|dc.description.abstract||Fernando Inciarte Armiñán (1929 – 2000 AD) was a contemporary Philosopher,
cultured in an incomparably profound and ample manner not only in traditional and
modern, but also in classical and actual Philosophy. Of interest to this study is his
Aristotelian interpretation of substance as outlined in Aristotle’s Metaphysics,
Books IV and VII-IX. What is primary substance and what is a subject? What may be
predicated of a subject? Does this not categorise it as an accident? Can there be
accidents of accidents? Regarding substance, he claims that it is because of a
substance that a subject is what it is, both concretely and abstractly. He affirms that
primary substance is the ultimate subject that has the fullness of the thing to be
This ontological study regarding the theory of substance is of a hermeneutical
nature. The researcher deals with Inciarte’s original works.
The so-called “Substance Books” of the Metaphysics, Books VII to IX, are of primary
interest because it is in these books that Aristotle concentrates on the meaning of
substance and they therefore serve as a major and primary reference. Aristotle is of
interest to this study on two counts. First, he provides the traditional, fundamental
interpretation of substance as it is or should be. His work was greatly
complemented by studies done by St. Thomas Aquinas and so reference to him is
made for better comprehension purposes. And second, it is Aristotle that Inciarte
interprets regarding the theory of substance.
One of the most important results of this study is the attention that Inciarte draws
once again to proper definition and understanding of terms in clearly defined
boundaries. For example, he raises the important issue of knowing how to
distinguish between being καθ’αὺτò (or just necessarily) and being essentially or by
definition in order to avoid a kind of infinite regress that results from errors that
have occurred due to wrong application, use and understanding of this term.
Inciarte’s way of understanding of substance and his flexibility in metaphysical
interpretation has not as yet been recorded nor has it been systematically studied.
This therefore serves as a pioneer study. It intends to make his understanding of
substance, be made known in a way that is accessible and understandable as well as
provide an analysis of the origin of the epistemological differences that are
associated with the different interpretations of substance. He himself said: You
never have a ‘finished work’ in Philosophy but one can always propound
philosophical truth in different ways without changing it.||en_US