Analysis Of Aristotle's Conception Of Change

Aristotle wrote about change and different types of changes, but he was met with some critics that rejected his conception and explained them away. We will discuss, in the following essay, these critics’ theories and Aristotle’s responses to their theories as well as Aristotle’s own conception of change. We will also look at some issue that arise with Aristotle’s theory, but will be able to make the claim that is it foolish to deny change and that change is real. I start the essay with two of Aristotle’s critics, being Parmenides and Zeno. Lear says “for a change to occur, Parmenides argued, something would have to come into existence. But from nothing nothing could come to be. But nor can something come to be from something, for something
Second, this new being either comes from what is of what is not. Third, if this new being comes from what is, then change is impossible because is already exists. Lastly, if this new being comes from what is not, then change again is impossible since we cannot get something from nothing. But this is false according to Aristotle because “change, for Aristotle, is always change of a subject which existed prior to, during, and after the change. For example, a man who learns to play an instrument changes from being unmusical to musical” (Lear, 58.) So change does not bring something new in to being, but change occurs in something already in being. Aristotle replies to the Parmenides and says “to maintain that all things are at rest, and to disregard sense-perception in an attempt to show the theory reasonable, would be an instance of intellectual weakness, it would call into question a whole system, not a particular detail: moreover, it would be an attack not only on the
Lear posits Zeno’s paradox in the following way. First, “Anything that is occupying a space just its own size is at rest. [Second,] a moving arrow, while it is moving, in the present. [Third,] but in the present the arrow is occupying a space just its own size. [Fourth,] therefore in the present the arrow is at rest. [And lastly,] Therefore a moving arrow, while it is moving, is at rest” (Lear, 84.) Zeno is basically saying that locomotion is impossible, it is impossible to traverse some distance and go from one place to another. He say that there is an infinite regress of halfway points that will never end. For example, I want a cup of coffee and I need to walk a mile to get it. According to Zeno I must first get to the half mile point before I can get to the mile, but before that I must get to the quarter mile point before I can get to the half mile and before I can reach the mile. This just keeps going and going without an end and one would never be able to more; but let’s be honest, I just went for a cup of coffee and was successful. Aristotle responds that “Zeno’s reasoning, however, is fallacious, when he says that is everything when it occupies a space just its own size is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always in a now, the flying arrow in therefore motionless. This is false; for time is not composed