer he will provide us is that plants grow because the seed that was
planted in the ground. This, however, provides a limited answer as it only answers the
formal cause. The material cause is that the plant has certain qualities that make it grow
when planted in a good soil. The efficient cause is that plants grow because the farmers
purposely planted the seed for it to grow. The most important cause is the final cause
which answers the goal and purpose on why plants need to grow. Although the
teleological purpose or the final cause of a thing is the most unscientific of the causes, it
is considered as the most important cause of a thing.

Thus, Aristotle thought that the changes that are happening in the universe, the
constant motion and movement, all happen for a particular purpose. The remarkable
thing about Aristotle’s Philosophy of Change is that the despite being a scientist he did
not limit himself to a scientific explanation of the natural processes that happen in this
world. He gave a sense of purpose and reason to every living being that exists in this
world. It is as if everything has been planned such that nothing happens in this world for
no reason.

Incidentally, Aristotle found a way to prove that God exists because of the teleological
purpose. According to him, there is only one thing that can give us reason and purpose
for our existence. If there should be a cause for all these changes and motions in the
universe who himself is not caused and moved that could only be God.

In sum, Aristotle has provided an answer to the problem of change that confused his
contemporaries. Change is real. Change is that only that is permanent in this world.
There is change because every being in this world has the potential to become
something new. We all have the capacity to change. Change is also inevitable because
they happen for a particular reason and purpose.
NOTION OF CHANGE AND
PERMANENCE IN ARISTOTLE
Published by

Chrisantus Oden

311

NOTION OF CHANGE AND PERMANENCE IN

ARISTOTLE
CHAPTER ONE

1.0 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The sense of wonder is the mark of the philosophers. Thus, according

to Aristotle, “all men by nature desire to know”1. On the same note,
philosophically and otherwise, man has to give meaning to the
mysteries befogging his finite nature. Therefore it is not out of place
that we are dragged into the concepts and facts of change and
permanence.

To the philosophers then, this omnipresent fact of change and

permanence offered a paradoxical challenge stretching from the
ancient Greek philosophy, through the medieval and modern, down
the contemporary period. Succinctly put, the problem of change and
permanence is as old as philosophy itself hence according to Popkin,
R.H:

Greek thinkers were impressed with the two basic features of the
world, the occurrence of natural change and the continuance of certain
apparently permanent conditions.2
The earliest Greek thinkers attempted to work out explanations of
reality by asserting that underlying all the apparent changes; there is
real, unchangeable element. The motive behind this inquiry as
highlighted by Mullin E. was that,

…If the many could be seen in some way as instances of one, it would
then be sufficient to grasp the one.3

Thus reality is one thing, which however, appears in different guises at

different times.

Against this background, some thinkers proceeded by way of action

and reaction and delved into formulating theories in view of the
enigma of change and permanence. The problem they grappled with
was prompted by fact of material change, and the principle they
posited were arrived at through observation and thought. “For Thales,
reality was water, for Anaximander, it was the ‘boundless’ or the
infinite; and for Anaximenes, it was air.”4 In the history of Greek
thought these earliest thinkers were called the pre-
Socratics. Referring to them, Copleston observed that,

…We can already discern in them the notion of unity in difference and
of difference as entering into unity.5

Hence, Heraclitus consolidated change at the expense of permanence

while Parmenides argued that, “absolute change is impossible and
unthinkable and by nature things are permanent.”6 So for Heraclitus,
all things flow; nothing abides, thus, “one cannot step twice in the
same river”.7 Whereas Parmenides states that change, becoming or
motion is impossible, because they would involve both non-being and
being which being contradictories, cannot both be. Thus, according to
Parmenides, “Being is; nonbeing is not.”8 The position of these two
champions gave rise to the great controversy on change and
permanence, which arose as to how things can change and yet remain
the same. It was in an attempt to solve this ‘excruciating’ problem in
philosophy that Aristotle came up with his principles of act and
potency, Hylomorphism and categories (substance and Accidents).
However, in change what takes place is neither annihilation nor
creation but transition of being from one state to another. Wherever
there is change, it presupposes the reality of that which
changes. Therefore, there is permanence and there is change.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The philosophical debate as to whether change or permanence will

take the upper hand over the other is a problem that cannot be
overlooked in philosophical discipline at all times. Hence, the problem
at stake here is how true is it that what we call change really takes
place? And why things will remain the same despite the occurrence of
change? This central question provoked many others, thus how can
one and the same entity turn into that which it previously was not? If
everything changes all the time, could there actually be any
permanence, real, unchanging feature of the universe? And if reality
were actually unchanging and unchangeable, how could it have any
thing to do with the apparent world of change and how could it explain
the world of change.

Commenting on this, Egbeke Aja states that,

As early philosophers explored these problems, it seemed to them that

change and permanence were incompatible, and that reality had to be
one or the other, either ever changing or completely permanent.9

This originated because of the conflict between our sense perception

and that made by the intellect. The intellect sees reality as one while
the senses grasp reality as many and always in flux. But how can we
reconcile this apparent contradiction between our sense perception of
reality and that given by our intellect?

In all, two basic problems could be deduced from this topic, namely

1. Must we take seriously both multiplicity and the oneness of being

or can we affirm one aspect and dissolve the other as mere
appearance, illusion, or projection of the mind?
2. If we take both aspects seriously, how are they co-possible? What
kind of unity is involved? How can the unity and diversity be
harmonized?

Confronted with this philosophical problem of change, Aristotle posited

his doctrine of act and potency, Hylomorphism and categories as a
solution. Thus, these doctrines arose as an attempt by Aristotle to
provide a lasting solution to the problem of change and permanence,
which had challenged philosophy for a century and a half. But did he
actually succeed? This is actually the problem that motivated this
research.

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

It is the answer to these arrays of thought provoking questions that

this paper is geared to find. It is the search for the most fundamental
truth about this world. Truth about reality never completely manifests
itself at an instance but through a process of gradual unfolding. This
paper inquires into the origin of the problem of change and
permanence, and then will investigate the views offered by two great
philosophers of timeless repute, Heraclitus and Parmenides. Further, it
studies in a more detailed manner the solutions offered by one of the
greatest genius, Aristotle. Lastly, the tremendous impact of his
thought on practical life will be viewed.

1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Cognizance of Aristotle’s vast contribution and discussion in

philosophy, the scope of this study is based on his mediation on the
problem of change and permanence. His key concept to this
realization is the unification of the Parmenidean and Heraclitean
positions. His notion of Act and potency, Hylomorphism and
categories should be highlighted though in relation to Parmenides and
Heraclitus’ perspectives. To make the study scholarly and easy to
comprehend, the nature of change and permanence are to be
discussed.

1.5 METHODOLOGY
The work is expository and analytic. Heraclitus’ and Parmenides’
concept of change and permanence shall be exposed with their views
and reasons. Then, in the light of these expositions, the notion of
change and permanence in Aristotle’s perspective shall be
analyzed. In approaching this topic for a better apprehension, it is
divided into four chapters. Chapter one explicates the background,
aim, scope, problem and method of the study. In chapter two, the
concepts of change and permanence, which will focus simply on the
etymological derivation of the two terms and on their elucidation and
explication, will be discussed. The historical perspective of Parmenides
and Heraclitus who were extremists in their treatment of the subjects
of change and permanence will be viewed in the same
chapter. Chapter three deals with Aristotle’s mediation between the
two positions with his doctrine of Act and Potency, matter and form
(Hylomorphism), and substantial and accidental change
(Categories). In chapter four, the whole exposition will be evaluated
which will also touch on the influence the resourcefulness of Aristotle’s
philosophical mind had on the practical life. This will be followed by a
general conclusion

REFERENCES
1 Aristotle, “Metaphysics”, in J., Barnes, (tr.), The complete works of
Aristotle, vol.2, (U.S.A: Princeton press, 1985), p. 1552.

2 R.H., Popkin, Philosophy made simple, (London: Heinemann, 1993),

100.

3 E., Mullin, “Matter”, in New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol.9, (New York:

McGraw-hill Books, 1967), p. 475.

4 “Change”, in P. Edward (ed), Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol.2,

(London: Macmillan Publishers, 1975), p. 75.

5 F.A., Copleston, History of Philosophy, vol. 1, (London: Image

Books, 2003), p. 21.

6 Parmenides in J.B., Archie, Metaphysics: An introduction, (New

Mexico: Barnes and Noble Books(ed), 1986), p. 245.
7 Cf., www.molloy.edu,‘Notes on Early Greek Philosophy’.

8 Parmenides, as cited by R, H., Popkin, op.cit.p.101.

9 Agbeke, Ajah, Metaphysics: An Introduction, (Enugu: Donze press,

2001), p. 16.