alan nar Dilek

2005101945
PHIL 101.01
October 30, 2006
POTENTIALITY AND ACTUALITY IN CASE OF PRIORITY
The Book Theta of Aristotle is about the definitions and interrelations of potentiality and
actuality and the specific part Theta 8, about which I am going write about, is specially
focused on the of priority of actuality on potentiality in various ways.
As a introduction to the subject matter,firstly I will discuss what the definitions of
potentiality and actuality are.The potentiality is a principle of change either in some other
thing or in itself qua other, but it is extended, quite generally, to every principle of process or
stasis.1 Potentiality is the capacity to be in a different and more completed state2; it is there
for the actuality; and a thing is actual when it has already become the thing that it is.3
Aristotle thinks that the general idea can be understood throuh the consideration of some
cases, where he says that Actuality is to potentiality, as someone waking is to someone
sleeping, as someone seeing is to a sighted person with his eyes closed, as that which has been
shaped out of some matter is to the matter from which it has been shaped.4 As other
examples; a flower seed is a potential flower, whereas the flower is the actual flower.
The relation between matter and form is also very similar to the one between potential-being
anc actual-being. The matter cannot be specified as what is idependent of form5 ( just like
the case of potentiality to actuality ). Bronze as bronze is not considered as matter.Conceived
as matter, bronze is potentially a statue: its identity is determined by the form of the object
whose matter it is. 6 So, we can say that Aristotle sees matter equal to potentiality and form to
the actuality.For instance, clay is matter (potential brick) and the brick is the form ( actual
brick) ; and that can contunie to which, that brick is matter (potential house ) and the house is
form. (actual house).
1

Aristotle ( p. 272 )
Cohen
3
Hugh Lawson ( p. 266 )
4
Cohen
5
Gill
6
Gill
2

Aristotle examines the actualities priority to the potentiality in the three points: In account ( in
thought or definition ), in time and in substance.According to Aristotle, in terms of thought, it
should be very clear that actuality is prior to potentiality. Jonathan B. Beere explains this
situation by making a definition of the priority in account saying x is prior to y in account if
and only if there is an account of x that does not involve y (implicitly or explicitly),but not
vice versa7 : In this context, an account is not just any term or phrase that refers to
something,but a phrase that says (correctly) what something isOur account of a potential
builder is possessing a potentiality to buildSo,if x is prior to y in account,then one cannot
cognitively grasp y without already grasping x 8. But in the contrary situtation we have to
cognitively grasp what x is,in order to understand x, which leads to that x is prior to y. As an
example,if we take our account of a potential see-er as possessing a potentiality to see; we can
not know what ability to see( here the potentiality to see) is, without grasping the act of
seeing. So seeing (x) is prior to ability to see. Through this ways, Aristotle come to the
conclusion that the account of the actuality is prior to that of the potentiality and that the
knowledge of the former is prior to that of the latter.9
Then comes the situation in time, where Aristotle says that actuality is prior to potentiality on
in a way but he does not explain the other way. If we look to temporal priority from a normal
point of view, we can say that sperm comes before the man or the wood comes before the
house just like as we can say that 2000 comes before 2006 but again we have to define
priority in time in another way, where something is prior to another in the same process,when
one precedes the another.10 If we look the relationship between the seed and the man, in the
first look we might say that the potential being,seed has temporal priority to the man in
actuality because it comes first, but if we look from a broader picture,instead of the particulars
in terms of species, that seed has been produced from previous man in actuality.That man in
actuality is produced from the seed in potentiality by the agency of the man in actuality. There
is some primary initiator of the process,and this process-initiator already is in actuality.11
Here, the primary-initiator is the man. Through this arguments Aristotle makes it clear that

Jonathan B. Beere See also Aristotles Metaphysics (1076a36 b4 ) for more information.
Jonathan B. Beere
9
Gould ( p.273)
10
Jonathan B. Beere
11
Aristotle
8

actuality has temporal actuality in time; where every output of a production is produced from
something,as something and by something and the latter is belonging to the same species.
Thirdly, and the hardest one to show is the priority in substance, which Aristotle tries to prove
in 2 ways. The first way, which is relevant to priority in perishable things themselves,
Aristotle also uses the priority in production and as a step, which leads me to the necessity to
show what it is.Aristotle shows an argument as a corollary of his argument about the priority
in time saying if you have never built anything you cannot be a builder.12 which can be
carried out to all skill acquisitions but than he proves the contrary of it. In a similar case, such
a challenge occurs: Somebody who is in the process of learning the guitar lacks that art of
playing the guitar, but is it not what he is doing that art? Aristotle find a solution to this
problem by taking the learning as a process; we should not take such things simply as two
opposite sides as someone who knows playing guitar-who does not know playing or someone
who is scientist-someone who is not. Because it is a process,there can be stages inbetween;
whenever something is produced, some part of it must always have been produced.13
When something is undergoing some process,saying learning playing guitar, some part of it
must already have undergone the process; the learner have already learned some part of
learning the guitar. With these thoughts, we can again say that actuality, here it is playing the
guitar,doing science, is prior to potentiality,here it is the process someone has already
undergone by learning to play guitar or doing science. Coming again to the point of
substance, Aristotle says that the things which are posterior in production have formal and
substantial priority.14 Thus, a man has forman/substantial priority over a boy, and a huamn
being has formal/substantial priority over a sperm. The reason is that the man already has its
form,it is actual-being but the boy is not; it is a potential man in its process to be a man.
Here, there is a use of the notion of final causality that things that come to be move toward
an end ( telos )15. The potentiality occurs for the sake of the actuality-the end,telos. The boy
becomes a man and for the man (actuality) is the boy (potentiality) required, which leads to
which that actuality has priority to potentiality to substance. As an another example, we have
sight to be able to see,not vice versa; because the purpose is seing,which is the telos.
Aristotle shows an another way to show the substantial priority, which is relevant to that
eternal beings have priority to perishable in substance. To come to the point, Aristotles make
an argumentation to show that the potentialities are perishable. A potentiality is for either of
12

Aristotle ( p. 273 )
Aristotle ( p. 273 )
14
Aristotle ( p. 274 )
15
Cohen
13

a pair of opposites; so anything that is capable of being is also capable of not being. What is
capable of not being might possibly not be, and what might possibly not be is perishable16.
Thus the potentiality is perishable but the eternal can not have potentiality and it is actual
because it has no opposites,instead it is stable, it is form. From these argumentation, because
eternal being have substantial priority to perishable, the potential-being is substantially prior
to actuality.
If I look to the claim that if Aristotle might be mistaken by thinking that what is actual is
prior to the potential when we look to the relation between the sperm and the human being, I
can say Aristotle is quite strong and logical in his arguments by showing that actuality is prior
to actuality in account,time and substance. He can handle the problem about the sperm-human
being relationship which I have exactly showed in my previous paragraphs, how human
being is prior to sperm substantially,temporarly and in account. Generally in the arguments
about the potentiality and actuality, Aristotle works methodically and try to show everything
in case of understanding. In addition, Aristotle makes lots of definitions which can be a
positive point for him because with this recreation, he starts to the problems from the bottom
with defining everything and also writing some possible objections to it, by trying to show
that even such objections can not weaken his arguments.
In the other hand, there are still some problematic issues. One of the objections come from
the German philosopher Heidegger putting possibility prior to actuality. Heidegger thinks that
actuality can be prior to potentiality only when there is only one purpose it can reach but in
fact there are possibilities. This idea is close to the Aristotelean irrational potency which is
handled in theta 5, admit contrary results as the example of medicine,which can both produce
health and sickness. The actualization of rational potencies is determined by desire or by
rational choice though it depends on whether the desire or choice is directed towards that for
which we have a given capacity. But desire and choice are also directed towards some end.
Choice is the efficient explanation of action; and the final explanation of choice is desire and
reason, themselves directed to some end.17 Thus, according to Heidegger, there are no such
an eternal and the way from potentiality to actuality is not one. Finite movement, as opposed
to infinite presence, defines Heidegger's ontology. Human being as living into finite
possibility, and as aware of its own possibility, precedes actuality in the order of
understanding. 18 So, by denying the eternal and putting the finite instead and adding the
16

Cohen
Hanley ( par. 7 )
18
Hanley ( par. 9 )
17

notion of possibilities to which we can give a direction, we come to the point that actuality is
not prior to potentiality anymore, because it is not possible to know what will come in the
end,which will come into being through the particular possibilities. The actualization of
rational potencies is determined by desire or by rational choice though it depends on whether
the desire or choice is directed towards that for which we have a given capacity. But desire
and choice are also directed towards some end. Choice is the efficient explanation of action;
and the final explanation of choice is desire and reason, themselves directed to some end19. It
is problematic about what could Aristotle say about it that what can we say for a piece of
wood if it has so much possibilities as becoming a table, house, chair
The another point, which can be problematic is the argument which Aristotle gives as
priority in time: The man is prior to the seed. In recent research about the situtaion that if the
egg is an output of the chicken or vice versa, genetically and also logically founded that egg
has existence before the chicken and the chicken has been produced from the egg. That means
egg is prior to chicken and if we transform it in our case ( although it may seem different
actually the situations of the egg-chicken and sperm-human being is similar; we can take the
sperm and the sperm as equal and ask the question if the sperm is an output of the man or the
man is an output of the sperm ); we can say that sperm is prior to the man. I am not sure if that
can lead to the point that potentiality is prior to actuality,it still make doubts about the theory
of Aristotle at this point, because I find myself in trouble why I can not say that the primary
initiator is the sperm? And would we call then the sperm the actual-being?
These are the issues, especially the one which Heidegger argues, which can weaken
Aristotles argument but still, they are not enough to demolish it because Aristotle builds his
arguments very carefully through the principles of logic and he breasts lost of the opposing
ideas in his books successfully. Although it is not a sound argument Aristotle shows us, but as
a way of argumentation, he is still very successful in his job making sensible proofs.

19

Hanley ( par. 7 )

REFERENCES
Aristotle, Book Alpha in Hugh Lawson Tancred ( ed. )
Aristotle, Book Theta
Cohen, S. Marc, Aristotles Metaphysics, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/>
Aristotle Book Theta
1)Aristotle's Metaphysics Reconsidered
Mary Louise Gill Journal of the History of Philosophy 43.3 (2005) 223-241
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_philosophy/v043/43.3gill.html