|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Dennis Chi Aristotle Professor Bett Dec. 8, 2003 Specifically, I would like to look at how he thinks we can “demonstrate” things, especially with regards to his account of coming to know the first things. I also find interesting the tension between the pragmatic nature of his argument against skepticism and the stringent requirements of truth which he demands. I.e. if what is demonstrated must be everlasting, what is a false conclusion that we use and act on in our everyday lives? If Aristotle came to know, for example, that the world was round, or that disease was caused by microscopic living creatures, how would that affect his pragmatic approach to skepticism? Aristotle’s Theory of Knowledge In this essay, I will attempt to show how Aristotle justifies this view of coming to know, as well as point out what I see to be some fundamental problems with his approach. According to very first line of Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, “all teaching and all intellectual learning come about from previous knowledge” (37). He first uncontroversial applies this to both inductive and deductive logic, since both types of logic rely on “examples or on argumentations” (37). In other words, his statement of prior knowledge simply says that there is some knowledge prior to the conclusion of any new knowledge which leads to that new knowledge. This prior knowledge comes in two flavors : presupposed principles like the Principle of Excluded Middle, and an understanding of what the thing spoken of signifies. The latter of these two seems an obvious requirement of coherent argument, while the former seems more doubtful in terms of his initial statement that “all intellectual learning come[s] about from previous knowledge” (37). This first example that he gives here of something with both of these characteristics of prior knowledge is a triangle which we must both understand and presuppose the existence of. This seems to hold an everyday concept up as something which can be doubted to exist—a concept which Aristotle usually dismisses offhand. This can perhaps be explained by saying that we are completely justified in presupposing the existence of any reasonable object of inquiry, where “reasonable” is defined by commonly held beliefs about reality. Demonstration is the next crucial step in acquiring knowledge for Aristotle. Aristotle here defines demonstration as distinct from deduction by a number of characteristics—that demonstrative knowledge must be derived from things that are “true, primary, immediate, better known than, prior to, and explanatory of the conclusion” (40).
Approximate Word count = 1510
Approximate Pages = 6
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|