Fiil ile kuvve arasindaki sürecin nedeni olarak ilişki kategorisinin incelenmesi

The philosophy of Aristotle particularly based on the distinction of the actuality and potentiality. But, what is the exact definition of their link? We do not have a whole answer this question, therefore it is still ambiguous. In this thesis we questioned that whether this link between actuality and potentiality can be explained by the category of relation or not. In other words, can we consider the potentiality of a being and the actuality of being as relatives, such as slave and master or double and half? We elaborated the following answer to this question: the relatives are characterized by three fundamental components: the reciprocity, the interdependence and the simultaneity; even the link between actuality and potentiality of a being can be explainable by the component of the interdependency; it does not conform to the components of reciprocity and simultaneity. While the relatives like as slave and master necessarily simultaneous and reciprocal, the actuality and the potentiality of a being like as seed and tree are not reciprocal and simultaneous. On the other hand, they are interdependent. Therefore, we concluded that the link between actuality and potentiality of being cannot be explained by the category of relation. This thesis composed of five chapters. After an introductive chapter, the second chapter treated to the category of relation, the third chapter treated to the link between the actuality and the potentiality and the forth treated the finally asked if this link between actuality and potentiality can be applied to the components of the category of relation. The second chapter is a treatment for the category of relation in the Categories of Aristotle. Firstly, we focused on the link between the substance and the categories. Next, we tried to expose the definitions of the category of relation of Aristotle. At last, we analyzed three components of the relatives: the reciprocity, the interdependence and the simultaneity. In the third chapter, we explained the Greek word dynamis as a potentiality for the sake of an actuality. We maintained that the link between actuality and potentiality is ontological and therefore there is a sort of relation between two. We tried to explain this relation as a correlation that exists in the potentiality of a being for the sake of its actuality. Thereby, we stated that, the potentiality is the correlative of the actuality. We clarified that pay the intentionality of an artist; it is possible to claim that there is a particular correlation between actuality and potentiality. In an artistic production, the form of product actually exists in the mind of the artist as an idea, likes as the idea of a statue. The idea of the form is complete in the artist's mind, and it is complete; yet, the actual existence of the statue does not exist in the physical world, and it is incomplete. Thus, the form that exists in artist's mind, represent the end or the goal for the production. Because of the idea of the artist, there is causal relationship between bronze and statue. This relationship is causal and for the sake of the actuality of bronze. For this reason, the bronze is the correlative of its end or its goal: that is to say potential statue and the actual statue are correlatives.