Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science ((BSPS,volume 4))

  • 553 Accesses

Abstract

Different ontologies adopt different notions of existence as basic. Aristotle’s paradigm of existence is given by the equivalence:

$${\text{to}}\,{\text{be = to}}\,{\text{be}}\,{\text{a}}\,{\text{substance}}{\text{.}}$$
(A)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Correlation (2) has been first pointed out by Professor Irving M. Copi in his memorable paper ‘Objects, Properties, and Relations in the Tractatus’, Mind 67 (1958) 145–165. In fact Copi’s remark that “Wittgenstein’s objects are substantial in the later sense of substrata, and correspond more closely to Aristotle’s prime matter than to his primary substances” (p. 164) was the starting-point in developing the parallelism presented here.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cf. G. E. M. Anscombe, ‘An Introduction to Wittgenstein’s Tractatus’, London 1959, p. 165.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cf. Aquinas Summa contra Gentiles, II, 54: “In substantiis autem compositis ex materia et forma est duplex compositio actus et potentiae: prima quidem ipsius substantiae quae componitur ex materia et forma; secunda vero ex ipsa substantia iam composita et esse.”

    Google Scholar 

  4. It needs stressing that there are great difficulties concerning the proper interpretation of 2.0201, especially with regard to the question why is ‘statement’ (Aussage) being used there in the singular, and ‘propositions’ (Sätze) in the plural. Moreover, in the present context it should be stipulated that S is to be an Elementary complex, that is, that ‘F(a, b, c)’ is to be an elementary proposition.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Robert S. Cohen Marx W. Wartofsky

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1969 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wolniewicz, B. (1969). A Parallelism Between Wittgensteinian and Aristotelian Ontologies. In: Cohen, R.S., Wartofsky, M.W. (eds) Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science 1966/1968. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3378-7_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-3378-7_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3380-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-010-3378-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics