Aristoteles’in varlık görüşü
Loading...
Date
2009
Authors
Özcan, Muttalip
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Uludağ Üniversitesi
Abstract
Aristoteles’in “varlık” görüşü genellikle töz görüşüyle bağlantısında ele alınır. Oysa “varlık” ve “töz” biribiriyle bağlantılı kavramlar olsalar da tam olarak örtüşmezler. Aristoteles’e göre, varlık problemi, öncelikle ilineksel anlamda varlıkla ve asıl anlamda varlıkla, ikinci olarak ise kavram olarak “varlık” ve “doğru(luk) anlamında varlık”la ilişkili bir problemdir. Fakat, Aristoteles’in İlk Felsefenin (ontolojinin, Prote Philosophianın) asıl konusu olarak belirlediği şey bunlardan yalnızca “asıl anlamda var olan”lardır. Dolayısıyla, “varlık” ve “töz” kavramının örtüştüğü alan sadece “asıl anlamda var olan”ların alanıdır. “Asıl anlamda var olan”lar alanında var-olan töz olandır ya da töz olan var olandır. Öncelikle bu ayrımın yapılması gerekir. İkinci olarak, Aristoteles, asıl anlamda var olanı duyusal ve düşünsel olarak iki türe ayırırken, aslında “asıl anlamda varlık” ifadesini de iki ayrı anlamda kullanır. Asıl var olan: a) var olmak için başka bir şeye gereksinim duymayan tek tek var olanlardır; b) asıl var olan: bir şeyin özü veya neliğidir; onu o şey yapan şeydir. Birincisi ontik anlamda asıl var olandır, ikincisi epistemolojik anlamda asıl var olandır. Aristoteles’in varlık görüşüne ilişkin bu ayrımların yapılması sadece kendisinin varlık ve töz görüşünün anlaşılması bakımından ya da genel felsefesinin doğru anlaşılması ve değerlendirilmesi bakımından değil, Avrupa felsefesinin nasıl olup da, birkaç filozofun görüşleri dışında, hayatla ve bu dünyayla bağının kopartıldığının anlaşılması bakımından da önemlidir.
Aristotle’s view of “being” is generally taken into consideration in relation with his account of substance. Whereas, “being” and “substance” are the concepts which are relative to each other, but not identical. For Aristotle, the problem of “being” is that which is, firstly concerned with what is primarily is (actual being) and what is accidentally is (accidental being) and secondly with “being as truth” and “being as a concept”. For this reason, the only sphere in which the concepts of “being” and “substance” are identical is the sphere of what is primarily is. In this sphere what is primarily is is what is substance, or what is substance is what is primarily is. First of all, we must distinguish this sphere from the rest. Secondly, while Aristotle divides what is primarily is into two fields, as what is sensible and what is intelligible, he also uses the expression of “what is primarily is” in two different senses. What is primarily is: a) individual things that can be said to be in virtue of themselves, and b) esence or what a thing is, the esence or substance of an individual. The first one is ontologically what is primarily is, and second one is epistemologically what is primarily is. Making these distinctions has a great importance not just for getting a true understanding of Aristotle’s view of “being” or for getting a true understanding and evaluation of Aristotle’s entire philosophy but also for understanding that how European philosophy, except a few philosophers, has lost its relation with life and this world.
Aristotle’s view of “being” is generally taken into consideration in relation with his account of substance. Whereas, “being” and “substance” are the concepts which are relative to each other, but not identical. For Aristotle, the problem of “being” is that which is, firstly concerned with what is primarily is (actual being) and what is accidentally is (accidental being) and secondly with “being as truth” and “being as a concept”. For this reason, the only sphere in which the concepts of “being” and “substance” are identical is the sphere of what is primarily is. In this sphere what is primarily is is what is substance, or what is substance is what is primarily is. First of all, we must distinguish this sphere from the rest. Secondly, while Aristotle divides what is primarily is into two fields, as what is sensible and what is intelligible, he also uses the expression of “what is primarily is” in two different senses. What is primarily is: a) individual things that can be said to be in virtue of themselves, and b) esence or what a thing is, the esence or substance of an individual. The first one is ontologically what is primarily is, and second one is epistemologically what is primarily is. Making these distinctions has a great importance not just for getting a true understanding of Aristotle’s view of “being” or for getting a true understanding and evaluation of Aristotle’s entire philosophy but also for understanding that how European philosophy, except a few philosophers, has lost its relation with life and this world.
Description
Keywords
Varlık, Töz, Kendi başına var olmak, Form, Madde, Dayanak, Devinim, Oluş, Yok oluş, Being, Substance, Being in virtue of itself, Form, Matter, Substratum, Motion, Generation, Corruption
Citation
Özcan, M. (2009). "Aristoteles’in varlık görüşü". Kaygı. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, 13, 113-131.