Abstract

In Met. Z 6 Aristotle argues, inter alias, that things which are spoken of coincidentally are different from what being is for them. Unfortunately the arguments which are aimed at supporting this claim are less than compelling, and Aristotle himself seems to cast serious doubt on their validity. The main purpose of this paper is to stress the dialectical features of Met. Z 4-6 in order to display the logical structure of the above mentioned arguments and to put forward a new interpretation that vindicates what is, on my mind, Aristotle’s claim, i.e. that his first argument is actually untenable, while his second looks sound