Ideas from 'Posterior Analytics' by Aristotle [327 BCE], by Theme Structure

[found in 'Posterior Analytics (2nd ed)' by Aristotle (ed/tr Barnes,Jonathan) [OUP 1993,0-19-824089-9]].

green numbers give full details    |     back to texts     |     unexpand these ideas


2. Reason / A. Nature of Reason / 1. On Reason
There is pure deductive reasoning, and explanatory demonstration reasoning
                        Full Idea: Aristotle distinguishes between deductive reasoning (sullogismos) and demonstration (apodeixis). All demonstration is deductive reasoning, but not all deductive reasoning is demonstration.
                        From: report of Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], Bk I.2) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 5.3
                        A reaction: This sounds not far off the distinction between single-turnstile (formal proof) and double-turnstile (semantic consequence). Politis says, though, that the key point is the demonstration is explanatory.
2. Reason / A. Nature of Reason / 6. Coherence
Maybe everything could be demonstrated, if demonstration can be reciprocal or circular
                        Full Idea: Some optimists think understanding arises only through demonstration, but say there could be demonstration of everything, for it is possible to demonstrate in a circle or reciprocally.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 72b16)
                        A reaction: I'm an optimist in this sense, though what is being described would probably best be called 'large-scale coherence'. Two reciprocal arguments look bad, but a hundred look good.
2. Reason / B. Laws of Thought / 4. Contraries
Two falsehoods can be contrary to one another
                        Full Idea: There are falsehoods which are contrary to one another and cannot be the case together e.g. that a man is a horse or a cow.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 88a29)
2. Reason / D. Definition / 4. Real Definition
An Aristotelian definition is causal
                        Full Idea: An Aristotelian definition is causal.
                        From: report of Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], Bk II.2) by Charlotte Witt - Substance and Essence in Aristotle 1.5
                        A reaction: [She refers us to Posterior Analytics II.2] This is important if we are tempted to follow a modern line of saying that we want Aristotelian essences, and that these are definitions. We ain't thinking of dictionaries.
Definitions are of what something is, and that is universal
                        Full Idea: Definitions are thought to be of what something is, and what something is is in every case universal and positive.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 90b05)
                        A reaction: This is exhibit A for those who think that Aristotelian essences concern the genus, rather than the particular. I suspect that this idea is best expressed as 'all we can say by way of definition of a particular thing involves the use of universals'.
Definition by division needs predicates, which are well ordered and thorough
                        Full Idea: To establish a definition through division, you must aim for three things: you must take what is predicated in what the thing is; you must order these items as first or second; and you must ensure that these are all there are.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 97a23)
                        A reaction: This gives an indication of the thoroughness that Aristotle expects from a definition. They aren't like dictionary definitions of words. He expects definitions to often be very lengthy (see Idea 12292).
You can define objects by progressively identifying what is the same and what is different
                        Full Idea: Find what is in common among items similar and undifferentiated, then do the same for items of the same kind as the first group but a different form, and so on, till you come to a single account: this will be the definition of the object.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 97b07-14)
                        A reaction: [His example is distinguishing 'magnanimity' from 'indifference to fortune' among people] Presumably this process works for the formation of new concepts (e.g. in biology), as well as for the definition of familiars in terms of other familiars.
2. Reason / D. Definition / 6. Definition by Essence
What it is and why it is are the same; screening defines and explains an eclipse
                        Full Idea: What it is and why it is are the same. What is an eclipse? Privation of light from the moon by screening of the earth. Why is there an eclipse? ...What is a harmony? A numerical ratio between high and low. Why do the high and low harmonize? The ratio.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 90a15)
                        A reaction: This is right at the heart of Aristotelian essentialism, and (I take it) modern scientific essentialism. If you fully know what cigarette tars are, and what human cell structure is, you understand immediately why cigarettes cause cancer.
4. Formal Logic / B. Propositional Logic PL / 2. Tools of Propositional Logic / e. Axioms of PL
An axiom is a principle which must be understood if one is to learn anything
                        Full Idea: An axiom is a principle which must be grasped if anyone is going to learn anything whatever.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 72a17)
5. Theory of Logic / A. Overview of Logic / 6. Classical Logic
Demonstrations by reductio assume excluded middle
                        Full Idea: Demonstrations by reduction to the impossible assume that everything is asserted or denied.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 77a23)
                        A reaction: This sounds like the lynchpin of classical logic.
5. Theory of Logic / B. Logical Consequence / 1. Logical Consequence
Something holds universally when it is proved of an arbitrary and primitive case
                        Full Idea: Something holds universally when it is proved of an arbitrary and primitive case.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 73b33)
                        A reaction: A key idea in mathematical logic, but it always puzzles me. If you snatch a random person in London, and they are extremely tall, does that prove that people of London are extremely tall? How do we know the arbitrary is representative?
5. Theory of Logic / D. Assumptions for Logic / 2. Excluded Middle
Everything is either asserted or denied truly
                        Full Idea: Of the fact that everything is either asserted or denied truly, we must believe that it is the case.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 71a14)
                        A reaction: Presumably this means that every assertion which could possibly be asserted must come out as either true or false. This will have to include any assertions with vague objects or predicates, and any universal assertions, and negative assertions.
5. Theory of Logic / K. Features of Logics / 1. Axiomatisation
Aristotle's axioms (unlike Euclid's) are assumptions awaiting proof
                        Full Idea: Aristotle's way with axioms, rather than Euclid's, is as assumptions which we are willing to agree on while awaiting an opportunity to prove them
                        From: report of Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 76b23-) by Gottfried Leibniz - New Essays on Human Understanding 4.07
                        A reaction: Euclid's are understood as basic self-evident truths which will be accepted by everyone, though the famous parallel line postulate undermined that. The modern view of axioms is a set of minimum theorems that imply the others. I like Aristotle.
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 1. Mathematics
Mathematics is concerned with forms, not with superficial properties
                        Full Idea: Mathematics is concerned with forms [eide]: its objects are not said of any underlying subject - for even if geometrical objects are said of some underlying subject, still it is not as being said of an underlying subject that they are studied.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 79a08)
                        A reaction: Since forms turn out to be essences, in 'Metaphysics', this indicates an essentialist view of mathematics.
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 2. Geometry
The essence of a triangle comes from the line, mentioned in any account of triangles
                        Full Idea: Something holds of an item in itself if it holds of it in what it is - e.g., line of triangles and point of lines (their essence comes from these items, which inhere in the account which says what they are).
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 73a35)
                        A reaction: A helpful illustration of how a definition gives us the essence of something. You could not define triangles without mentioning straight lines. The lines are necessary features, but they are essential for any explanation, and for proper understanding.
6. Mathematics / A. Nature of Mathematics / 4. Using Numbers / a. Units
A unit is what is quantitatively indivisible
                        Full Idea: Arithmeticians posit that a unit is what is quantitatively indivisible.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 72a22)
                        A reaction: Presumably indeterminate stuff like water is non-quantitatively divisible (e.g. Moses divides the Red Sea), as are general abstracta (curved shapes from rectilinear ones). Does 'quantitative' presupposes units, making the idea circular?
8. Modes of Existence / B. Properties / 4. Intrinsic Properties
To seek truth, study the real connections between subjects and attributes
                        Full Idea: If, however, one is aiming at truth, one must be guided by the real connexions of subjects and attributes.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 81b22), quoted by George Engelbretsen - Trees, Terms and Truth 3
                        A reaction: I take this to be a warning that predicates that indicate mere 'Cambridge properties' (such as relations, locations, coincidences etc) have nothing to do with ontology. See Shoemaker on properties.
8. Modes of Existence / D. Universals / 2. Need for Universals
Separate Forms aren't needed for logic, but universals (one holding of many) are essential
                        Full Idea: There need be no forms (one item apart from the many) for demonstrations. But there must be universals, where one thing holds of the many. Without universals there are no middle terms, and so no demonstrations.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 77a05)
8. Modes of Existence / D. Universals / 6. Platonic Forms / d. Forms critiques
We can forget the Forms, as they are irrelevant, and not needed in giving demonstrations
                        Full Idea: We can say goodbye to the forms. They are nonny-noes; and if there are any they are irrelevant - for demonstrations are not concerned with them.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 83a34)
9. Objects / A. Existence of Objects / 6. Nihilism about Objects
Why are being terrestrial and a biped combined in the definition of man, but being literate and musical aren't?
                        Full Idea: Why will a man be a two-footed terrestrial animal and not an animal and terrestrial? Assumptions do not make it necessary that what is predicated form a unity - rather, it is as if the same man were musical and literate.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 92a30)
9. Objects / B. Unity of Objects / 2. Substance / c. Types of substance
Units are positionless substances, and points are substances with position
                        Full Idea: A unit is a positionless substance, and a point a substance having position.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 87a36)
9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 4. Essence as Definition
Definitions recognise essences, so are not themselves essences
                        Full Idea: If a definition is the recognition of some essence, it is clear that such items are not essences.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 90b17)
                        A reaction: So definitions are not themselves essences (as some modern thinkers claim). The idea seems obvious to me, but it is a warning against a simplistic view of Aristotelian essences, and a reminder that such things are real, not verbal.
9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 7. Essence and Necessity / c. Essentials are necessary
The predicates of a thing's nature are necessary to it
                        Full Idea: Whatever is predicated in what something is is necessary.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 96b03)
                        A reaction: This does NOT say that the essence is just the necessities. He goes on to say to say separately that certain properties of a triplet are part of the essence, as well as being necessary. This is key for that the nature of a thing is necessary to it.
9. Objects / D. Essence of Objects / 8. Essence as Explanatory
Aristotelian essences are properties mentioned at the starting point of a science
                        Full Idea: As Aristotle uses the term 'essence', only those properties which are mentioned in or relatively close to the starting points of the science will be essential.
                        From: report of Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE]) by Joan Kung - Aristotle on Essence and Explanation II
                        A reaction: I take this to be the correct way to understand Aristotelian essence - as something understood by its role in scientific explanations. We may, of course, work back to the starting point of a science, by disentangling the mess in the middle.
10. Modality / A. Necessity / 2. Nature of Necessity
What is necessary cannot be otherwise
                        Full Idea: What is necessary cannot be otherwise.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 88b32)
                        A reaction: If the next interesting question is the source of necessity, then the question seems to be 'what prevents it from being otherwise?'.
10. Modality / A. Necessity / 3. Types of Necessity
A stone travels upwards by a forced necessity, and downwards by natural necessity
                        Full Idea: There are two types of necessity, one according to nature and impulse, the other by force and contrary to impulse. A stone travels upwards and downwards from different necessities.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 94b38)
11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 1. Knowledge
The reason why is the key to knowledge
                        Full Idea: Study of the reason why has the most importance for knowledge.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 79a24)
                        A reaction: I take the study of reasons for belief to be much more central to epistemology than finding ways to answer radical sceptics about the basic possibility of knowledge.
For Aristotle knowledge is explanatory, involving understanding, and principles or causes
                        Full Idea: For Aristotle, knowledge is explanatory, for to know something is to understand it, and to understand something is to grasp its principles or causes.
                        From: report of Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE]) by Charlotte Witt - Substance and Essence in Aristotle 1.2
                        A reaction: Thus the kind of 'knowledge' displayed in quiz shows would not count as knowledge at all, if it was mere recall of facts. To know is to be able to explain, which is to be able to teach. See Idea 11241.
'Episteme' means grasping causes, universal judgments, explanation, and teaching
                        Full Idea: For Aristotle, a person who has 'episteme' grasps the cause of a given phenomenon, can make a universal judgment about it, can explain it, and can teach others about it.
                        From: report of Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE]) by Charlotte Witt - Substance and Essence in Aristotle 1.2
                        A reaction: This I take to be the context in which we should understand what Aristotle means by an 'essence' - it is the source of all of the above, so it both makes a thing what it is, and explains why it shares features with other such things.
11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 2. Understanding
We only understand something when we know its explanation
                        Full Idea: We only understand something when we know its explanation.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 71b30)
                        A reaction: If we believe that the whole aim of philosophy is 'understanding' (Idea 543) - and if it isn't then I am not sure what the aim is, and alternative aims seem a lot less interesting - then we should care very much about explanations, as well as reasons.
Some understanding, of immediate items, is indemonstrable
                        Full Idea: Not all understanding is demonstrative: rather, in the case of immediate items understanding is indemonstrable.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 72b19)
                        A reaction: These are the foundations of Aristotle's epistemology, and I take it that they can be both empiricist and rationalist - sense experiences, and a priori intuitions.
We understand a thing when we know its explanation and its necessity
                        Full Idea: We understand something simpliciter when we think we know of the explanation because of which the object holds that it is its explanation, and also that it is not possible for it to be otherwise.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 71b10)
                        A reaction: The second half sounds odd, since we ought to understand that something could have been otherwise, and knowing whether or not it could have been otherwise is part of the understanding. It sounds like Spinozan determinism.
11. Knowledge Aims / A. Knowledge / 4. Belief / c. Aim of beliefs
No one has mere belief about something if they think it HAS to be true
                        Full Idea: No one holds something as an opinion when he thinks that it is impossible for it to be otherwise - for then he thinks he understands it.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 89a07)
11. Knowledge Aims / B. Certain Knowledge / 1. Certainty
Knowledge proceeds from principles, so it is hard to know if we know
                        Full Idea: It is difficult to know whether you know something or not. For it is difficult to know whether or not our knowledge of something proceeds from its principles - and this is what it is to know something.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 76a25)
12. Knowledge Sources / B. Perception / 1. Perception
You cannot understand anything through perception
                        Full Idea: You cannot understand anything through perception. Demonstrations are universal, and universals cannot be perceived.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 87b28)
12. Knowledge Sources / B. Perception / 2. Qualities in Perception / d. Secondary qualities
Some knowledge is lost if you lose a sense, and there is no way the knowledge can be replaced
                        Full Idea: The loss of any one of the senses entails the loss of a corresponding portion of knowledge, and since we learn either by induction or by demonstration, this knowledge cannot be acquired.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 81a37)
                        A reaction: This suggests Jackson's 'knowledge argument', that raw experience contains some genuine knowledge, for which there is no mechanistic substitute. Not that I accept….
12. Knowledge Sources / D. Empiricism / 5. Empiricism Critique
Aristotle's concepts of understanding and explanation mean he is not a pure empiricist
                        Full Idea: It is a certain notion of understanding and, correspondingly, explanation which makes Aristotle think that knowledge, properly speaking, could not be a matter of mere experience.
                        From: report of Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE]) by Michael Frede - Aristotle's Rationalism p.160
                        A reaction: Frede says this means that Aristotle is a rationalist, though few empiricists think understanding is 'merely' a matter of experience. My own epistemology is Explanatory Empiricism, which I see as more empiricist than rationalist.
Animals may have some knowledge if they retain perception, but understanding requires reasons to be given
                        Full Idea: In some animals the perception is retained, and in some not. Without retention knowledge is impossible. Some animals go further and form an account based on the perception. This leads to memory and experience, and so to either skill or understanding.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 99b35-)
13. Knowledge Criteria / A. Justification Problems / 2. Justification Challenges / a. Agrippa's trilemma
Sceptics say justification is an infinite regress, or it stops at the unknowable
                        Full Idea: Sceptics say that there is either an infinite regress of ideas based on one another, or things come to a stop at primitives which are unknowable (because they can't be demonstrated).
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 72b09)
                        A reaction: This is one strand of what eventually becomes the classic Agrippa's Trilemma (Idea 8850). For Aristotle's view on this one, see Idea 562.
13. Knowledge Criteria / B. Internal Justification / 4. Foundationalism / b. Basic beliefs
When you understand basics, you can't be persuaded to change your mind
                        Full Idea: Anyone who understands anything simpliciter (as basic) must be incapable of being persuaded to change his mind.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 72b04)
                        A reaction: A typical Aristotle test which seems rather odd to us. Surely I can change my mind, and decide that something is not basic after all? But, says Aristotle, then you didn't really think it was basic.
14. Science / A. Basis of Science / 2. Demonstration
The principles of demonstrations are definitions
                        Full Idea: The principles of demonstrations are definitions.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 90b25)
                        A reaction: This I take to be a key idea linking Aristotle's desire to understand the world, by using demonstrations to reach good explanations. Definitions turn out to rest on essences, so our understanding of the world rests on essences.
Aim to get definitions of the primitive components, thus establishing the kind, and work towards the attributes
                        Full Idea: Divide a whole into its primitives, then try to get definitions of these. Thus you establish the kind, and then study the attributes through the primitive common items.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 96b16)
Premises must be true, primitive and immediate, and prior to and explanatory of conclusions
                        Full Idea: Demonstrative understanding must proceed from items which are true and primitive and immediate and more familiar and prior to and explanatory of the conclusions.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 71b22)
Aristotle gets asymmetric consequence from demonstration, which reflects real causal priority
                        Full Idea: In Aristotle's system, the relevant notion of asymmetric consequence that is operative in his model of scientific explanation is that of demonstration. ...It is a theoretical/linguistic reflection of an asymmetric real-world relation of causal priority.
                        From: report of Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE]) by Kathrin Koslicki - Varieties of Ontological Dependence 7.3 n7
                        A reaction: The asymmetry is required for explanation, and for grounding.
Aristotle doesn't actually apply his theory of demonstration to his practical science
                        Full Idea: There is a conflict between the syllogistic theory of demonstration of the Posterior Analytics, with its austere programme of certainties, and how Aristotle actually does science.
                        From: comment on Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE]) by Armand Marie LeRoi - The Lagoon: how Aristotle invented science 104
                        A reaction: Leroi observes that there are no demonstrations anywhere in the biological writings. Biology probably lends itself least to such an approach.
We can know by demonstration, which is a scientific deduction leading to understanding
                        Full Idea: We know things through demonstration, by which I mean a scientific deduction, and by 'scientific' I mean a deduction by possessing which we understand something.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 71b17)
                        A reaction: This is a distinctively Aristotelian account of what science aims at, and which seems to have dropped out of modern accounts of science, which are still under the influence of logical positivism. Time to revive it.
A demonstration is a deduction which proceeds from necessities
                        Full Idea: A demonstration is a deduction which proceeds from necessities.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 73a24)
                        A reaction: Elsewhere he tells us that demonstration that brings understanding (Idea 12365), so this is an interesting gloss. He says that the middle term of the syllogism gives the understanding, but necessities reside in the whole propositions of the premisses.
Demonstrative understanding rests on necessary features of the thing in itself
                        Full Idea: If demonstrative understanding proceeds from necessary principles, and whatever holds of an object in itself is necessary, then it is clear that demonstrative deductions will proceed from certain items of this sort.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 74b05-)
                        A reaction: This is the characterization of the essence something in terms of what counts as a good explanation of that thing. Although explanation is a bit subjective, I like this approach, because you will dig down to the source of the powers of the thing.
Demonstrations must be necessary, and that depends on the middle term
                        Full Idea: If you understand something demonstratively, it must hold from necessity, so it is plain that your demonstration must proceed through a middle term which is necessary.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 75a13)
                        A reaction: How can a middle 'term' be necessary, if it is not a proposition. Presumably Socrates is necessarily a man, and men are necessarily mortal, so it is the predication which is necessary.
All demonstration is concerned with existence, axioms and properties
                        Full Idea: All demonstrative science [apodeiktike episteme] is concerned with three things: what it posits to exist (the kind), the axioms (primitives basic to demonstration), and the attributes.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 76b12)
Universal demonstrations are about thought; particular demonstrations lead to perceptions
                        Full Idea: Universal demonstrations are objects of thought, particular demonstrations terminate in perception.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 86a30)
Demonstration is better with fewer presuppositions, and it is quicker if these are familiar
                        Full Idea: A demonstration is superior if it depends on fewer suppositions or propositions - for if these are familiar, knowledge will come more quickly, and this is preferable.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 86a35)
Demonstrations are syllogisms which give explanations
                        Full Idea: Demonstrations are probative deductions [sullogismos] which give the explanation [aitias] and the reason why.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 85b24)
                        A reaction: This notion seems to have slipped out of modern philosophy of science, because (while scientists have just pressed on) philosophers of science have raised so many sceptical questions that they have, I would say, lost the plot.
There must be definitions before demonstration is possible
                        Full Idea: There is no demonstration of anything of which there is no definition. Definitions are of what something is, i.e. of its essence, but all demonstrations clearly suppose and assume what a thing is.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 90b30)
                        A reaction: Note that while essentialism rests on definitions, the job is not yet complete once the definitions are done. With good definitions, it should be easy to show how the pieces of the jigsaw fit together.
14. Science / C. Induction / 2. Aims of Induction
We learn universals from many particulars
                        Full Idea: It is from many particulars that the universal becomes plain. Universals are valuable because they make the explanation plain.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 88a05)
14. Science / D. Explanation / 1. Explanation / a. Explanation
Universals are valuable because they make the explanations plain
                        Full Idea: Universals are valuable because they make the explanations plain.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 88a06)
                        A reaction: Everything in Aristotle comes back to human capacity to understand. There seems to be an ideal explanation consisting entirely of particulars, but humans are not equipped to grasp it. We think in a broad brush way.
Are particulars explained more by universals, or by other particulars?
                        Full Idea: Which of the middle terms is explanatory for the particulars - the one which is primitive in the direction of the universal, or the one which is primitive in the direction of the particular?
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 99b09)
                        A reaction: I'm not clear about this, but it shows Aristotle wrestling with the issue of whether explanations are of particulars or universals, and whether they employ particulars as well as employing universals. The particular must be defined!
What is most universal is furthest away, and the particulars are nearest
                        Full Idea: What is most universal is furthest away, and the particulars are nearest.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 72a05)
                        A reaction: This is the puzzle that bother Aristotle about explanation, that we can only grasp the universals, when we want to explain the particulars.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 1. Explanation / b. Aims of explanation
What we seek and understand are facts, reasons, existence, and identity
                        Full Idea: The things we seek are equal in number to those we understand: the fact, the reason why, if something is, and what something is.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 89b24)
Explanation is of the status of a thing, inferences to it, initiation of change, and purpose
                        Full Idea: There are four sorts of explanation: what it is to be something, that if certain items hold it is necessary for this to hold, what initiated the change, and the purpose.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 94a21)
                        A reaction: This might be summed up as: 'we want to know the essence, the necessary conditions, the cause, and the purpose'. Can anyone improve on that as the aims of explanation? The second explanation (necessary preconditions) isn't in 'Physics' - Idea 8332.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / e. Lawlike explanations
Explanation and generality are inseparable
                        Full Idea: For Aristotle, explanation and generality are fellow-travellers.
                        From: report of Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE]) by Michael V. Wedin - Aristotle's Theory of Substance X.11
                        A reaction: This isn't 'lawlike' explanation, but it is interestingly close to it. It seems to be based on the fact that predicates are universals, so we can only state truths in general terms.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 2. Types of Explanation / g. Causal explanations
The foundation or source is stronger than the thing it causes
                        Full Idea: Something always holds better because of that because of which it holds - e.g. that because of which we love something is better loved.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 72a30)
14. Science / D. Explanation / 3. Best Explanation / a. Best explanation
Universals give better explanations, because they are self-explanatory and primitive
                        Full Idea: Universals are more explanatory (for something which holds in itself is itself explanatory of itself; and universals are primitive; hence universals are explanatory) - so universal demonstrations are better.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 85b25)
15. Nature of Minds / C. Capacities of Minds / 5. Generalisation by mind
Perception creates primitive immediate principles by building a series of firm concepts
                        Full Idea: Primitive immediate principles ...come about from perception - as in a battle, when a rout has occurred, first one man makes a stand, then another, and then another, until a position of strength is reached.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 100a12)
                        A reaction: Philosophers don't create imagery like that any more. This empiricist account of how concepts and universals are created is part of a campaign against Plato's theory of forms. [Idea 9069 continues his idea]
A perception lodging in the soul creates a primitive universal, which becomes generalised
                        Full Idea: When one undifferentiated item in perception makes a stand, there is a primitive universal in the soul; for although you perceive particulars, perception is of universals - e.g. of man, not of Callias the man. One animal makes a stand, until animal does.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 100a15-)
                        A reaction: This is the quintessential account of abstractionism, with the claim that primitive universals arise directly in perception, but only in repeated perception. How the soul does it is a mystery to Aristotle, just as associations are a mystery to Hume.
15. Nature of Minds / C. Capacities of Minds / 7. Seeing Resemblance
Many memories of the same item form a single experience
                        Full Idea: When it occurs often in connection with the same item, ..memories which are many in number form a single experience.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 100a05)
                        A reaction: This is Aristotle at his most empirical. He is not describing an operation of the understanding, but a process of association. The process he alludes to is at the heart of the abstractionist view of concept-formation.
18. Thought / E. Abstraction / 2. Abstracta by Selection
We learn primitives and universals by induction from perceptions
                        Full Idea: We must get to know the primitives by induction; for this is the way in which perception instils universals.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 100b04)
                        A reaction: This statement is so strongly empirical it could have come from John Stuart Mill. The modern post-Fregean view of universals is essentially platonist - that they have a life and logic of their own, and their method of acquisition is irrelevant.
19. Language / F. Communication / 3. Denial
Negation takes something away from something
                        Full Idea: The part of a contradictory pair which says something of something is an affirmation; the part which takes something from something is a negation.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 72a14)
                        A reaction: So affirmation is predication about an object ['Fa'], and negation is denial of predication. We have a scope problem: there is nothing which is F [¬∃x(Fx)], or there is a thing which is not-F [∃x(¬Fx)]. Aristotle seems to mean the latter.
19. Language / F. Communication / 6. Interpreting Language / d. Metaphor
If you shouldn't argue in metaphors, then you shouldn't try to define them either
                        Full Idea: If you should not argue in metaphors, it is plain too that you should neither define by metaphors nor define what is said in metaphors; for then you will necessarily argue in metaphors.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 97b37)
                        A reaction: Impeccable logic, but see a similarity can be a wonderful shortcut to seeing a great truth.
26. Natural Theory / B. Natural Kinds / 6. Necessity of Kinds
Whatever holds of a kind intrinsically holds of it necessarily
                        Full Idea: In each kind, whatever holds of something in itself and as such holds of it from necessity.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 75a30)
                        A reaction: This seems to confirm the view that essential properties are necessary, but it does not, of course, follow that all necessary properties are essential properties (e.g. trivial necessities are not essential).
28. God / B. Proving God / 2. Proofs of Reason / b. Ontological Proof critique
Properties must be proved, but not essence; but existents are not a kind, so existence isn't part of essence
                        Full Idea: Everything which a thing is must be proved through a demonstration - except its essence. But existence is not the essence of anything; for the things that exist do not constitute a kind.
                        From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 92b14)