In his recent provocative article, “Aristotle’s Distinction between Energeia and Kinesis,” Professor J. L. Ackrill has added fuel to the flames of a controversy at least as old as the Lyceum. Professor Ackrill avows a primarily aporetic purpose, and raises, with the aim of stimulating discussion, what he regards as several difficulties, confusions, inadvertences and lacunae in the Aristotelian text anent the ἐνέργεια-κίνησισ distinction. But perhaps it would not be untoward to take up Professor …
Read moreIn his recent provocative article, “Aristotle’s Distinction between Energeia and Kinesis,” Professor J. L. Ackrill has added fuel to the flames of a controversy at least as old as the Lyceum. Professor Ackrill avows a primarily aporetic purpose, and raises, with the aim of stimulating discussion, what he regards as several difficulties, confusions, inadvertences and lacunae in the Aristotelian text anent the ἐνέργεια-κίνησισ distinction. But perhaps it would not be untoward to take up Professor Ackrill’s challenge, in order to attempt to determine, with the aid of other parties to the controversy and a reexamination of the text, whether the aporiai be not insoluble and, in fact, rather Professor Ackrill’s than Aristotle’s. Indeed, it may well be that there are grounds for arguing that, on Aristotle’s view, ἐνέργεια and κίνησισ are not only clearly distinguished, but systematically related as well.
