Abstract
This chapter deals with the hierarchical arrangement of the sciences by Aristotle in the beginning of his treatise Metaphysics, which shows how definitions are rooted in practical technical experience. Further the close connection between Aristotle’s pragmatic epistemology and his hylomorphic conception of nature is elaborated showing why this epistemology is foundational for law and politics. Finally it is explained how the highest science in Aristotle’s view concerns the good and represents a pragmatic moral conception of truth.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Aristotle and Ackrill (1984) Categories (Cat). 2a11-18.
- 2.
Aristotle (1933) Metaphysics (Met.) 1030a11-14.
- 3.
Most outspoken in this respect is (Graham 1990), who makes a distinction between early (Cat.) and late (Met.) Aristotelian theories and argues that all of Aristotle’s thought can be separated into two systems. See for elaboration especially p. 80. In the Stanford Encyclopedia (Cohen and Reeve 2021) write that it would be a mistake to conclude that Aristotle in Metaphysics radically alters his conception of species as stated in Categories, because as is now generally accepted the word “eidos” which meant “species” in the logical works, has acquired a new meaning in a hylomorphic context, where it means “form” contrasted with “matter”. This does not explain why Aristotle felt the need to introduce a new meaning of eidos, which in a way returns to a view of Plato that he in principle completely rejects: “The exponents of the Forms are partly right in their account when they make the Forms separate; that is, if the Forms are substances, but they are also partly wrong, since by “Form” they mean one over many. The reason for this is that they cannot explain what are the imperishable substances of this kind which exist besides the particular sensible substances; so they make them the same in kind as the perishable things (for these we know)”. (Met.1040b30-35, trans. Tredennick).
- 4.
Aristotle et al. (1984) Nicomachean Ethics (EN) 1142a12-21.
- 5.
Pellegrin (1986).
- 6.
- 7.
Graham’s system 2.
- 8.
This is a personal summarizing representation of 1032a14-1041b35.
- 9.
For this Met. 981b26 refers to the Nicomachean Ethics (EN).
- 10.
About indefinability of individual things Met. 1040a1-10.
- 11.
- 12.
Aristotle (1932) Politics (Pol.)
- 13.
Hempel doesn’t refer to Aristotle. In the Stanford Encyclopedia Fetzer et al. (2022) refers to the Aristotelian influence in Hempel’s explanatory model, not to the similarity of the example.
- 14.
The narrative about Semmelweis is derived from Wikipedia.
- 15.
EN 1140a1-25 juncto 1094b24: “for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits: it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician demonstrative proofs.”(trans. Ross/Urmson).
- 16.
- 17.
EN 1094a26-1094b7.
- 18.
Hempel is more hesitant than Popper (1962), who in that same period characterizes modern empirical science by stating that in most cases we can determine which of two theories is the better one and that this makes progress possible. Many years later Popper (1992) elaborates this view into the idea of a new professional ethics “ an ethics for scientists, for doctors, lawyers, engineers, and for architects; for civil servants and, most importantly, for politicians”.
- 19.
As described by Williams (2004).
- 20.
I follow here the information given on Wikipedia.
- 21.
(Goldin (2013): first paragraph. “Aristotle is well aware that epistēmē is but one kind of knowledge. Aristotle uses the verbs gignōskein and eidenai and their cognates to refer not only to epistēmē but to other kinds of veridical grasps of things as they are, which unlike epistēmē do not include a grasp of the explanation or cause, but nonetheless are backed up by the sort of justification that allows us to consider them instances of knowledge”.
- 22.
Wittgenstein (1975)
- 23.
See for example (Peirce 1960)“To develop the meaning of a thought, it is necessary to determine which habits are produced by the thought, as the meaning of an object consists simply in the habits implicated by it”.
- 24.
Mead and Morris (1934).
- 25.
In this respect it is of great importance to distinguish accurately between Aristotle’s view on inductivism and the inductivism of the Methodological inductivism of nineteenth century Historicism, as explained in Chap. 1 of this book.
- 26.
According to Aristotle people in many ways imitate nature and sometimes complete what nature cannot bring to a finish (Physics, 119a, 15).
- 27.
See Pellegrin (1986, 45/46 and 119–123, 147–148) about the shift in perspective from fisherman to natural scientist. For the latter the question is guided by understanding the function of things in their coming to be, maintenance and decay.
- 28.
The life of a monk in Kelsen’s words. Kelsen (1937), pp. 12–13.
- 29.
- 30.
It should be kept in mind that Aristotle does not attack Plato’s ideas as such, but his use of them as intermediates.
References
Arendt, Hannah. 1998. The Human Condition. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Aristotle. 1932. Politics. Translated by H Rackham. Loeb Classical Library. London; New York: W. Heinemann; G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
———. 1933. Metaphysics. Translated by Tredennick Hugh. Loeb Classical Library. Aristotle in 23 vols. 17, 18. Cambridge, Massachusetts. London: William Heinemann Ltd., Harvard University Press.
Aristotle, and J.L. Ackrill. 1984. Categories. In The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes, 3–24. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Aristotle, and A.A.L. Farquharson. 1984. Progression of Animals. In The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes, 1097–1110. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Aristotle, and W. Ogle. 1984. Parts of Animals. In The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes, 994–1086. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Aristotle, W.D. Ross, and J.O. Urmson. 1984. Nicomachean Ethics. In The Complete Works of Aristotle. The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Jonathan Barnes, 1729–1867. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1928. De Re Publica, De Legibus,. Translated by Clinton Walker Keyes. London; New York: W. Heinemann; G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
Cohen, Marc S., and C.D.C. Reeve. 2021 Aristotle’s Metaphysics. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N Zalta, Winter 2021.
Fetzer, James, Edward N. Zalta, and Uri Nodelman. 2022. Carl Hempel. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, fall 2022.
Goldin, Owen. 2013. Circular Justification and Explanation in Aristotle. Phronesis 58 (3): 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685284-12341248.
Graham, Daniel W. 1990. Aristotle’s Two Systems. Oxford: Clarendon. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/316822931.html.
Halpérin, Jean-Louis. 2012. Lex Posterior Derogat Priori, Lex Specialis Derogat Generali. Jalons Pour Une Histoire Des Conflits de Normes Centrée Sur Ces Deux Solutions Concurrents. Tijdschrift Voor Rechtsgeschiedenis 80: 353–397.
Hasnas, John. 2008. The Depoliticization of Law. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 9 (2) http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258832733_Towards_a_theory_of_new_natural_law_as_a_basis_for_future_legal_positivism.
Hempel, Carl G. 1966. Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Kelsen, Hans. 1937. The Philosophy of Aristotle and the Hellenic-Macedonian Policy. ETHICS 48 (1): 1–64.
Mead, George Herbert, and Charles W. Morris. 1934. Mind, Self & Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Peirce, C.S. 1960. In Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Part V Pragmatism and Pragmaticism, ed. Ch. Harthorne and P. Weiss. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Pellegrin, Pierre. 1986. Aristotle’s Classification of Animals: Biology and the Conceptual Unity of the Aristotelian Corpus. University of California Press.
Popper, Karl R. 1962. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Vol. 2, The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx and the Aftermath. 4th ed. Revised. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
———. 1992. Toleration and Intellectual Responsibility. In In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years, 188–204. London; New York: Routledge.
Sonderegger, Erwin. 2020. Aristotle, Metaphysics Λ Introduction, Translation, Commentary A Speculative Sketch Devoid God.
Williams, Bernard. 2004. Truth & Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1975. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Huppes-Cluysenaer, L. (2023). Aristotle’s Conception of Truth, Perception of Particulars and Problem of Conceptualization. In: Huppes-Cluysenaer, L., Coelho, N.M. (eds) Aristotle on Truth, Dialogue, Justice and Decision. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 144. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45485-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45485-1_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-45484-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-45485-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)