‘To be capable of health’ and ‘to be capable of illness’ are not the same, for if they were there would be no difference between being ill and being well. Yet the subject both of health and of sickness-whether it is humour or blood-is one and the same.)“
It’s quite possible I’m stretching this way beyond what Aristotle intended, but is this in some ways applying to the problem of evil:
– rejecting evil as an illusion (clear difference between good and evil)
– rejecting dualism (same humor or blood, not two distinct bodies one good and one bad)
Some of this sounds like Augustine (even if from what I remember he was more greatly influenced by Plato)
I think Aristotle’s point was simpler than you might wish. He’s just saying that the same body, with its balance of bodily “humors,” is potentially healthy and potentially ill, but just because it’s the same body, that does not make such potential the same. If it has an application to the problem of evil, it would be unintentional and indirect. But, I mean…maybe you’re onto something.
I think you’re correct. I might be reading too much into it 🙂
– Please keep showing the Greek words, I find them really illuminating.
– Your explanations brought clarity and simplicity. Why does Aristotle write in a difficult to follow style? Is it an ancient Greek thing, a formal logic syntax thing or just an Aristotle thing?
– I also did a similar mental translation of “motion” into “change” as I was reading. Since we think of motion in Newtonian terms, to do with, position, velocity and acceleration. But Aristotle meant it much more broadly. i.e. A child growing into adulthood is also motion. The whole potentiality moving toward actuality concept implies a design and purpose. And hence a Creator God. As opposed to the material viewpoint of randomness and survival.
I’m glad that the Greek notes help somebody! Thanks for the feedback.
The explanation often given is that Aristotle’s works are not written by him but are notes written by students; as such, they are abbreviated and full of unconnected and unexplained details (that would have been connected and explained in the original). Another reason Aristotle is difficult is that he does not bother to explain things that would have been well understood by students of philosophy. Just as today, he was working in a tradition, one that seemed established and old to him (and it was indeed at least a few hundred years old). So to learn Aristotle is to a certain degree to learn to think like a Greek, particularly because he frequently addressed himself to the details of his opponents’ views.
Quite right re motion and change.
Also, Aristotle becomes much more interesting when you think of his argument as aiming to establish an unchangeable changer.
Reply to “Physics III: Initial questions and notes”