Aristotles Physics conceptualised space, time, causality, force, change and motion in great generality.
Newtons great contribution was to reconcieve it in such a way that physics became a science, ie systematic progress could be made.
It might be useful to illustrate this by one simple example: force. For Aristotle this was that which has the capacity to cause change and actually causes change, in contact with that which has the capacity to be changed and actually changes.
This is said in such great generality that no specific relationship can be said; we can say one thing however straight-away, when a force is not in contact with some object or it is in contact but for some unspecified reason it's capacity to cause change is stopped from actually causing change then that object undergoes no change - that is it is at rest.
This is almost Newton's first law of motion, but not quite.
Newton specified the cause of not actualising the capacity - an opposing force; and modified this by saying the object is at rest or in uniform motion.
It's only after Einstein, that it was understood that uniform motion and rest is the same concept - which goes back to Aristotles definition.
To make conceptual progress with gravity, Newton allowed a force to act without contact; compare with Lockes:
it's impossible to concieve, that Body should operate on what it does not touch
it's only again after Clifford's reconceptualusation of space itself being the bearer of force through curvature - as a thing in itself, and then Einsteins GR that it was understood that it's the local shape of space itself in contact with an object that is gravity; in Aristotles terms the place of an object has a certain power to cause motion - and this power is understood to be its curvature; and this place is always - obviously - in 'contact' with that which it contains.