A Person has Personlike Qualities?

Aristotle tells us that this branch of philosophy is first, in the sense that it is fundamental to all nature and is difficult to explain through experience These things are better known in themselves and often remote from the real world of experience (because they are general and abstract) Despite it’s title, he says that you should study nature first First Philosophy

Being qua being The study of being, in metaphysics, is called ontology Metaphysics is the study of three combined elements: 1. a study 2. a subject matter (being) 3. a manner in which the subject matter is studied (qua being) Huh?

Being qua being Metaphysics, then, studies beings in general and studies them in so far as they are beings It is concerned with anything that exists for the mere fact that it exists, not the contents of the thing itself

Example of Health (I wouldn’t copy this down!) Many different things are said to be healthy: a person, a complexion, a diet, etc. By they aren’t all healthy in the same sense. A person is healthy because he has health. A diet can lead to health, and a complexion is sometimes indicative of health. So, what is the central case of health? Or, what is the primary sense? What is the secondary sense?

Example continued… A person’s health is the primary sense because only a person can have health. A diet can lead to health and a complexion can help indicate health, so these are the secondary senses of the terms.

Back to Beings… Aristotle said, “For some things are called beings because they are substances, others because they are attributes of substances, others because they are a road to substance, or because they are perishings or privations or qualities of substance, or productive or generative of substance…”

Back to Being qua Being Primary substances are the things themselves Qualities of a thing are also beings but considered secondary because qualities do not have substance Being qua being, then, is the study of the central (primary) cases of being For Aristotle, the question of ‘What is being?’ is a question of ‘What is substance of that being?’

Metaphysics Z Yes, there is a book by Aristotle actually labelled Metaphysics Z (Book VII of Metaphysics) At first, Aristotle ponders if matter is primary, which seems to make sense Aristotle had used examples of substance like a man, a horse, a tree but not longer found these acceptable basic items because of hylomorphic analysis, which suggests that matter underlies and persists through substantial changes

The Problem with Matter Examples: a house (the form) is created when many other basic things (matter) are put together An animal is generated by matter (contributed by the mother and form (contributed by the father)

So what’s the problem? Aristotle suggests that a compound (form and matter together) cannot be a substance (What? Why? This is not making sense!) The reason is most likely that a compound cannot be a basic ontological ingredient (form or quality is not a primary sense of substance)

Examples of the Problem A brown horse A scholar Each is a compound of substance + attribute A brown horse = a horse + brownness A scholar = a human + education And since everything has attributes, the primal nature of being is brought into question

He Then Asks… Because Aristotle is long winded, he considers if substance is a combination of matter and form. He starts to ask if matter and form can be separable and individual at the same time. Separability: amounts to independent existence; not qualities of a thing Individuality: This something is only the thing it is as long as it is that thing The problem is that when combined, matter and form are posterior

But Finally! Matter cannot be substance! It must be form, which Aristotle begins to call essence He focuses on what it is about an individual that makes it self-subsistence and independent “substance is some sort of principle and cause” Form, or essence then, is the principle cause of a thing because it is unchanging and the cause Ahhhhh!