Ma`rifat Falsafi

Within peripatetic philosophy, prime matter -as a formless substance and the bearer of pure potentiality- has played a pivotal role in explaining the ‘change’ and ‘continuity’ of material bodies. Adducing demonstrative proofs for its existence, the peripatetics, held that the realization of motion and substantial transformations is contingent upon the acceptance of such an entity. Having criticized those proofs, Mulla Sadra also offered a distinct account of the existence of prime matter. However, the concept of prime matter, from Suhrawardi onwards and particularly with the advent of Transcendent Wisdom, faced serious challenges and criticisms. Focusing on a critical analysis of the underlying philosophical presuppositions of the peripatetics’ arguments, this article aims to demonstrate that prime matter, as described by the peripatetics, cannot be externally realized due to its contradiction with more precise ontological principles. Furthermore, an attempt is made to analyze the arguments employed in the course of demonstration of prime matter, focusing on a critique of the intellectual foundations of the proponents of these arguments. It will be demonstrated that the existence of prime matter, with the description provided by the peripatetics, is not possible. This analysis also reveals how the problem of the existence of matter is intertwined with other issues, leading the reader to conclude that, despite the impossibility of negating potentia, serious criticisms can be leveled against their views concerning prime matter.