In this paper, I show that Aristotle’s refutation of the Eleatic argument in Physics I.8 is based on the idea that a thing at the starting point of coming to be is composite and is made up of what underlies and a privation. In doing so, I clarify how the concept of accidentality as used in his solution should be understood in relation to the composite nature of what comes to be. I also suggest an explanation of why Aristotle’s discussion of the Eleatic dilemma in Physics I.8, unlike his discussion in the previous chapter, is not clear.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.