Element contents
Series: Elements in Ancient Philosophy
Aristotle on Ontological Priority in the Categories
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 October 2020
Summary
The main objective of this Element is to reconstruct Aristotle's view on the nature of ontological priority in the Categories. Over the last three decades, investigations into ontological dependence and priority have become a major concern in contemporary metaphysics. Many see Aristotle as the originator of these discussions and, as a consequence, there is considerable interest in his own account of ontological dependence. In light of the renewed interest in Aristotelian metaphysics, it will be worthwhile - both historically and systematically - to return to Aristotle himself and to see how he himself conceived of ontological priority (what he calls 'priority in substance' [proteron kata ousian] or 'priority in nature' [proteron tēi phusei]), which is to be understood as a form of asymmetric ontological dependence.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in Ancient PhilosophyOnline ISBN: 9781108874243Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 19 November 2020
References
Ackrill, J. L. (1957). Plato and the Copula: Sophist 251–259. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 77, 1–6.Google Scholar
Ackrill, J. L. (1963). Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretation: Translated with Notes, Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Aristotle and Lorenzo, Minio-Paluello. (1956). Aristotelis Categoriae et Liber de interpretatione, Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Beere, Jonathan B. (2009). Doing and Being: An Interpretation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Theta, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bjerring, Jens Christian. (2014). On counterpossibles. Philosophical Studies, 168, 327–53.Google Scholar
Bodéüs, Richard and Stevens., Annick (2014). Aristote, Métaphysique Livre Delta, Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Bostock, D. (2006). Aristotle on teleology in nature. In Space, Time, Matter, and Form: Essays on Aristotle’s Physics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 48–78.Google Scholar
Brown, L. (1994). The verb to be in Greek philosophy. In Everson, S., ed., Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 212–36.Google Scholar
Cleary, John J. (1988). Aristotle on the Many Senses of Priority, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Coope, Ursula. (2005). Time for Aristotle: Physics IV, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corkum, Phil. (2016). Ontological dependence and grounding in Aristotle. Oxford HandElements Online. Retrieved 18 July 2017 from www.oxfordhandElements.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935314-e-31.Google Scholar
Duerlinger, James. (1970). <pg 72/>Predication and inherence in Aristotle’s Categories. Phronesis, 15(2), 179–203.Google Scholar
Duncombe, Matthew. (2015). Aristotle’s two accounts of relatives in Categories 7. Phronesis, 60(4): 436–61.Google Scholar
Duncombe, Matthew. (2020). Ancient Relativity: Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, and Sceptics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ebrey, David. (2015). Why are there no conditionals in Aristotle’s logic? Journal of the History of Philosophy, 53(2), 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Kit. (1994b). Senses of essence. In Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Raffman, D., and Asher, N., eds., Modality, Morality and Belief: Essays in Honor of Ruth Barcan Marcus, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 53–73.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. (1995). Ontological dependence. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 95, 269–90.Google Scholar
Fine, Kit. (1981). Categories in Aristotle. In O’Meara, D., ed., Studies in Aristotle, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1–24.Google Scholar
Frede, Michael. (1987). Individuals in Aristotle. In Frede, M., ed., Essays in Ancient Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49–71.Google Scholar
Frey, Christopher. (2015). Capacities and the eternal in Metaphysics Θ.8 and De Caelo, Phronesis, 60(1), 88–126.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, Paula. (1993). Aristotle versus Protagoras on relatives and the objects of perception. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 11, 101–19.Google Scholar
Hood, Pamela Michelle. (2004). Aristotle on the Category of Relation, Lanham: University of America.Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1966). The Greek verb ‘to be’ and the concept of being. Foundations of Language, 2(3), 245–65.Google Scholar
Kirwan, C. (1993). Aristotle ’s Metaphysics: Elements Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kohl, Markus. (2008). Substancehood and subjecthood in Aristotle’s Categories. Phronesis, 53(2), 152–79.Google Scholar
Kohl, Markus. (2012). Varieties of ontological dependence. In Correia, F. and Schnieder, B., eds., Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 186–213.Google Scholar
Koslicki, Kathrin. (2013). Ontological dependence: an opinionated survey. In Schnieder, B. and Steinberg, A., eds., Dependence, Emergence, Supervenience, Munich: Philosophia, 1–34.Google Scholar
Lederman, Harvey. (2014). <pg 73/>ho pote on esti and coupled entities: a form of explanation in Aristotle’s natural philosophy. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 46, 109–64.Google Scholar
Loux, Michael J. (1991). Primary Ousia: An Essay on Aristotle’s Metaphysics Z and H, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. Jonathan. (2009). Ontological dependence. plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/dependence-ontological/Google Scholar
Lowe, E. (2003). What does Aristotle mean by priority in substance? Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 24, 209–38.Google Scholar
Makin, Stephen. (2006). Aristotle: Metaphysics Theta: Translated with an Introduction and Commentary, Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Malcolm, J. (1981). On the generation and corruption of the categories. The Review of Metaphysics, 34(4), 662–81.Google Scholar
Malink, Marko. (2013). Essence and being: a discussion of Michail Peramatzis, Priority in Aristotle s Metaphysics. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 45, 341–60.Google Scholar
Martin, Christopher J. (1999). Non-reductive arguments from impossible hypotheses in Boethius and Philoponus. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 17, 279–302.Google Scholar
Menn, Stephen. (2009). Aporiai 13–14. In Crubellier, M. and Laks, A., eds., Aristotle: Metaphysics Beta, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 211–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minio-Paluello, L. (1956 [1949]). Aristotelis Categoriae et Liber de Interpre-tatione, Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Julius M. E. (1965). Strawson and ontological priority, Analytic Philosophy, 2nd Series, Butler, R. J., ed., Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Julius M. E. (1967). Predication in Aristotle. Philosophical Review, 76(1), 80–96.Google Scholar
Morison, Benjamin. (2011). What was Aristotle’s concept of logical form? In Morison, B., K. Ierodiakonou, and, eds., Episteme, etc.: Essays in Honour of Jonathan Barnes, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 172–88.Google Scholar
Mutschmann, Hermann. (1907). Divisiones quae vulgo dicuntur Aristoteleae, Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Panayides, C. (1999). Aristotle on the priority of actuality in substance. Ancient Philosophy, 19, 327–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peramatzis, Michail. (2011). Priority in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pines, Shlomo. (1961). <pg 74/>A new fragment of Xenocrates and its implications. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, 51(2), 3–34.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard V. O. (1963). On what there is. In From a Logical Point of View, New York: Harper & Row, 1–19.Google Scholar
Rashed, Marwan. (2004). Priorité de l’eidos ou du genos entre Andronicos et Alexandre: Vestiges Arabes et Grecs Inédits. Arabis Sciences and Philosophy, 14, 9–63.Google Scholar
Ross, William David. (1924). Aristotle ’s Metaphysics: Text and Commentary, 2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Schaffer, Jonathan. (2009). On what grounds what. In Manley, D., Chalmers, D. J., and Wasserman, R., eds., Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 347–83.Google Scholar
Sedley, David. (2002). Aristotelian relativities. In Canto-Sperber, M. and Pellegrin, P., eds., Le Style de La Pensée: Receuil de Textes En Hommage À Jacques Brunschwig, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 324–52.Google Scholar
Simons, Peter. (1991). Part/whole II: mereology since 1900. In Burkhardt, H. and Smith, B., eds., Hand Element of Metaphysics and Ontology, Munich: Philosophia, 672–5.Google Scholar
Smith, Robin. (2017). Aristotle’s logic. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 edition), Edward N. Zalta, ed., plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/aristotle-logic/.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. (1959). Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics, London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Striker, Gisela. (2011). A note on the ontology in Aristotle’s Categories, section 2. In Morison, B. and Ierodiakonou, K., eds., Episteme, etc.: Essays in Honour of Jonathan Barnes, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 141–50.Google Scholar
Studtmann, Paul. (2014). Aristotle’s Categories. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 edition), Edward N. Zalta, ed., plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/aristotle-categories/.Google Scholar
Tahko, Tuomas E., and Jonathan Lowe., E. (2020). Ontologial dependence. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 edition), Edward N. Zalta, ed., https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/dependence-ontological.Google Scholar
Vlastos, G. (1981). <pg 75/>An ambiguity in the Sophist AS. In Vlastos, G., ed., Platonic Studies, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 270–322.Google Scholar
Witt, Charlotte. (1994). The priority of actuality. In Scaltsas, T and Charles, D., eds., Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle ’s Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 214–28.Google Scholar
Woods, M. J. (1982). Aristotle ’s Eudemian Ethics, Elements I, II, and VIII, Oxford: Clarendon.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.
- 13
- Cited by