Skip to main content

Aristotle and intensionality

I've been a bit taken by the wonders of Book Zeta while teaching about substance and gignomenon. Substances are generated out of other substances by phusis, or techné or by tautomaton. Tautomaton, to automaton, is of couse very interesting as a word. It relates to spontaneity, to chance and to the automatic. I thought of an ontology of the automaton - related to suneches and symbebekos. There is a dimension of the up for grabs that is automaton: spontaneously generated as opposed to being produced by something else. The automaton is not ruled from the outside, it is ungoverned, it is unchained. The automaton is causa sui in this sense: it is in the open. This, I believe, will grab more of my attention in this blog soon, I believe.

The main thrust of Zeta is, I take, his account of how forms are in rebus. A substance can be seen as a combination of matter and form (sinolos) and as a form. Well, Plato's account has that forms (or universals) are outside, they are extensional items. Aristotle's alternative amounts to an intensional ontology: things can be seen qua objects or qua forms. A property is not outside while participating in the object but rather in the object as an aspect of it: not only we can see the property (or the form) in the object but the property is there under some aspect. The first casualty is the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals. The same table is material and not material - material qua object and not material qua form. The trick is to turn Plato's duplication of the world into a duplication of the object - an intensional duplication. It is as if the objects has a mode of presentation in which it is a form. The property of being a table can be detected in the object, not because it relates to another thing (i.e. the Idea) but rather because the property is there, albeit not isolated from matter in all its aspects. His example (around 1035a) is that flesh is not a part (meros) of the concave, but it is part of the nose. Objects are indiscernible if their aspect is the same. There are parts of a thing under some aspects but not under some other aspects. It seems as if the difference between ante re and in rebus amounts to a difference between an extensional and an intensional realism about universals. Universals are separated from the sinolos (from the object) but only to the extent where they are in the object (as an aspect).

Comments

  1. Hilan Bensusan18 June 2013 at 15:29

    Dynamos and Energeia are aspects in the sense that what is predicated of the substance is predicated either to it in act or in potentiality. Aristotle closes book H talking about the unity of substance in form and matter - only an efficient cause is needed to explain the connection of something in potentiality and something in act because act and potentiality are there in the substance, but in different aspects. What is there in the substance qua act is not in the substance qua potentiality.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dismantling absolute contingency

I´ve been wondering about whether we can formulate something about contingency along the lines of a principle of irreduction: aucune chose n´est par elle-même contingent ou necessaire . The principle asserts that necessity is always contingent on underlying fixed things: something is physically necessary (or contingent) given the fixed laws of nature, something is deontically contingent - allowed - or necessary - mandatory - given the fixed ethical rules (or laws of the land). Finally, something is logically necessary (or necessary simpliciter) given a fixed logic. The irreducible diversity of ethical rules, the absence of eternal laws of nature and the plurality of logical systems, if accepted, makes necessity relative to those parameters. An aggiornamento of Heraclitus would have that nothing is necessary comes what may. Surely, of couse, if there is no absolute necessity, there is no absolute contingency. We can then say that in a broader, more abstract level, things are up for grab...
6 comments
Read more

Necropolitics and Neocameralism

It is perhaps just wishful thinking that the alt-right seemingly innovative and intrepid ideas will disappear from the scene as Trump's reign comes to an end. They have their own dynamics, but certainly the experiences of the last years, including those in the pandemics, do help to wear off their bright and attractiveness. Neocameralism, what Mencius Moldbug and Nick Land with him ushered in as a model of post-democracy that relinquish important ingredients of the human security system, is one of these projects that is proving to be too grounded in the past to have any capacity to foretell anything bright beyond the democratic rusting institutions. It is little more than necropolitics - which is itself a current post-democratic alternative. Achile Mbembe finds necropolitics in the regimes were warlords take over the state-like institutions (or mimick them)  to rule on the grounds of local security having no troubles killing or letting die whoever is in their path. Neocameralism pos...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Cathedral and the axiomatics of capital

Today in my Cosmopolitics of Capital class, instead of discussing Lyotard´s evil book in connection to Moldbug and Land´s ideas, as planned, we spent hours considering bits of The Anti-Oedipus under the light of Neo-cameralist ideas and some remarks Land makes about the horror that is often triggered as an emotional response to (Neo-cameralist) statements about the Cathedral. We concentrated on the bit of chapter 3, section 10 where Deleuze and Guattari talk about class struggle and the bourgeoisie as a class eroder. There they describe how capitalism decodes the flows of castes, orders, and classes in the sense of feudal aristocracy, serfdom and peasantry. The erosion affects also the proletariat that is never associated with a specific job or type of service but rather a decoded abstract worker. This decoding is precisely what makes the proletariat universal and directly linked with the productive forces - which means, for Deleuze and Guattari, that they are potentially the schizo, ...
Post a Comment
Read more