Please wait a minute...

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Front Phil Chin    2012, Vol. 7 Issue (4) : 550-571     https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-001-012-0036-4
research-article |
Aristotle’s Concept of Potentiality in Metaphysics Book Θ
CAO Qingyun()
Department of Philosophy, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China
Download: PDF(418 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

It is controversial whether δ?ναμι? in Metaphysics Book Θ has two distinct senses, one of which is strict, called “power,” and the other is the “more useful sense,” called “potentiality.” This paper argues that there are indeed two senses of δ?ναμι? in Metaphysics Θ, refuting Michael Frede’s “unitarian interpretation.” Distinguished from power, potentiality is neither Aristotelian nature, nor possibility, nor capacity for being, but rather a way of being. This paper examines the ontological meanings and the features of potentiality as a way of being. Basically, potentiality has a dual status, that is, it is being, on the one hand, and not-being on the other. Furthermore, it has a teleological direction toward its correlative actuality, which explains how potentiality ontologically depends on actuality and why actuality is substantially prior to potentiality.

Keywords Aristotle      potentiality      actuality      priority      teleology     
Corresponding Authors: CAO Qingyun,Email:qingyuncao@gmail.com   
Issue Date: 05 December 2012
 Cite this article:   
CAO Qingyun. Aristotle’s Concept of Potentiality in Metaphysics Book Θ[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(4): 550-571.
 URL:  
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-001-012-0036-4
http://journal.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2012/V7/I4/550
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
CAO Qingyun
Related articles from Frontiers Journals
[1] Alicia Hennig. Three Different Approaches to Virtue in Business- Aristotle, Confucius, and Lao Zi[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(4): 556-586.
[2] Teun Tieleman. The Early Stoics and Aristotelian Ethics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 104-121.
[3] XU Keqian. The Priority of “Liberty” or “Ping An ”: Two Different Cultural Value Priorities and Their Impacts[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(4): 579-600.
[4] André Laks. Aristotle’s Immovable Movers: A Sketch[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2015, 10(2): 273-286.
[5] Thomas M. Robinson. Aristotle, the Intellect, and Cognition[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(2): 229-240.
[6] Rajesh C. Shukla. Justice and Civic Friendship: An Aristotelian Critique of Modern Citizenry[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2014, 9(1): 1-20.
[7] LU Qiaoying. Aquinas’s Transformation of the Virtue of Courage[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(3): 471-484.
[8] WANG Kai. Xunzi: A Paradigm of Rationalistic Virtue Ethics in Early Confucianism[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(3): 388-396.
[9] Rina Marie Camus. The Wiseman and the Sage: Metaphysics as Wisdom in Aristotle and the Neo-Confucian School of Principle[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2013, 8(1): 120-139.
[10] LIU Wei. Creating Character: Aristotle on Habituation, the Cognitive Power of Emotion, and the Role of Prudence[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(4): 533-549.
[11] YU Jiyuan. Ethos and Habituation in Aristotle[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2012, 7(4): 519-532.
[12] GAN Shaoping. The Destiny of Modern Virtue Ethics[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2010, 5(3): 432-448.
[13] LIAO Shenbai. Aristotle’s view on “the right of practice”: An investigation into Aristotle’s theory of action[J]. Front Phil Chin, 2009, 4(2): 251-263.
[14] DUAN Dezhi. Aquinas’ transcendences to Aristotle in the doctrine of essence[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(4): 572-582.
[15] ZHANG Yunyi. Philosophy’s predicament and Hegel’s ghost: Refl ections on the view that there is “no philosophy in China”[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2007, 2(2): 230-246.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed