7/29/2019 Primari ousia

1/4

Primary Ousia. by Michael J. LouxReview by: A. R. LaceyThe Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 173, Special Issue: Philosophers and Philosophies(Oct., 1993), pp. 525-527Published by: Blackwell Publishing for The Philosophical QuarterlyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2219994 .

Accessed: 29/03/2012 18:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and The Philosophical Quarterly are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to The Philosophical Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=philquarhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2219994?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2219994?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=philquarhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

7/29/2019 Primari ousia

2/4

BOOK REVIEWS 525otherwisen interesting aperwhichcould shedlighton what Aristotle as inmind.Apartfrom hepapersbyKosmanandKahn already eferredo, ndthe xtractfrom rentano, here emains paper by Henry . Richardson n Desire and theGood in theDe Anima'. t providesan intricate rgumentforattributingoAristotle 'good-basedmodel'of nimal movement s opposedto a 'desire-basedmodel'. t is,however, he nlypaperto discussmattersying utside he ognitivefaculties owhich,t mustbeadmitted, hegreater artof heDe Animas devoted.It would have beenreasonableperhapstoexpectmore n this ollection n theclosing hapters f hatwork,whether r notthey elong o tsmainfabric.Apartfromhis inal aperthere s a bibliography hichsreasonably omprehensiveutwhich till emainsncompleteven nrespect frecent ontributionso a study fAristotle'shinkingn thesematters.What is one tomake of the collection s a whole? t includeswhatare,for hemostpart,able papersby someoftheleadingAristoteliancholarswritingnEnglish. t coversmost, hough otby anymeans ll,ofthe ubjectswhich heDeAnima aises, ut ndoing o itdeals with he ssuesn too detailed nd intricatewayfor nyonenotalreadyfamiliarwithAristotle'shinkingogainfrom t. t isessentiallywork or cholars,nd its ize makes tsomewhatndigestible. do notthink, owever, hat heeditors avereally houghteriouslynough boutwhatsucha work houldcontain. n particular,he attention ivenby nearlyhalf hecontributorso thequestionwhether ristotle as a functionalisteems pity nthat tgives slant o theworkwhichmaybe ess han lluminatingbout Aristotle.The impactof some oftheinsightfulontributionsn particularpsychologicalconceptsand issuesmay be blurred n consequence.The De Animaremainsfundamentally biologicalwork n which Aristotles concerned o understandvarious unctionsf ifentermsf heway n which nimals nd humanbeings rerelated o theobjectswhichbring bout theactualization f thevarious,many-levelled,capacitiesfor such functioning.his framework, hichremainsaninterestingne, is verydifferent rom he one to whichfunctionalismn thephilosophy fmindbelongs, nd onlyconfusion an be produced by assumingotherwise.Given the frameworkdopted byAristotle,here s stillmuchto belearnt from heDe Anima, ut not generallyn termswhichbelong to post-Cartesianphilosophyfmind. fa philosophyfmind an be said tobeofferedyhim t ssimplynthe ense hat, nthecontext f n accountof ife, epresentstheorynvolving sychologicaloncepts. utthatmakeshistheory otworse han,and certainly otbetter han,theoriesnvolving ost-Cartesianoncepts justdifferent.Birkbeckollege, niversityfLondon D. W. HAMLYNPrimaryusia. BYMICHAELJ. oux. (Ithaca and London:CornellUP, 1991.Pp.xii + 285. Price$43.95.)Aristotle'smetaphysics as been the centre fquitea bitof nterestecently, utthere s no dangerofany agreed interpretationmergingwhich could render? The editors fThePhilosophicaluarierly,993.

7/29/2019 Primari ousia

3/4

526 BOOK REVIEWSsuperfluousuchbooks s this, r makeLoux risk oring cholarswhileheexplainsthegeneralnatureofAristotle's osition o an outsidereadership.Armed withreflectionsuchas these,Loux addresses woaudiences, heconventional ne ofspecialists nd the quite different' ne ofnon-specialistsn GreekphilosophyseekingAristotle'smature viewson what we nowadayscall the problemsofsubstance' p. 1). I amnot sureustwhat this econd udience consistsf, rhowmanypeople without reasonableknowledge f Aristotle's extswill want topursue he nterpretationf hemnsuchdetail,but three oncessions re made tosuchreaders.No knowledge fGreek srequired thoughousia', nd also I think'idion',re eft ntranslated). here s an eleven-pageIntroduction'ummarizingthe book's mainthemes; his s excellentlylear,and could indeed be read withprofit y non-specialists,ndergraduates,tc.,whiletomany pecialistsswell,suspect,twillgive welcome rientation efore etting ownto brass acks; hereare also useful ummaries rom ime o time hroughout. inally n thebrass acksthemselves:eferenceso the iteraturerefrequentnduseful, utonly ometimesdoes Loux allow himself longfootnoteo deal with omepoint f cholarly etail;he keepsa nice balance betweenunduly gnoringuchpoints nd getting s soboggeddown nsubordinate onsiderationshatwe lose the mainthread. n themain thestyle s fluent nd accessible, hough ometimesnclinedto be ratherprolix nd heavy-weather-making.Andwhen omething ependson somethingelsefor eing dentified, ust treally ecalled identifiability-dependent'n that?But such barbarisms are untypical.) Some sections,however, including,unfortunatelyor henon-specialist,heveryfirstne after he ntroduction,reveryntricate nddifficult;twouldhavehelped f ectionss well as chapters adhad titles,ndif here ad been an indexocorum,nd back-referencesore pecificthan in earlierchapters'or 'as we noted' (pp. 230, 233). Misprints re fairlycommon, nd sometimesystematice.g., tiein inai',hechaston',Telloh');they remostly armless, ut watch thea's and b's inAristotle eferences.The book's mainconcernstotrace hedevelopmentfthenotion fousia romtheCategorieshroughoMetaphysicsandH, showingusthow muchoftheearlytheoryspreservednd how much snot, nd whether he ater heorys consistentwith tself,nd in particularwhether t escapes the inconsistent riad thatnouniversal s ousia, orm sousia,whileformsa universal. and H are assumedtoform single reatise, ithH6 as its grandfinale' p. 191),an assumptionhathasnotgone unchallenged see p. 2 ofNotes n Eta andTheta, he successor o theLondon seminar'sNotes nZetathathe often eferso). Ousia tself e thinksf assubstance rreality, ut scoy bouttranslatingt o,apparently ecauseof ertainmisleading latonic onnotationsf'reality' nd Lockean ones of'substance'. ortheman nthe treet suspectsubstance'means itherstuff'r omething oufindinyour oup,but thephilosopher,venthe non-specialistn Greekphilosophy',sso mbuedwithAristotelianismhat urelysubstance'meansmore r esswhatever'ousia'means.Leibniz wrote boutsubstance, fter ll,as well as Locke. For ti eneinai'on the otherhand Loux is happytouse the traditionalessence'alongside'what t s to be'.The importancef hese oints f ranslationriseswhenwe come to someof hemost ntricate nd difficultections f hebook, uchas chapter ?4,wherewe are? The editors fThePhilosophicaljnailerlv,993.

7/29/2019 Primari ousia

4/4

BOOK REVIEWS 527concernedwith ubtlerelations etween setofterms, otablyousia', essence','form' nd species'.Loux uses deasdevelopedbyhim n a previous rticleinMind1979) to claim thatAristotle ees twokinds f ubstance-predication.ne is thatwhereby species s predicatedessentially f a compositeparticular:man ispredicated ssentiallyf ocrates, or ocratessessentiallyman.Theothers thatwhereby substantialormspredicated ccidentallyf parcelofmatter omakeupa composite articular:heform fman spredicated ccidentallyf hatparcelofmatter hatmakesup Socrates, or hatparcelhappens ohavetaken n humanshape,etc.Thislatter redications on a differentevel from heformer, hich tserves o explain, nd toconfuse he two nvolves categorymistake. he term'man' isambiguousbetweenmixedproduct' nd pure product' enses pp. 115-17). In Socrates s a man' thas themixedproduct ense,wherematters nvolved.In 'Thisparcelofmatters (as ithappens)constitutednto man' ithas thepureproduct ense, eferringurely otheformwhich simposed n thematter. ater(chapter ?4) heappliesone nterpretationf 1038b14-15,ofwhichp. 207offersthree ossiblenterpretations,ut gnores hatof theLoeb, whereby heunity fessencebelongsto theconclusionrather hanthepremise f theargument; econcludes hat no universal hat s theessence fa plurality fobjects an be theousia fanyofthose bjects' p. 216).It is here thatwe reallyrequire ome further iscussion f thesevarious nter-related erms.A footnotenp. 216countersn objection o the bove conclusionby claiming hat houghAristotle oesequate ousia' nd essence', his nlyrefersto theprimaryases, o the ssences f he ubstantial orms hat re their wnousiaandessence, nd not to theessences fthe omposite articulars hoseousiaibutnotessences) hose ormsre'. It is the pecies,whichproperlypeakings tsownessence,hats na derivativeense he ssence f heparticulars,ecause he ssenceswhat he efiniensfadefinitionxpresses,ndonly niversalsave definitionp.184).Well,yes;buthoware wetounderstandll this?Whatexactlys meantby ayingthat omething, hether formranythinglse, sidenticalwithwhat t s tobe(for) hatthing?Aristotle oesofcourseverbally ubstantializewhat t s tobe',but essence',which tymologicallynanycase recallsousia', elps ogloss ver heproblems his aises.These are realproblems, ot ust problems or oux. His conclusionsbout theinter-relatingf ousia,formand essenceare statedwith excellentclarity nsummariespp. 147, 184,187,etc.),but twould have been nice tohave a moreintegrated iscussionfthenotions hemselves,specially s thismight ffect hemost ontroversiallaim nthebook,thatthere reno individual orms.As usualwith eviewers, y ength-limitooms. have saidnothingboutLoux'actualconclusion n thetopics t the tart fmy econdparagraph, o letmeaddthat he producesa roundedand coherentpatternforAristotle's evelopment,seeing majoranomalyonly nAristotle'sailure o ntegratentohissystemheprimematter owhichhe was committed.This is an important ook.Despite tsgeneral larity am not surehowmanynon-specialistsillread t,but twillfindn honoured laceon the cholar'shelves.King'sCollegeondon A. R. LACEYC The editors fThePhilosophicaluarlerly,993.