u/Subcontrary

Hello!

I'm wondering if/where Aristotle discusses closely-related accidental and essential properties, for example, in a red apple, its red color is accidental because it could be a different color while still being an apple, but it has to have some color, because no colorless things are apples, which would make color in general an essential property of the apple.

Are these two separate properties?

1. The apple's redness (accidental)

2. The apple's color (essential)

It doesn't seem that the apple's red color is a species of its color, because although red is a species of color, accidental properties are not a species of essential properties.

So it seems that the apple's redness and the apple's color are two separate properties, though this seems quite counterintuitive!

I am curious about Aristotle's thoughts, but also yours!

My understanding of Nagarjuna's thought is that cause and effect can't be different, because if they were, then anything could be the cause of anything else. For example the apple seed can't be different from the apple tree, because an acorn is different from an apple tree too, and thus would satisfy the condition for being a cause of the apple tree. But only the apple seed ever causes the apple tree, and the acorn never does, so the cause and effect simply being different is insufficient criterion.

I always thought this was a weak point in his thought, because things can be different in different ways, but I still had difficulty expressing what I think is the exact error.

Aristotle's notion of potential and actuality I think is a good way of expressing the error: yes, the apple seed and the acorn are both different from the apple tree, but only the apple seed has the potential to produce the apple tree.

A cause is different from its effect, but it is also different from a non-cause of the effect. The difference between cause and non-cause is that the cause has potential and the non-cause does not.

The apple seed is different from the apple tree, but it is also different from the acorn, in that it has the potential to cause an apple tree, while the acorn does not. Interestingly, the acorn and the apple tree are the same in the sense that they are both non-causes of the apple tree.

I don't know if Nagarjuna investigates potential and actuality, but it seems that Aristotle's view answers Nagarjuna's position that cause and effect cannot be different, but I also don't think it would have persuaded Nagarjuna, though I'm not sure what his rebuttal might be.

Has this subject been investigated by any Buddhist thinkers? What do they think? What do you think?