The following is a chart of the frequency of occurrence of two words in Met. Z 3-17. The blue numbers represent Z 4-6, and the red numbers represent Z 7-9. Can you guess what words these are? (I give the answer in the comments box.) Also, what lesson, if any, should we draw from this?
| 1029a | 11 | 2 |
| 1029b | 0 | 0 |
| 1030a | 0 | 0 |
| 1030b | 0 | 0 |
| 1031a | 0 | 0 |
| 1031b | 0 | 0 |
| 1032a | 3 | 1 |
| 1032b | 4 | 6 |
| 1033a | 5 | 2 |
| 1033b | 2 | 7 |
| 1034a | 4 | 6 |
| 1034b | 2 | 3 |
| 1035a | 12 | 12 |
| 1035b | 8 | 4 |
| 1036a | 6 | 3 |
| 1036b | 3 | 6 |
| 1037a | 9 | 0 |
| 1037b | 3 | 0 |
| 1038a | 2 | 4 |
| 1038b | 1 | 0 |
| 1039a | 0 | 1 |
| 1039b | 2 | 0 |
| 1040a | 0 | 0 |
| 1040b | 1 | 1 |
| 1041a | 0 | 0 |
| 1041b | 3 | 1 |
1 comments:
Answer:
The first column gives occurrences of 'matter' (hule); the second gives occurrences of 'form' (eidos), used in Aristotle's (not Plato's) sense.
The lesson we should draw?
This seems an objection to Burnyeat's interpretation. He says that Aristotle's procedure is to apply the form-matter distinction to each 'mark'. But the distinction is not applied to to ti en einai; and, when it does get applied, in chs. 7-9, Burnyeat wants to say the passage is an interpolation. He has to reach to Z.11 to find the 'second level' of discussion for this second mark. (That’s in a passage which H 1 identifies as not being a consideration of the to ti en einai).
Burnyeat is aware that form and matter are not mentioned in chs. 4-6 (see Map 19), but he does not seem to consider this an objection to his view, and therefore he gives no reply to such an objection or account of the phenomenon.
Post a Comment