Article Summary on Andreas Anagnostopoulos senses of Δύναμις and the and the Structure of

Aristotle’s Metaphysics Θ by: Dave Montero, 3rd year Rogationist

Potentiality rather than Capacity1 this is what most scholars taught about the term Δύναμις
(Dunamis as Potential, Power, Ability and Capacity). In the discussion of Andreas Anagnostopoulos on
the senses of Aristotle’s Δύναμις in view with the structure of his Metaphysics Θ. Anagnostopoulos
recognizes that δύναμις is not simply a term used for a certain concept of Potentiality and Capacity.
Unlike what most scholars and interpreters and even translators of Aristotle would commonly think that
the term Δύναμις is simply referring to as Potentiality further than Capacity. Which makes
Anagnostopoulos to point out to us that the only sense of Δύναμις that most scholars of Aristotle have is
the sense of potentiality as a way of being. 2 Yet for Anagnostopoulos it has not always been the case, as
he would have taught that Aristotle could be more progressive in a way of positing of the real sense of
Δύναμις.
Anagnostopoulos further noted that Aristotle draws our attention to the distinct kind of capacity 3
and that the use of such sense of Δύναμις as Potentiality rather than Capacity is taken for granted in
Metaphysics Θ. Considering that there is no involvement of the contrast between Potentiality and
Capacity in such work. However, there are atleast two senses of Δύναμις which Anagnostopoulos
presupposes. Since he wants to explore more on such two senses of Δύναμις which moves from the
familiar (yet narrow)4 to a wider concept of such. Further, Anagnostopoulos connects the idea of
Aristotle’s Δύναμις in relation to other terms ἐνέργεια (Energia as Energy) and κύριος (Kyrios as Lord or
Master) as he eventually founds out in the end that Aristotle aims at the exhibition of commonality
between the useful senses and that of κύριος senses.
Before moving on to the wider sense of Δύναμις by which Aristotle wants to bring us in view of
course of how Anagnostopoulos deals with her discussion of the different senses of such.
Anagnostopoulos encompasses atleast four sets of argument regarding to her discussion between the two
senses of Δύναμις. With the first argument regarding the sense of Δύναμις to κύριος. Anagnostopoulos
speaks first about the notion of Potentiality and Capacity in Metaphysics Θ as she begins with the
expression of Δύναμις to κύριος a sense that is only according to change 5 She argues that there are kinds
of capacity that is being stated as ‘in accordance with the same form’ 6 with an order base on Aristotle’s
related use of the verb δύνασθαι that is To be Capable and at the same time with the cognate adjective
that is Capable all in one sense of δύνασθαι. With another sense, which is the corresponding one, which is
the term ἐνέργεια that is aswell according to change or in the other hand referring to be change as
Anagnostopoulos claims. As Anagnostopoulos continues with the distinct sense of δύνασθαι solely as a
1
See Anagnostopoulos, A. ‘Senses of Dunamis and the Structure of Aristotle’s Metaphysics Θ’ Phronesis 56 (2011)
388-425. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/156852811X588705 page 389
2
Ibid
3
Ibid page 390
4
Ibid
5
Ibid Δύναμις to κύριος as the principle of change and source of change in itself qua other. See page 391
6
Δύναμις to κύριος as the reference of the active principle of changing something else (itself qua other) see Ibid
mode of being (that is being Potential) which is being used in different sense including that one with
κύριος and even with ἐνέργεια (or the useful sense) . 7 Since what is at issue for Anagnostopoulos is the
capacity of ordinary and non-substantial changes more than the capacity of change in the sense of κύριος
from where he tries to remain neutral of. The sense of δύνασθαι to κύριος is something that does not
cover ‘every kind of change’8
There is something broader in the previous sense of δύνασθαι, whereas Anagnostopoulos wishes
to point out to the more useful sense. As he founds out while analyzing how Aristotle uses and structures
δύνασθαι for capacity for change in Metaphysics Θ. Which turns out to be that δύνασθαι is not only a
capacity for change and so does not refer to simply as potentiality. For the useful sense for δύνασθαι is
more general9 in a sense that it could be a reference to the enumeration of the ‘different classes of
capacity’10 Hence, the idea of Δύναμις in a useful sense as a kind of capacity. Since there is a revert
relation of ‘capacity’ itself and being in capacity in the sense of the Δύναμις. 11
Anagnostopoulos stated that Aristotle himself does not try to attempt to provide us with the
single definition of the term ἐνέργεια. For he thinks that no definition can be given to such 12 except by
analogy13. However, Anagnostopoulos asserts that what is now at issue is the correlative concepts
between Δύναμις and ἐνέργεια. He defines first to us (through the perspective of Aristotle) that ἐνέργεια
is something belongs to δυνάμει (dynamie as force).14 Hence, instead of succeeding ἐνέργεια as a
definition for Δύναμις it simply employs for the concept of such as they themselves are correlative in that
sense. Hence, for Anagnostopoulos it is not surprising that Aristotle must appeal to analogy as he
however relates analogy and Δύναμις in general15 As Analogy for Anagnostopoulos serves as a proportion
and she thus argues that the central relation between the useful sense and the κύριος is the ‘point of
sameness’16 (ὁμοίως) through analogy. Hence, Anagnostopoulos in this part would focus on Δύναμις to
ἐνέργεια. And that there is a ‘unified’ term to what is ἐνέργεια in which the ‘single relation’ of Δύναμις to
ἐνέργεια is underneath with change to substance and matter that will point back to being Potential. 17
Hence, analogy will thus serve as a way of being that connects the relations of things in change which is
between subject to matter, between Δύναμις to ἐνέργεια and to ὁμοίως.18

7
See page 393.
8
Ibid
9
See page 405
10
As Anagnostopoulos wishes to be in part 2 Δύναμις in the Useful sense as a kind of Capacity page 405
11
Ibid
12
“for he thinks that none can be given.” See page 416.
13
See page 418.
14
See page 417.
15
Ibid, part 3 in Analogy and Δύναμις in General.
16
Ibid, through the use of Analogy as what Aristotle gives his appeal in order to identify Δύναμις in the sense of
ἐνέργεια Anagnostopoulos will discuss the single relationship of Δύναμις to ἐνέργεια
17
Ibid, Δύναμις as a way of being-Potentiality.
18
Rather than a mere similarity see page 418.
 In the end, Anagnostopoulos claims that he does not think that Aristotle would mean that the
useful sense for Δύναμις is a strict, proper and a primary one. 19 Rather he intends to discuss that there is a
lot more to express on what is this Δύναμις and that is through the context of Aristotle’s structure of
Metaphysics Θ. Concerning the manner on how Aristotle discuss the sense of κύριος as a sense for
Δύναμις while at the same time such term is also connected to ἐνέργεια that points to the process of
change. Hence, Anagnostopoulos suggested that Aristotle’s sense of Δύναμις that is in accordance with
change is the well-recognized, known, and profound sense. 20 And that the role of establishing this sense is
to further investigate what is ‘better known by nature’ 21 with a ‘common proportion’22 of Aristotle
Δύναμις as to be seen as a common pattern of the notion of change, potentiality, and capacity.

19
See page 422 The Role of Established Usage.
20
See page 423.
21
See page 424
22
Ibid