Introduction: An Aristotelian Revival?
- 221 Downloads
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.
KeywordsCausal Power Prime Mover Master Craftsman Aristotelian Tradition Unmoved Mover
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Tahko, Tuomas (ed.) 2012. Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar