La exposición y crítica de las doctrinas antiguas tiene un lugar importante en los escritos de Aristóteles. Sin embargo, ciertas dudas se han vuelto corrientes acerca de la confiabilidad de sus descripciones. Más aún, se ha sostenido que Aristóteles deforma la comprensión histórica a través de la introducción de conceptos y términos propios. En este libro se aborda el problema a través de un análisis de las críticas que Aristóteles dirige a la teoría platónica de las Ideas, que permite explicar (...) la constitución y desarrollo de importantes conceptos aristotélicos a partir de la confrontación dialéctica con las doctrinas de su maestro. En efecto, las dificultades genuinas que Aristóteles descubre en el platonismo constituyen el motor para gestar nuevos conceptos, que no son ajenos, sino que surgen como implicaciones del examen crítico. Así, la imposición de términos propios no debe interpretarse como distorsión, sino como el modo que Aristóteles adopta para exhibir su particular solución a los problemas que los filósofos anteriores dejaron sin solución. (shrink)

There is little agreement about Aristotle’s philosophy of geometry, partly due to the textual evidence and partly part to disagreement over what constitutes a plausible view. I keep separate the questions ‘What is Aristotle’s philosophy of geometry?’ and ‘Is Aristotle right?’, and consider the textual evidence in the context of Greek geometrical practice, and show that, for Aristotle, plane geometry is about properties of certain sensible objects—specifically, dimensional continuity—and certain properties possessed by actual and potential compass-and-straightedge drawings qua quantitative and (...) continuous. For their part, the objects of stereometry are potential sensible three-dimensional figures qua quantitative and continuous. (shrink)

For Aristotle, the shape of a physical body is perceptible per se (DA II.6, 418a8-9). As I read his position, shape is thus a causal power, as a physical body can affect our sense organs simply in virtue of possessing it. But this invites a challenge. If shape is an intrinsically powerful property, and indeed an intrinsically perceptible one, then why are the objects of geometrical reasoning, as such, inert and imperceptible? I here address Aristotle’s answer to that problem, focusing (...) on the version of it that he presents in De caelo III.8. I argue that if we grant that Aristotle conceived of the shape of a sensible body as some kind of causal power, then the satisfactory resolution of that challenge pushes us to interpret him as having conceived of it as being, more specifically, an impure power—that is, as a property that is not only intrinsically powerful but also, in some way, intrinsically non-powerful as well. This is a notable result not only insofar as it illuminates Aristotle’s conception of shape but also insofar as it contributes to our knowledge of Aristotle’s theory of dunameis and his ontology more broadly. (shrink)

Aristotle’s philosophy of geometry is widely interpreted as a reaction against a Platonic realist conception of mathematics. Here I argue to the contrary that Aristotle is concerned primarily with the methodological question of how universal inferences are warranted by particular geometrical constructions. His answer hinges on the concept of abstraction, an operation of “taking away” certain features of material particulars that makes perspicuous universal relations among magnitudes. On my reading, abstraction is a diagrammatic procedure for Aristotle, and it is through (...) imagined variation of diagrams that one can universalize spatial inferences. In order to shift the discussion of Aristotle’s work on geometry from ontological to methodological questions, I argue in the first section that geometrical properties for Aristotle are necessary accidents of the particulars, canonically diagrams, in which they inhere. I then consider a line of research that shows how diagrams in ancient geometry are not illustrations of the textual proof but are in part constitutive of geometrical inference, an insight I claim can shed light on Aristotle’s philosophical project. Next I substantiate this assertion by giving an alternative interpretation of abstraction according to which it is a diagrammatic procedure that allows a part of a particular diagram to stand in for a universal. In the last section, I consider Aristotle’s account of mathematical cognition, arguing that there is evidence for the view that imagination is necessary both for the construction of figures, and for their presentation as abstractions subject to universal inference. (shrink)

In a series of recent papers, Emily Katz has argued that on Aristotle's view mathematical sciences are in an important respect no different from most natural sciences: They study sensible substances, but not qua sensible. In this paper, I argue that this is only half the story. Mathematical sciences are distinctive for Aristotle in that they study things ‘from’, ‘through’ or ‘in’ abstraction, whereas natural sciences study things ‘like the snub’. What this means, I argue, is that natural sciences must (...) study properties as they occur in the subjects from which they are originally abstracted, even where they reify these properties and treat them as subjects. The objects of mathematical sciences, on the other hand, can be studied as if they did not really occur in an underlying subject. This is because none of the properties of mathematical objects depend on their being in reality features of the subjects from which they are abstracted, such as bodies and inscriptions. Mathematical sciences are in this way able to study what are in reality non-substances as if they were substances. (shrink)

Frege argues that number is so unlike the things we accept as properties of external objects that it cannot be such a property. In particular, (1) number is arbitrary in a way that qualities are not, and (2) number is not predicated of its subjects in the way that qualities are. Most Aristotle scholars suppose either that Frege has refuted Aristotle's number theory or that Aristotle avoids Frege's objections by not making numbers properties of external objects. This has led some (...) to conclude that Aristotle's accounts of arithmetical and geometrical objects differ substantially. I close this supposed gap by showing that Aristotle's arithmetical objects, like geometrical objects, are just certain sensible things qua certain properties they in fact possess. Specifically, numbers are pluralities qua quantitative or relational properties like ten units or ten. I show that this view is resistant to the Fregean concerns about arbitrariness and numerical predication. (shrink)

Aristotle explicitly speaks of intelligible matter in three passages only, all from the Metaphysics, in the context of the analysis of definition as the formula that expresses the essence: Metaph. Z10, 1036 a8-11; Metaph.Z11, 1037 a5; Metaph.H6, 1045 a34-36 and 45 b1. In the case of the occurrences of Z10 and Z11, there is almost unanimous consensus that Aristotle uses the expression in a technical way, to indicate the matter of that particular type of objects that are intelligible compounds, of (...) which mathematical objects are paradigmatic instances. By contrast, there is no agreement on how to understand the expression in the case of H6. Here, ‘intelligible matter’ would denote, as stated by some interpreters, the generic element of the definition. The aim of this paper is to show that ὕλη νοητή has the same technical meaning in all the three explicit occurrences in the Metaphisics. Contrary to the interpretation that there is a shift in meaning from Z10-11 to H6, my goal is to illustrate that in both contexts, Aristotle uses the expression ‘intelligible matter’ to designate the matter of mathematical objects insofar as they are paradigmatic intelligible compounds. (shrink)

아리스토텔레스는 『형이상학』 13권 2장에서 기하학적 대상은 실체적으로 존재할 수 없음을 증명한다. 플라톤주의자들은 기하학적 대상이 실체적으로 감각대상 안에 있거나, 감각대상과 떨어져서 존재한다고 주장하는 자들이다. 아리스토텔레스는 13권 3장에서 기하학적 대상은 질료적으로 감각대상 안에 존재한다고 주장한다. 필자는 ‘질료적으로’의 의미를 ‘부수적으로’와 ‘잠재적으로’로 이해한다. 기하학적 대상은 감각대상 안에 있지만, 실체적으로가 아니라 부수적으로 존재하는 것들이다. 기하학적 대상은 그 자체로 변화를 겪을 수 없다. 변화를 겪는 직접적인 주체는 감각대상이다. 이 감각대상이 분할되거나, 또 다른 감각대상과 결합할 때 기하학적 대상은 간접적으로 변화를 겪는다. 기하학적 대상의 잠재성은 지성에 의해 추상과정을 (...) 거쳐 기하학의 영역에서 현실화된다. 물리적인 영역에서 이것들은 현실적으로 존재하는 것들이 아니다. 기하학적 대상은 분할 불가능한 형상적 측면과 분할 가능한 질료적 측면을 모두 갖는다. 기하학적 대상이 갖는 질료적 측면은 기하학적 대상이 갖는 양적인 측면으로, 형상적 측면은 경계적 측면으로 드러난다. 기하학적 대상이 n차원이라면, 기하학적 대상의 경계는 n-1차원을 갖는다. 입체의 경계는 면이며, 면의 경계는 선, 선의 경계는 점이다. 아리스토텔레스에게는 3차원의 입체가 가장 완전하므로 입체 자체는 경계가 되지 않는다. 또한 면과 선은 질료적 측면과 경계적 측면을 모두 가지는 반면, 점 자체는 경계적 측면만 갖는다. 경계적 측면에 주목하면, 아리스토텔레스가 자연철학에서, 무한, 장소, 시간, 연속과 관련하여 제기한 중요 난점들을 해결하는데 실마리를 얻을 수 있다. (shrink)

Although Aristotle does not explicitly address persistence, his account of persisting may be derived from a careful consideration of his account of change. On my interpretation, he supposes that motions are mereological unities of their potential temporal parts – I dub such mereological unities ‘lasting’. Aristotle’s persisting things, too, are lasting, I argue. Lasting things are unlike enduring things in that they have temporal parts; and unlike perduring things in that their temporal parts are not actual, but rather are potential. (...) Lasting, that is Aristotle’s persisting, is thus a distinctive alternative to enduring and perduring. I assess this alternative showing it to be attractive. (shrink)

Modern logicians have sought to unlock the modal secrets of Aristotle's Syllogistic by assuming a version of essentialism and treating it as a primitive within the semantics. These attempts ultimately distort Aristotle's ontology. None of these approaches make full use of tests found throughout Aristotle's corpus and ancient Greek philosophy. I base a system on Aristotle's tests for things that can never combine (polarity) and things that can never separate (inseparability). The resulting system not only reproduces Aristotle's recorded results for (...) the apodictic syllogistic in the Prior Analytics but it also generates rather than assumes Aristotle's distinctions among 'necessary', 'essential' and 'accidental'. By developing a system around tests that are in Aristotle and basic to ancient Greek philosophy, the system is linked to a history of practices, providing a platform for future work on the origins of logic. (shrink)

Aristotle ends Metaphysics books M–N with an account of how one can get the impression that Platonic Form-numbers can be causes. Though these passages are all admittedly polemic against the Platonic understanding, there is an undercurrent wherein Aristotle seems to want to explain in his own terms the evidence the Platonist might perceive as supporting his view, and give any possible credit where credit is due. Indeed, underlying this explanation of how the Platonist may have formed his impression, we discover (...) Aristotle's own understanding of what we today might call the mathematical structure of nature. Mathematicals are, to Aristotle, abstractions of order, symmetry, and definiteness, which are in turn aspects of the formal cause of goodness and beauty. This is a lens through which an Aristotelian could view modern mathematical physics as an important aspect of natural philosophy, and which is foundational for an Aristotelian philosophy of mathematics. (shrink)

RESUMEN Durante buena parte del siglo XX, uno de los grandes debates en el ámbito de los estudios sobre la doctrina del conocimiento según Tomás de Aquino fue aquel que rodeó la cuestión del proceso abstractivo. Particularmente la atención se volcó sobre el rol de este último como causa de la determinación de los objetos de ciencia especulativa. Dejando de lado las particularidades de esta discusión, este trabajo pretende enfocarse en el análisis particular de un texto en el que la (...) abstracción -aun figurando como el fundamento de la distinción de los objetos que estudia la matemática- no parece designar un tipo de operación intelectual; por el contrario, la abstracción figura como una propiedad de las propias esencias o formas matemáticas. En lo sucesivo se esbozará una interpretación de dicho texto y se enumerarán algunas objeciones contra dicha interpretación a las cuales se intentará dar respuesta. Las consecuencias de este hallazgo podrían conllevar la revisión de algunas ideas que se han vuelto comunes en la epistemología tomista. ABSTRACT During the 20th century, one of the most debated issues regarding Aquinas's theory of knowledge was the process of abstraction. Attention was mainly focused on the role of abstraction in the definition of objects of speculative sciences. Leaving aside the particular features of this debate, this paper aims to focus on the analysis of a very peculiar text in which abstraction -still considered as the cause of the distinction of mathematical objects- does not seem to designate some sort of intellectual operation. On the contrary, abstraction there appears as a property of the very mathematical essences or forms. The consequences of this could lead to the revision of some established ideas in Thomistic Epistemology. (shrink)

Universals in the Platonic tradition were intended to play both metaphysical and epistemological roles. The contemporary debate around universals has focused overwhelmingly on the former, with even ‘platonists’ typically holding that our knowledge of universals is derived from our knowledge of particulars. In contrast, I wish to argue for the epistemological primacy of the universal: specifically, I defend the thesis that we perceive particulars as a result of knowing universals, and not the other way around. My argument draws from the (...) work of Malebranche, who notoriously contended that we see ordinary objects through the immutable ‘ideas’. I conclude with the suggestion that the resulting account of the relationship between our knowledge of universals and our perception of particulars may be thought of as a kind of Platonic indirect realism. (shrink)