Aristotle’s claim that there existed a matter or a subject that remained unchanging was quite interesting to me. This was fascinating because it shows the close relationship between form and matter and further relating to the points by other philosophers.
Initially, Aristotle explains how we acquire the primary principles that are the basis of the scientific knowledge. He then states that all changes come to be from its opposite and by acquiring its distinctive form. In addition to form being one of its principles, privation or absence of the original form is what makes it to come to being. Moreover, there is matter, the third principle, which remains unchanging while the others change. Aristotle notes that if there were no unchanging material during the change, there would be no subject or a “thing” that underwent the change.
His point then shows the interdependent relationship between form and matter. The matter itself cannot undergo change without the change in form. The form cannot be changed if there is no matter to perform it on. While some of the early philosophers believed that the material did not undergo change but it was the dissociation and proportion. Aristotle included some part of this argument, however, his theory was that there was a change but also an unchanging matter. Thus, he answered the idea of flux of Heraclitus and the unchanging state of Parmenides.