aristotle on change

Aristotle’s three element account of change is largely motivated and influenced by the accounts of his predecessors such as Plato, Mellitus and Parmenides who had a lot of trouble in their accounts answering whether there is one thing (principle) or many, how many and if they are subject to change. Plato claims that real things do not change outside of the physical world of forms, Democritus is an atomist while Parmenides as a monist denies change entirely. Believing that his predecessors where mistakenly driven off course in this argument due to inexperience, Aristotle begins to separate his view from theirs and forming his own opinion account of change within nature. He does this primarily by challenging Parmenides essential claim that makes change impossible, “something comes to be from what is or from what is not”. Attempting to solve this difficulty, he suggests a third claim that outside of the principles of the privation which is what passes away and form which is what ultimately comes to be, or the byproduct of the change itself. He believes there needs to be something known as matter which underlies them and is the key in factor in his attempts to overcome Parmenides paradox.

Parmenides assumption which denies change and proclaims that things are only two ways that something can come to be in existence and that all change is an illusion. Elements come from their one opposites such as light to dark, believing that things can only come from what is or from what is not. With simple things coming to be, one thing remains such as light while darkness would not. Simply put this argument does not account for compound change or plurality of outcomes outside of opposites and Aristotle considers none of these to be possible an...

... middle of paper ...

...is theory that matter is conserved. Although its form may change, acquire something new and lose something it previously held the primarily essential matter involved in the change remains a constant variable.

Some object that while analyzing this solution, it appears that Aristotle merely argues Parmenides stance by complicating the original scenario with vague wording and making too broad of a concept of change in nature. While Parmenides appears to be attempting to describe the change bestowed upon an objects is an illusion, Aristotle describes both the change and includes the object in which the change is influencing. However thinking in this light discredits the advancement in the argument made by Aristotle. Not only did he ultimately avoid the dilemma, he clearly defines and states the three fundamental principles necessary for change to occur in nature.