more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
The idea of ultimate matter is discredited philosophically because of the version of the doctrine found in Aristotle, who ran together the two notions of being a substratum of change on the one hand, and being the bearer of properties on the other.
Gist of Idea
Ultimate matter is discredited, as Aristotle merged substratum of change with bearer of properties
Source
comment on Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], Bk 06.6) by Peter Simons - Parts 6.6
Book Ref
Simons,Peter: 'Parts: a Study in Ontology' [OUP 1987], p.241
A Reaction
This is an illuminating comment on Aristotle. The substratum of change seems to be a fairly substantial essence, while the bearer of properties seems to shrivel to minimal size because it can't have properties of its own.
| 15771 | Primary matter is what characterises other stuffs, and it has no distinct identity [Aristotle] |
| 12868 | Ultimate matter is discredited, as Aristotle merged substratum of change with bearer of properties [Simons on Aristotle] |
| 16099 | The traditional view of Aristotle is God (actual form) at top and prime matter (potential matter) at bottom [Aristotle, by Gill,ML] |
| 15954 | Aristotle may only have believed in prime matter because his elements were immutable [Aristotle, by Alexander,P] |
| 16589 | Prime matter lacks essence, but is only potentially and indeterminately a physical thing [Auriol] |
| 16571 | Prime matter is exceptionally obscure [Zabarella] |
| 16591 | Prime matter is nothing but its parts [Vanini] |
| 16600 | Prime matter is body considered with mere size and extension, and potential [Hobbes] |
| 19399 | Prime matter is nothing when it is at rest [Leibniz] |
| 17006 | Prime matter has no place in Aristotle's theories, and passages claiming it are misread [Gill,ML] |
| 16093 | Prime matter is actually nothing and potentially everything (or potentially an element) [Gill,ML] |