Tyler Huismann

Aristotle gives a surprisingly broad menu of examples of something being accidental to something else. But the breadth of these examples seems to threaten a basic feature of accidentality, namely its asymmetry. ‘Accident’ has different senses, and one might think that that fact offers a way out, but some examples resist such an understanding. The best way forward, I argue, is to take accidentality to be contextual: relative to some context or condition, something might be accidental to something else; relative to another context or condition, the latter might be accidental to the former.

Typically, Aristotle’s notion of an accidental unity is explained using our concept of identity, but doing so is fraught and liable to mislead. I argue that we should explain accidental unities in terms of sameness: doing so not only shows a coherence among texts thought to be in tension with one another, it reconciles the two competing conceptions of accidental unities in a satisfying way. I conclude by answering several Boolean questions that naturally arise in response to the inclusion of accidental unities in Aristotle’s ontology.

John Buridan’s theory of persistence is based on a metaphysical foundation that has been misrepresented by contemporary scholars. I argue that this fact is both (i) suggested by his treatment of persistence itself, and (ii) explicit in his clearest exposition of the foundations of persistence. I also argue that while this fact has historical interest, its primary interest is philosophical in nature: it shows Buridan developing a distinction that contemporary philosophers find useful in elaborating a metaphysical basis for theories of persistence.