Skip to main content

Introduction: An Aristotelian Revival?

  • Chapter
Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics

Part of the book series: Philosophers in Depth ((PID))

  • 333 Accesses

Abstract

Modern philosophy began with a rebellion against the Aristotelianism of the Scholastics and has, to a large extent, always been defined by it. To be sure, even in the work of the early moderns, the rejection of Aristotelian ideas was not always thoroughgoing. For instance, the Scholastic holdovers in the systems of Descartes and Locke are well-known, and Leibniz was keen to synthesize as much of previous thought as he could. But the obsolescence of the core doctrines of Aristotle’s metaphysics and philosophy of nature — such as hylemorphism, the theory of act and potency, and the doctrine of the four causes — would eventually become something like settled wisdom in post-Cartesian Western thought.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ariew, André. 2002. “Platonic and Aristotelian Roots of Teleological Arguments,” in André Ariew, Robert Cummins, and Mark Perlman (eds) Functions: New Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariew, André. 2007. “Teleology,” in D. Hull and M. Ruse (eds) The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, Nancy. 1992. “Aristotelian Natures and the Modern Experimental Method,” in John Earman (ed.) Inference, Explanation, and Other Frustrations: Essays in the Philosophy of Science (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, Nancy. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, Brian. 2001. Scientific Essentialism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, Brian. 2002. The Philosophy of Nature: A Guide to the New Essentialism (Chesham: Acumen).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, Kit. 1994a. “Essence and Modality,” in J. Tomberlin (ed.) Philosophical Perspectives 8: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, Kit. 1994b. “A Puzzle Concerning Matter and Form,” in T. Scaltsas, D. Charles, and M. L. Gill (eds) Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Clarendon Press: Oxford).

    Google Scholar 

  • Foot, Philippa. 2001. Natural Goodness (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Groff, Ruth and Greco, John (eds) 2012. Powers and Capacities in Philosophy: The New Aristotelianism (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Haldane, John. (ed.) 2002. Mind, Metaphysics, and Value in the Thomistic and Analytical Traditions (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawthorne, John and Daniel Nolan. 2006. “What Would Teleological Causation Be?” in John Hawthorne (ed.) Metaphysical Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Heil, John. 2003. From an Ontological Point of View (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, E. J. 2006. The Four-Category Ontology: A Metaphysical Foundation for Natural Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1981. After Virtue (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C. B. 2008. The Mind in Nature (Oxford: Clarendon Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, George. 2003. Powers: A Study in Metaphysics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, Stephen. 2009. “Causal Powers and Capacities,” in Helen Beebee, Christopher Hitchcock, and Peter Menzies (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Causation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, Thomas. 2012. Mind and Cosmos (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, Lukas. and Daniel. D. Novotny, Prokop Sousedik, and David Svoboda, (eds) 2012. Metaphysics: Aristotelian, Scholastic, Analytic (Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, Martha. 1986. The Fragility of Goodness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oderberg, David S. 2007. Real Essentialism (London: Routledge).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tahko, Tuomas (ed.) 2012. Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, Michael. 2008. Life and Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2013 Edward Feser

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Feser, E. (2013). Introduction: An Aristotelian Revival?. In: Feser, E. (eds) Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics. Philosophers in Depth. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137367907_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics