Search

The view that prime matter possesses extension as an essential feature offers one way to explain the traditional role of prime matter while avoiding the twin charges of incoherence and vacuity. In this paper, I show that attributing extension to prime matter as an essential feature is not a viable interpretation of Aristotle, and indeed, is at odds with the concept of extension in his physical works. Nonetheless, one need not entirely reject Aristotle's commitment to prime matter; I suggest that the paradoxical nature of prime matter is not problematic, so long as the role of prime matter is restricted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In On Generation and Corruption, Aristotle rejects the very possibility of such a thing as Anaximander's apeiron. Characterized as a kind of intermediate stuff, the apeiron turns out to consist of contraries and as such is impossible. Commentators have rightly noted this point and some have also indicated that Aristotle offers an argument of sorts for his negative estimate. However, the argument has received scant attention, and it is fair to say that it remains unclear exactly why Aristotle rejects Anaximander's intermediate stuff. Indeed, it is unclear how Aristotle's argument is supposed to run in the first place. This paper offers a reconstruction of Aristotle's argument for the impossibility of the apeiron, and on this basis offers to explain Aristode's grounds for rejecting Anaximander's interme-diate stuff. This is especially called for in light of the fact that Aristotle himself thinks that there can be intermediate stuffs. Finally, some attention is given to the parallel between the apeiron and Aristotle's prime matter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]