Titlebook: Substance in Aristotle‘s Metaphysics Zeta; Norman O. Dahl Book 2019 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licen

FLAGR

火花

Musculoskeletal

Z.6 and the Pale Man Argument,e is committed to substantial forms as basic constituents. If it is the weaker sameness in formula, individual composites are also candidates for basic constituents. Using a pale man as his example of a ., Aristotle offers two arguments that a pale man is not the same as its essence, both of which h

上腭

Z.6 and the Argument About Platonic Forms, to be generalizable to any plausible candidate for basic constituents. His argument contains two . arguments. The first is generalizable whether sameness in it is identity or sameness in formula. If sameness in the second is identity, it is generalizable only if individual composites are excluded f

ineptitude

无效

,Z.7–9, The Reintroduction of Matter and Form,better than one might first think; it provides a needed reintroduction of matter and form; and it contributes to Z.10–11’s topic of whether form has matter as part of it. It should be taken seriously when trying to understand Z, including passages that might be thought to commit Aristotle to a parti

婚姻生活

Euthyroid

,The Universal as Substance: Z.13 1038b8–1039a3—Problems of Interpretation,troduces the view of an interlocutor who thinks he can rescue universals in spite of 1038b8–16 and offers Aristotle’s response to that view. All of this gives rise to a host of problems, including the following: How is ‘substance’ being used here? What conclusion(s) does 1038b8–16 support? How do th

Hypomania

,The Universal as Substance: 1038b8–1039a3—Solutions to the Problems,rsals at the level of genera are the essences of substantial forms and make them basic constituents and similarly for higher level universals. This implies that higher level universals are essences of lower objects in virtue of being the essences of intermediate objects. 1038b8–15 argues that this v

滴注

,The Universal as Substance: Z.13–16—An , and What Follows,ins an additional series of arguments against 1038b8–1039a3’s Platonic target. Z.14 raises a dilemma that can be seen to commit this target to the bases of Z.13’s ., making that . ta problem for it. Z.15 argues that Platonic Forms are indefinable, the conclusion that generated Z.13’s ., again making