Liva Rotkale

We examine Logins’ (2022) erotetic view of normative reasons, specifically focusing on his distinction between normative reasoning reasons and normative explanatory reasons. A normative reasoning reason forms the content of a premise in reasoning or argument, while an explanatory reason is unsuitable for such a role. Logins considers this distinction to be robust and irreducible. Logins attempts to establish the distinction by appealing to specific examples where the roles diverge. We argue that these examples can be reinterpreted in a way that allows the same facts or propositions to fulfil both reasoning and explanatory roles. Furthermore, we contend that a case where a consideration is supposedly fit only for the explanatory role does not necessarily constitute a good explanation. Consequently, Logins’ strategy for establishing a ‘robust’ distinction between reasons may not be effective.

A genus contains its species, and the species implies its genus. Does it mean that the species is a part of the genus and also the genus is a part of the species? But how can they be part of each other without being identical? In the context of kinds, in what sense is ‘part’ applicable? We argue that for Aristotle, a species and its genus are mutual parts, standing in different parthood relations to each other, viz. the genus is a prior part of its species, while the species is a posterior part of its genus. Furthermore, we show that prior and posterior parthood concerning the genus and its species is grounded on the relations between matter and form in a matter-form compound.

There is a perplexing sentence in Rh. III 2, 1404b37–1405a2, which seems to imply that technical terms synōnyma and, by analogy, homōnyma are used differently in different contexts, i.e. in the Rhetoric these terms pertain to words, but in the Categories they designate things. Thus, it creates the impression that Aristotle has changed his mind with respect to the meaning of these terms. The interpretation, which is offered by the majority of translators and commentators, appears to embrace this conclusion. It is reinforced by the entry on synōnymos in the Greek-English Lexicon. The aim of the article is to explain the perplexing sentence in such a way that it is compatible with the definitions of synōnyma and homōnyma given in the Categories.

When Aristotle argues at the Metaphysics Z.17, 1041b11–33 that a whole, which is not a heap, contains ‘something else’, i.e. the form, besides the elements, it is not clear whether or not the form is a proper part of the whole. I defend the claim that the form is not a proper part within the context of the relevant passage, since the whole is divided into elements, not into elements and the form. Different divisions determine different senses of ‘part’, and thus the form is not a part in the same sense as the elements are parts. I object to Koslicki’s (2006) interpretation, according to which the form is a proper part along the elements in a single sense of ‘part’, although she insists that the form and the elements belong to different categories. I argue that Koslicki’s reading involves a category mistake, i.e. the conjunction of items that do not belong to the same category (Goldwater 2018). Since for Aristotle parthood presupposes some kind of similarity of parts, the conjunction of form and elements requires treating these items as somehow belonging to the same category, e.g. ‘being’, but no such category exists.