Antoine Côté

Aristote admet-il un infini en acte et en puissance en «Physique
III, 4»?
In: Revue Philosophique de Louvain. Quatrième série, Tome 88, N°80, 1990. pp. 487-503.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Côté Antoine. Aristote admet-il un infini en acte et en puissance en «Physique III, 4»?. In: Revue Philosophique de Louvain.
Quatrième série, Tome 88, N°80, 1990. pp. 487-503. http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/phlou_0035-3841_1990_num_88_80_6649 Abstract
Aristotle's doctrine of the infinite, which he sets out in Physics III, IV-VIII, has given rise to two apparently irreconcileable interpretations. Some commentators hold that Aristotle admits only the existence of a potential infinite, whereas others hold that it was rather the hypothesis of an actual and a potential infinite that the Stagirite upheld. If it is true that the text of the Physics appears to lend justification to both interpretations, it is because Aristotle, while using only the language of act and potency, attempts to provide an answer to two different problems, 1) a classifying or metaphysical problem and 2) a descriptive or physical problem. The Stagirite needs on the one hand, to situate the infinite in the ontological hierarchy by distinguishing it from actual beings and pure non-beings — and in this case the infinite is said to be "in potency" — but he also needs, on the other hand, to specify the intrinsic nature of the infinite as a physical entity. This investigation will show, then, that like all natural phenomena the apeiron exists both in actuality and in potency (Transl. by J. Dudley).
Résumé
La doctrine aristotélicienne de l'infini, développée au livre III (4-8) de la Physique, a donné lieu à deux interprétations apparemment inconciliables. Pour les uns, Aristote n'admettrait que l'existence d'un infini en puissance. D'autres commentateurs, au contraire, soutiennent que c'est plutôt l'hypothèse d'un infini en acte et en puissance que le Stagirite a