1. What is the problem of change and how does Aristotle answer it?
The problem of change is essentially the fact that when something comes to be, it is a thing or an object. However, it is uncertain what the initial object was and we are offered two options. We are told it is what it is or it is not what it is. The issue arises that if it is what it comes to be, then no real change has taken place and therefore, change doesn’t exist. The other being that if the original object is not what it is after the coming to be, then it has come from nothing and something cannot come from nothing.
Aristotle replies to this by interpreting the subject of change itself. He claims that it is both an object and a non-object. The subject will hold both features to be true for it will have a component of being and not-being simultaneously. Someone who is bad at math will be a person, or a being, and not good at math, or a not being. A person can become good at math …show more content…
State two differences between Aristotle’s conception of cause and the modern one.
There are several differences between the conceptions of causation in regards to Aristotle and our modern day views. One of which is the facts that the Greeks did not necessarily distinguish between causation and explanation. To them, causation and explanation were one in the same. In our modern view, causation is seen as a relation between two events. When an event occurs, the causation brings forth an explanation. For the Greeks, the causation is the explanation. The reason something happened is as good as the the thing itself.
They also believe that things or objects themselves can be a causal force. In our modern view, objects cannot be held causally responsible for an event. An object can become a tool for an event, but because causation is not a physical thing, it cannot reside in a physical object. Causation in our modern conceivability is the forces acted out upon an object or subject that brings about a change or
The problem of change is essentially the fact that when something comes to be, it is a thing or an object. However, it is uncertain what the initial object was and we are offered two options. We are told it is what it is or it is not what it is. The issue arises that if it is what it comes to be, then no real change has taken place and therefore, change doesn’t exist. The other being that if the original object is not what it is after the coming to be, then it has come from nothing and something cannot come from nothing.
Aristotle replies to this by interpreting the subject of change itself. He claims that it is both an object and a non-object. The subject will hold both features to be true for it will have a component of being and not-being simultaneously. Someone who is bad at math will be a person, or a being, and not good at math, or a not being. A person can become good at math …show more content…
State two differences between Aristotle’s conception of cause and the modern one.
There are several differences between the conceptions of causation in regards to Aristotle and our modern day views. One of which is the facts that the Greeks did not necessarily distinguish between causation and explanation. To them, causation and explanation were one in the same. In our modern view, causation is seen as a relation between two events. When an event occurs, the causation brings forth an explanation. For the Greeks, the causation is the explanation. The reason something happened is as good as the the thing itself.
They also believe that things or objects themselves can be a causal force. In our modern view, objects cannot be held causally responsible for an event. An object can become a tool for an event, but because causation is not a physical thing, it cannot reside in a physical object. Causation in our modern conceivability is the forces acted out upon an object or subject that brings about a change or