Aristotle and the Category of Relation or Relationship
In chapter seven of Aristotle’s Categories, Aristotle defined the category of relation.[1] Aristotle said, “Those things are called relative, which, being either said to be of something else or related to something else, are explained by reference to that other thing . . .”[2] In this section, Aristotle showed that there are two major factors in a relation: the first is an external reference and the other is a converse relation. Relations, in general, are expressed with the preposition “of” or some other “preposition being used to indication the relationship.” There are many different types of relations based upon comparison or similarity, but all relations have a converse relation and an external reference.[3]
Aristotle articulated his definition of relation from the dependent relationship between a master and a slave. Aristotle said, “by the term ‘slave’ we mean the slave of a master; by the term ‘master’, the master of a slave. . .”[4] From this example, he concludes that true relations are dependent and in correlation and come into existence simultaneously. In this section, Aristotle does admit, however, that sometimes “reciprocity of correlation does not appear to exist,” but he insisted that this “comes about when a blunder is made, and that to which the relative is related is not accurately stated.”[5] Aristotle proved this point, by showing that there is a mistake when wings are predicated to birds in strict relation, because the “two will not be reciprocal, for it will not be possible to say that a bird is a bird by reason of its wings.”[6] Aristotle maintained that there are many other creators besides birds that have wings, therefore, the proper expression of the relation is that wing must relate with winged creatures. In the end, Aristotle insists that all “relatives, then if properly defined, have a correlative.”[7]
In summary, Aristotle’s notion of relation is defined by a converse relationship, which exists in interdependence; and therefore Aristotle maintained that correlatives came into existence simultaneously. Aristotle described one exception to this rule of simultaneous existence and maintained that an “object of knowledge would appear to exist before knowledge itself, for it is usually the case that we acquire knowledge of objects already existing; it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a branch of knowledge the beginning of the existence of which was contemporaneous with that of its object.”[8] In other words, the exception is related to human knowledge, in which the object of knowledge exists prior to human acquiring of knowledge.
In the end, Aristotle also refined his notion of relation in order to fit his understanding of primary substance and concluded that substances are not relative, for the “individual man or ox is not defined with reference to something external.”[9] Aristotle argued this point because substance is plain to itself, because substance is based upon particular properties that unify objects into classifications
[1] See, Steven K. Strange, Porphyry: On Aristotle’s Categories (Ithaca, 1992), 113. [2] Categories, 6a36-37.
[3] Categories, 6b5ff, and Categories, 6b10ff.
[4] Categories, 6b25ff.
[5] Categories, 6b35ff.
[6] Categories, 7a1ff.
[7] Categories, 7a20ff.
[8] Categories, 7b20ff.
[9] Categories, 8a15.
