R. Barney
Spring 2009
Method and Genre in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, A.3
1. The standard scholarly line is that Metaphysics A.3-10
should not be read as ‘history of philosophy’: but that
denial is based on some oddly narrow assumptions about what
history of philosophy must be. Let’s look at the text with
an open mind:
2.
Aristotle’s project in A.3 is, as announced, to survey
his predecessors in order to see whether his theory of the
four
causes
adapted
for
principles)
(as
expounded
use
as
needs
a
in
theory
to
be
the
of
Physics
first
II,
causes
supplemented.
and
and
here
first
Though
it
superficially resembles other predecessor-surveys near the
beginnings of the De Anima, Physics and On Generation and
Corruption,
A.3ff.
is
unlike
them
in
its
argumentative
function and its strategy. Formally, it is a search for
alternatives or additions to an account already offered.
Through
its
completeness
failure,
and
this
adequacy
of
search
will
that
account,
confirm
roughly
the
as
follows: ‘P. One might propose instead Q, R, S, or T; but
Q, R, S and T can all be reduced to P. Therefore P (and P
alone).’
3.
Aristotle’s
principles:
presentation
a
diairesis
interweaves
two
(‘division’)
structural
of
earlier
philosophers according to which archai (first principles)
they recognised, and how many;
and a historical narrative.
4. Aristotle’s presentation is also partially determined by
his
two
reference
texts:
Hippias’
Sunagôgê
and
Plato’s
R. Barney
Spring 2009
dialectical account of previous theories of being (ta onta)
in the Sophist. Aristotle’s reliance on Hippias is shown in
his treatment of Thales and Hippo. The Sophist seems to
have been Aristotle’s model for combining the diairetic and
narrative modes.
5. Aristotle’s engagement with earlier thinkers in A.3-10
is, like Plato’s treatment of the ‘gods and giants’ in the
Sophist,
an
exercise
in
Eudemian
dialectic:
a
kind
of
constructive refutation or correction of endoxic views in
order
to
make
them
usable
as
a
starting-point
for
dialectical inquiry into principles.
6.
Key
components
of
Eudemian
dialectic
include
interpretive charity and a dialogic mode of presentation:
earlier views are canvassed for their distinctive positive
contributions
to
the
discovery
of
the
truth,
and
their
proponents are presented as amenable to rational correction
through discussion.
7. Aristotle’s adoption of the historical mode in A.3 is
shaped by his commitment to the internal logic claim, viz
that the truth (or the subject-matter) itself provoked and
shaped further inquiry into the principles (particularly in
the
discovery
of
the
efficient
cause).
Versions
of
the
internal logic claim are uncommon in Aristotle, and not
easily understood -- though they must express Aristotle’s
general progressivism about the arts and sciences, and his
(still more general) epistemic optimism.
8. Aristotle’s use of historical narrative in A.3 must also
be
shaped
by
his
broad
interest
in
the
progressive
R. Barney
Spring 2009
historical
revealed
development
by
of
Peripatetic
the
arts
studies
of
and
the
sciences,
as
history
of
mathematics, medicine etc.
9.
Conclusion:
Eudemian
dialectic
and
progressivist
historical narrative combine easily, and both are canonical
genres
of
‘history
of
philosophy’.
That
Aristotle
is
engaged in history of philosophy of a quite familiar sort
is also suggested by various details of his procedures,
e.g. his concern with canon-formation. Since there are no
plausible candidates for a predecessor text combining these
generic features, we should read Metaph. A.3-10 as the text
in
which
Aristotle
philosophy’.
invents
the
discipline
‘history
of