In Aristotle’s Book I Physics, he talks about how we come to the conclusion that something is one thing but not the other thing. He uses the example of a man or thing being musical or non musical. Aristotle also uses the letters F and G as examples too.

In the passage, Aristotle tries to solve the puzzle that we do not see the contraries of the thing. He tries to explain that something comes from F but it can also come from F being in G. He uses the man and music to explain this further. Aristotle says that the man did not come from being musical because he is a man but the man became musical. He tries to explain that something can become another thing while staying the original thing. Aristotle says that something comes to be F, the thing could remain when it become F or it may not be the thing anymore. In the example of the man, he becomes musical but he still remains a man.

To me this is a really confusing idea to comprehend. If I look further into what Aristotle is trying to show it starts to make more sense to me. If something become another thing it is possible for it to remain its original qualities. I think of a rectangle becoming a square for example. The square is still a rectangle even though it has become a square. It keeps its qualities of a rectangle even though it turned into a square.

Advertisements