DOCSLIB.ORG

Prior Analytics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prior Analytics translaled bV Robin Smith Prior Analytics ARISTOTLE Prior Analytics translated, with introduction, notes, and commentary, by Robin Smith Hackett Publishing Company Indianapolis I Cambridge Aristotle: 384 - 322 B.c. Copyright© 1989 by Robin Smith All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Cover and interior design by L. Daniel Kirklin For further information, please address the publisher Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. P.O. Box 44937 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Aristotle. [Prior analytics. English] Prior analytics I Aristotle ; translated, with introduction, notes, and commentary by Robin Smith. p. em. Bibliography: p. Includes index. ISBN 0-87220-064-7 1. Logic-Early works to 1800. I. Title. B440.ASS65 1989 160 - dc19 88-39877 CIP The paper used in this publication meets the minimum re­ quirements of American National Standard fo r Information Sciences-Permanence of Paper fo r Printed Library Materials, ANSI 239.48-1984. Contents Preface Vll Introduction Xlll Prior Analytics Book A 1 Book B 65 Notes to Book A 105 Notes to Book B 183 Appendix I A List of the Deductive Forms in PriorAnalytics A 4-22 229 Appendix II Deviations from Ross's (OCT) Text 236 Glossary 239 Bibliography 24 4 Index Locorum 249 General Index 252 In Memoriam Charles Allen Carson 1928-1989 PREFACE No other treatise on fo rmal logic is comparable to Aristotle's Prior Analytics. This is true in the first place because no other logician oc­ cupies a position in history at all comparable to Aristotle. He was not only the first fo rmal logician, he was also one of the greatest: the most compelling evidence for this assessment is his startling appearance on the stage of history, with no real predecessor. But historical accident has added much to the importance of the Prior Analytics. For many generations, Aristotelian logic (or at least what passed fo r Aristotelian logic) was identically logic: thus, Kant could say, in the Critique of Pure Reason, that the entire field of logic had not made a single advance since Aristotle's great treatise. Few would concur in such an opinion today, but the effect of the PriorAnal ytics in fo rming our philosophical heritage is difficult to exaggerate. At the same time, it might be argued that the work has little philo­ sophical interest today. During the last century, fo rmal logic has reached extremely high levels of technical sophistication, and philo­ sophical discussion of its underlying concepts has advanced commen­ surately. As a result, it might be suggested that whatever admiration we may have today for Aristotle's achievement, nevertheless he has little to teach us that we cannot learn better from our contemporaries. When we consider the effo rt that is required to study a system in many respects awkward and unfamiliar from a modern point of view, the difficulties occasioned by Aristotle's ignorance of much of what we have since learned about deductive systems, and the many problems of interpretation which arise with any work produced in another language and in another culture at a distance of over two millennia, the Prior Analytics may seem to be of value only to the philosophical antiquary. I do not think this is a fa ir assessment. In part, I would respond with the same defense many historians of philosophy give for the practice of their craft: Aristotle is a major part of our philosophical ancestry, and we come to understand ourselves better by studying our ideal origins. In larger part, however, I would suggest that we still may have some­ thing to learn from this old Greek. If he is ignorant of our vast body of VII VIII PREFACE metalogic, he is also unencumbered by our many newly-born preju­ dices. Sometimes, we find his approach to a question, once we come to understand it in our own terms, is a fresh one: occasionally, he might even be right. The proof, of course, must be in the experiencing. The Translation. Tra nslation is almost by nature arrogant: the trans­ lator acts as a kind of impersonator of the author, and the reader has no good means of defense against a fa lse representation. In the case of a work like the Prior Analytics, there is a temptation to even fu rther arrogance. Aristotle's Greek is frequently clipped, difficult of con­ struction, awkward, ambiguous, or obscure. The translator is sorely tempted to give him a hand in coming across better in English: to resolve the ambiguities, clean up the messy constructions, fill out what is abbreviated (or even absent), smooth out the awkward parts. While about it, one could also give the reader a bit of help with a few rather fu ll renderings of difficult terms or phrases, creating a text that em­ bodies a certain amount of commentary in its interstices. There are occasions when this sort of translation is appropriate, but it is not what I have aimed at. I have tried instead to give the philo­ sophically informed reader who does not know Greek a vehicle for the study of Aristotle's Prior Analytics. To that end, I have attempted to leave as much of the interpretative work as possible undone. One way to do that is to fo llow the model of Robert Grosseteste and construct a sort of fu nctional mapping of Aristotle's Greek into English (or rather into a barbarous sort of construction made of English words). But this, I believe, is in many cases just not to translate at all. The Greekless reader, presented with such a subliteral string of English vocabulary, is often prompted to ask: We ll, whatever could that mean? What I have tried to do instead is to strike a compromise. The English of my translation is intended to be English, though I have sought to avoid making it more elegant than Aristotle's Greek. When Aristotle is hard to construe, I have undertaken to translate him with difficult English. However, I have made intelligibility take precedence over the goal of reproducing the character of Aristotle's Greek in English, something which probably cannot be done. When alternative interpretations of the text are possible, I have, of course, chosen the one I find most likely (though in some fo rtunate cases, I have been able to reproduce an ambiguity of Greek syntax in English); however, in the Notes I alert the reader to those possibilities which I have PREFACE IX closed off in the translation itself. When a certain translation of a technical term is well-established, I have more often than not opted fo r it, even though these traditional renderings are sometimes less than optimal, simply to make my version useful: readers must other­ wise have a glossary converting my renderings into the established ones in order to make sense of the secondary literature. I have, however, avoided one unnecessary barbarism: I usually translate huparch eipanti as 'belongs to every' rather than 'belongs to all' (which, in the present sense, has no English use outside discussions of the syllogistic: see Geach 1972, 69). The Text. The translation is generally based on Ross's text; varia­ tions from his readings, where they are important, are discussed in the Notes (a list of variations from Ross is given as Appendix II). In virtually every such case, my diffe rences with Ross lean towards edi­ torial conservatism: I have tried to find a coherent sense fo r the best­ attested reading, and I have taken the position that Aristotle some­ times nods. I retain the traditional division into Chapters, which (though completely without ancient authority) is a convenient and generally reasonable way of subdividing the text. Line references in the margin are to the standard edition (Bekker). Square brackets en­ close passages which, although well-attested in the manuscripts, nev­ ertheless seem to be spurious. I use angle brackets to mark both editorial additions to Aristotle's text (i.e., corrections to the manu­ scripts) and interpretative additions to the translation. The Notes. The Notes are not intended as a comprehensive com­ mentary, but rather as an aid to the reader with more knowledge of logic and philosophy than of Greek. My goal has been to provide others with a PriorAnal ytics that can actually be used for serious study. Accordingly, I have tried to make clear what is controversial or prob­ lematic about the text and, to the extent possible, to get out of the reader's way. This has sometimes led me to include rather lengthy discussions of the grammatical and textual problems surrounding cer­ tain passages, which may seem odd in a work intended to be intelli­ gible to those who do not know Greek. But it is precisely fo r that sort of reader that these points require the fu llest discussion. Such a reader has no text beyond the translation and cannot see through the finished product to its often murky origins. What I have done is reconstruct X PREFACE some of the messy, even tendentious process whereby renderings come to be chosen; I hope that I have at the same time managed to undermine my own appearance of authority. I have also tried to alert the reader to difficulties in understanding the text and to give some broad picture of the range of opinion among scholars, although this is necessarily selective and omits mention of many issues. In some cases, I do not take a position myself, but in others I do: the reader is better armed against my prejudices by being informed of what they are.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aristotle's Assertoric Syllogistic and Modern Relevance Logic*
    Aristotle’s assertoric syllogistic and modern relevance logic* Abstract: This paper sets out to evaluate the claim that Aristotle’s Assertoric Syllogistic is a relevance logic or shows significant similarities with it. I prepare the grounds for a meaningful comparison by extracting the notion of relevance employed in the most influential work on modern relevance logic, Anderson and Belnap’s Entailment. This notion is characterized by two conditions imposed on the concept of validity: first, that some meaning content is shared between the premises and the conclusion, and second, that the premises of a proof are actually used to derive the conclusion. Turning to Aristotle’s Prior Analytics, I argue that there is evidence that Aristotle’s Assertoric Syllogistic satisfies both conditions. Moreover, Aristotle at one point explicitly addresses the potential harmfulness of syllogisms with unused premises. Here, I argue that Aristotle’s analysis allows for a rejection of such syllogisms on formal grounds established in the foregoing parts of the Prior Analytics. In a final section I consider the view that Aristotle distinguished between validity on the one hand and syllogistic validity on the other. Following this line of reasoning, Aristotle’s logic might not be a relevance logic, since relevance is part of syllogistic validity and not, as modern relevance logic demands, of general validity. I argue that the reasons to reject this view are more compelling than the reasons to accept it and that we can, cautiously, uphold the result that Aristotle’s logic is a relevance logic. Keywords: Aristotle, Syllogism, Relevance Logic, History of Logic, Logic, Relevance 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mechanical Problems in the Corpus of Aristotle
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department Classics and Religious Studies July 2007 The Mechanical Problems in the Corpus of Aristotle Thomas Nelson Winter University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/classicsfacpub Part of the Classics Commons Winter, Thomas Nelson, "The Mechanical Problems in the Corpus of Aristotle" (2007). Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department. 68. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/classicsfacpub/68 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Classics and Religious Studies at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Th e Mechanical Problems in the Corpus of Aristotle Th omas N. Winter Lincoln, Nebraska • 2007 Translator’s Preface. Who Wrote the Mechanical Problems in the Aristotelian Corpus? When I was translating the Mechanical Problems, which I did from the TLG Greek text, I was still in the fundamentalist authorship mode: that it survives in the corpus of Aristotle was then for me prima facie Th is paper will: evidence that Aristotle was the author. And at many places I found in- 1) off er the plainest evidence yet that it is not Aristotle, and — 1 dications that the date of the work was apt for Aristotle. But eventually, 2) name an author. I saw a join in Vitruvius, as in the brief summary below, “Who Wrote Th at it is not Aristotle does not, so far, rest on evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Marko Malink (NYU)
    Demonstration by reductio ad impossibile in Posterior Analytics 1.26 Marko Malink (New York University) Contents 1. Aristotle’s thesis in Posterior Analytics 1. 26 ................................................................................. 1 2. Direct negative demonstration vs. demonstration by reductio ................................................. 14 3. Aristotle’s argument from priority in nature .............................................................................. 25 4. Priority in nature for a-propositions ............................................................................................ 38 5. Priority in nature for e-, i-, and o-propositions .......................................................................... 55 6. Accounting for Aristotle’s thesis in Posterior Analytics 1. 26 ................................................... 65 7. Parts and wholes ............................................................................................................................. 77 References ............................................................................................................................................ 89 1. Aristotle’s thesis in Posterior Analytics 1. 26 At the beginning of the Analytics, Aristotle states that the subject of the treatise is demonstration (ἀπόδειξις). A demonstration, for Aristotle, is a kind of deductive argument. It is a deduction through which, when we possess it, we have scientific knowledge (ἐπιστήμη). While the Prior Analytics deals with deduction in
    [Show full text]
  • The INPR Journal. Volume I, Fall 2020
    Crossing: The INPR Journal. Volume I, Fall 2020. Editor in chief Emmanuel Falque Editorial coordinators William L. Connelly Domenico Cambria Editorial committee Tamsin Jones Adam Graves Martin Koci William Woody S.J. Crossing: The INPR Journal. Volume I. November 2020. 26 Rue d’Assas 75006 Paris, France. ISSN (online): 2644-9242 DOI: 10.21428/8766eb43.b95a977c Web: https://inprjournal.pubpub.org/ http://www.network-inpr.org/ Email: [email protected] Crossing : une étape fondatrice de l’INPR (English Translation on Page III) L’international Network of Philosophy of Religion (INPR) est un réseau international de jeunes philosophes et théologiens (doctorants, post-doctorants, jeunes professeurs) réunis pour travailler ensemble autour de la question de Dieu et de sa pertinence dans un monde contemporain sécularisé. Essentiellement appuyé sur la philosophie continentale, mais pas exclusivement, il s’efforce d’être au service d’un renouveau de la philosophie et de la théologie chez les jeunes générations pour aujourd’hui. Loin de rester chacune sur leur pré-carré, philosophie et théologie sont appelées aujourd’hui à se croiser et à davantage se féconder mutuellement, dans le respect de la distinction des disciplines. Et les chercheurs de différents pays, en particulier ceux qui feront la pensée de demain, doivent eux aussi mieux dialoguer, sûrs que dans la confrontation des idées se fomente le terreau d’où naissent de nouvelles pensées. Inauguré en 2015, ce réseau international compte aujourd’hui plus d’une centaine de membres personnellement engagés, de plus de dix nationalités différentes, et venus en particulier d’Europe et des États-Unis. Les membres qui constituent ce réseau ont déjà fait la preuve par plusieurs séminaires (grands colloques ou séminaires doctoraux et post-doctoraux) du bien-fondé de leur démarche commune.
    [Show full text]
  • C.S. Peirce's Abduction from the Prior Analytics
    Providence College DigitalCommons@Providence Community Scholar Publications Providence College Community Scholars 7-1996 C.S. Peirce's Abduction from the Prior Analytics William Paul Haas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.providence.edu/comm_scholar_pubs Haas, William Paul, "C.S. Peirce's Abduction from the Prior Analytics" (1996). Community Scholar Publications. 2. https://digitalcommons.providence.edu/comm_scholar_pubs/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Providence College Community Scholars at DigitalCommons@Providence. It has been accepted for inclusion in Community Scholar Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Providence. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WILLIAM PAUL HAAS July 1996 C.S. PEIRCE'S ABDUCTION FROM THE PRIOR ANALYTICS In his Ancient Formal Logic. Professor Joseph Bochenski finds Aristotle's description of syllogisms based upon hypotheses to be "difficult to understand." Noting that we do not have the treatise which Aristotle promised to write, Bochenski laments the fact that the Prior Analytics, where it is treated most explicitly, "is either corrupted or (which is more probable) was hastily written and contains logical errors." (1) Charles Sanders Peirce wrestled with the same difficult text when he attempted to establish the Aristotelian roots of his theory of abductive or hypothetical reasoning. However, Peirce opted for the explanation that the fault was with the corrupted text, not with Aristotle's exposition. Peirce interpreted the text of Book II, Chapter 25 thus: Accordingly, when he opens the next chapter with the word ' Ajray (¿y-q a word evidently chosen to form a pendant to 'Errctyuyrj, we feel sure that this is what he is coming to.
    [Show full text]
  • Allan Gotthelf's Teleology, First Principles, And
    Reason Papers Vol. 35, no. 1 Review Essays Review Essay: Allan Gotthelf’s Teleology, First Principles, and Scientific Method in Aristotle’s Biology and James G. Lennox and Robert Bolton’s (ed.) Being, Nature, and Life in Aristotle Owen Goldin Marquette University Although readers of Reason Papers are no doubt familiar with Allan Gotthelf’s extensive efforts aimed at a more widespread appreciation of Ayn Rand’s philosophical thought, he is best known among historians of philosophy and science for his contributions to the understanding of Aristotle’s biological works, which have shed much light on Aristotle’s scientific methodology, epistemology, and metaphysics. Two new books allow us to take account of Gotthelf’s contributions to Aristotelian studies. The first is a collection of Gotthelf’s most important papers on Aristotle.1 Although the papers were written independently, there is little superfluous repetition, and taken together they constitute a comprehensive and coherent account of Aristotle’s biology and its philosophical significance. The second, which has its origin in a 2004 conference in Gotthelf’s honor, is a collection of papers on Aristotle, most of which focus on themes that Gotthelf himself has discussed.2 Some of the papers further his thought, taking it in new directions; others depart from Gotthelf in philosophically interesting ways. Gotthelf believes that one of his most important contributions to Aristotelian studies lies in his account of teleology in the biological writings. For this he gives credit to Rand (p. viii) (who personally led Gotthelf to the study of Aristotle), for she had argued that scientific explanation must identify potentials inherent in natures.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Peter Mclaughlin the Question of the Authenticity of the Mechanical
    Draft: occasionally updated Peter McLaughlin The Question of the Authenticity of the Mechanical Problems Sept. 30, 2013 Until the nineteenth century there was little doubt among scholars as to the authenticity of the Aristotelian Mechanical Problems. There were some doubters among the Renaissance humanists, but theirs were general doubts about the authenticity of a large class of writings, 1 not doubts based on the individual characteristics of this particular work. Some Humanists distrusted any text that hadn’t been passed by the Arabs to the Latin West in the High Middle Ages. However, by the end of the 18th century after Euler and Lagrange, the Mechanical Problems had ceased to be read as part of science and had become the object of history of science; and there the reading of the text becomes quite different from the Renaissance 2 readings. In his Histoire des mathématiques J.E. Montucla (1797) dismisses the Mechanical Problems with such epithets as “entirely false,” “completely ridiculous,” and “puerile.” William Whewell remarks in the History of the Inductive Sciences3 that “in scarcely any one instance are the answers, which Aristotle gives to his questions, of any value.” Neither of them, however, cast doubt on the authenticity of the work. Abraham Kaestner’s Geschichte der Mathematik (1796–1800) mentions doubts – but does not share them.4 Serious doubts about the authenticity of the Mechanical Problems as an individual work seem to be more a consequence of the disciplinary constitution of classical philology, particularly in nineteenth-century Germany. Some time between about 1830 and 1870, the opinion of most philologists shifted from acceptance to denial of the authenticity of the 5 Mechanical Problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue of Titles of Works Attributed to Aristotle
    Catalogue of Titles of works attributed by Aristotle 1 To enhance readability of the translations and usability of the catalogues, I have inserted the following bold headings into the lists. These have no authority in any manuscript, but are based on a theory about the composition of the lists described in chapter 3. The text and numbering follows that of O. Gigon, Librorum deperditorum fragmenta. PART ONE: Titles in Diogenes Laertius (D) I. Universal works (ta kathalou) A. The treatises (ta syntagmatika) 1. The dialogues or exoterica (ta dialogika ex terika) 2. The works in propria persona or lectures (ta autopros pa akroamatika) a. Instrumental works (ta organika) b. Practical works (ta praktika) c. Productive Works (ta poi tika) d. Theoretical works (ta the r tika) . Natural philosophy (ta physiologia) . Mathematics (ta math matika) B. Notebooks (ta hypomn matika) II. Intermediate works (ta metaxu) III. Particular works (ta merika) PART TWO: Titles in the Vita Hesychii (H) This list is organized in the same way as D, with two exceptions. First, IA2c “productive works” has dropped out. Second, there is an appendix, organized as follows: IV. Appendix A. Intermediate or Particular works B. Treatises C. Notebooks D. Falsely ascribed works PART THREE: Titles in Ptolemy al-Garib (A) This list is organized in the same way as D, except it contains none of the Intermediate or Particular works. It was written in Arabic, and later translated into Latin, and then reconstructed into Greek, which I here translate. PART FOUR: Titles in the order of Bekker (B) The modern edition contains works only in IA2 (“the works in propria persona”), and replaces the theoretical works before the practical and productive, as follows.
    [Show full text]
  • Posterior Analytics
    POSTERIOR ANALYTICS The Posterior Analytics contains Aristotle!> epistemology and philosophy of science. His approach is broadly speaking foundational. Some of what we know can be justified by being shown to follow logically from other things that we know, but some of what we know does not need to be justified in this way. Such items of foundational knowledge are the first principles of the various sciences. In the excerpts below, Aristotle sets out the axiomatic structure of a science and presents his theory of explanation. The final chapter provides a tantalizing but obscure presentation of his ideas on the acquisition of first principles. BOOK I 1 71a All teaching and all intellectual learning result from previous cognition. This is clear if we examine all the cases; for this is how the mathematical 5 sciences and all crafts arise. This is also true of both deductive and induc­ tive arguments, since they both succeed in teaching because they rely on previous cognition: deductive arguments begin with premisses we are as­ sumed to understand, and inductive arguments prove the universal by relying on the fact that the particular is already clear. Rhetorical arguments 10 also persuade in the same way, since they rely either on examples (and hence on induction) or on argumentations (and hence on deduction). Previous cognition is needed in two ways. In some cases we must presup­ pose that something is! (for example, that it is true that everything is either asserted or denied truly <of a given subject». In other cases we must 15 comprehend what the thing spoken of is (for example, that a triangle signifies this); and in other cases we must do both (for example, we must both comprehend what a unit signifies and presuppose that there is such a thing).
    [Show full text]
  • The Beginnings of Formal Logic: Deduction in Aristotle's Topics Vs
    Phronesis 60 (�0�5) �67-309 brill.com/phro The Beginnings of Formal Logic: Deduction in Aristotle’s Topics vs. Prior Analytics Marko Malink Department of Philosophy, New York University, 5 Washington Place, New York, NY 10003. USA [email protected] Abstract It is widely agreed that Aristotle’s Prior Analytics, but not the Topics, marks the begin- ning of formal logic. There is less agreement as to why this is so. What are the distinctive features in virtue of which Aristotle’s discussion of deductions (syllogismoi) qualifies as formal logic in the one treatise but not in the other? To answer this question, I argue that in the Prior Analytics—unlike in the Topics—Aristotle is concerned to make fully explicit all the premisses that are necessary to derive the conclusion in a given deduction. Keywords formal logic – deduction – syllogismos – premiss – Prior Analytics – Topics 1 Introduction It is widely agreed that Aristotle’s Prior Analytics marks the beginning of formal logic.1 Aristotle’s main concern in this treatise is with deductions (syllogismoi). Deductions also play an important role in the Topics, which was written before the Prior Analytics.2 The two treatises start from the same definition of what 1 See e.g. Cornford 1935, 264; Russell 1946, 219; Ross 1949, 29; Bocheński 1956, 74; Allen 2001, 13; Ebert and Nortmann 2007, 106-7; Striker 2009, p. xi. 2 While the chronological order of Aristotle’s works cannot be determined with any certainty, scholars agree that the Topics was written before the Prior Analytics; see Brandis 1835, 252-9; Ross 1939, 251-2; Bocheński 1956, 49-51; Kneale and Kneale 1962, 23-4; Brunschwig 1967, © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi �0.��63/�5685�84-��34��86 268 Malink a deduction is (stated in the first chapter of each).
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle on Principles As Elements
    Aristotle on Principles as Elements Marko Malink, New York University Draft, September 2016 Abstract: In his discussion of the four causes, Aristotle claims that ‘the hypotheses are material causes of the conclusion’ ( Physics 2.3, Metaphysics Δ 2). This claim has puzzled commentators since antiquity. It is usually taken to mean that the premises of any deduction are material causes of the conclusion. By contrast, I argue that the claim does not apply to deductions in general but only to scientific demonstrations. In Aristotle’s view, the theorems of a given science are composites composed of the indemonstrable premises from which they are demonstrated. Accordingly, these premises are elements, and hence material causes, of the theorems. Given this, Aristotle’s claim can be shown to be well-motivated and illuminating. 1. Hypotheses are material causes of the conclusion In Physics 2.3 and its doublet in Metaphysics Δ 2, Aristotle distinguishes the so-called four causes. The first of them is characterized as ‘that from which as a constituent something comes to be’. 1 Since antiquity, this type of cause is known as the ‘material cause’. 2 Aristotle illustrates it by a series of examples as follows: 1 τὸ ἐξ οὗ γίγνεταί τι ἐνυπάρχοντος, Phys. 2.3 194b24 (= Metaph. Δ 2 1013a24–5). 2 The ancient commentators refer to it as ὑλικὸν αἴτιον (Alex. Aphr. in Metaph. 349.2, 351.5, 353.20, Philop. in Phys. 243.21, 243.30, 246.25–247.11, 249.6, Simpl. in Phys. 314.27, 319.20, 320.13, Asclep. in Metaph. 305.22–4, 306.9–14).
    [Show full text]
  • A Note on the Simile of the Rout in the Posterior Analytics Ii 19
    Ancient Philosophy 31 (2011) ©Mathesis Publications 1 A Note on the Simile of the Rout in the Posterior Analytics ii 19 James Lesher In the Posterior Analytics (APo ) ii 19, Aristotle compares the way in which sense perception ( αἴσθησις ) gives rise to knowledge of the universal ( τὸ καθόλου ) with the way in which one soldier’s ceasing his flight from the enemy leads other soldiers to do the same (100a12-13). 1 While the philosophical lesson appears to be that the human soul has the capacity to retain and organize multiple sense impressions (just as soldiers have the capacity to stop and form themselves into an effective fighting unit), the simile’s concluding phrase, ἕως ἐπὶ ἀρχὴν ἦλθεν , has no clear meaning. In Lesher 2010a I argued that the phrase should not be taken to mean ‘until the soldiers return to the original location or arrange - ment’ since that would suggest that in grasping the universal the mind returns to a prior state or condition (a view proposed by Plato but rejected by Aristotle at APo 99b25-7). I also noted that no surviving ancient account of a battle makes any mention of soldiers who cease their flight from the enemy and ‘come or go to an ἀρχή . Accordingly, I proposed that we take the subject of the verb ἦλθε to be the stabilizing of the sensible image in the soul and the ἀρχή toward which this process advances to be ‘the ἀρχή of art and scientific knowledge’ mentioned in the previous sentence. It seems clear that the process Aristotle was seeking to explain consists (ini - tially) in the stabilizing of the sensible image (99b36-110a2) and (subsequently) in the situating of the universal within a network of broader universals (100a15- b3).
    [Show full text]