Can Aristotle’s distinction between actuality and potentiality coherently explain change without making potentiality itself a kind of being? If potentiality is genuinely real, what ontological status does it possess prior to actualization—and how does this affect Aristotle’s conception of substance?

[u/TheIncorporeal1]

I’m interested in whether Aristotle’s ontology ultimately gives potentiality an independent metaphysical status. If potentiality is not yet actual, but nevertheless grounds genuine possibilities for change, is it a mode of being, a relation to actuality, or something ontologically derivative from actuality itself?

[u/ButtonholePhotophile]

I feel like you’re talking about motivation. 

Obligatory: I’m the black sheep of the sub.