Being

For Aristotle, “being” is whatever is anything whatever. Whenever Aristotle explains the meaning of
being, he does so by explaining the sense of the Greek verb to be. Being contains whatever items can be
the subjects of true propositions containing the word is, whether or not the is is followed by a predicate.
Thus, both Socrates is and Socrates is wise say something about being. Every being in any category other
than substance is a property or a modification of substance. For this reason, Aristotle says that the study
of substance is the way to understand the nature of being. The books of the Metaphysics in which he
undertakes this investigation, VII through IX, are among the most difficult of his writings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Aristotle gives two superficially conflicting accounts of the subject matter of first philosophy. According
to one account, it is the discipline “which theorizes about being qua being, and the things which belong
to being taken in itself”; unlike the special sciences, it deals with the most general features of beings,
insofar as they are beings. On the other account, first philosophy deals with a particular kind of being,
namely, divine, independent, and immutable substance; for this reason he sometimes calls the discipline
“theology.”

It is important to note that these accounts are not simply two different descriptions of “being qua
being.” There is, indeed, no such thing as being qua being; there are only different ways of studying
being. When one studies human physiology, for example, one studies humans qua animals—that is to
say, one studies the structures and functions that humans have in common with animals. But of course
there is no such entity as a “human qua animal.” Similarly, to study something as a being is to study it in
virtue of what it has in common with all other things. To study the universe as being is to study it as a
single overarching system, embracing all the causes of things coming into being and remaining in
existence.