Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-ntvhh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T21:08:29.395Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Metaphysics

Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2025

Phil Corkum
Phil Corkum
Affiliation:
University of Alberta

Summary

Contemporary metaphysicians who might be classified as 'neo-Aristotelian' tend towards positions reminiscent of Aristotle's metaphysics – such as category theory, trope theory, substance ontology, endurantism, hylomorphism, essentialism, and agent causation. However, prima facie it seems that one might hold any one of these positions while rejecting the others. What perhaps unifies a neo-Aristotelian approach in metaphysics, then, is not a shared collection of positions so much as a willingness to engage with Aristotle and to view this historical figure as providing a fruitful way of initially framing certain philosophical issues. This Element will begin with a methodological reflection on the contribution historical scholarship on Aristotle might make to contemporary metaphysics. It will then discuss as case studies category theory, properties, substance theory, and hylomorphism. The aim of the Element is to make the relevant exegetical questions accessible to contemporary metaphysicians, and the corresponding contemporary topics accessible to historians.
Get access

Keywords

Aristotleneo-Aristotelian metaphysicshylomorphismsubstance theorycategory theory

Information

Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Metaphysics
Online ISBN: 9781009234948
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 22 May 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackrill, J. L. 1963. Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione. Translated with Notes and Glossary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Allaire, E. 1963. Bare Particulars. Philosophical Studies 14:1–8. DOI: 10.1007/bf00396663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balme, D. 1984. The snub. Ancient Philosophy 4:1–8. https://doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil19844119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, J., ed. 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brower, J. 2015. Medieval theories of relations. In E. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2015 edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/relations-medieval/.Google Scholar
Cameron, R. 2007. The contingency of composition. Philosophical Studies 136 (1):99–121. https://doi.org/0.1007/s11098-007-9144-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casullo, A 1988. A fourth version of the bundle theory. Philosophical Studies 54:125–139. DOI: 10.1007/bf00354181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, R. 1996. A Realistic Theory of Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Code, A. 1978. No universal is a substance: An interpretation of metaphysics Z 13, 1038b 8–15. In Simmons, G., ed., Paideia: Special Aristotle Issue. Brockport: Brockport State University College, pp. 65–74.Google Scholar
Code, A. 1983. Aristotle: Essence and accident. In Grandy, R. and Warner, R., eds., Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 411–439.Google Scholar
Corkum, P. 2008. Aristotle on ontological dependence. Phronesis 53:65–92. https://doi.org/0.1163/156852808x252594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corkum, P. 2009. Aristotle on nonsubstantial individuals. Ancient Philosophy 29:289–310. https://doi.org/0.5840/ancientphil200929227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corkum, P. 2012. Aristotle on mathematical truth. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20:1057–1076. https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2012.731230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corkum, P. 2013a. Substance and independence in Aristotle. In Schnieder, B., Steinberg, A. and Hoeltje, M., eds., Varieties of Dependence, Basic Philosophical Concepts Series. Munich: Philosophia Verlag, pp. 65–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corkum, P. 2013b. Critical notice of Michail Peramatzis. Priority in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Oxford University Press, 2011. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 43:136–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2013.803831.Google Scholar
Corkum, P. 2014. Review of Daniel D. Novotný and Lukáš Novák (eds.). Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives in Metaphysics. Routledge, 2014. Notre Dame Philosophical Review, http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/49601-neo-aristotelian-perspectives-in-metaphysics/.Google Scholar
Corkum, P. 2016. Review of Anna Marmodoro and Yates, David (eds.). The Metaphysics of Relations. Oxford, 2016. Notre Dame Philosophical Review, http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/68119-the-metaphysics-of-relations/.Google Scholar
Corkum, P. 2019. This. Dialogoi: Ancient Philosophy Today 1:38–63. https://doi.org/10.3366/anph.2019.0004.Google Scholar
Corkum, P. 2020. Ancient. In Raven, M., ed., Routledge Handbook of Metaphysical Grounding. New York: Routledge, pp. 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corkum, P. 2023. Aristotle on artifactual substances. Metaphysics 6:24–36. DOI: 10.5334/met.123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corkum, P. 2024. Philosophy’s past: Cognitive values and the history of philosophy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 108:585–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Della Rocca, M. 2013. The taming of philosophy. In Laerke, M., Smith, J., and Schliesser, E., eds., Philosophy and Its History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 178–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, M. 2016. Positionalism revisited. In Marmodoro, A. and Yates, D., eds., The Metaphysics of Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 80–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, H. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evnine, S. 2016. Making Objects and Events: A Hylomorphic Theory of Artifacts, Actions, and Organisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, M. 1994. The definition of generated composites in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. In Scaltsas, T., Charles, D., and Gill, M. L., eds., Unity, Identity and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, G. 1984. Separation. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 2:31–88.Google Scholar
Fine, K. 1994. Essence and modality. Philosophical Perspectives 8 (Logic and Language):1–16. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. 1999. Things and their parts. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 23 (1):61–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4975.00004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. 2000. A counterexample to Locke’s thesis. The Monist 83:357–361. https://doi.org/10.2307/27903691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frede, M. 1987. Individuals in Aristotle. In Frede, M., ed., Essays in Ancient Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 49–71.Google Scholar
Frede, M. and Patzig, G.. 1988. Aristoteles Metaphysik Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Dummett, M. 1973. Frege: Philosophy of Language. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Friend, T. and Kimpton-Nye, S.. 2023. Dispositions and Powers. Cambridge Elements in Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerson, L. 1984. Artifacts, substances and essences. Apeiron 18:50–57. https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron.1984.18.1.50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, M. L. 1989. Aristotle on Substance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gill, M. L. 1991. Aristotle on self-motion. In Gill, M. L. and Lennox, J., eds., Self-Motion: From Aristotle to Newton, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 135–154.Google Scholar
Glock, H. 2008. Analytic philosophy and its history: A mismatch? Mind 117:867–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. 1966. The Structure of Appearance. 2nd edn. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Co.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1988. Aristotle on the multiplicity of being. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 69:175–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.1988.tb00308.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, R. 1983. The Categorial Structure of the World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Halper, E. 1989. One and Many in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Haslanger, S. 1989. Endurance and temporary intrinsics. Analysis 49:119–125. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/49.3.119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, J. 2016. Causal relations. In Marmodoro, A. and Yates, D., eds., The Metaphysics of Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heil, J. 2021. Relations. Cambridge Elements in Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, M. 1990. The Ontology of Physical Objects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J. and Rosenkrantz, G.. 1994. Substance among Other Categories, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovda, P. 2009. Review of Koslicki 2008. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-structure-of-objects/.Google Scholar
Irwin, T. 1981. Homonymy in Aristotle. Review of Metaphysics 34:523–544.Google Scholar
Irwin, T. 1988. Aristotle’s First Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jaworski, W. 2014. Hylomorphism and the metaphysics of structure. Res Philosophica 91:179–201. https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.2014.91.2.2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, I. 1989. Ontological Investigations, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. 2006. Hylomorphism. Journal of Philosophy 103 (12):652–698. 0.5840/jphil2006103125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katayama, E. 1999. Aristotle on Artifacts. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. 1985. Two approaches to explanation. Journal of Philosophy 82:632–639. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koons, J. 2014. Staunch vs. faint-hearted hylomorphism: Toward an Aristotelian account of composition. Res Philosophica 91:151–177. https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.2014.91.2.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koslicki, K. 2008. The Structure of Objects. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koslicki, K. 2015. In defense of substance. Grazer Philosophische Studien 91 (1):59–80. https://doi.org/0.1163/9789004302273_004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosman, A. 1987. Animals and other beings in Aristotle. In Gotthelf, A. and Lennox, J., eds., Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 360–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 50th Anniversary Edition. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, A. 1965. Ousia and form in Aristotle. Phronesis 10:54–69. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852865x00059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. 1984. Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lesher, J. 1971. Aristotle on form, substance and universals: A dilemma. Phronesis 16: 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebesman, D. 2011. Simple Generics. Noûs 45 (3):409–442. https://doi.org/0.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00774.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1984. Putnam’s Paradox. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62:221–236. DOI: 10.1080/00048408412340013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1997. Finkish dispositions. Philosophical Quarterly 47 (187):143–158. 10.1111/1467–9213.00052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. 1996. Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In Nelson, L. and Nelson, J., eds., Feminism, Science and the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2006. The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science, Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2011. A neo-Aristotelian substance ontology: Neither relational nor constituent. In Tahko, T., ed., Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, E. J. 2016. There are (probably) no relations. In Marmodoro, A. and Yates, D., eds., The Metaphysics of Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makin, S. 2006. Aristotle: Metaphysics Theta. Translated with Notes and Glossary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Marmodoro, A. 2013. Aristotle’s hylomorphism, without reconditioning. Philosophical Inquiry 36:5–22. https://doi.org/10.5840/philinquiry2013371/28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmodoro, A. 2014. Aristotle on Perceiving Objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmodoro, A. 2023. Properties in Ancient Metaphysics. Cambridge Elements in Ancient Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurin, A.-S. 2022. Properties. Cambridge Elements in Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, K. 2014. Metaphysics, history, phenomenology. Res Philosophica 91:339–365. https://doi.org/10.11612/resphil.2014.91.3.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meadows, K. 2023. Causal Priority in Metaphysics ϴ.8. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 105:197–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merricks, T. 1994. Endurance and indiscernibility. Journal of Philosophy 91 (4):165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mignucci, M. 1986. Aristotle’s definitions of relatives in Cat. 7. Phronesis 31:101–127. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852886x00074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K. 2022. Persistence. Cambridge Elements in Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O’Conaill, D. 2022. Substance. Cambridge Elements in Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, G. E. L. 1960. Logic and Metaphysics in Some Earlier Works of Aristotle. In During, I. and Owen, G. E. L., eds., Aristotle and Plato in the Mid-Fourth Century. Goteborg: Elanders. Reprinted in Barnes, J., Schofield, M., Sorabji, R., eds., Articles on Aristotle, vol. 3: Metaphysics. London: Duckworth, 1979, pp. 163–190.Google Scholar
Owen, G. E. L. 1965. Inherence. Phronesis 10:97–105. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852865x00095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papandreou, M. 2023. Aristotle’s Ontology of Artefacts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peramatzis, M. 2008. Aristotle’s notion of priority in nature and substance. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35:187–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peramatzis, M. 2011. Priority in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perovic, K. 2024. Ontological Categories. Cambridge Elements in Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, C. 2021. What is Matter in Aristotle’s Hylomorphism? Ancient Philosophy Today 3: 148–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, H. H. 1953. Thinking and Experience. Hutchinson’s University Library.Google Scholar
Quine, W. and Ullian, J.. 1978. The Web of Belief. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Rea, M. 2011. Hylomorphism reconditioned. Philosophical Perspectives 25:341–358. DOI: 10.1111/j.1520-8583.2011.00219.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, H. 2021. Substance. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (fall 2021 edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/substance/.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Pereyra, G. 2002. Resemblance Nominalism: A Solution to the Problem of Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenkrantz, G. 2012. Ontological categories. In Tahko, T., ed., Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 83–93.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1912. The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scaltsas, Theodore. 1994. Substances and Universals in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. 1957. Substance and form in Aristotle. Journal of Philosophy 54:688–699. https://doi.org/10.2307/2021933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, C. 1999. Order in Multiplicity: Homonymy in the Philosophy of Aristotle. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Shields, C. 2008. Substance and life in Aristotle. Apeiron 41:129–152. https://doi.org/10.1515/APEIRON.2008.41.3.129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, T. 1996. All the World’s a Stage. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (3):433–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048409612347421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sider, T. 2001. Four-Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, P. 1998. Farewell to substance: A differentiated leave-taking. Ratio 11 (3):235–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9329.00069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, P. 2016. External relations, causal coincidence, and contingency. In Marmodoro, A. and Yates, D. eds., The Metaphysics of Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, W. 2023. Hylomorphism. Cambridge Elements in Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spellman, L. 1995. Substance and Separation in Aristotle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Studtmann, P. 2014. Aristotle’s Categories. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (summer 2014 edition), E. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/aristotle-categories/.Google Scholar
Thomasson, A. 2022. Categories. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2022 edition), Zalta, E. & Nodelman, U. (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/categories/.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. 1983. Parthood and identity across time. Journal of Philosophy 80:201–220. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Cleve, J. 1985. Three versions of the bundle theory. Philosophical Studies 47:95–107. DOI: 10.1007/bf00355089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 1981. The doctrine of arbitrary undetached parts. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62:123–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0114.1981.tb00051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 1990. Material Beings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Wasserman, R. 2006. Review of Lowe, 2006. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-four-category-ontology-a-metaphysical-foundation-for-natural-science/.Google Scholar
Whiting, J. 1992. Living bodies. In Rorty, A. and Nussbaum, M., eds., Essays on Aristotle’s De Anima, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 75–91.Google Scholar
Williams, D. C. 1953. On the elements of being I. Review of Metaphysics 7 (1):3–18.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. 1992. History of philosophy in philosophy today; and the case of the sensible qualities. Philosophical Review 101:191–243. https://doi.org/10.2307/2185046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, M. 1967. Problems in Metaphysics vii 13. In Moravcsik, J., ed., Aristotle. Garden City: Anchor Books.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics
  • Phil Corkum, University of Alberta
  • Online ISBN: 9781009234948
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics
  • Phil Corkum, University of Alberta
  • Online ISBN: 9781009234948
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Neo-Aristotelian Metaphysics
  • Phil Corkum, University of Alberta
  • Online ISBN: 9781009234948
Available formats
×