Advertisement

Metaphysics as the First Philosophy

Chapter
  • 228 Downloads
Part of the Philosophers in Depth book series (PID)

Abstract

Aristotle talks about “the first philosophy” throughout Metaphysics — and it is metaphysics that Aristotle considers to be the first philosophy — but he never makes it entirely clear what first philosophy consists of. What he does make clear is that the first philosophy is not to be understood as a collection of topics that should be studied in advance of any other topics. In fact, Aristotle seems to have thought that the topics of Metaphysics are to be studied after those in Physics (Cohen 2009). In what sense could metaphysics be the first philosophy? Let me take the liberty of applying the technical jargon of contemporary metaphysics to answer: The first philosophy is an account of what is, or what it means to be, fundamental. Things that are the most fundamental are not grounded in anything more fundamental, they are ontologically independent. This does not necessarily mean that first philosophy attempts to list the most fundamental things, although this could be a part of the discipline. Rather, the study of fundamentality focuses on giving an account of what it is for something to be fundamental. So, first philosophy studies a certain type of being — the fundamental type, and it may also involve an account of which (kind of) things are, or could be, fundamental.

Keywords

Higgs Boson Higgs Field Persistence Condition Modal Truth Posterior Analytics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. J. Barnes (ed.) 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle, The Revised Oxford Translation (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  2. I. Bodnar. 2012. “Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/aristotle-natphil/.Google Scholar
  3. R. Bolton. 1976. “Essentialism and Semantic Theory in Aristotle,” The Philosophical Review 85 (4): 514–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. D. Charles. 2000. Aristotle on Meaning and Essence (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  5. S. M. Cohen (2009) “Aristotle’s Metaphysics,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/.Google Scholar
  6. P. Corkum. 2008. “Aristotle on Ontological Dependence,” Phronesis 53: 65–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. — forthcoming. “Substance and Independence in Aristotle,” in B. Schnieder, A. Steinberg and M. Hoeltje (eds), Ontological Dependence, Supervenience, and Response-Dependence, Basic Philosophical Concepts Series (Munich: Philosophia Verlag).Google Scholar
  8. F. Correia and B. Schnieder. (eds.) 2012. Metaphysical Grounding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  9. S. Dasgupta (ms.) “The Status of Ground,” draft of November 2011.Google Scholar
  10. D. Demoss and D. Devereux. 1988. “Essence, Existence, and Nominal Definition in Aristotle’s ‘Posterior Analytics’ II 8–10”, Phronesis 33: 133–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. T. Dumsday. 2010. “Natural Kinds and the Problem of Complex Essences,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (4): 619–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. M.T. Ferejohn. 2003. “Logical and Physical Inquiries in Aristotle’s Metaphysics,” The Modern Schoolman LXXX, 325–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. K. Fine. 1994. “Essence and Modality,” Philosophical Perspectives 8 (Logic and Language), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. — 1995a. “Ontological Dependence,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 95: 269–90.Google Scholar
  15. — 1995b. “Senses of Essence,” in W. Sinnott-Armstrong, D. Raffman and N. Asher (eds), Modality, Morality, and Belief, Essays in Honor of Ruth Barcan Marcus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). pp. 53–73.Google Scholar
  16. — 1995c. “The Logic of Essence,” Journal of Philosophical Logic 24: 241–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. — 2012. “What is Metaphysics?” in T. E. Tahko (ed.) Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 8–25.Google Scholar
  18. G. Klima. 2002. “Contemporary ‘Essentialism’ vs. Aristotelian Essentialism” in J. Haldane (ed.) Mind, Metaphysics, and Value in the Thomistic and Analytical Traditions (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press), pp. 175–94.Google Scholar
  19. K. Koslicki. 2012a. “Essence, Necessity and Explanation” in T. E. Tahko (ed.) Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 187–206.Google Scholar
  20. — 2012b. “Varieties of Ontological Dependence” in F. Correia and B. Schnieder (eds), Metaphysical Grounding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  21. — this volume. “Substance, Independence and Unity.”Google Scholar
  22. E. J. Lowe. 2008. “Two Notions of Being: Entity and Essence,” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 83 (62): 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. — 2011. “Locke on Real Essence and Water as a Natural Kind: A Qualified Defence,” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 85 (1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. — forthcoming. “Grasp of Essences versus Intuitions: An Unequal Contest,” in T. Booth and D. Rowbottom (eds), Intuitions (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  25. D. Oderberg. 2007. Real Essentialism (London and New York: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. — 2011. “Essence and Properties,” Erkenntnis 75: 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. M. Peramatzis. 2011. Priority in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. T. Scaltsas. 1994. Substances and Universals in Aristotle’sMetaphysics” (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  29. J. Schaffer. 2009. “On What Grounds What,” in D. Manley, D. J. Chalmers, and R. Wasserman (eds), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology (Oxford University Press), pp. 347–83.Google Scholar
  30. T. Sider. 2011. Writing the Book of the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. T. E. Tahko. 2012. “In Defence of Aristotelian Metaphysics,” in T. E. Tahko (ed.) Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 26–43.Google Scholar
  32. — (ms. A) “The Epistemology of Essence,” URL = http://www.ttatiko.net/papers/ epistofessence.pdf.
  33. — (ms. B) “Euclidean Geometry and the A Priori,” URL = http://www.ttahko.net/papers/euclid.pdf.
  34. R. L. Tierney. 2004. “The Scope of Aristotle’s Essentialism in the Posterior Analytics,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 42 (1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. M. V. Wedin. 2000. Aristotle’s Theory of Substance (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  36. C. Witt. 1989. Substance and Essence in Aristotle (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  37. J. Yu. 2003. The Structure of Being in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Dordrecht: Kluwer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tuomas E. Tahko 2013

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations