99 ideas
11283 | There is pure deductive reasoning, and explanatory demonstration reasoning [Aristotle, by Politis] |
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. |
1672 | Maybe everything could be demonstrated, if demonstration can be reciprocal or circular [Aristotle] |
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. |
1684 | Two falsehoods can be contrary to one another [Aristotle] |
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) |
12075 | An Aristotelian definition is causal [Aristotle, by Witt] |
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. |
12384 | Definition by division needs predicates, which are well ordered and thorough [Aristotle] |
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). |
9066 | You can define objects by progressively identifying what is the same and what is different [Aristotle] |
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. |
12145 | Definitions are of what something is, and that is universal [Aristotle] |
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'. |
12382 | What it is and why it is are the same; screening defines and explains an eclipse [Aristotle] |
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. |
1668 | An axiom is a principle which must be understood if one is to learn anything [Aristotle] |
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) |
18194 | 'Forcing' can produce new models of ZFC from old models [Maddy] |
Full Idea: Cohen's method of 'forcing' produces a new model of ZFC from an old model by appending a carefully chosen 'generic' set. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.4) |
18195 | A Large Cardinal Axiom would assert ever-increasing stages in the hierarchy [Maddy] |
Full Idea: A possible axiom is the Large Cardinal Axiom, which asserts that there are more and more stages in the cumulative hierarchy. Infinity can be seen as the first of these stages, and Replacement pushes further in this direction. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.5) |
18191 | Axiom of Infinity: completed infinite collections can be treated mathematically [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The axiom of infinity: that there are infinite sets is to claim that completed infinite collections can be treated mathematically. In its standard contemporary form, the axioms assert the existence of the set of all finite ordinals. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.3) |
18193 | The Axiom of Foundation says every set exists at a level in the set hierarchy [Maddy] |
Full Idea: In the presence of other axioms, the Axiom of Foundation is equivalent to the claim that every set is a member of some Vα. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.3) |
18169 | Axiom of Reducibility: propositional functions are extensionally predicative [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The Axiom of Reducibility states that every propositional function is extensionally equivalent to some predicative proposition function. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.1) |
12376 | Demonstrations by reductio assume excluded middle [Aristotle] |
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. |
12373 | Something holds universally when it is proved of an arbitrary and primitive case [Aristotle] |
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? |
12363 | Everything is either asserted or denied truly [Aristotle] |
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. |
18168 | 'Propositional functions' are propositions with a variable as subject or predicate [Maddy] |
Full Idea: A 'propositional function' is generated when one of the terms of the proposition is replaced by a variable, as in 'x is wise' or 'Socrates'. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.1) | |
A reaction: This implies that you can only have a propositional function if it is derived from a complete proposition. Note that the variable can be in either subject or in predicate position. It extends Frege's account of a concept as 'x is F'. |
13004 | Aristotle's axioms (unlike Euclid's) are assumptions awaiting proof [Aristotle, by Leibniz] |
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. |
12377 | Mathematics is concerned with forms, not with superficial properties [Aristotle] |
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. |
12372 | The essence of a triangle comes from the line, mentioned in any account of triangles [Aristotle] |
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. |
12369 | A unit is what is quantitatively indivisible [Aristotle] |
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? |
18171 | Cantor and Dedekind brought completed infinities into mathematics [Maddy] |
Full Idea: Both Cantor's real number (Cauchy sequences of rationals) and Dedekind's cuts involved regarding infinite items (sequences or sets) as completed and subject to further manipulation, bringing the completed infinite into mathematics unambiguously. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.1 n39) | |
A reaction: So it is the arrival of the real numbers which is the culprit for lumbering us with weird completed infinites, which can then be the subject of addition, multiplication and exponentiation. Maybe this was a silly mistake? |
18190 | Completed infinities resulted from giving foundations to calculus [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The line of development that finally led to a coherent foundation for the calculus also led to the explicit introduction of completed infinities: each real number is identified with an infinite collection of rationals. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.3) | |
A reaction: Effectively, completed infinities just are the real numbers. |
18172 | Infinity has degrees, and large cardinals are the heart of set theory [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The stunning discovery that infinity comes in different degrees led to the theory of infinite cardinal numbers, the heart of contemporary set theory. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.1) | |
A reaction: It occurs to me that these huge cardinals only exist in set theory. If you took away that prop, they would vanish in a puff. |
18175 | For any cardinal there is always a larger one (so there is no set of all sets) [Maddy] |
Full Idea: By the mid 1890s Cantor was aware that there could be no set of all sets, as its cardinal number would have to be the largest cardinal number, while his own theorem shows that for any cardinal there is a larger. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.1) | |
A reaction: There is always a larger cardinal because of the power set axiom. Some people regard that with suspicion. |
18196 | An 'inaccessible' cardinal cannot be reached by union sets or power sets [Maddy] |
Full Idea: An 'inaccessible' cardinal is one that cannot be reached by taking unions of small collections of smaller sets or by taking power sets. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.5) | |
A reaction: They were introduced by Hausdorff in 1908. |
18187 | Theorems about limits could only be proved once the real numbers were understood [Maddy] |
Full Idea: Even the fundamental theorems about limits could not [at first] be proved because the reals themselves were not well understood. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.2) | |
A reaction: This refers to the period of about 1850 (Weierstrass) to 1880 (Dedekind and Cantor). |
18182 | The extension of concepts is not important to me [Maddy] |
Full Idea: I attach no decisive importance even to bringing in the extension of the concepts at all. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], §107) | |
A reaction: He almost seems to equate the concept with its extension, but that seems to raise all sorts of questions, about indeterminate and fluctuating extensions. |
18177 | In the ZFC hierarchy it is impossible to form Frege's set of all three-element sets [Maddy] |
Full Idea: In the ZFC cumulative hierarchy, Frege's candidates for numbers do not exist. For example, new three-element sets are formed at every stage, so there is no stage at which the set of all three-element sets could he formed. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.2) | |
A reaction: Ah. This is a very important fact indeed if you are trying to understand contemporary discussions in philosophy of mathematics. |
18164 | Frege solves the Caesar problem by explicitly defining each number [Maddy] |
Full Idea: To solve the Julius Caesar problem, Frege requires explicit definitions of the numbers, and he proposes his well-known solution: the number of Fs = the extension of the concept 'equinumerous with F' (based on one-one correspondence). | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.1) | |
A reaction: Why do there have to be Fs before there can be the corresponding number? If there were no F for 523, would that mean that '523' didn't exist (even if 522 and 524 did exist)? |
18184 | Making set theory foundational to mathematics leads to very fruitful axioms [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The set theory axioms developed in producing foundations for mathematics also have strong consequences for existing fields, and produce a theory that is immensely fruitful in its own right. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.2) | |
A reaction: [compressed] Second of Maddy's three benefits of set theory. This benefit is more questionable than the first, because the axioms may be invented because of their nice fruit, instead of their accurate account of foundations. |
18185 | Unified set theory gives a final court of appeal for mathematics [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The single unified area of set theory provides a court of final appeal for questions of mathematical existence and proof. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.2) | |
A reaction: Maddy's third benefit of set theory. 'Existence' means being modellable in sets, and 'proof' means being derivable from the axioms. The slightly ad hoc character of the axioms makes this a weaker defence. |
18183 | Set theory brings mathematics into one arena, where interrelations become clearer [Maddy] |
Full Idea: Set theoretic foundations bring all mathematical objects and structures into one arena, allowing relations and interactions between them to be clearly displayed and investigated. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.2) | |
A reaction: The first of three benefits of set theory which Maddy lists. The advantages of the one arena seem to be indisputable. |
18186 | Identifying geometric points with real numbers revealed the power of set theory [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The identification of geometric points with real numbers was among the first and most dramatic examples of the power of set theoretic foundations. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.2) | |
A reaction: Hence the clear definition of the reals by Dedekind and Cantor was the real trigger for launching set theory. |
18188 | The line of rationals has gaps, but set theory provided an ordered continuum [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The structure of a geometric line by rational points left gaps, which were inconsistent with a continuous line. Set theory provided an ordering that contained no gaps. These reals are constructed from rationals, which come from integers and naturals. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.2) | |
A reaction: This completes the reduction of geometry to arithmetic and algebra, which was launch 250 years earlier by Descartes. |
18163 | Mathematics rests on the logic of proofs, and on the set theoretic axioms [Maddy] |
Full Idea: Our much loved mathematical knowledge rests on two supports: inexorable deductive logic (the stuff of proof), and the set theoretic axioms. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I Intro) |
18207 | Maybe applications of continuum mathematics are all idealisations [Maddy] |
Full Idea: It could turn out that all applications of continuum mathematics in natural sciences are actually instances of idealisation. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], II.6) |
18204 | Scientists posit as few entities as possible, but set theorist posit as many as possible [Maddy] |
Full Idea: Crudely, the scientist posits only those entities without which she cannot account for observations, while the set theorist posits as many entities as she can, short of inconsistency. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], II.5) |
18167 | We can get arithmetic directly from HP; Law V was used to get HP from the definition of number [Maddy] |
Full Idea: Recent commentators have noted that Frege's versions of the basic propositions of arithmetic can be derived from Hume's Principle alone, that the fatal Law V is only needed to derive Hume's Principle itself from the definition of number. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], I.1) | |
A reaction: Crispin Wright is the famous exponent of this modern view. Apparently Charles Parsons (1965) first floated the idea. |
18205 | The theoretical indispensability of atoms did not at first convince scientists that they were real [Maddy] |
Full Idea: The case of atoms makes it clear that the indispensable appearance of an entity in our best scientific theory is not generally enough to convince scientists that it is real. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], II.6) | |
A reaction: She refers to the period between Dalton and Einstein, when theories were full of atoms, but there was strong reluctance to actually say that they existed, until the direct evidence was incontrovertable. Nice point. |
18910 | To seek truth, study the real connections between subjects and attributes [Aristotle] |
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. |
1675 | Separate Forms aren't needed for logic, but universals (one holding of many) are essential [Aristotle] |
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) |
1677 | We can forget the Forms, as they are irrelevant, and not needed in giving demonstrations [Aristotle] |
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) |
1687 | Why are being terrestrial and a biped combined in the definition of man, but being literate and musical aren't? [Aristotle] |
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) |
1681 | Units are positionless substances, and points are substances with position [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: A unit is a positionless substance, and a point a substance having position. | |
From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 87a36) |
12146 | Definitions recognise essences, so are not themselves essences [Aristotle] |
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. |
17039 | The predicates of a thing's nature are necessary to it [Aristotle] |
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 shows the nature of a thing is also necessary. |
11994 | Aristotelian essences are properties mentioned at the starting point of a science [Aristotle, by Kung] |
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. |
12381 | What is necessary cannot be otherwise [Aristotle] |
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?'. |
1690 | A stone travels upwards by a forced necessity, and downwards by natural necessity [Aristotle] |
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) |
12378 | The reason why is the key to knowledge [Aristotle] |
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. |
12072 | For Aristotle knowledge is explanatory, involving understanding, and principles or causes [Aristotle, by Witt] |
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. |
12073 | 'Episteme' means grasping causes, universal judgments, explanation, and teaching [Aristotle, by Witt] |
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. |
12370 | Some understanding, of immediate items, is indemonstrable [Aristotle] |
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. |
12364 | We understand a thing when we know its explanation and its necessity [Aristotle] |
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. |
12366 | We only understand something when we know its explanation [Aristotle] |
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. |
1685 | No one has mere belief about something if they think it HAS to be true [Aristotle] |
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) |
1673 | Knowledge proceeds from principles, so it is hard to know if we know [Aristotle] |
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) |
12379 | You cannot understand anything through perception [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: You cannot understand anything through perception. Demonstrations are universal, and universals cannot be perceived. | |
From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 87b28) |
16725 | Some knowledge is lost if you lose a sense, and there is no way the knowledge can be replaced [Aristotle] |
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…. |
23309 | Aristotle's concepts of understanding and explanation mean he is not a pure empiricist [Aristotle, by Frede,M] |
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. |
1693 | Animals may have some knowledge if they retain perception, but understanding requires reasons to be given [Aristotle] |
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-) |
9067 | Many memories of the same item form a single experience [Aristotle] |
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. |
1671 | Sceptics say justification is an infinite regress, or it stops at the unknowable [Aristotle] |
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. |
1670 | When you understand basics, you can't be persuaded to change your mind [Aristotle] |
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. |
1667 | Premises must be true, primitive and immediate, and prior to and explanatory of conclusions [Aristotle] |
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) |
24068 | Demonstration is more than entailment, as the explanatory order must match the causal order [Aristotle, by Koslicki] |
Full Idea: Aristotle's demonstration encompasses more than deductive entailment, in that the explanatory order of priority represented in a successful demonstration must mirror precisely the causal order of priority in the phenomena in question. | |
From: report of Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE]) by Kathrin Koslicki - Form, Matter and Substance 4.5 | |
A reaction: Interesting. I presume this is correct, but is not an aspect I had registered. In Metaphysics his essentialist explanations are causal, so it all hangs together. |
17310 | Aristotle gets asymmetric consequence from demonstration, which reflects real causal priority [Aristotle, by Koslicki] |
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. |
21359 | Aristotle doesn't actually apply his theory of demonstration to his practical science [Leroi on Aristotle] |
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. |
12365 | We can know by demonstration, which is a scientific deduction leading to understanding [Aristotle] |
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. |
10918 | Demonstrative understanding rests on necessary features of the thing in itself [Aristotle] |
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 of 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. |
12374 | Demonstrations must be necessary, and that depends on the middle term [Aristotle] |
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. |
12148 | Demonstrations are syllogisms which give explanations [Aristotle] |
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. |
1680 | Demonstration is better with fewer presuppositions, and it is quicker if these are familiar [Aristotle] |
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) |
12147 | The principles of demonstrations are definitions [Aristotle] |
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. |
12383 | There must be definitions before demonstration is possible [Aristotle] |
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. |
1691 | Aim to get definitions of the primitive components, thus establishing the kind, and work towards the attributes [Aristotle] |
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) |
1679 | Universal demonstrations are about thought; particular demonstrations lead to perceptions [Aristotle] |
Full Idea: Universal demonstrations are objects of thought, particular demonstrations terminate in perception. | |
From: Aristotle (Posterior Analytics [c.327 BCE], 86a30) |
12371 | A demonstration is a deduction which proceeds from necessities [Aristotle] |
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. |
1674 | All demonstration is concerned with existence, axioms and properties [Aristotle] |
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) |
1683 | We learn universals from many particulars [Aristotle] |
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) |
12380 | Universals are valuable because they make the explanations plain [Aristotle] |
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. |
12367 | What is most universal is furthest away, and the particulars are nearest [Aristotle] |
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. |
12385 | Are particulars explained more by universals, or by other particulars? [Aristotle] |
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! |
1689 | Explanation is of the status of a thing, inferences to it, initiation of change, and purpose [Aristotle] |
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. |
1686 | What we seek and understand are facts, reasons, existence, and identity [Aristotle] |
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) |
12357 | Explanation and generality are inseparable [Aristotle, by Wedin] |
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. |
1669 | The foundation or source is stronger than the thing it causes [Aristotle] |
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) |
1678 | Universals give better explanations, because they are self-explanatory and primitive [Aristotle] |
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) |
9068 | Perception creates primitive immediate principles by building a series of firm concepts [Aristotle] |
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] |
9069 | A perception lodging in the soul creates a primitive universal, which becomes generalised [Aristotle] |
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. |
18206 | Science idealises the earth's surface, the oceans, continuities, and liquids [Maddy] |
Full Idea: In science we treat the earth's surface as flat, we assume the ocean to be infinitely deep, we use continuous functions for what we know to be quantised, and we take liquids to be continuous despite atomic theory. | |
From: Penelope Maddy (Naturalism in Mathematics [1997], II.6) | |
A reaction: If fussy people like scientists do this all the time, how much more so must the confused multitude be doing the same thing all day? |
9070 | We learn primitives and universals by induction from perceptions [Aristotle] |
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. |
12368 | Negation takes something away from something [Aristotle] |
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. |
1692 | If you shouldn't argue in metaphors, then you shouldn't try to define them either [Aristotle] |
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 seeing a similarity can be a wonderful shortcut to seeing a great truth. |
12375 | Whatever holds of a kind intrinsically holds of it necessarily [Aristotle] |
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). |
1688 | Properties must be proved, but not essence; but existents are not a kind, so existence isn't part of essence [Aristotle] |
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) |
20713 | God must be fit for worship, but worship abandons morally autonomy, but there is no God [Rachels, by Davies,B] |
Full Idea: Rachels argues 1) If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship, 2) No being could be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent, so 3) There cannot be a being who is God. | |
From: report of James Rachels (God and Human Attributes [1971], 7 p.334) by Brian Davies - Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion 9 'd morality' | |
A reaction: Presumably Lionel Messi can be a fitting object of worship without being God. Since the problem is with being worshipful, rather than with being God, should I infer that Messi doesn't exist? |