Abstract

Aristotle is committed to the existence of essentially ensouled bodies, and says that such bodies are purely of animal matter. Ackrill has argued that this commitment conflicts with Aristotle’s primary conception of matter as potentiality and as the substratum of generation and destruction. This essay contends that Ackrill’s problem can be solved by allowing that there is a sense in which the matter of an animal is only contingently related to its form, and that this can be done without undermining Aristotle’s arguments for introducing ensouled bodies in the first place.