Philosophy

Metaphysics

Metaphysics

  • Downloads：8740
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2022-09-09 07:55:43
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Aristotle
  • ISBN：1888009039
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

"All men by nature are actuated with the desire of knowledge，" declared Aristotle。 The philosopher's works are foundational to the history of science， and his treatise on metaphysics， or "first philosophy，" is divided into sections on previous philosophical thought and theories; a refutation of skepticism; a demonstration of God's existence; an examination of the relation of metaphysics to the other sciences; an elucidation of the nature of the infinite; and other major philosophical issues。
The central theme consists of an inquiry into how substance may be defined as a category of being。 Aristotle defines substance as ultimate reality， since substance belongs to no other category of being， and because substance serves as the basis for every other category of being。 The philosopher also defines substance as an underlying reality， or as the substratum of all existing things。 He describes substance as both formal and material reality， and he discusses the relation between potentiality and actuality。 An excellent example of Aristotle's dialectical method， which reasons from reliable opinions rather than known truths， this work offers a fine introduction to classical metaphysics。

Download

Reviews

Willy Lazaro ，

Que libro maravilloso。 Nada más que Aristoteles a pico y pala construyendo （otra vez） una nueva rama de la filosofía。 Toma en cuenta sus antecesores en este tema y procura que no se le escape ninguna duda que se pueda dar a lo largo del aprendizaje de esta metafísica。 Simplemente hermoso。

Aaron Ventura ，

A classic for a reason。

Caspar Bryant ，

Inconsistency is the order of the day I'm going to preface this one by saying thank god for the translator of the Penguin Classics edition Hugh Lawson-Tancred who provides some very crucial guidance at the start of every chapter & his intro is very good too。 The translation itself is oddly colloquial & idiomatic to modern-English （and it's rather strange， though entertaining， to ventriloquise German into the mouth of Aristotle as the final words of the text） but I'm altogether not worried about Inconsistency is the order of the day I'm going to preface this one by saying thank god for the translator of the Penguin Classics edition Hugh Lawson-Tancred who provides some very crucial guidance at the start of every chapter & his intro is very good too。 The translation itself is oddly colloquial & idiomatic to modern-English （and it's rather strange， though entertaining， to ventriloquise German into the mouth of Aristotle as the final words of the text） but I'm altogether not worried about that it's calmSo I said inconsistency & as I understand it a Lot of this book is recapitulation of other books or previous sections of this book a couple hundred pages on。 Also Aristotle isn't known for being the most effective at conveying what he wants to say succinctly （in my experience his most readable text is the Poetics & he didn't write that anyway） so a lot of this book ends up being - somewhere between chaos & redundancy which is perhaps metaphysical of himanyway I'm sounding very down on this text which is probably an ordinary response but it does have some Incredible Philosophy going on ！ lovely readings of Presocratics lovely reconciliations he actually came across quite warmly when speaking of ye olde heritage。 Substantial。 。。。more

2222cigarettes ，

lo leí porque estaba aburrido en mi casa y lo vi ahi y dije， bueno leamoslo

Sidharth Vardhan ，

"When one man speaks to another man who doesn't understand him， and when a man who's speaking no longer understands， it's metaphysics。" - VoltaireI can see what Voltaire meant。 Even Aristotle who is generally cool seemed to regularly get confused and confusing （in places where he was not obvious in painfully monotoneus way） in this one。 "When one man speaks to another man who doesn't understand him， and when a man who's speaking no longer understands， it's metaphysics。" - VoltaireI can see what Voltaire meant。 Even Aristotle who is generally cool seemed to regularly get confused and confusing （in places where he was not obvious in painfully monotoneus way） in this one。 。。。more

Beverlee ，

Inspectional reading was painful。 Will update after a proper analysis

Nick Sungenis ，

Heavy！ Brilliant insights into God as the Unmoved Mover。

Jack ，

He spends half the book defining terms， and a third going round in circles refuting theories of Forms or numbers as first causes--leaving little room for his own constructive work。 It's a tedious and repetitive work， but illuminating nonetheless。 He spends half the book defining terms， and a third going round in circles refuting theories of Forms or numbers as first causes--leaving little room for his own constructive work。 It's a tedious and repetitive work， but illuminating nonetheless。 。。。more

Silvester Borsboom ，

In The Metaphysics， Aristotle investigates Substance， the most fundamental category of being。 He comes to the profound conclusion that Substance equals Essence， i。e。 what a thing is is what it was to be that thing。 The climax is certainly Lambda 7， in which Aristotle proves the existence of God - the prime mover who moves the heavens by contemplating his own contemplation。This is not an easy read at all， it took me almost six months and there were many instances where I understood nothing of wha In The Metaphysics， Aristotle investigates Substance， the most fundamental category of being。 He comes to the profound conclusion that Substance equals Essence， i。e。 what a thing is is what it was to be that thing。 The climax is certainly Lambda 7， in which Aristotle proves the existence of God - the prime mover who moves the heavens by contemplating his own contemplation。This is not an easy read at all， it took me almost six months and there were many instances where I understood nothing of what Aristotle meant。 However， Aristotle can be rather funny， especially when he roasts Plato and other philosophers。In the end it was worth it because this book might just be the most influential work in the history of Western philosophy。 Would recommend to people interested in the Western canon。 。。。more

Dan Strydom ，

My rating goes primarily to the effort of the translator who did a fine job of preparing me for each chapter。 That said this is a tough book to get through but an important one in understanding Aristotle as he presents his Metaphysics and explores theology as well expanding on Physics。 Don't go into this one expecting to enjoy it， the way the topics are divided makes it difficult to get to the parts that may interest you， it also results in reading everything to understand which bits interest yo My rating goes primarily to the effort of the translator who did a fine job of preparing me for each chapter。 That said this is a tough book to get through but an important one in understanding Aristotle as he presents his Metaphysics and explores theology as well expanding on Physics。 Don't go into this one expecting to enjoy it， the way the topics are divided makes it difficult to get to the parts that may interest you， it also results in reading everything to understand which bits interest you as Aristotle jumps between topics。 Overall， great translation， difficult to follow and I'd only recommend reading it if you really have an interest in the topic。 。。。more

Philip Bartelt ，

Aristotle’s metaphysics is one of the great classic treatments of Greek metaphysics。 This edition by C。 D。 C。 Reeve is probably the most readable and scholarly that I’ve encountered。 The endnotes take up almost half of the physical book itself and it includes a very helpful introduction to Aristotle， his life， and his thought。 The Metaphysics itself is a helpful book to read within the realm of philosophy because it lays out and defines the essential and basic categories for doing metaphysics。 C Aristotle’s metaphysics is one of the great classic treatments of Greek metaphysics。 This edition by C。 D。 C。 Reeve is probably the most readable and scholarly that I’ve encountered。 The endnotes take up almost half of the physical book itself and it includes a very helpful introduction to Aristotle， his life， and his thought。 The Metaphysics itself is a helpful book to read within the realm of philosophy because it lays out and defines the essential and basic categories for doing metaphysics。 Causation， Substance， and activity/potentiality feature as the prominent subjects of the Metaphysics。 Theologians will be especially interested in books V and XII for definitional purposes and Aristotle’s discussion of God as the unmoved mover， first principle and cause of all things。 Book XII is the epitome of what Luther identifies as the “sleeping god” of the philosophers who is a distant， passionless， changeless， self contained， uninvolved， contemplative mind。 After revisiting this book， I’m once again reminded why Luther spent so much time in opposition to Aristotle and the use of his categories for theology。 。。。more

Bayram Erdem ，

Kitabın özellikle ilk bölümü muazzam。 İnsanlar neden felsefe yapar？ Kimler felsefe yapabilir？ Felsefenin ana konuları nelerdir？ Şimdiye kadarki filozoflar neler söylemiştir？Felsefe zor değil ama kavramları anlamak zor。 Töz， ilinek， kuvve， fiil derken okuduğunuzu şaşırıyorsunuz。 Dipnotlar zaten zor anlaşılan metni iyici karmaşıklaştırıyor。 Aslında kitapta araştırılan konuların çoğu bugün çözülmüş durumda。 Maddenin yapı taşının farklı numaraları olan atomlar olduğunu artık biliyoruz。 Ama， 2600 yıl Kitabın özellikle ilk bölümü muazzam。 İnsanlar neden felsefe yapar？ Kimler felsefe yapabilir？ Felsefenin ana konuları nelerdir？ Şimdiye kadarki filozoflar neler söylemiştir？Felsefe zor değil ama kavramları anlamak zor。 Töz， ilinek， kuvve， fiil derken okuduğunuzu şaşırıyorsunuz。 Dipnotlar zaten zor anlaşılan metni iyici karmaşıklaştırıyor。 Aslında kitapta araştırılan konuların çoğu bugün çözülmüş durumda。 Maddenin yapı taşının farklı numaraları olan atomlar olduğunu artık biliyoruz。 Ama， 2600 yıl önce başlayan felsefe ve bilimin bin yıllık bir kesintiye uğraması insanı üzmüyor değil。Aristoteles， Homo sapiens türünün en özel üyelerinden biri。 。。。more

Pavel ，

Aristotelis meistriškai kritikuoja Platoną， pitagoriečius ir kitus filosofus， bet pats savo filosofiją dėsto labai painiai。 Taigi skaitinys ne iš lengvųjų， nors ir vertas įdėtų pastangų。Labiausiai Metafizikoje patiko dalis apie teologiją。 Visatoje viskas juda， bet kas pradėjo judėjimą？ Juk jis negalėjo prasidėti savaime。 Čia įvedama Pirmojo judintojo - Dievo sąvoka。 Dievas pradėjo judėjimą， nes buvo geidžiamas （dar verčiama “mylimas”）。 O Dievo esmė yra mintis， kuri apmąsto pati save （palygink iš Aristotelis meistriškai kritikuoja Platoną， pitagoriečius ir kitus filosofus， bet pats savo filosofiją dėsto labai painiai。 Taigi skaitinys ne iš lengvųjų， nors ir vertas įdėtų pastangų。Labiausiai Metafizikoje patiko dalis apie teologiją。 Visatoje viskas juda， bet kas pradėjo judėjimą？ Juk jis negalėjo prasidėti savaime。 Čia įvedama Pirmojo judintojo - Dievo sąvoka。 Dievas pradėjo judėjimą， nes buvo geidžiamas （dar verčiama “mylimas”）。 O Dievo esmė yra mintis， kuri apmąsto pati save （palygink iš Evangelijos: ”Pradžioje buvo Žodis。 Tas Žodis buvo pas Dievą， ir Žodis buvo Dievas”）。 Aristotelio Dievas yra gyvas， ir jis yra geras， tad ir visas pasaulis， kuris iš jo kilo， taip pat yra geras。 Viduramžiais， kai Aristotelis buvo iš naujo atrastas， jis tapo didžiuliu autoritetu ir paskatino iš naujo permąstyti krikščioniškąją teologiją。 Tiek skaitydamas Platono Faidoną， tiek Aristotelio Metafiziką stebėjausi， kaip daug krikščionybė perėmė minčių iš šių pagonybės laikų filosofų。 Tačiau nereikia manyti， kad besąlygiškas kliovimasis Aristotelio autoritetu viduramžiais vertinamas labai teigiamai。 Greičiau priešingai， filosofijoje jis nulėmė sustabarėjimą ir dogmatiškumą。 Bertrandas Russellas apie Aristotelio įtaką vėlesniais laikais rašė taip: “He came at the end of the creative period in Greek thought， and after his death it was two thousand years before the world produced any philosopher who could be regarded as approximately his equal。 Towards the end of this long period his authority had become almost as unquestioned as that of the Church， and in science， as well as in philosophy， had become a serious obstacle to progress。” 。。。more

Pria ，

（Andy’s list）

Marcos Augusto ，

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate structure and constitution of reality， of that which is real， insofar as it is real。 The term， which means literally “what comes after physics，” was used to refer to the treatise by Aristotle on what he himself called “first philosophy。”Plato， in his theory of forms， separates the sensible world （appearances） of the intelligible world （ideas） and the intelligible world was the only reality， the foundation of all truth。Aristotle beli Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that studies the ultimate structure and constitution of reality， of that which is real， insofar as it is real。 The term， which means literally “what comes after physics，” was used to refer to the treatise by Aristotle on what he himself called “first philosophy。”Plato， in his theory of forms， separates the sensible world （appearances） of the intelligible world （ideas） and the intelligible world was the only reality， the foundation of all truth。Aristotle believed that it is the physical world that is observable。 He rejected Plato’s transcendentalism （ his notion that there is a higher reality that is only graspable by the mind）。Aristotle often takes issue with the theory of Forms， sometimes politely and sometimes contemptuously。 In his Metaphysics he argues that the theory fails to solve the problems it was meant to address。 It does not confer intelligibility on particulars， because immutable and everlasting Forms cannot explain how particulars come into existence and undergo change。 All the theory does， according to Aristotle， is introduce new entities equal in number to the entities to be explained—as if one could solve a problem by doubling it。 In Plato's theory， material objects are changeable and not real in themselves; rather， they correspond to an ideal， eternal， and immutable Form by a common name， and this Form can be perceived only by the intellect。 Thus a thing perceived to be beautiful in this world is in fact an imperfect manifestation of the Form of Beauty。 Whereas Plato's philosophy is intergrally positioned around his understanding of the heavenly Forms， Aristotle's Metaphysics and other works depend on bottom-level truths that lead to truth。 。。。more

Steve ，

This one makes more sense， but he's just talking about common sense This one makes more sense， but he's just talking about common sense 。。。more

Cat ，

One of the smartest men in history。 Severely difficulty read。 Do not approach。 You will be lost if you're not reading at a graduate level in philosophy。 One of the smartest men in history。 Severely difficulty read。 Do not approach。 You will be lost if you're not reading at a graduate level in philosophy。 。。。more

Ross ，

Only a philosophical mind can even begin to understand Metaphysics。 I am afraid， I failed many times to capture the given message。

Sam ，

Not a book for beginners。Would be a great book to sit and break down and study in depth

Clocrtn ，

Wow ！！！ J'ai adoré ！！！ Wow ！！！ J'ai adoré ！！！ 。。。more

Clark Hedrick ，

To read Metaphysics is to know that intense drudgery and exceptional insight can find good， if not perfect， synthesis。 Having read the book itself prior to reading commentary on it， I think much of the popular commentary is misplaced。 This book is not merely a critique of Plato’s theory of forms。 While he certainly goes there （constructively）， the bulk of the work explores theories prior to Plato。 Among them: What can be known by reason and the senses？ What is， and is not， material？ How can we k To read Metaphysics is to know that intense drudgery and exceptional insight can find good， if not perfect， synthesis。 Having read the book itself prior to reading commentary on it， I think much of the popular commentary is misplaced。 This book is not merely a critique of Plato’s theory of forms。 While he certainly goes there （constructively）， the bulk of the work explores theories prior to Plato。 Among them: What can be known by reason and the senses？ What is， and is not， material？ How can we know and rely on what is not material？ How do we account for change， generation， and division of things in our definitions？ Therein the last question resides Aristotle’s advancement of Plato’s forms。 It’s not a divorce as much as a level-up。 。。。more

Biblioworm ，

Продираясь через этот непростой текст， я чувствовал крайнюю зависть к древним грекам。Они не были обременены деталями устройства мира， вникая в которые перед тобой открывается зияющая бездна "бессмысленности" существования не то что такой микроскопической сущности， как человечество （о отдельном человека уже и смешно говорить）。 Но и доступной нам в понимании вселенной。 Что там дальше это уже столь же чистые фантазии， как у Платона， но и этого более чем достаточно， чтобы перестать искать "смысл жиз Продираясь через этот непростой текст， я чувствовал крайнюю зависть к древним грекам。Они не были обременены деталями устройства мира， вникая в которые перед тобой открывается зияющая бездна "бессмысленности" существования не то что такой микроскопической сущности， как человечество （о отдельном человека уже и смешно говорить）。 Но и доступной нам в понимании вселенной。 Что там дальше это уже столь же чистые фантазии， как у Платона， но и этого более чем достаточно， чтобы перестать искать "смысл жизни"。У греков же все было в полном порядке - есть общая божественная сущность， есть движение к добру и познанию， есть цель жизни каждого человека да вообще ясность， что в деталях неизвестно， но точно есть благая цель всему что они наблюдали。Вообще， конечно， и сейчас никто не запрещает верить в божественное， которое просто теперь выполняет другие роли - вопросом "зачем вселенная" ни один уважающий себя учены не станет заниматься， как явно выходящим за наши возможности что-то конкретно понять， а не нафантазировать。Но уж очень много деталей мы теперь знаем и о микро и о макромире， чтобы быть такими же счастливыми， как в древней Греции。Если же говорить о самой книге - очень занятно следить， как мощный разум， запертый в вакууме знаний своего времени， пытается нащупать основу， систематизировать окружающий， столь уютный крошечный древний мир。Читается， конечно， крайне тяжело， но тут больше удивляет что переводчики смогли сдлать его хоть как-то понятным， все же люди в то время принадлежали уже мало понятной нам цивилизации。 。。。more

James ，

The good stuff

Mercurial Ramifications ♣ ，

Obra que constituye bajo mi punto de vista la introducción a la descomposición de la realidad conocida y el estudio de cada uno de sus fenómenos。 Es un ensayo que nos educa para que podamos pensar por nosotros mismos y nos obliga a esforzarnos mentalmente para comprender cada uno de los menesteres que nos son explicados。

Fabian Ascencio ，

This is gold， you cannot just say that you read Aristotle， for it is no enough with one reading but you have to study his writtings for a long time if you want to understand that great genius。

CARLOS CABEZAS ，

La valoración se debe a que es una obra que no puede ser valorada， dado su repercusión en el pensamiento y en la historia del pensamiento occidental。Sólo sería posible una valoración técnica de la edición， aspecto este que no hago dado que no corresponde la edición que tengo con esta。

Domhnall ，

The thirteen books making up Aristotle’s Metaphysics are dry but not especially difficult to read and it is undoubtedly a valuable thing to have read Aristotle in his own words。 They appear to be produced from lecture notes and often read as though Aristotle is working out on paper a set of problems that perplex him， of which some seem close to resolution， others （especially in the later books） being rather inconclusive。 He is very systematic – or perhaps relentless - in the way he examines his The thirteen books making up Aristotle’s Metaphysics are dry but not especially difficult to read and it is undoubtedly a valuable thing to have read Aristotle in his own words。 They appear to be produced from lecture notes and often read as though Aristotle is working out on paper a set of problems that perplex him， of which some seem close to resolution， others （especially in the later books） being rather inconclusive。 He is very systematic – or perhaps relentless - in the way he examines his topics from many points of view， he gives a lot of information about the opinions of other philosophers up to his own time and in Book V especially he gives an incredibly helpful collection of definitions and explanations of important terms。 He repeats himself a lot， and I get the impression that he sometimes is over elaborate because he is failing to discover the solutions he wants。 He does attempt to give practical examples to illustrate his arguments but he has a very restricted palette in this respect， partly because science was in its infancy， partly because he lacks Plato’s flair。 I can imagine a modern lecturer， though， giving a lot more colour to the material by pointing out its many connections to modern arguments that either rest on the same ground that Aristotle prepared or， just as interesting， fail to take Aristotle into account and are thereby exposed as deficient。 Aristotle laid much of the groundwork on which Western philosophy was to be constructed。 His contribution was to be a pioneer in virgin territory。 His solutions have required improvement and often radical changes but philosophy has not changed out of recognition， the questions he posed and the lines of argument he mapped out have not lost their relevance。 In fact， perhaps it would be better to approach Aristotle not as an introduction to Philosophy but alongside more contemporary writing， because there are many current debates that would benefit from a look back to what Aristotle has to say。 What he wrote is not scripture （and for a time people tried to treat him that way） but it is foundational and it is a valuable benchmark。 If it is indeed dry and ponderous， it comes to life when its continuing relevance becomes clear。 For one example， this quote: “Since， then， some predicates indicate what the subject is， others its quality， others quantity， others relation， others activity or passivity， others its ‘where’， others its ‘when’， ‘being’ has a meaning answering to each of these。” I suggest this is very close to Roy Bhasker’s Critical Realism and specifically his view that we can appreciate that we are dealing with an external material reality， quite independent of our imaginations， rather than a mere mental construct， to the extent that we can find an infinite number of ways to examine and understand any aspect of it。 So if we take a topical argument saying that sex is a social construct， we can agree that it has a social dimension， we can analyse its social context， cultural differences in thinking about sex， and its history， we can explore sex in literature and other cultural expressions， we can study sexual behaviours， we can compare this with sexual behaviour in other species， we can study the anatomy， the physiology， the hormonal chemistry of sex， we can explore sex differences – for instance in responses to medicines or symptoms of ill health such as heart attacks - and we can compare all this with the same qualities in other species， we can examine the generation of sexuality both at the level of chromosomes and in either physical， psychological or social development across the life cycle， we can study the evolution of sexual reproduction over 1。2 billion years and we can explain it at any level and utilising almost any branch of science… Bhasker would say that sex permits infinite layers of analysis， Aristotle would say it has infinite predicates， but both would infer that this is only possible because there is a reality to sex – an object independent of our imaginations。 Sex is not predicated of a subject but everything else is predicated of sex。 Aha， the sceptic will protest， but is not sex a characteristic predicated of many species？ That is not a question that Aristotle failed to consider but you have to read his Metaphysics for his answers。 Postmodernity is a painful procedure of unlearning everything we know and substituting it with word salad， but it’s not new and it’s not different to the arguments answered long ago by Aristotle。 I really wonder how we could cope with today’s culture wars without reading the Greeks or why we would try。 QuotesThere are many sense in which a things may be said to ‘be’ but all that ‘is’ is related to one central point， one definite kind of thing， and is not said to ‘be’ by a mere ambiguity。 [Bk IV Ch 2]For if it is not the function of the philosopher， who is it who will inquire whether Socrates and Socrates seated are the same thing…？ [Bk IV Ch 2]Cause means （1） that from which， as immanent material， a thing comes into being， e。g。 the bronze is the cause of the statue… （2） The form or pattern， i。e。 the definition of the essence， and the classes which include this （e。g。 the ratio 2:1 and number in general are causes of the octave） and the parts included in the definition。 （3） that from which the change or resting from change first begins; e。g。 the adviser is a cause of the action and the father a cause of the child and in general the maker a cause of the thing made …。 （4） The end; i。e。 that for the sake of which a thing is; e。g。 health is the cause of walking。 For ‘Why does one walk？’ we say: ‘that one may be healthy’ and in speaking thus we think we have given the cause。 [Bk V Ch 2] Things are said to ‘be’ （1） in an accidental sense， （2） by their nature。 。。 In an accidental sense， e。g。 we say ‘the righteous doer is musical’ and ‘the man is musical’ … ‘the musician builds’ because the builder happens to be musical or the musician happened to be a builder; for here， ‘one thing is another’ means ‘one thing is an accident of another’… The kinds of essential being are precisely those that are indicated by the figures of predication; for the sense of ‘being’ are just as many as these figures。 Since， then， some predicates indicate what the subject is， others its quality， others quantity， others relation， others activity or passivity， others its ‘where’， others its ‘when’， ‘being’ has a meaning answering to each of these。 [Bk V Ch 7]We call ‘substance’ （1） the simple bodies。 i。e。 earth and fire and water and everything of the sort， and in general bodies and the things composed of them， both animals and divine beings， and the parts of these。 All these are called substance because they are not predicated of a subject but everything else is predicated of them。 –（2） That which， being present in such things as are not predicated of a subject， is the cause of their being， as the soul is the being of an animal。 –（3） The parts which are present in such things， limiting them and marking them as individuals， and by whose destruction the whole is destroyed…。。 –（4） The essence， the formula which is a definition， is also called the substance of each thing。 [Bk V Ch 8} The term ‘race’ or ‘genus’ is used （1） if generation of things which have the same form is continuous， e。g。 ‘while the race lasts’ means ‘while the generation of them goes on continuously’。 –（2） It is used with reference to that which first brought things into existence; for it is thus that some are called Hellenes by race and others Ionians， because the former proceed from Hellen and the latter from Ion as their first begetter… in definitions the first constituent element， which is included in the ‘what’， is the genus， whose differentiae qualities are said to be。 Genus then is used in all these ways， （1） in reference to continuous generation of the same kind， （2） in reference to the first mover which is of the same kind as the things it moves， （3） as matter， for that to which the differentia or quality belongs is the substratum， which we call matter。 [Bk V Ch 28]There are several senses in which a thing may be said to ‘be’; …for in one sense the ‘being’ meant is ‘what a things is’ or a ‘this’， and in another sense it means a quality or quantity of one of the other things that are predicated as these are。 While ‘being’ has all these senses， obviously that which ‘is’ primarily is the ‘what’， which indicates the substance of the thing… And one might even raise the question where the words ‘to walk’， ‘to be healthy’， ‘to sit’ imply that each of these things is existent， and similarly in any other case of this sort， for none of them is either self-subsistent or capable of being separated from substance， but rather， if anything， it is that which walks， or sits， or is healthy that is an existent thing。 Now these are seen to be more real because there is something definite which underlies them （i。e。 the substance or individual）， which is implied in such a predicate; for we never use the word ‘good’ or ‘sitting’ without implying this。 Clearly then it is in virtue of this category that each of the others also is。 Therefore that which is primarily， i。e。 not in a qualified sense， must be substance。 [Bk VII ch 1] By the matter I mean， the bronze; by the shape the pattern of its form， and by the compound of these the statue， the concrete whole。 [Bk V ch 3] Both separability and ‘thisness’ are thought to belong chiefly to substance。 [Bk V ch 3] …thisness belongs only to substance。 [Bk V ch 4] But we must articulate our meaning before we begin to inquire: if not， the inquiry is on the border-line between a search for something and a search for nothing。 [Bk VII Ch 17]The infinite does not exist potentially in the sense that it will ever actually have separate existence; it exists potentially only for knowledge。 For the fact that the process of dividing never comes to an end ensures that this activity exists potentially， but not that the infinite exists separately。 [Book IX Ch 6]For from the potentially existing the actually existing is always produced by an actually existing thing: e。g。 man from man， musician by musician: there is always a first mover and the mover already exists actually。 We have said in our account of substance that everything that is produced is something produced from something and that the same species as it。 [Book IX Ch 8] 。。。more

Aitor Vazquez ，

Un buen resumen de la magnitud de esta sobra reside en el hecho de que Aristóteles， mientras funda la ontología， formula como quien no quiere la cosa los dos principios más importantes de la lógica formal。

Carter ，

I did take a look at this， this morning; Latin I find is quite similar to English， and not difficult to understand or read， if you understand the former。 It is something I noticed， in High School。 I thought Latin would be more challenging。 However， it is no more difficult than any other language。 I told the instructor， I could pick it up with two weeks of uninterrupted study。 （I was overestimating。） Therefore I dropped Latin for French。

Arash Oshaei ，

مجموعه اثار طرح نو

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Metaphysics

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Metaphysics&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Metaphysics&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0