Talk:Potentiality and actuality (Aristotle)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Is it really necessary to use Greek characters in Aristotle's technical terms? E.g. why not write metabole instead of μετάβολε? This will make the article accessible to Greekless readers at I think minimal cost to Greek experts. If there are any cases of potential confusion both the Greek and the transliteration could be given. Crust 19:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Besides, "metabolé" should have an accute accent at the last eta (which is a long 'e', not an epsilon). If Greek characters are to be used (don't know how, and I think they could be an added bonus, not a necessity), spelling should be checked. Perseus Project has the Greek-English Lexicon on the web. Dave Meta 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I tried to check each one against perseus. Apologies if I missed something. Personally... I'm not sure we need the Greek at all, but I'd be in favor of the Greek original, and the English translation, rather than transliteration. Sjcodysseus 05:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
There is enough space for all Greek original, transliteration, translation - at any order. Why leave information out?--FocalPoint 11:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Sjcodysseus, what's your argument for favoring the Greek original (as opposed to a transliteration in the Roman alphabet)? I think that can be unneccessarily intimidating for many people. For people who do read Greek it's only a slight disadvantage (unless their English is poor; but hey, Wikipedia is a multilingual resource). I think it's helpful to keep the Greek versions of key technical terms, as otherwise there can be genuine confusion. FocalPoint, I think including all three is overkill. Crust 14:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I disagree with the introduction
The introduction on 4/23/06 reads: "...Potency refers, generally, to the capacity or power of a virtual reality to come to be in actuality. Potency is a capacity, and actuality is its fulfillment."
I disagree. My source is De Anima Book II, part 1. Actuality is also a capacity and can exist without fulfillment. Aristotle creates a distinction between "first actuality" and "second actuality." First actuality is the ability to perform a certain function, such as an axe's ability to cut or an eye's ability to see. Second actuality is when the the function is a actually performed, such as when an axe actually cuts or an eye is actually seeing. This article on potentiality and actuality is not correct (specifically where it says, as quoted above, "actuality is its fuflfillment") and cannot be considered complete without an explanation of first and second actuality. I'm hoping that somebody more qualified than myself can add this to the main article. .Avi 05:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC).Avi
I believe what you call first and second actuality can be translated into the terms already in this article. Specifically: what you call first actuality is what Aristotle calls active potency in Metaphysics, IX (I don't have the reference right now; I believe it's chapter 3 or 4). What you call second actuality may be undestood as the realization (I use the word fulfillment). As I understand it, this is all part of the account of transitive acts (kineseis) already explained here; Aristotle explains it more technically in Physics I-III and Metaphysics XI. I'll try to make it more clear and introduce first and second actuality. In most Aristotelian manuals, however, "first actuality" is understood as Substance (as the first act of a reality), and second actuality as an act of that substance (as you well put it, seeing, for instance). In any case, even when an active potency depends on a first actuality (the ability to see needs first a substance that can have it), actuality is not a capacity: that is the fundamental distinction Aristotle establishes between potency and act (a distinction first established in the realm of physics, of kinetic motions, as David Ross and many other Aristotelian Scholars -Jaeger, Düring, etc- explain). I appreciate your comment, anyway, and I'd like to know the passage you are reading, to include it in the article. Dave Meta 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Potency vs Potentiality
Is there a difference? If not shouldn't there be a standard term or at least an explanation of why it switches back and forth?Sir Akroy 21:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
