37. The Three Things in Every Becoming

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Importance of Understanding Change and Becoming #

• Understanding change is foundational to all philosophical knowledge
• If you don’t understand change, you don’t understand changing things
• If you don’t understand changing things, you don’t understand unchanging things (known through negation)
• Therefore: not understanding change means not understanding anything

Becoming vs. Change: Different Perspectives on the Same Reality #

• Becoming (γένεσις): The same reality as change, viewed from the perspective of the endpoint or destination
• Change (μεταβολή): The same reality as becoming, viewed from the perspective of the starting point or departure
• Analogy: “coming” vs. “going”—same journey, different directional perspective
• Both terms describe identical metaphysical processes; the difference is one of perspective

Three Differences Between Readings 12-13 and 10-11 #

1. Use of terminology: Readings 12-13 use “becoming” (emphasizing the endpoint), while 10-11 used “change” (emphasizing the starting point)
2. Scope of common basis: Readings 12-13 find a common basis shared by all men, not just natural philosophers
3. Necessity of proof: Readings 12-13 establish truth with complete necessity (demonstrative), while 10-11 mixed necessity with probability (dialectical)

Universal Human Speech About Becoming #

• Aristotle establishes a common understanding by examining how all people naturally speak about becoming
• When we say “this becomes that,” we employ two distinct names for “this”
• These two names are not mere synonyms—they signify different realities
• Example: “The man becomes old” or “The young become old” describe the same becoming with two different names for the subject

The Preposition “From” as a Sign of Understanding #

• We consistently use “from” with one of the two names and not the other
• Examples:
  • “The butter becomes hard” / “The soft becomes hard” → we say “from soft to hard,” never “from butter to hard”
  • “The cloth becomes wet” / “The dry becomes wet” → we say “from dry to wet,” never “from cloth to wet”
  • “The man becomes old” / “The young become old” → we say “from young to old,” never “from man to old”
• This pattern shows implicit awareness that one element remains while another is lost
• The preposition “from” indicates departure from something, which we use only with what is lost

The Three Things in Every Becoming #

Every becoming necessarily involves three elements:

1. What comes to be (the new thing; the form acquired)
2. What remains (the underlying subject; the substrate)
3. What is lost (the contrary or privation)

The underlying subject manifests a “two-ness” (δυάς): in one respect it remains, in another respect it loses something.

The Two-Fold Nature of the Underlying Subject #

• The subject of becoming is “one in number” but “not of one sort” (not κατὰ λόγον/kata logon)
• Example: To be a man and to be unmusical are not the same definition/essence
• One aspect remains (e.g., the man, the butter, the cloth)
• One aspect is lost (e.g., the young, the soft, the dry)
• This distinction is the chief reason for saying there are multiple things in becoming

The Reversal of Order in the Argument #

• Paragraphs 3-4 of page one: Proceeds from way we speak → to difference in things
  • Shows linguistic pattern (use of “from”) as a sign of understanding
• Bottom of page 1 / top of page 2: Reverses to things themselves → to way we speak
  • Grounds the analysis in reality: one thing remains, one thing is lost
  • Explains the way we speak as an effect of the way things are
• Reason for reversal: When seeking a common basis among all men, must begin from universal speech (what all share). When establishing truth with necessity, must ground reasoning in the nature of things themselves.

The Everyday Understanding of Change #

• Common example: “Joe has changed” (noticed at a high school reunion)
• What this reveals: Recognition that the same person who had hair 20 years ago is now bald
• Three things implicitly understood: (1) Joe himself (remains), (2) his hair/darkness (lost), (3) baldness/grayness (acquired)
• Another example: “Johnny has grown” requires recognizing: (1) Johnny (remains), (2) his previous height (lost), (3) his new height (acquired)
• Even without explicit philosophical training, people implicitly grasp the three-fold structure

Key Arguments #

The Linguistic Argument #

• Universal human speech follows a consistent pattern when describing becoming
• All people employ two distinct names for the subject of change
• These names are not synonymous but signify different aspects of reality
• The consistent use of “from” with the name of what is lost (not what remains) reveals implicit metaphysical awareness
• Sign: The way we speak is an effect of understanding grounded in the nature of things

The Inductive Arguments for the Necessity of the Three Things #

First Induction (from things that come to be):

• Division: All things that come to be are either substances (man, dog, tree) or accidents (health, sickness, color, shape)
• Accidents clearly come to be from something: health comes to be in a body; therefore substance must pre-exist
• Substances also come to be from something: the man from a seed/fertilized egg, the tree from an acorn, the dog from an egg
• Conclusion: Nothing comes to be from nothing; all becoming presupposes something from which it comes to be

Second Induction (from the ways things come to be):

• Five common ways things come to be:
  1. By changing shape/molding (e.g., clay becomes a statue)
  2. By addition (e.g., Mississippi River from many tributaries flowing into it)
  3. (Other ways referenced but not fully detailed in transcript)
• None of these ways generate something from nothing

Important Definitions #

Key Terms from Natural Philosophy #

• Becoming (γένεσις): The process of coming-to-be viewed from the perspective of the endpoint or destination; same metaphysical reality as change but with different emphasis
• Change (μεταβολή): Alteration viewed from the perspective of the starting point or departure
• The underlying subject/substrate: That which persists throughout becoming; receives new properties while remaining itself
• Substance (οὐσία): That which can exist in itself (e.g., man, dog); not dependent on another for existence
• Accident (σύμπτωμα): That which cannot exist in itself but only in another subject (e.g., health exists only in a body)

Examples & Illustrations #

Language Examples Revealing Implicit Understanding #

• Butter example: “The butter becomes hard” or “The soft becomes hard” or “The soft butter becomes hard”—all describe the same reality with different emphases
• Cloth example: “The cloth becomes wet” or “The dry becomes wet”—two names for the subject, one remains, one is lost
• American proverb: “From rags to riches” uses “from” with poverty (lost), never “from humanity to riches” (what remains)
• Shakespeare: The principle of “looking before and after” relates to understanding the temporal structure of change

Concrete Examples from Experience #

• Recognizing change in a person: High school reunion—seeing Joe, who once had hair, is now bald. Must recognize the same person throughout; three things: (1) Joe remains, (2) hair is lost, (3) baldness acquired
• Child’s growth: “Johnny has grown”—requires remembering Johnny’s former height, observing current height, but recognizing it is the same Johnny
• Hair turning gray: A person could have dark hair, experience a shock, and return with gray hair—yet still recognized as the same person
• Mississippi River formation: Grows from a small stream at Lake Itasca (northern Minnesota) through the addition of many tributaries to become one of the world’s greatest rivers

Questions Addressed #

Why is understanding becoming so fundamental? #

Understanding becoming is necessary for understanding anything else. It progresses: becoming → changing things → unchanging things → everything. Without understanding change, philosophical knowledge collapses at its foundation.

How can we know a common understanding of becoming exists among all people? #

By examining universal speech patterns. The fact that all people employ two distinct names for the subject of becoming, and consistently use “from” with what is lost, demonstrates implicit metaphysical understanding rooted in common human nature and experience.

Why does Aristotle reverse the order of argument between establishing common understanding and establishing necessary truth? #

When seeking common understanding shared by all people, begin from universal speech patterns. When establishing truth with necessity, ground reasoning in the nature of things themselves. Speech patterns are effects of reality, not causes. The reversal shows logical priority: reality grounds language, not vice versa.

What is the relationship between the two names used in becoming? #

One name refers to what remains throughout (the underlying subject), the other to what is lost (the contrary or privation). They are not synonymous. The fact that one remains while the other does not is the chief reason for saying they signify different realities.

Can anything come to be from nothing? #

No. This is established by induction across all types of becoming. Accidents require a substance to inhere in; even substances come from seeds or other pre-existing things. Therefore, what comes to be must come to be from something—never from nothing.