Mary Katrina Krizan

Seventeenth-century advancements in physical science are often presented as overthrowing the Aristotelian tradition; perhaps Aristotle's emphasis on formal and final causes left little room for a physical theory grounded in material and efficient causes. In Aristotle's Science of Matter and Motion, Christopher Byrne argues that Aristotle is not to blame, as he indeed possessed a unified theory of matter and motion. In contrast to traditional interpretations, which place an undue explanatory burden on formal and final causes, Byrne argues that Aristotle's theory of the physical world is dependent on the features possessed by perceptible objects, qua perceptible, as well as non-teleological changes in matter.Byrne's...

In On Generation and Corruption 1. 10 and 2. 7 Aristotle discusses mixing and mixtures. Recent scholars tend to read the two texts together, thus treating the production of homoeomers in GC 2. 7 as a process of mixing the material elements. I argue that the tendency to treat homoeomers as mixtures of material elements is incorrect: GC 1. 10 explains the mixing of bodies that have already been produced from the elements, whereas GC 2. 7 explains the processes that produce compound bodies from simpler constituents. In GC 2. 7 only the primary contraries mix in the formation of a homoeomer: material elements cannot be constituents of mixtures for theoretical and physical reasons. This makes sense of the production of homoeomers in GC 2. 7 despite worries about mixing the material elements. For Aristotle, the production of homoeomers is simultaneously a process of mixing the primary contraries and generating the homoeomers from the destruction of material elements.

according to a certain interpretative tradition, Aristotle is committed to prime matter—an indefinite, indeterminate, and unknowable material substratum that exists as pure potentiality and underlies, among other features, the elements and their mutual transformations.1 This interpretative tradition has come under attack from various sources; among such sources are those who wish to deny Aristotle’s commitment to a material substratum that is ontologically more basic than the elements, and who instead affirm the conclusion that Aristotle’s account of nature and change does not require prime matter.2A different objection to the interpretative tradition is voiced by those who wish to maintain Aristotle’s commitment...

In The Powers of Aristotle’s Soul, Thomas Kjeller Johansen offers a fresh treatment of Aristotle’s De Anima, showing that Aristotle can successfully explain the cause of life and activities of living things by appealing to a minimal number of definitionally independent capacities, in much the way that a faculty psychologist would. Johansen situates Aristotle’s account of the soul within the framework of his natural philosophy, arguing that the definitional independence of the soul’s capacities does not conflict with the internal unity of the soul. In doing so, he offers explanations of the further abilities and capacities of the soul, including phantasia and locomotion.In the first eight chapters of the book ..