Does Aristotle’s ‘Being Is Not a Genus’ Argument Entail Ontological Pluralism?
-
Maciej Czerkawski
Abstract
This paper differentiates between two readings of Aristotle’s argument that unity and being are not “genē” (UBANG for short). On the first reading – proposed by commentators such as Ackrill, Shields, Loux, and McDaniel – UBANG entails the proposition that there are no features that characterise all beings insofar as they are, referred to by its contemporary proponents, including McDaniel, as ‘ontological pluralism’. On the second reading – proposed here – UBANG does not entail this proposition. The paper argues that only on the second reading does Aristotle’s argument secure its conclusion, that the second reading is, in fact, the correct reading of UBANG, and that anyone who thinks that UBANG succeeds and entails ontological pluralism probably equivocates between two different senses of ‘genos’.
Ackrill, J. L. (ed.) 2002. Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione. OxfordSearch in Google Scholar
Anselm, Proslogium. 1903. Trans. by S. Norton Deane. Chicago, IL.Search in Google Scholar
Aristotle, Metaphysics. The following translations were used. For Book Alpha: W. D. Ross. 1984. The Collected Works of Aristotle. Revised Oxford Translations. Princeton. For Book Beta: Madigan, A. 1999. Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Book Beta and Book Kappa 1–2. Oxford. For Books Gamma and Epsilon: Kirwan, Ch. 1980. Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Books Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. Oxford.10.4159/DLCL.aristotle-metaphysics.1933Search in Google Scholar
–. Posterior Analytic. Translation used: Barnes, J. 1993. Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. Oxford.10.1093/oseo/instance.00262308Search in Google Scholar
–. Topics. The following translations were used. For Book I: Smith, R. 2003. Aristotle’s Topics. Books I and VIII with excerpts from related texts. Oxford. For Book VI: A. W. Pickard-Cambridge. 1984. The Collected Works of Aristotle. Princeton. 1984.10.1093/oseo/instance.00258598Search in Google Scholar
Barnes, J. 21993. Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. Oxford.Search in Google Scholar
Berti, E. 2002. “Being and Essence in Contemporary Interpretations of Aristotle”. In Bottani et al. 2002. London.10.1007/978-94-017-1866-0_3Search in Google Scholar
Bottani, A./Carrara, M./Giaretta, P. 2002. Individuals, Essence, and Identity: Themes of Analytic Metaphysics. London.10.1007/978-94-017-1866-0Search in Google Scholar
Charles, D. 2002. “Some Comments on Prof. Enrico Berti’s Paper ‘Being and Essence in Contemporary Interpretations of Aristotle’”. In Bottani et al. London, 109–126.10.1007/978-94-017-1866-0_4Search in Google Scholar
Grice, P. 1988. “Aristotle on the Multiplicity of Being”. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 69, 175–200.10.1111/j.1468-0114.1988.tb00308.xSearch in Google Scholar
Heathwood, Chr. 2011. “The Relevance of Kant’s Objection to Anselm’s Ontological Argument”. Religious Studies 47, 345–57.10.1017/S0034412510000314Search in Google Scholar
Irwin, T. H. 1981. “Homonymy in Aristotle”. Review of Metaphysics 34, 523–44.Search in Google Scholar
Kant, I. 2007. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. by N. Kemp Smith. Basingstoke.10.1007/978-1-137-10016-0Search in Google Scholar
Loux, M. J. 1973. “Aristotle on the Transcendentals.” Phronesis 18, 225–39.10.1163/156852873X00168Search in Google Scholar
–. 2012. “Being, Categories and Universal Reference in Aristotle”. In Categories of Being: Essays on Metaphysics and Logic. Ed. by L. Haaparanta/H. J. Koskinen. Oxford.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199890576.003.0001Search in Google Scholar
Madigan, A. 1999. Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Book Beta and Book Kappa 1–2. Oxford.10.1093/oseo/instance.00264024Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, G. 1972. “Senses and Kinds.” The Journal of Philosophy 59, 149–157.10.2307/2025226Search in Google Scholar
McDaniel, K. 2009. “Ways of Being”. In Metametaphysics. Ed. by D. J. Chalmers/D. Manley/R. Wasserman. Oxford, 290–319.10.1093/oso/9780198719656.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
–. 2017. The Fragmentation of Being. Oxford.10.1093/oso/9780198719656.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Plantinga, A. 1966. “Kant’s Objection to the Ontological Argument”. The Journal of Philosophy 63, 537–46.10.2307/2024217Search in Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1924. Aristotle’s Metaphysics, vol. I. London.10.1093/oseo/instance.00263632Search in Google Scholar
Shields, C. 1999. Order in Multiplicity: Homonymy in the Philosophy of Aristotle. Oxford.10.1093/0199253072.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Turner, J. 2010. “Ontological Pluralism.” The Journal of Philosophy 107, 5–34.10.4324/9781315112596-14Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Titelseiten
- Articles
- Socrates, the ‘What is F-ness?’ Question, and the Priority of Definition
- The Practical Syllogism and Practical Cognition in Aristotle
- Aristotle on How Efficient Causation Works
- Does Aristotle’s ‘Being Is Not a Genus’ Argument Entail Ontological Pluralism?
- The Role of Animal in Abū Bakr al-Rāzī’s Theory of the Perfection of the Soul
- Heidegger and Gadamer on Hegel’s Greek Conception of Being and Time in an Unpublished 1925/26 Seminar
- Infini-Rien: Ist Pascals Wettargument formallogisch ungültig?
- Book Reviews
- Della Rocca, Michael, The Parmenidean Ascent. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020, xxiii + 344 pp.
- Ludwig, Bernd, Aufklärung über die Sittlichkeit. Zu Kants Grundlegung einer Metaphysik der Sitten. Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann Rote Reihe 2020, 226 pp.
Articles in the same Issue
- Titelseiten
- Articles
- Socrates, the ‘What is F-ness?’ Question, and the Priority of Definition
- The Practical Syllogism and Practical Cognition in Aristotle
- Aristotle on How Efficient Causation Works
- Does Aristotle’s ‘Being Is Not a Genus’ Argument Entail Ontological Pluralism?
- The Role of Animal in Abū Bakr al-Rāzī’s Theory of the Perfection of the Soul
- Heidegger and Gadamer on Hegel’s Greek Conception of Being and Time in an Unpublished 1925/26 Seminar
- Infini-Rien: Ist Pascals Wettargument formallogisch ungültig?
- Book Reviews
- Della Rocca, Michael, The Parmenidean Ascent. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020, xxiii + 344 pp.
- Ludwig, Bernd, Aufklärung über die Sittlichkeit. Zu Kants Grundlegung einer Metaphysik der Sitten. Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann Rote Reihe 2020, 226 pp.
