By a thorough study of the Posterior Analytics and related Aristotelian texts, Richard McKirahan reconstructs Aristotle's theory of episteme--science. The Posterior Analytics contains the first extensive treatment of the nature and structure of science in the history of philosophy, and McKirahan's aim is to interpret it sympathetically, following the lead of the text, rather than imposing contemporary frameworks on it. In addition to treating the theory as a whole, the author uses textual and philological as well as philosophical material to (...) interpret many important but difficult individual passages. A number of issues left obscure by the Aristotelian material are settled by reference to Euclid's geometrical practice in the Elements. To justify this use of Euclid, McKirahan makes a comparative analysis of fundamental features of Euclidian geometry with the corresponding elements of Aristotle's theory. Emerging from that discussion is a more precise and more complex picture of the relation between Aristotle's theory and Greek mathematics--a picture of mutual, rather than one-way, dependence. Originally published in 1992. The Princeton Legacy Library uses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback and hardcover editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905. (shrink)

In one volume, this book brings together a new English translation of Plato's _Meno_, a selection of illuminating articles on themes in the dialogue published between 1965 and 1985 and an introduction setting the _Meno_ in its historical context and opening up the key philosophical issues which the various articles discuss. A glossary is provided which briefly introduces some of the key terms and indicates how they are translated. The _Meno_ is an excellent introduction to Plato and philosophy.

In one volume, this book brings together a new English translation of Plato's _Meno_, a selection of illuminating articles on themes in the dialogue published between 1965 and 1985 and an introduction setting the _Meno_ in its historical context and opening up the key philosophical issues which the various articles discuss. A glossary is provided which briefly introduces some of the key terms and indicates how they are translated. The _Meno_ is an excellent introduction to Plato and philosophy.

Rather than offering a mere lifeless summary of Aristotle's views, J.L. Ackrill aims in this book to convey the force and excitement of Aristotle's philosophical investigations, and show why contemporary philosophers still draw from him and return to him.

In one volume, this book brings together a new English translation of Plato's _Meno_, a selection of illuminating articles on themes in the dialogue published between 1965 and 1985 and an introduction setting the _Meno_ in its historical context and opening up the key philosophical issues which the various articles discuss. A glossary is provided which briefly introduces some of the key terms and indicates how they are translated. The _Meno_ is an excellent introduction to Plato and philosophy.

AS SOME PHILOSOPHERS KNOW, the paradox about inquiry at 80d-e of Plato’s Meno is more than a tedious sophism. Plato is one such philosopher. The puzzle is an obstacle to his project of discovering definitions, and is introduced as such. And it is met with an elaborate response: the theory of recollection, explicitly presented as an answer to the obstacle. But then what of the famous conversation in which Socrates coaxes a geometrical theorem from a slave boy Is the theory (...) not designed to explain the boy’s ability to respond to the coaxing? It is, certainly, but that is not its only purpose. The structure of the passage is this: the theory is there to disarm the paradox, and the conversation is there to support the theory. To see this structure is to understand a notorious and otherwise troubling fact, that Plato is so very quick to take the slave’s behavior—which he might have tried to explain in some other way-to be clear evidence for recollection. The reason why he so takes it is that the paradox has led him to think that only if recollection occurs is fruitful inquiry possible—and he is very anxious indeed to be assured that it is possible. He would not have been so enticed by explanations of the boy’s behavior which did not also seem to him to dispose of the puzzle. Here now is Plato’s setting of the paradox. (shrink)