τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι

[frankathl]

What force does the imperfect tense have in Aristotle's phrase for what something is in itself (καθ’ αὑτο), τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι , usually, though not entirely uncontroversially, translated "essence"? (See, for example, Metaphysics, 1029b 13-14).
Thanks,
Frank

[modus.irrealis]

Since there doesn't seem to be a scholarly consensus on the issue, I'll give my own opinion, which is based on things like εἶδος δὲ λέγω τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι 1035b, so it looks like Aristotle means the "form" by τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι. So I think imperfect is simply due to the formal cause being thought of in terms of being anterior in time. I'm thinking of things like the example with the acorn and oak tree, so the "essence" of the acorn/oak was that which was there to make it be what it is. So basically I think it's just a normal past tense.

I was looking for similar usages and found a reference to a passage De Partibus Animalium that says φανερὸν ὅτι τὸ αἷμα ὡδὶ μὲν ἔστι θερμόν, οἷόν τι ἦν αὐτῷ τὸ αἵματι εἶναι, where again I just think it's natural to think of the formal cause as being prior in time.

But I'm analyzing the phrase so that εἶναι goes with ἦν and I'm not sure on that point. The one suggestion I saw is that τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι corresponds to things τὸ ἀγαθῷ εἶναι with τί ἦν representing the dative in this construction, but then I don't know what the imperfect would mean. I find lots of references to the "philosophical imperfect" but even if this is a legitimate category, I don't really see how it applies to Aristotle's phrase.

[Lavrentivs]

What about the τί, isn’t that surprising too? Why not τὸ ὃ ἦν ἐἶναι?

[NateD26]

What about the τί, isn’t that surprising too? Why not τὸ ὃ ἦν ἐἶναι?

Edit: Sorry. My answer was irrelevant so i deleted it.

[NateD26]

I cannot comment on the philosophical meaning -- I wish I could. But I think that if it were an articular infinitive,
being what (=that which) it already was, the relative pronoun would be more common as Lavrentivs suggested, wouldn't it?

In p.23 of Basic concepts of Aristotelian philosophy
they give at the beginning only a superficial definition "what-being as it was already" but I don't understand how it goes with the phrase's syntax.
In p.26 they conclude the meaning of the imperfect usage.

[modus.irrealis]

But I think that if it were an articular infinitive, being what (=that which) it already was, the relative pronoun would be more common as Lavrentivs suggested, wouldn't it?

I think you're right.

I took the phrase as having the same overall structure as things like τὸ τί ἐστιν = "what it is".

[Nolmendil]

Honestly, I do not know why there is such a controversy about this phrase, when it makes a very simple and clear literal sense. "τὸ" is a definite article that does a "substantivising" job here - or perhaps we could compare it to enclosing a phrase into quotes or italicising it, to mark that it belongs together. The head of the phrase is the infinitive verb "εἶναι". So, we have so far "τὸ εἶναι" "the being", or perhaps better "the 'to be'". Now the infinitive is further determined: to be what? "τί ἦν"! That is: "to be the 'what [it] was?'" - similar to the "τί ἐστιν", but in the past: not "present whatness", but "past whatness". So the meaning of the phrase is "the 'to be what [it] was'", or "the to keep one's hitherto whatness", so to speak. Everything has various "εἶναι" - e.g. to be philosopher, to be in Athens, to be sleepy... And one of these "εἶναι" is the elementary "to be what it was", "to be oneself", to continue in possessing one's identity. So the phrase refers to the the intrinsic principle of diachronic identity, to that which makes the thing remain the same thing it was a moment before, despite any changes it might have undergone. So the Aristotelian "essence" is not just "the 'what is it?'" (τὸ τί ἐστιν), but it has a dynamic, diachronic aspect: it is the principle in virtue of which identity is preserved through time.