Abstract
It is understandable that those wishing to characterize Aristotle’s philosophical method have looked for guidance almost without exception to a passage in Nicomachean Ethics vii 1, where he prefaces his discussion of the puzzling phenomenon of akrasia (weakness of will) with an uncharacteristic methodological preamble. In this preamble, Aristotle contends, “We must set out the appearances (phainomena) and run through all the puzzles regarding them” (EN vii 1, 1145b2–4). Thereafter, having systematized the phainomena and re-interpreted or rejected those proving problematic, we may rest content: any proof we may wish for in this domain is already provided in this procedure (EN vii 1, 1145b5–7).
—About all these matters, we must try to reach conviction via arguments, using appearances (phainomena) as witnesses and standards.
EE 1216b26–29
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Baily, Dominic. 2006. “Plato and Aristotle on the Unhypothetical,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 30: 101–26.
Barnes, Jonathan. 1981. “Aristotle and the Methods of Ethics,” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 34: 490–511.
— (ed.) 1995. The Cambridge Compamon to Aristotle (Cambridge University Press).
Bonjour, Laurence. 2004. “In Search of Direct Realism,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69: 349–67.
Bronstein, David. 2012. “The Origin and the Aim of Posterior Analytics II.19,” Phronesis 57: 29–62.
Cleary, John J. 1994. “Phainomena in Aristotle’s Methodology,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies 2: 61–97.
Cooper, John M.1988. “Review of Martha Nussbaum, The Fragility of Goodness,” Philosophical Review 97: 543–564.
Davidson, Jack D. 1991. “Appearances, Antirealism, and Aristotle,” Philosophical Studies 63 (2): 147–66.
Engberg-Pederson. 1979. “More on Aristotelian Epagoge,” Phronesis 24: 301–19.
Gigon, Olof. 1961. “Methodische Probleme in der Metaphysik des Aristoteles,” in S. Mansion, (ed.) Aristote et les problèmes de method (Louvain: Publications Universitaires), pp. 131–45.
Hamlyn, D. W. 1990. “Aristotle on Dialectic,” Philosophy 65: 465–76.
Huemer, Michael. 2001. Skepticism and the Veil of Perception (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).
— 2007. “Compassionate Phenomenal Conservatism,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74: 30–55.
Irwin, Terence. 1988. Aristotle’s First Principles (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Kraut, Richard. 2010. “Aristotle’s Ethics,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Lewis. David. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds (Oxford: Blackwell Pubs.).
Littlejohn, Clayton. 2011. “Defeating Phenomenal Conservatism,” Analytic Philosophy 52: 35–48.
Long, Christopher P. 2006. “Saving Ta Legomena: Aristotle and the History of Philosophy,” Review of Metaphysics 60: 247–67.
Mansion, Suzanne (ed.) 1961. Aristote et les problèmes de method (Louvain: Publications Universitaires).
McLeod, Owen. 1995. “Aristotle’s Method,” History of Philosophy Quarterly 12: 1–18.
Nieuwenburg, Paul. 1999. “Aristotle and the Appearances,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 37: 551–73.
Nussbaum, Martha. 1982. “Saving Aristotle’s Appearances,” in M. C. Nussbaum and M. Schofield, (eds), Language and Logos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 267–93.
— 1986. The Fragility of Goodness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Owen, G. E. L. 1961. “τιθέναι τà φαινόμενα,” in S. Mansion, (ed.) Aristote et les problèmes de method (Louvain: Publications Universitaires), pp. 83–103.
Priest, Graham. 2002. Beyond the Limits of Thought 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Pritzl, Kurt. 1994. “Opinions as Appearances: Endoxa in Aristotle,” Ancient Philosophy 14: 41–50.
Putnam, Hilary. 1981. Reason, Truth, and History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Régis, L. M. 1935. L’opnion selon Aristote (Paris, J. Vrin).
Shields, Christopher. forthcoming. “First Philosophy First: Aristotle and the Practise of Metaphysics,” in F. Sheffield and J. Warren, (eds), The Routledge Companion to Ancient Philosophy (Routledge).
de Vogel, C. J. 1961. “La method d’Aristote en metaphysique d’après Métaphysique A 1–2),” in S. Mansion, (ed.) Aristote et les problèmes de method (Louvain: Publications Universitaires), pp. 147–70.
Wedin, Michael V. 2003. “A Curious Turn in Metaphysics Gamma: Protagoras and Strong Denial of the Principle of Non-Contradiction,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 85. 107–30.
— 2004. “On the Use and Abuse of Non-Contradiction: Aristotle’s Critique of Protagoras and Heraclitus in Metaphysics Gamma 5,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 26: 213–39.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Christopher Shields
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shields, C. (2013). The Phainomenological Method in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. In: Feser, E. (eds) Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics. Philosophers in Depth. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137367907_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137367907_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-34815-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-36790-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)