also applies to the composite of an immortal soul and a mortal body, since both of these substances comprising the human being are derived from a single Principle.
Aristotle
Building on the metaphysical concepts which he had learnt from Plato, while adding his own powerful analytical skills, Aristotle emphasizes that each existing substance consists of both form (eidos) and matter (hylē). While matter is the principle of concreteness and individuality, form expresses generality and determines the essence of a thing.142 This argument is illustrated by means of a bronze statue: the matter is the bronze, the form is the shape or pattern, and the concrete whole (i.e., substance) is the statue. However, the form is prior both to the matter and the compound (Met VII.1029a). This affirmation by Aristotle that the form of sensible composites has more being than the matter or the composite itself is harmonious with Plato’s notion that eternal substances have ‘more being’ (mallon onta) than sensible substances (Met VII.1028b).143 Aristotle thus continues the Platonic dictum that the formal precedes the material in the constitution of cosmic reality.
In the Aristotelian conception, real matter is formed matter possessing limited possibilities. Nonetheless, there is a positive side to material limitations, namely that a specific matter has a natural inclination to assume certain forms. For example, stone and wood naturally incline to become a house. This implies that there is a natural purposefulness inherent in matter, such as the body of a child to become an adult human. Furthermore, for Aristotle matter is a purely relative term, being relative to form. Accordingly, in nature the elements are matter relative to their simple compounds, namely tissues; the latter is matter relative to the organs; and the latter is matter relative to the living body.144 Ontologically speaking, as we have noted in an earlier chapter, matter represents the realm of relative being.
Furthermore, matter is associated with potency (or potentiality) and form with actuality, as Aristotle states: “Further, matter exists in a potential state, just because it may come to its form; and when it exists actually, then it is its form” (Met IX.1050a). Therefore, to actualize a possibility is the same as to give form to matter. A particular matter only contains certain possibilities, and therefore matter depends on form for its realization. The Aristotelian notion of the interaction between potency and actuality has been stated as follows: when a being has exceeded its state of potentiality and attained to its highest goal, namely pure actuality, it can be viewed as a fully realized being.145
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
