Aristotle’s most fundamental distinction between changes and other activities is not that ofMetaphysicsΘ.6, between end-exclusive and end-inclusive activities, but one implicit inPhysics3.1’s definition of change, between the activity of something incomplete and the activity of something complete. Notably, only the latter distinction can account for Aristotle’s view, inPhysics3.3, that ‘agency’—effecting change in something, e.g. teaching—does not qualify strictly as a change. This distinction informsDe Anima2.5 and imparts unity to Aristotle’s extended treatment of change inPhysics3.1-3.

Like many realists about causation and causal powers, Aristotle uses the language of necessity when discussing causation, and he appears to think that by invoking necessity, he is clarifying the manner in which causes bring about or determine their effects. In so doing, he would appear to run afoul of Humean criticisms of the notion of a necessary connection between cause and effect. The claim that causes necessitate their effects may be understood—or attacked—in several ways, however, and so whether the (...) view or its criticism is tenable depends on how we understand the necessitation claim. In fact, Aristotelian efficient causation may be said to involve two distinct necessary connections: one is a relation between causes considered as potential, while the other relates them considered as active. That is, the claims that (1) what has the power to heat necessarily heats what has the power to be heated, and that (2) a particular flame which is actually under a pot necessarily heats it, both of which appear to be true for Aristotle, involve distinct notions of necessity. The latter kind of necessity is based on the facts, as Aristotle sees them, about change, whereas the former is based in the nature of properties. Though different, both kinds of necessity are instances of what contemporary philosophers would call metaphysical necessity, and together they also amount to a theory of causal determination. (shrink)

Aristotle claims that in making an animal, nature acts like a “good housekeeper” who “is accustomed to throw out nothing from which it is possible to make something useful” (744b16–17). How does nature act when it “make[s] something useful” in these cases – and does it differ from other ways it acts? I defend two main claims. The first is that Meteor. 4.2’s distinction between two sorts of ‘concoction’ processes offers an underappreciated source of evidence for answering this question. My (...) second claim concerns the nature of those processes and the ends they realize. While they are both the ends of their respective types of concoction, they differ in that some essential (process-defining) features of the second end – but not the first – are supplied by what the capacities of the “underlying” patient (on which the agent acts) are for. The result is a distinction between two kinds of end-directed efficient causation. (shrink)

Résumé Dans cet article, j’analyse quelques passages des Commentaires sur la Physique de Simplicius, Philopon et Thémistius afin de : 1) démontrer que ces commentateurs interprètent la phrase d’Aristote, Phys. III 1, 200b16-17, comme affirmant que « continu » est un terme définitoire du mouvement ; 2) identifier la raison pour laquelle ils pensent que parler du mouvement naturel revient à dire que le mouvement est continu, et que, par conséquent, quand Aristote évoque le continu dès le début de sa (...) théorie sur le mouvement, il ne fait qu’affirmer quelque chose d’évident ; 3) montrer que si l’analogie selon laquelle « continu » est un terme définitoire du mouvement, tout comme « mouvement » est un terme définitoire de la nature et « infini » un terme définitoire du continu, n’est pas parfaite (en effet « continu » n’apparaît pas explicitement dans la définition du mouvement), ceci est dû à l’impossibilité de subsumer le mouvement sous une catégorie de l’être. Pour appuyer ce dernier point, j’utilise une citation d’Alexandre par Simplicius, et un passage de Philopon. (shrink)