Aristotle’s argument on change

When Aristotle sought to find the explanation of how it is that things can change, he first had to face the ironclad argument of Parmenides against the possibility of change. The argument was that “What is cannot come to be (since it already is), while nothing can come to be from what is not.” (Phys. I.8, 191a) What this argument says is that for change to happen, the resulting object has to be a being and the initial object can only be either a being or a non-being. This presents two impossibilities….This is how I’ve started the paper, so just continue to write from here.The layout of the paper should be:Intro: start from where i left off and continue to explain Parmenides’ argument (less than one page) (refer to page 8 of the website)Aristotle’s argument on change: starts from chapter 7, (pages 2-7 of the website) this is the main body of the paper and should be about 4 pages long.Does Aristotle succeed in evading Parmenides’ argument?: it is explained in page 8 and the beginning of page 9 of the website. (should be about one page long)When Aristotle sought to find the explanation of how it is that things can change, he first had to face the ironclad argument of Parmenides against the possibility of change. The argument was that “What is cannot come to be (since it already is), while nothing can come to be from what is not.” (Phys. I.8, 191a) What this argument says is that for change to happen, the resulting object has to be a being and the initial object can only be either a being or a non-being. This presents two impossibilities as outlined by Parmenides.First is the impossibility that as long as something already exists, it cannot change form to become something else. This is because it has already taken or assumed the final form of what it ought to have been. Secondly, for change to have room, the initial item needed to have been either a being or a non-being. This means that if the item was not in any of these two categories, then change is basically impossible. Aristotle’s answer is to Parmenides dilemma is that  in a way what Parmenides is saying is true since surely in a way only a being can be able to change forms in a period of time. However, he still reserves that it can also include a non-being. In short, it is impossible to classify change as being determined by “being or not-being aspects” (Phys. I.8, 190a13).Aristotle’s belief of change does not take a one-dimensional path since it evaluates change in a way that seems to be practical and liberal in all facets of the world. In his assessment of Parmenides argument that change cannot come from something that does not exist, he does not fully agree that “being cannot come from being”. According to him, one must differentiate the different forms of being; being –in-act against being-in potency. This justifies his belief that being normally takes two forms; act and potency. While it is true that being in act cannot result to being in act, it does not mean the other only result from being in act is a non-being form or item. From being in act can come being in potency.According to Aristotle, being in potency provides the possibility of something to change or develop. His evaluation of change assumes that every item takes a form of dualism. This dualism is represented well in the evaluation of the pattern of change. He argues that since an object can exist in its raw form of potency, some form of change is what will change it from potent to assume some form of action. In this case, it gets some form of perfection or actuality. Motion for example, leads to the corruption of something else while also leading to the acquisition of another. What remains constant in the process is the aspect and subject of change. However, at the same time, change does not remain “change”.In the change process, item or object change equally acquires something from the change process. It gets something new and loses what it had initially before the change process took effect. According to Aristotle, he described this form of change as an “accidental change”. In that, motion assumes a passive principles as well as an active principle, only intrinsic to what to the thing that is in the process of change. Therefore, according to Aristotle, for change to take place, there must be three things present. First, there must be something new that eventually comes to be, then something old that passes away as a result of the change, and finally something that stays the same throughout the change process. Aristotle names these three principles by the names of form, matter and privation. In this case, form is the nature of what becomes of the item; privation is what remains passive or unchanged while matter refers to the nature of what stays the same throughout the change process.A vivid example is the transformation nature of a statute from the position of a formless block of wood to a beautiful work of art. Therefore, form is the image of the sculpture or the representation the sculpture ends up depicting. The material of the block is what stays the same, and takes the privation form of Aristotle’s argument. This, he terms to be the substance of the marble and by association, the substance of the change.Aristotle equally explains the nature of substantial change, which he terms as motion, as the substance of changes in accidents. According to him, he classes motion into three categories. One is alteration which signifies a change in quality. Second is growth or diminution which he refers to as change in quantity also called which he also refers to as size; and finally a change in local motion which he refers to as a “change in place”.In all cases though, he refers to motion as the being or form of being in potency. He argues that motion is the process through which a substance goes through as it loses on form of accidental being while equally assuming another one.Importantly, Aristotle reaches a fundamental conclusion after his in-depth evaluation of the process of change. He states that in the process of change, there has to be a resultant subject that changes form to become something else. However, he adds that while the change can be singular in number, it cannot be singular in form. This is because change has to affect all the three forms in the process. Taking the example of a man, being a man is not the same as being an unmusical being. When the man acquires the musical skills, the man remains intact, but the musical aspect of the man does not. The characteristic of the man being equipped with musical knowledge is the “form” change that Aristotle is talking about.In conclusion, the thing that undergoes change is the “subject” of change. This subject is the true argument of Aristotle and his change theory. He argues that after all the forms and changes that take place in a being, whether being or not being, the fact that there is change is what matters most. At the end of the process, the object may not have resulted into what was desired, but one aspect that has automatically been achieved is the aspect of change.Aristotle’s evaluation of change assumes an all-inclusive format regardless of whether the subject is a being or a non-being. It seeks to explain that change is the principle matter that ought to be understood in the society. By his account and explanation, change is the substance that will remain constant in all life processes regardless of the substance undergoing the change. Thus, in society, change is inevitable, and Aristotle simply puts it that life is a series of changes and processes and not a characterization of results. This same process is equally felt by human beings who undergo an intrinsic nature of change. It is easier to register the changes of a non-being object as compared a being. Nevertheless, Aristotle argues that human beings undergo just as much change as no-being substances do.Aristotle manages to evade Parmenides’ argument by offering an explanation of the fact that things cannot be viewed from the simple option of “what is” and “what is not”. In the analogy of a musical man, a non-musical man can attain the musical skills which would bring the changes of nature (Phys. I.8, 191b15). Equally, according to Aristotle, a builder does not get judged by what is and what is not. Aristotle argues that a builder is not a basic individual. In Parmenides case, he is not a “what is”. A man can exist but still lack the skills of building. Aristotle labels such a person a compound since there is a combination of a subject and a property plus the characteristic of the person having the knowledge to build the house.However, there are some ideas and fundamentals that Aristotle agrees with Parmenides which lead us to believe that he does not entirely provide an argument that is independent in nature. What he does is provide a thought process that is distinctively different from Parmenides explanation. Parmenides argues on the basics of two options while Aristotle argues that there are more than two aspects when change is concerned. Aristotle agreed that despite his beliefs of change, something cannot be from something that does not exist (Phys. I.8, 191b14). Importantly, this seems to be the foundation of the entire argument. However, in evading Parmenides’ argument, Aristotle separated that argument and centered on the process rather than the objects or subjects which resulted in a much comprehensive understanding of the process of change.