亚里士多德的形式理论

Aristotle’s Theory of Form

大卫·博斯托克认为,亚里士多德赋予形式以太多它本身无法承担的角色,以至于在《形而上学》中根本无法对形式给出一个明确的说法。而本文集中于分析除《形而上学》之外的亚里士多德其他著作中的形式的功能,并指出没有任何一个概念能满足它们所有的角色功能。因为在逻辑学著作中,形式是种,在《物理学》中是与质料相对照而出现,在生物学著作中,形式既是目的,又是被遗传的东西,而在《论灵魂》之中,形式是作为灵魂而出现的。而所有的这些不同角色,在《形而上学》中都出现了,不仅如此,还增添了其他的角色,因此在博斯托克看来,亚里士多德试图利用形式概念处理落在'有关自然的问题'这一一般性标题下的几乎所有问题,是不可能的,因为形式角色显然无法满足彼此完全不同的角色的所有功能。

David Bostock argues that Aristotle attributes the form so many roles that it cannot be accountable for,so it would not be possible to give a clear clarification of the concept of the form in the Metaphysics.This paper focuses on the analysis of the functions of the form in other works of Aristotle except the Metaphysics,and points out that none of the concepts can satisfy all of their roles.Because in so-called Logical Works,the form is species;in the Physical Works,the form is in contrast with matter;in Biological Works,the form are both goal and inherited;and in the On the Soul,the form is soul.And all these different roles appears in the Metaphysics,moreover,other roles are assigned to the form.In Bostock’s opinion,it would be impossible for Aristotle to deal with almost all the problems that fall under the general heading of'problems concerned with nature'with the concept of the form,because the roles that he assigns to it in the different cases are very different from one another and nothing could fulfill them all.