Thursday, March 15, 2018

Review of the Fourfold, πολλαχώς

Related image


Yet, did we not assert, during the first enumeration of the four
meanings of being in the Aristotelian sense, that the unity of these
four meanings remains obscure in Aristotle? We did. However, this
does not rule out but, for a philosopher of Aristotle's stature, precisely
entails that this unity be troubling in view of its multiplicity. We need
only observe how Aristotle explains the πολλαχώς.

The fourfold of Aristotle, polyaxhus [pollakhos, πολλαχώς], might be written somewhere, shut in a shoebox, 
and thereby placed in a closet, on a dark shelf, far behind many old articles of clothing 
that will never be worn. Substance, true or untrue, dunamis and energia, and the categories. 
Insofar as we grant Aristotle had the hexis of this thinking, such that his “equiprimordial” 
care was exposed to the task of thinking what he was exposed to, this list speaks of the Greek World. 
Yet so far as we master the subject matter of Aristotle, under the specific thinking of the 
ergon of the text with the name Heidegger, we only set a vagueness of thinking (like a questioning) 
alongside a mastery of a formal subject matter. And then attempt to transform the basic and habitual 
of experience as questioning into the track in order to let what is strange show forth as deviant and 
so to call thinking forth.

Let us review these subject matters in no particular order.

The true and the untrue: What is true could never hold if it allowed the world totality to 
include non-being, as what was available alongside being. Ergo, for Aristotle, what is true 
is said about what is available as what is gathered in its availability, thus, whereas for Plato 
non-being remains a problem, for Aristotle dunamis has the gathered privation, stands as 
what is a limit state out of which what is to be spun is spun. Nous, for Aristotle, is as much 
one of the beings as is a stone. The problem of what is ‘real’, and what is ‘intellectual’, never 
shows itself. The stone is governed because it has form, just as is plant, animal, and intellectual 
being. The chariot, just as the charioteer, has form. Hyle does not name, as in Plato, the 
appearance of the bodies, but rather the differentiation of form. This way of thinking still 
persists and holds sway amidst the forgetfulness. Yet, superficiality is so great that one 
never thinks to see the foundations of one’s habitual understanding. The ‘ethical’ sense 
of the true is forced into all things, even beyond the reticence of the immature Socrates 
of the Parmenides who does not wish to become ridiculous.

Of dunamis and energia:

We beg off this, the chief topic of the current study, with the comment that Wilhelminian 
collapse of the Prussian saw the beginning of the belief in the fact. It is curious that just as 
Nietzsche, moved to admiration by Polish thinkers understood himself as Polish, not fictively, 
but as a biographical matter, so too did Kant falsely ascribe a Scottish ancestry to himself. 
The fact always is unavailable to such cryptomnesia of the universe, so to say, such slips, 
and yet the fluidity of essences allows for it, because in Nietzsche the totality is essentiazable, 
the Kantian thing-izing of the being of beings, as the ‘thing-in-itself’, consummates Aristotelian 
thinking in the self destructive act of an animal feeding on itself, since the true becomes the correct. 
This feeding on its own flesh is the Pessimism of Optimism itself. The Utopia proves to be the place 
that casts off its own knowledge of what it means arrive at its proper consummation. In this sense, 
the vague saying, “merley ontic”, with respect to Nietzsche, comes in. We must move in a 
questioning which we may not be able to reach, but, nonetheless, it draws all human experience, 
and that says thinking, to it.

The “catagories” as what is accidental in being as such:

“Whan the breed is conuerted into the precious body of our lord the accidentes abyden..whytnesse, 
roundenesse and sauoure.” a text of 1483  

Color, contour, savour, where the latter means the peculiar sensation that strikes one. 
In this sense it is clear that the accidents, σῠμβεβηκός, have already been taken to mean 
what moves the sensorium, by exciting the animal spirits, or what corresponds generally to  
pathe, the thing acted upon, rather than the actor. When we take up the issue like this, accidentally, 
as it were, rather than seeing the development of the West properly, we miss what is proper to the 
accident. Why is what is, as such, ‘collateral’, accidence, also the property, or what is “proper” 
to a thing, and thus the a priori? Massiveness is a priori an accident of granite outbreaks in a 
landscape. And, yet, asks Kant, is it not necessary? The nature of granite demands no concrete 
instantiation in the sense that the form and the matter are dunamis, virtus or power.  


For Aristotle substance is form. From being the principle of motion. What is said in Augustine, 
is also so of space. Since, if there is a place we don’t now see, we know perfectly well how to 
set ourself to get there, and we will arrive. Yet, if asked, how can we answer how it is done? 
This sinks into the unfailing forgetfulness of cybernetics and is like boundless oblivion.

No comments:

Post a Comment