The Human Question

This post will only make sense to me for a week or two, because Ari's defiinition of motion is so difficult: motion, says Aristotle, is the the entelechy of a potency as such. To understand this definition, I propose to offer my own version thereof, while borrowing (more accurately, stealing) a little from Joe Sachs, and while also doing something that neither he nor Aristotle does, which is to place motion within the genus "change." This genus includes not only qualitative, quantitative and locational change (all of which belong to the species "motion"), but substantial change as well, which is not a motion b/c the substantial change is not the traversal of a continuum. "Not ... a continuum" is appropriate here because the change from non-human to human doesn't involve a transition from, say, 1% human to 2%... to 99% to fully human). So let's see if my paraphrase of Aristotle succeeds: motion is a change (1) that is incomplete (2) 1. [the g...