Download Aristotle on Definition by M. Deslauriers PDF

Other Social Sciences

By M. Deslauriers

ISBN-10: 9004156690

ISBN-13: 9789004156692

This paintings examines Aristotles discussions of definition in his logical works and the Metaphysics , and argues for the significance of definitions of easy components, drawing the relationship among definitions as first rules of demonstration and as statements of essence.

Show description

Read Online or Download Aristotle on Definition PDF

Similar other social sciences books

Montague-Grammatik: die logischen Grundlagen

Hyperlink G. Montague-Grammatik (de)(Fink, 1979)(ISBN 3770515587)(139s)_LF_

Fundamentals of Philosophy

Basics of Philosophy is a entire and obtainable creation to philosophy. in keeping with the well known sequence of an analogous identify, this textbook brings jointly specifically commissioned articles through prime philosophers of philosophy's key themes. each one bankruptcy offers an authoritative review of themes normally taught at undergraduate point, concentrating on the most important matters that usually come up while learning the topic.

Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers

No markings. Binding is free yet absolutely intact. Edges foxed and browned. past owner's signature in ink. Very fresh, crisp, and tight reproduction. Covers convey a few staining. comprises index. no longer Ex-Library. All books provided from DSB are stocked at our shop in Fayetteville, AR. store on delivery via ordering a number of titles.

Die Milesier: Anaximander und Anaximenes

The variation of the works of the 3 sixth-century BC Milesian philosophers, Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes, follows the chronological association (from Plato and Aristotle to Albertus Magnus) of the underlying idea of the recent version of Pre-Socratic philosophers - that's to rfile their transmission and the intentions in the back of some of the traditions.

Extra info for Aristotle on Definition

Sample text

This is the requirement that one should sub-divide kinds in such a way that the kind which is sub-divided should be predicable of all those into which it is sub-divided, but the terms of the sub-division should not be predicable of the kind of which they are sub-divisions (An. Po. 97a28–34; Meta. 1038a8–14). So, for example, “biped” and “quadruped” are not predicable of “footed”. That is, we cannot say that footed things are biped (because some footed things are not biped, but quadruped), and similarly we cannot say that footed things are quadruped.

G. number into triplet and pair). g. of straight line and circle and right angle). 19 Aristotle continues: “To establish a definition through divisions, you must aim for three things: you must take what is predicated in what the thing is ( ν τ τ στιν); you must order these items as first or second; and you must ensure that these are all there are,” (97a23–26). 4 73a34–73b5 (to say that the differentiae must be predicated 19 Barnes says of this passage, “If [it] has a coherent interpretation, it remains to be found,” (Barnes, 244).

The unity of the final differentia with the genus is secured because neither animality nor bipedness occurs as such in the world, but some species of biped animal does. Unity is then unproblematic because it turns out that one does not have to account for how two things are one. There are not two things in the first place. 26 “And in both cases—when you prove according to a division and when you prove with a deduction in this way—there is the same puzzle: why will a person be a two-footed terrestrial animal and not animal and terrestrial?

Download PDF sample

Rated 4.58 of 5 – based on 15 votes