Colloquium 5: Commentary on Frey

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract This paper examines and responds to Christopher Frey’s analysis of Aristotle’s Physics I 9. Frey’s decision to foreground desire enables some particularly lucid observations on how and why Plato and Aristotle diverge in their accounts of formal participation and teleology. Nevertheless, I find that there are elements of his analysis that require further clarification or examination. My response focuses on teasing out and responding to three areas for inquiry or rebuttal. First, I look at Frey’s analysis and highlight the manner in which he illuminates some key differences between Plato’s and Aristotle’s notions of formal participation and teleology. On these themes, I find Frey’s paper to be especially helpful. Second, I assess the accuracy of Frey’s presentation of Platonic desire and its purportedly related problems for his account of material change. I problematize Frey’s account of Platonic desire and argue that his analysis overlooks a distinction between Platonic and Aristotelian objects of desire. Third, and finally, I work to clarify precisely what Aristotle’s target concept of Platonic matter might be, since it is key to Frey’s arguments. I then investigate whether Aristotle presents an accurate characterization of his teacher’s views on a material substrate.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.