Studies on Being in Aristotle's Metaphysics Beta

232 Pages·2016·1.31 MB·English

Title Studies on Being in Aristotle's Metaphysics Beta
Author(s) Karuzis, Joseph
Citation 北海道大学. 博士(文学) 甲第11057号
Issue Date 2013-09-25
DOI 10.14943/doctoral.k11057
Doc URL http://hdl.handle.net/2115/53782
Type theses (doctoral)
File Information Joseph_Karuzis.pdf

Instructions for use
Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers : HUSCAP
Studies on Being in Aristotleʼs Metaphysics Beta

Joseph Karuzis
Hokkaido University
Graduate School of Letters
ʻIf I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.ʼ
-Sir Isaac Newton
Studies on Being in Aristotleʼs Metaphysics Beta
Joseph Karuzis
Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
at Hokkaido University, Graduate School of Letters.

Abstract

In Book Beta of the Metaphysics, Aristotle presents fifteen aporias, or
puzzles, whose subject matter is centered on fundamental and foundational
issues in first philosophy. This study analyzes the subject matter and it
presents Aristotelian solutions to the first five aporias to appear in Book
Beta. The first four aporias deal with puzzles concerning the possibility of
there being a science called prôtê philosophia, or, first philosophy, and the
fifth aporia deals with a fundamental puzzle within metaphysics. Considered
as a group, the first five aporias serve as an introduction to the science of
being qua being, and in conjunction with their solutions function in a
preliminary sense and a preparatory sense for the remaining aporias that are
presented in Metaphysics, Book Beta. The solutions to the aporias also
function as evidentiary support for the claim that the Metaphysics is a
philosophical unity. This is because it is Aristotleʼs task within the
Metaphysics to address the puzzles presented in Book Beta and to offer
reasonable solutions. All of the solutions to the five aporias analyzed are
found directly within the Metaphysics, with the partial exception to the
second solution to the fifth aporia, where it is necessary to refer to passages
in the Physics and De Anima for perspective and an introduction to
hylomorphism as it relates to both matter and the soul.
This study is philosophical and historical, and claims that the solutions
to the first five aporias are based on considering the puzzles from an
ontological context. The first aporia raises the issue of whether it is the duty
of one science or more than one science to investigate all the kinds of
causes. Through an analysis of Metaphysics, Book Gamma and Book
Epsilon Aristotle states that it is indeed the duty of one science, the most
universal and general science, prôtê philosophia, to investigate all the kinds
of causes. The second aporia raises the issue of whether it belongs to one
science or more than one science to study the principles of demonstration.
Through a complete analysis of Metaphysics Book Gamma it is ascertained
that it is indeed the duty of one science, prôtê philosophia, to study both the
ultimate principles of being and the principles of demonstration. The third
aporia raises the issue of whether it belongs to just one single science or
more than one science to investigate all substances and their attributes.
Aristotleʼs solution to this puzzle is found in Metaphysics, Book Gamma,
chapters two and three and is based on his classification of prôtê
philosophia and the division of the study of philosophy into its respective
branches. The branches investigate being as it is related to that specific

  iii
subject matter, yet all the branches are divisions within the unified study of
philosophy. The fourth aporia raises the issue of whether the proper subject
of prôtê philosophia is substance only, or also the essential attributes of
substance. Aristotleʼs solution is found in Metaphysics, Book Gamma,
chapter two, and is based on his notion that prôtê philosophia is the most
general investigation into substance, and as so, indeed also studies its
essential attributes. The fifth aporia raises a fundamental and foundational
issue within the study of prôtê philosophia by examining the puzzle of
whether only sense-perceptible things exist, or in addition to these, also non-
sense-perceptible things exist. This study claims that there exists a tripartite
set of solutions that resolve this puzzle. First, Aristotle criticizes and rejects
the Platonic theory of Forms in Metaphysics Book Alpha chapters six and
nine. Secondly, Aristotle raises the theory of hylomorphism that explains
generation in the sense-perceptible world without the need for separate, and
causally empty Forms. Aristotleʼs presentation of the theory of
hylomorphism is analyzed from passages in Physics, Book II, chapters two
and three, De Anima, Book II, chapter one, and Metaphysics, Book Zeta,
chapters one, seven, eight, and nine. The third solution to this puzzle is the
positing of the Unmoved Mover in Metaphysics Book Lambda chapters one,
six, seven, nine, and ten. The positing of the Unmoved Mover and nous
affirms that indeed non-sense-perceptible substances exist.
There has been a renewed interest in the study of the aporias in
Metaphysics, Book Beta, in recent years, and perhaps this study will serve
as a lucid introduction to the ontologically significant issues that are raised
within the first five puzzles.

Hokkaido, November 2012

  iv
Acknowledgements

There are many people that I must show appreciation to for their
assistance in the completion of this doctoral thesis. First and foremost I
would like to thank my advisor and teacher, Professor Kei Chiba, of the
Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University, for his instruction and
criticism. For without his assistance this dissertation would not have been
possible. In addition to ten years of study on Aristotle and ancient Greek
philosophy, Professor Chiba also instructed me in ancient Greek, for which I
am also very grateful. I must thank Professor Koji Nakatogawa, of the
Graduate School of Letters, Hokkaido University, for his friendship, support,
and many philosophical discussions. From Sapporo University I must thank
especially Professor Tetsu Horikawa for all of the philosophical discussions.
I must thank from Sapporo University the late Professor Thomas Guerin,
Professor Yuriya Kumagai, and Professor Takafumi Kudo. At Hokkai
Gakuen University, I would like to especially thank Professor Haruko Ishii
and Professor Yukie Ueno. It has been a pleasure to be colleagues
together. From Hokkaido University Hospital I must thank Dr. Mototsugu
Kato. I would like to thank Professor Yoshio Arai from Fuji Womenʼs
University. I would like to thank Dane A. Hampton, from Hokusei Gakuen
University, for his assistance with the reading and pronunciation of ancient
Greek. I am very thankful to Mike OʼConnell for his proofreading and many
helpful suggestions. I must thank my professors of philosophy from Boston,
starting with the late Professor John Cleary of the Department of Philosophy,
Boston College. I must also thank Professor Arthur Madigan, SJ, Professor
Richard Cobb-Stevens, and Professor James Bernauer, SJ, all of the
Department of Philosophy at Boston College. I wish to thank with great
appreciation my professors from Boston University, most especially
Professor Carl Ruck from the Department of Classics, for his instruction in
Latin. From the Department of Philosophy I am especially grateful to
Professor Sahotra Sarkar, the late Professor Bernard Elevich, Professor
Klaus Brinkmann, Professor Jaakko Hintikka, the late Professor Leroy
Rouner, Professor Charles Griswold, Professor Stanley Rosen, Professor
Victor Kestenbaum, and Professor Lawrence Cahoone. I am especially
grateful to Professor Krzysztof Michalski of the Department of Philosophy at
Boston University and the Director at the Institute of Human Sciences in
Vienna, Austria.
I wish to thank my parents, Carol Karuzis and the late John Karuzis
for all of their support and love.
Finally, I wish to thank my lovely wife, Mika Karuzis, for her wonderful
support and understanding. This thesis would not have been completed
without Mikaʼs constant assistance and loving support.

  v
Studies on Being in Aristotleʼs Metaphysics Beta

Table of Contents

Abstract iii
Acknowledgements v

Part One: Introduction to the Study of the Science of Being qua
Being Through the Metaphysical Puzzles of Book Beta

Chapter One

Introduction

I. Introduction to the Present Study 1

II. The History of Aporia in Ancient Greek Thought 3

III. Reading Beta as a Passageway into Metaphysics 9

IV. List of the Fifteen Aporias 17

Part Two: Puzzles Concerning the Possibility of the Existence
of the Science of Being qua Being

Chapter Two

The First Aporia: Whether it is the duty of one science or more
than one science to investigate all the kinds of causes

I. Introduction and Presentation of the First Aporia
in Met. Book Beta, Ch. 2 19

II.1 Solutions to the First Aporia in Met. Book Gamma
Ch. 1, & Met. Epsilon Ch. 1 & 2 24

II.2 Theology and the science of being qua being 30
Chapter Three

The Second Aporia: Whether it belongs to one science or more than one
science to study the principles of demonstration

I. Introduction and Presentation of the Second Aporia
in Met. Book Beta, Ch. 2 40

II. Solutions to the Second Aporia
a. The Solutions in Met. Book Gamma,
Ch. 1, 2, 3, 4 43
b. The Solutions in Met. Book Gamma Ch. 5 and the
Arguments Against the Relativists 59
c. The Group A Relativists 61
d. Met. Book Gamma Ch. 6 and The Group B Relativists 71

Chapter Four

The Third Aporia: Whether it belongs to just one single science or more
than one science to investigate all substances and their attributes

I. Introduction & Presentation of the Third Aporia in
Met. Book Beta, Ch. 2 76

II. The Solution to the Third Aporia in Met. Book Gamma,
Ch. 2 & 3 78

Chapter Five

The Fourth Aporia: Whether the proper subject of our investigation is
substance only, or also the essential attributes of substance

I. Introduction & Presentation of the Fourth Aporia in
Met. Book Beta, Ch. 2 85

II. The Solution to the Fourth Aporia in Met. Book Gamma,
Ch. 2 86
Part Three: A Fundamental Aporia Within Metaphysics

Chapter Six

The Fifth Aporia: Whether only sense-perceptible things exist, or in
addition to these, also non-sense-perceptible things exist

I. Introduction & Presentation of the Fifth Aporia in
Met. Book Beta Ch. 2 88

II. The Tripartite Set of Solutions to the Fifth Aporia

a. Criticisms of the Theory of Forms in Met. Book
Alpha Ch. 6 98
Objection No. 1: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 6
987a29-987b13 99
Objection No. 2: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 6
987b14-22 104
Objection No. 3: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 6
987b23-35 106
Objection No. 4: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 6
988a1-7. 107

b. Criticisms of the Theory of Forms in Met. Book
Alpha Ch. 9 110
Objection No. 5: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
990a32-990b9 110
Objection No. 6: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
990b9-17 111
Objection No. 7: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
990b18-991a8 113
Objection No. 8: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
991a9-19 116
Objection No. 9: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
991a20-31 118
Objection No. 10: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
991b1-8 119
Objection No. 11: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
991b9-992a9 120
Objection No. 12: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
992a10-23 126
Objection No. 13: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
992a24-33 132
Objection No. 14: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
992a34-992b9 133
Objection No. 15: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
992b10-13 137
Objection No. 16: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
992b14-17 139
Objection No. 17: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
992b18-24 140
Objection No. 18: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
992b24-31 141
Objection No. 19: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
992b31-993a1 144
Objection No. 20: Met. Book Alpha, Ch. 9
993a1-10 146

c. Aristotleʼs Theory of Hylomorphism in
Phys. Book II, Ch. 2 & 3, DA, Book II, Ch 1.
Met. Book Zeta Ch. 1, 7, 8, & 9 149

d. Positing of the Unmoved Mover in
Met. Book Lambda, Ch. 1, 6, 7, 9, & 10 167

Part Four: Conclusions of the Present Study

Chapter Seven

I. Results of the Present Investigation 181

Footnotes 208

Bibliography 220