This chapter discusses the first part of Aristotle's Posterior Analytics A-33, 88b30-89a10. I claim that Aristotle is not concerned with an epistemological distinction between knowledge and belief in general. He is rather making a contrast between scientific knowledge (which is equivalent to explanation by the primarily appropriate cause) and some explanatory beliefs that falls short of capturing the primarily appropriate cause.

This article discusses immediate premises in Aristotle’s epistemology. The traditional interpretation identifies immediacy with indemonstrability: immediate truths are the indemonstrable principles of science from which the theorems are derived by demonstration. Against this common reading, I argue that Aristotle’s recognition of two kinds of epistemic priority (priority by nature and priority to us) commits him to the existence of two types of immediacy, only one of which is equivalent to indemonstrability. As a result, my interpretation offers a better understanding of (...) a puzzling passage (APo. 1.13, 78a22–b4) that seems to contradict the standard view. (shrink)

This article aims to highlight the productivity of falsehood in the context of its asymmetrical position with truth. The core of the discussion can be summarized in the following statement: if only truths can be drawn from truths, it cannot be said that truth cannot be drawn from falsehood. The central thesis of the text is that the asymmetrical behavior of falsehood promotes the dissociation between the criterion (based on the conservation of truth) and the field of validity so that (...) the latter, broader than the former, incorporates the movement not only from truth to truth, but also from falsehood to falsehood and, above all, from falsehood to truth. The distinction between the symmetrical and asymmetrical fields allows understanding, for example, the emergence of certain logical fallacies, the separation between demonstration and deduction, the thesis of Popperian fallibilism, and the use of the hypothetical-deductive method. Truth does not have functions analogous to those of falsehood. (shrink)

My aim in this paper is twofold: I will try to clarify what the conditions developed in EN I a discipline or an argument must meet to be assumed as precise are, and, then, try to present evidence that the exam of akrasia in EN VII 3 meets these conditions. In the first part of this paper, I will select passages in which such conditions are displayed, and also distinguish between practical precision and theoretical precision. In the second part, where (...) the analysis of the senses of having but not using knowledge in EN VII 3 is carried on, I will claim that Aristotle’s objective is reaching the adequate statement of the explanandum that will be the subject of causal enquiry of akrasia. My concluding remarks will claim that the conditions displayed in this paper’s first part are met by Aristotelian procedure in EN VII 3. (shrink)

This Companion provides a comprehensive guide to ancient logic. The first part charts its chronological development, focussing especially on the Greek tradition, and discusses its two main systems: Aristotle's logic of terms and the Stoic logic of propositions. The second part explores the key concepts at the heart of the ancient logical systems: truth, definition, terms, propositions, syllogisms, demonstrations, modality and fallacy. The systematic discussion of these concepts allows the reader to engage with some specific logical and exegetical issues and (...) to appreciate their transformations across different philosophical traditions. The intersections between logic, mathematics and rhetoric are also explored. The third part of the volume discusses the reception and influence of ancient logic in the history of philosophy and its significance for philosophy in our own times. Comprehensive coverage, chapters by leading international scholars and a critical overview of the recent literature in the field will make this volume essential for students and scholars of ancient logic. (shrink)

In the Posterior Analytics, Aristotle imposes some requirements on the formulation of scientific propositions: their terms must be able to perform the role of subject as well as of predicate; their terms should be universal; every demonstration must involve “primary” subjects denoted by terms that “cannot be said of another underlying subject”. Several interpreters, inspired by theses from the Categories, believed that this third requirement refers to names and descriptions of particular substances as basic subjects of predicative statements, since they (...) cannot perform the logical role of predicate. However, such reading puts the third requirement in conflict with the other two. I shall argue that this interpretation is wrong and that the third requirement does not assign to singular terms the function of basic subjects of scientific discourse, but rather acknowledges that substantial predicates have a certain prerogative to occur in denoting phrases. Consequently, Aristotle’s three demands turn out to be compatible with one another. (shrink)

Em um artigo influente publicado em meados dos anos 80, Jacques Brunschwig defendeu a ideia de que o debate dialético, para Aristóteles, não resultaria em vencedores e derrotados. Sua defesa é baseada no debate dialético como sendo um trabalho comum entre questionador e respondedor (cláusula koinon ergon [cf. Tópicos VIII.11 161a20-21]) e como um tipo de teste de consistência de uma dada proposição (cláusula dia tēn thesis [cf. Tópicos VIII.4 159a20]). Apesar dos muitos méritos do artigo, penso que o argumento (...) de Brunschwig não considera adequadamente aspectos importantes do debate dialético no que concerne à performance dos debatedores, especialmente acerca dos recursos que o questionador deve usar. Ao não considerarmos esses aspectos, temos dificuldades para interpretar passagens em que Aristóteles recomenda o uso de táticas para enganar o respondedor. Meu objetivo nesse artigo será oferecer uma explicação diferente das cláusulas dia tēn thesis e koinon ergon, de modo que isso implicará uma conclusão segundo a qual o debate dialético honesto pode envolver vencedores e derrotados e manter a observância das duas cláusulas. Palavras-chave: Dialética; Aristóteles; Debate. Winners and losers in Aristotle’s dialectical debate. Abstract: In the mid-eighties Jacques Brunschwig published an influential paper of whose main claim consists in a defence of the Aristotelian conception of dialectical debate as a game without winners and losers. His claim is based on the dialectical debate as being a common work between answerer and questioner (koinon ergon clause [cf. Topics VIII.11 161a20-21]) and as a kind of test of the consistency of a given proposition (dia tēn thesis clause [cf. Topics VIII.4 159a20]). Despite its many merits, I think Brunschwig’s argument overlooks important aspects of the dialectical debate concerning the debaters’ performance, especially the resources that should be used by the questioner. By overlooking these aspects, we end up with several troubles to interpret passages in which Aristotle recommends deceptive tactics in the debate. My objective in this paper is to give a different account the dia tēn thesis and the koinon ergon clauses, which will imply a conclusion by which fair dialectical debates can still have winners and losers and observe both clauses. Key-words: Dialectics; Aristotle; Debate. Ganadores y perdedores en el debate dialéctico según Aristóteles. Resumen: En un influyente artículo publicado a mediados de los años 1980, Jacques Brunschwig defendió la idea de que el debate dialéctico, para Aristóteles, no resultaría en ganadores y perdedores. Su defensa se basa en el debate dialéctico como trabajo común entre el que pregunta y el que responde (cláusula koinon ergon [cf. Tópicos VIII.11 161a20-21]) y como una especie de prueba de la consistencia de una proposición dada (cláusula dia tēn thesis [cf. Tópicos VIII.4 159a20]). A pesar de los muchos méritos del artículo, creo que el argumento de Brunschwig no considera adecuadamente aspectos importantes del debate dialéctico con respecto a la actuación de los debatientes, especialmente con respecto a los recursos que debe utilizar el interrogador. Al no considerar estos aspectos, nos resulta difícil interpretar pasajes en los que Aristóteles recomienda el uso de tácticas para engañar al que responde. Mi objetivo en este artículo será ofrecer una explicación diferente de las cláusulas dia tēn thesis y koinon ergon, de modo que esto implique una conclusión de que el debate dialéctico honesto puede involucrar a ganadores y perdedores y mantener la observancia de las dos cláusulas. Palabras-clave: Dialéctica; Aristóteles; Debate. 1 Pesquisa desenvolvida no âmbito do Edital Universal Nº28/2018 financiada pelo CNPq sob o número 433825/2018-9. Data de registro: 01/08/2023 Data de aceite: 24/04/2024. (shrink)

I defend an interpretation of Aristotle’s _Posterior Analytics _Book I which distinguishes between two projects in different passages of that work: to explain what a given science is and to explain what properly scientific knowledge is. I present Aristotle’s theory in answer to ii, with special attention to his definition of scientific knowledge in 71b9-12 and showing how this is developed on chapters 1.2-9 and 1.13 into a solid Theory of Scientific Demonstration. The main point of this theory is that (...) demonstrations need to capture relevant explanations. Some formal requirements of the demonstration are unfoldings of the main project, 1.e., to capture and present properly relevant causal-explanatory relations. (shrink)

Most interpretations of Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics believe that the term ‘ameson’ is used to describe the principles or foundations of a given system of justification or explanation as epistemically prior to or more fundamental than the other propositions in the system. Epistemic readings (as I shall call them) arguably constitute a majority in the secondary literature. This predominant view has been challenged by Robin Smith (1986) and Michael Ferejohn (1994; 2013), who propose interpretations that should be classified as non-epistemic according (...) to the definition above. My aim in this article is purely negative. I intend to show that these non-epistemic interpretations are liable to serious objections and are in conflict with some important features of Aristotle’s theory of demonstration. (shrink)

In Posterior Analytics II 16-17, Aristotle seems to claim that there cannot be more than one explanans of the same scientific explanandum. However, this seems to be true only for “primary-universal” demonstrations, in which the major term belongs to the minor “in itself” and the middle term is coextensive with the extremes. If so, several explananda we would like to admit as truly scientific would be out of the scope of an Aristotelian science. The secondary literature has identified a second (...) problem in II 16-17: the middle term of a demonstration is sometimes taken as the definition of the minor term (the subject), other times as the definition (or the causal part of the definition) of the major (the demonstrable attribute). I shall argue that Aristotle’s solution to the first problem involves showing that certain problematic attributes, which appear to admit more than one explanation, actually fall into the privileged scenario of primary-universal demonstrations. In addition, his solution suggests a conciliatory way-out to our second problem (or so I shall argue): the existence of an attribute as a definable unity depends on its subject having the essence it has, which suggests that both the essence of subjects and the essence of demonstrable attributes can play explanatory roles in demonstrations. (shrink)

The hypothesis of a theoretical unity between On Sophistical Refutations and Prior Analytics presents a major challenge to scholars attempting to unify the criteria of analysis. This paper examines this problem and proposes a middle ground between the perspectives of Woods and Boger to address this crucial question: If a unitary and coherent theory of deduction exists, why does not the technical apparatus of syllogistic modes for analyzing fallacies appear in SE? This paper makes useful contributions to the discussion on (...) the internal unity of Aristotle's logical writings on around categorical syllogistics and the doctrine of sophistical refutations. (shrink)

Meu objetivo nesse texto é oferecer uma interpretação do modo como a dialética aristotélica pode ser útil para a filosofia em geral, e o conhecimento dos princípios em particular, sem incorrer em problemas epistemológicos geralmente presentes ao se tentar explicar como, a partir de proposições das quais não temos comprovação do valor de verdade que possuem, as endoxa, se pode conhecer proposições primeiras e verdadeiras. Meu argumento central é que não é a dialética que, afinal, é útil para o conhecimento (...) filosófico, mas o próprio tratado, os Tópicos, na medida em que esse tratado oferece um conjunto amplo de ferramentas argumentativas que permitem ao seu estudante um domínio de técnicas lógico-linguísticas que podem ser aplicadas em qualquer âmbito discursivo, favorecendo o escrutínio mais profundo de proposições a serem examinadas. -/- English: My aim is to develop an interpretation about how Aristotelian dialectic can be useful to philosophy and, in more specific terms, to knowledge of the first principles, avoiding epistemological problems regarding the away one can explain the knowledge of propositions which are primaries and trues, by departing from proposition whose truth-evaluation is not assured, the endoxa. My main argument is that what is in fact useful to get to know the first principles is not dialectic itself, but the treatise at stake, the Topics. Accordingly, this treatise offers an wide set of logical and linguistic tools that can be applied to any discursive universe, favouring a deep scrutiny of proposition to be examined. (shrink)

Our aim is to argue for a deflationary interpretation of Aristotelian dialectic in the Topics, showing that dialectic is, for Aristotle, a specific sort of regulated debate, in contrast to a widely spread kind of interpretation which conceives dialectic as a method of philosophical investigation. Our claim is that an analysis carefully conducted of certain key texts does provide us with sufficient evidences for defending that the Topics is a handbook which codifies an existent art. This codification has a descriptive (...) character and reveals the rules of the debate, what is the specific kind of argument used in it, how premises are obtained and the predicative relation of the propositions used by the debaters. The mastery of the techniques required by the debate is not grounded in any sort of particular knowledge, rather in linguistic competence. It is by doing a technical usage of this competence that the Topics can be useful for philosophy. (shrink)

David Botting defends Aristotle as an empiricist against those who see him as a rationalist, focusing on Aristotle's account of how we acquire the first principles of science. The author argues that Aristotle's account is empiricist and that first principles are, perhaps surprisingly, known inferentially and not by intuition.

In Metaphysics Gamma, Aristotle attributes to metaphysics the study of the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC). He then defends this attribution and, throughout book Gamma, develops arguments about the PNC. We'll seek to understand, first, why Aristotle includes the PNC among the objects of study of metaphysics. In order to do that, we'll examine the argument Aristotle offers in Gamma to defend this inclusion, and we'll relate it to how Aristotle conceives metaphysics and the scientific knowledge of principles. Following that, we'll (...) inquire as to how aristotelian metaphysics studies the PNC. We'll consider the arguments about the PNC developed by Aristotle in Gamma, such as the so-called elenctic argument and theargument of indubitability. We'll defend the thesis that those arguments exemplify the metaphysical study of the PNC as Aristotle conceives it. In conclusion, we'll go over how the aristotelian conception of metaphysics is elucidated by considering the study of the PNC, arguing that our interpretation allows us to affirm continuity between the two tasks of metaphysics presented inMetaphysics Alpha, namely: that of studying being qua being and that of studying the first causes and principles. (shrink)

Em Metafísica Gamma 4, Aristóteles argumenta contra supostos negadores do Princípio da Não-Contradição. O argumento elêntico, assim chamado devido à sua estrutura argumentativa que se assemelha a uma refutação (elenchus), é a parte mais notória dessa argumentação. Esse argumento começa com uma fala de um interlocutor hipotético, que deve ao menos enunciar algum termo significativo. Em seguida, uma definição desse termo deve ser dada. Então, tendo afirmado uma definição, o interlocutor de Aristóteles não poderia contradizer o que enunciou, sob pena (...) de ininteligibilidade. Neste artigo, examinaremos as noções de significado e definição envolvidas neste argumento. Para tal, examinaremos a descrição do significado linguístico encontrada em De Interpretatione, bem como as discussões sobre definições de nomes de entidades fictícias desenvolvidas nos Segundos Analíticos. Concluiremos que as noções de definição e significado são centrais para o argumento elêntico, de tal modo que a força do argumento depende, em última instância, de aspectos da concepção aristotélica do processo de significação. (shrink)

Nos Segundos Analíticos I. 14, 79a16-21 Aristóteles afirma que as demonstrações matemáticas são expressas em silogismos de primeira figura. Apresento uma leitura da teoria da demonstração científica exposta nos Segundos Analíticos I (com maior ênfase nos capítulo 2-6) que seja consistente com o texto aristotélico e explique exemplos de demonstrações geométricas presentes no Corpus. Em termos gerais, defendo que a demonstração aristotélica é um procedimento de análise que explica um dado explanandum por meio da conversão de uma proposição previamente estabelecida. (...) Em uma estrutura silogística, a proposição previamente estabelecida é a premissa maior e o termo mediador deve ser comensurado ao explanandum. O conjunto da premissa maior e da premissa menor (o explanans) é coextensivo ao explanandum, mas há uma assimetria intensional entre o explanans e o explanandum, de modo que apenas o primeiro explique o último. Por fim, defendo que o elemento identificado no termo mediador deve ser o mais apropriado para explicar precisamente o que certo explanandum é. (shrink)

Aristotle's theory of demonstration, developed in the Posterior Analytics, is not restricted to determining the formal requirements for formulating probative arguments that establish properly the results of scientific investigation. To the probative aspect of demonstration it shall be added its primarily explanatory character, orientated by theses of strong ontological and metaphysical content and involving notions like substance, essence and causation. We shall analyze the relation between those two ranges of Aristotle's philosophy of science and investigate how the formal features of (...) demonstration maintain an affinity with the metaphysical background to which scientific activity is conditioned. (shrink)

Discussão sobre o papel da silogística e sua relação com as noções de dedução correta e explicação apropriada na concepção aristotélica de ciência.

We examine the discussion about the definition of knowledge as true judgment accompanied by logos in Theaetetus 201c-210c, in order to ascertain which of the recent alternative interpretations is more consistent with the text. To accomplish this, we intend to analyze the text and explore in detail the secondary literature about it.

Esta monografia faz parte de uma pesquisa de Iniciação Científica (IC) financiada pela FAPESP (processo 2023/04313-5) até 31/12/2024. Neste texto, que é simultaneamente um trabalho final de disciplina (Monografia II - HG880 SC) e minha monografia de conclusão de curso, comparo os naturalismos metodológicos de Quine, Hume e Aristóteles quanto à natureza da cognição. Ou seja, pretendo comparar como Aristóteles, Hume e Quine concebem, no interior de suas respectivas epistemologias naturalizadas, aquilo que geralmente chamamos de ‘alma’, ‘mente’ ou ‘cognição’. Desse (...) modo, ao oferecer uma perspectiva diacrônica da epistemologia naturalizada, meu propósito é contribuir para o debate quanto ao problema de como conhecer cientificamente a cognição. Para tanto, parto de um mapeamento da origem de tal problema, bem como de uma reconstrução expositiva que aborda seu desenvolvimento de Aristóteles até Quine. Ao longo desse percurso, procuro mostrar de que modo Hume pode ser tomado como o principal mediador entre as concepções clássica e contemporânea de ciência, filosofia e cognição. Ao longo de minha exposição, recupero alguns dos resultados da pesquisa de IC, de modo a indicar também desenvolvimentos da epistemologia naturalizada que são posteriores a Quine. Em particular, recupero a epistemologia naturalizada de Sellars e algumas de suas teses em filosofia da mente, na expectativa de que isso seja de alguma forma útil ao empreendimento de compreender a trajetória histórica que o naturalismo percorreu até o século XX. Esta monografia, portanto, recupera as epistemologias de dois importantes precursores de Quine e Sellars — as de Hume e Aristóteles —, comparando-as com o programa quineano de naturalização da epistemologia e preparando o terreno para a uma pesquisa futura quanto aos sucessores de Quine nesse programa, com destaque para Sellars. Desse modo, espero que esta monografia contribua para o desenvolvimento de uma das partes da pesquisa de IC, no sentido de investigar as bases históricas a partir das quais o naturalismo epistemológico floresceu no século XX. (shrink)

Este trabalho tem como principal objetivo apresentar uma abordagem lógico-formal capaz de apreender alguns aspectos do raciocínio abdutivo – o raciocínio responsável pela criação de hipóteses explicativas para fatos surpreendentes -, mediante tanto as noções filosófico-conceituais da canônica abdução peirceana quanto as de explicação científica. No caso desta última, procurarei evidenciar, inicialmente, pontos de contraste entre as concepções de explicação científica de Aristóteles e de Carl Hempel, a fim de elucidar, de modo mais satisfatório, em que medida, de fato, teorias (...) e hipóteses “explicam” algo. Apresentarei, também, um modo de tratar hipóteses explicativas contraditórias, por meio do operador de consistência ○ – próprio da lógica paraconsistente mbC -, o qual amplia o poder expressivo da linguagem-objeto subjacente ao sistema lógico, bem como apresentarei uma abordagem formal alternativa do raciocínio abdutivo pensado como dinâmica de mudança de crenças, especificamente por intermédio da lógica de revisão de crenças AGM. (shrink)

The work of this dissertation, in a broad sense, seeks to rescue what may be in the original project or nucleus of philosophy, from its Socratic arising: the idea of elucidative rationality. This rationality is aimed at expressing our practices in a way that can be confronted with objections and alternatives. The notion of expression is central to this rationality. This centrality is elucidated by the contemporary philosopher Brandom (1994, 2000, 2008a, 2013), from his view of the semantic inferentialism. With (...) this view, this dissertation, in a strict sense, investigates evidences that leads to the distinction of the inferentially expressivist tradition of syllogistic. In this semantic inferentialism, logic is the “organ of semantic self-consciousness”. In this sense, logic does not define the rational, in the most basic sense, but allows us to be aware, through inferential articulation, of the conceptual contents, which govern all our thoughts. Evidences presented in the work of this dissertation seek to show that the syllogism is marked by the logical-elucidative character of this semantic self-consciousness, because of its expressive role as inseparable from the notion of inference. In the first part of this dissertation, then, the tradition of syllogistics is examined, in which the expression is the main notion. This study is based on the tradition of syllogistics, composed of the Aristotelian school of Campinas, organized by Angioni (2014a), the logical economist Keynes (1906), and the “formalist” schools, represented mainly by the logician Łukasiewicz (1957, 1929/1963) and by Corcoran (1972, 1974, 2009, 2015). The main claims of the Campinas school are analyzed: the non-epistemological, but explanatory, exposition of (scientific) knowledge, in the syllogism, the secondary role of the notion of truth, the priority of the predicative structure, and the suggestion of approaching of the syllogistic to the relevant system of logic. In this analysis, we add the discussion about the reasoning of the epagogic type, important to the practical understanding of the “first principles”. The key points of Keynes are also discussed: the semantic priority of propositional judgment and the explanatory role of deductive inference. The second part of this dissertation discusses the relation between expression, inference and the expressive role of logic, based on the semantic inferentialism of Brandom. In order to discuss this relationship, propaedeutic questions are raised, related to the semantic role of sentences and subsentences (terms and predicates) in language, to different conceptions of logical validity, beyond the truth-functional aspect, to the logical demarcation of symbolic rules, to demarcation of logic, the idea of “formal logic”, and the removal of formal semantics from natural language concern. Next, the theoretical framework of Brandom's semantic inferentialism is presented. In this framework, the idea of philosophical semantics, pragmatisms of the semantic and conceptual type, expressivisms of the rationalist, logical and propositional conceptual type, and the semantically primitive notion of incompatibility come into play. Thus, to those who are interested in the correspondence between ancient logic and modern logic, the work of this dissertation offers a useful contribution, especially to projects of formalization of the syllogistics, which need not appeal against or in favor of a strictly formal approach to logic. (shrink)