Search Results
7/17/2025, 6:19:44 PM
>>24558606
>He tells you right in the Categories what is primary and self-subsistent.
And he also tells you in On Interpretation that there are levels to substance. The more immaterial, essencey, and independent something is, the more substancey it is. On this account, artifacts are definitely not substances (and were only ever treated as such analogously), and living beings are surprisingly not substances (if we are staying true to the requirements and thus we can only call them substances analogously, though moreso than artifacts).
What does this leave us? Oh, the only two completely independent and self-sufficient substances identified throughout the entirety of Aristotle's corpus: the active intellect, and the unmoved mover. And those two are the same thing if you believe Alexander of Aphrodisias's interpretation.
>He tells you right in the Categories what is primary and self-subsistent.
And he also tells you in On Interpretation that there are levels to substance. The more immaterial, essencey, and independent something is, the more substancey it is. On this account, artifacts are definitely not substances (and were only ever treated as such analogously), and living beings are surprisingly not substances (if we are staying true to the requirements and thus we can only call them substances analogously, though moreso than artifacts).
What does this leave us? Oh, the only two completely independent and self-sufficient substances identified throughout the entirety of Aristotle's corpus: the active intellect, and the unmoved mover. And those two are the same thing if you believe Alexander of Aphrodisias's interpretation.
Page 1