A Re-Reading of Aristotelean Matter and Form and its Effects on the Trans-Substantial Motion Based on New-Sadrian Philosophers’ Views

One of the most important discussions in philosophy has been the formation of body from matter and form since long ago. This discussion began at the time of Aristotle and became accessible to Muslim philosophers through the translation of Greek texts. Following a descriptive-analytic method, this study aims to provide a response to the questions of what Aristotle meant by matter and hyle, and whether the trans-substantial motion is consistent with accepting the externality of hyle.  A study of Aristotle’s writings reveals that he did not believe in the external existence of matter, and that incorrect translations have led to a wrong perception of Aristotelean matter and form. He believed in a potency alongside objects that changes the quiddity of matter from being pure potency or non-existence to an ontological affair and yields some new outcomes. On the other hand, another misperception of his works dictates that creation from pure non-existence is impossible. Such incorrect translations have provoked the reactions of some Muslim philosophers to the objectivity and externality of potency against matter. In the Islamic tradition, the first step for negating the externality of matter was taken by Suhrawardī. By criticizing Ibn Sīnā’s arguments, he expressed his belief in the simplicity of matter. Mullā Ṣadrā, too, challenged the same view in certain places in al-Asfār, and the neo-Sadrian philosophers took the last steps towards the negation of the externality of matter through criticizing the related arguments and demonstrating the opposition of this view to the trans-substantial motion.