The Relationship between Ontology, Substanceology, and Ousiology in Aristotle’s Philosophy and the Examination of the New Interpretations about it

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD student, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

The quiddity of philosophy has been a hot topic for discussion since the time of Aristotle, and discussions about it have continued in the ensuing periods of the history of Peripatetic philosophy. This is evident in the disputes between the two famous Muslim Peripatetic philosophers, Avicenna and Ibn Rushd. This discussion was revived in the second half of the 20th century, in particular in the German studies of Aristotle. The questions here regard that if there is only one primary philosophical science in the eyes of Aristotle which has come to be called both Ousiology and ontology/substanceology, or both of them do exist separate from each other. If the latter is the case, the next question regards their relationship with each other. In this article, which is a review the opinions of modern Aristotle researchers about the foregoing questions, we conclude that Ousiology is the ultimate realization of substanceology. This way, we call Ousiology as the cornerstone of the philosophical theory as viewed in substanceology. This line of thought requires that the extended foundational concepts in Aristotelian substanceology need a kind of Ousiology. Meanwhile, God is a “specific nature” as the Cause of all non-God (as one of the “principles and causes). With such a premise, a person who acts as a substanceologist based on Gamma book to find the principles and causes of Ousia is at the same time an Ousiologist.

Keywords

References

  1. ارسطو (1377). سماع طبیعی (فیزیک)، ترجمۀ محمد حسن لطفی، تهران: طرح نو.
  2. ـــــــــــ (1377). مابعدالطبیعه (متافیزیک)، ترجمۀ شرف‌الدین خراسانی، چ اول، تهران: حکمت.
  3. رأس، دیوید (1377). ارسطو، ترجمۀ مهدی قوام صفری، چ اول، تهران: فکر روز.
    1. Boeder H.(1971). Weshalb “Sein das Seienden” In: Philosophisches Jahrbuch,.
    2. Kramer,H,G.(1964). Der Ursprung der Geistesmetaphysik, Amsterdam.
    3. Marx, W. (1977). Introduction to Aristotle's Theory of Being as Being, En. Tr by Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands.
    4. Natorp, Poul.(1888f). “Thema und Disposition der aristotelischen Metaphysik”, Philosophische Monatshefte, 24: 37–65.
    5. Owens, W. (1963). The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian “Metaphysics”, Pontifical Institude of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto. Third edition, revised (1th ed.1951,2th ed. 1963).
    6. Putzig, G. (1960). “Theologie und Ontologie in der‘ Metaphysik‘ das Aristoteles“ Kantstudien.

10.Natrop Paul,(1888). Thema und Disposition der Aristotelischen Metaphysik. In: Philosophische Monatshefte.

11.Ross, W. D. ( 1923). Aristotle, Methuen, fifth edition, London. revised (1th ed. 1923).

12.Ross, W. D, ( 1924). Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford.

13.Wagner,  H, ( 1959.) Philosophische Rundschou.

14.Wehmeier, S., )2005(. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Oxford University, Oxford,  

Philosophy of Religion
Volume 17, Issue 2
July 2020
Pages 297-315

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics