Aristotle’s Methodology for Natural Science in Physics 1-2: a New Interpretation

Evan Dutmer
{"title":"Aristotle’s Methodology for Natural Science in Physics 1-2: a New Interpretation","authors":"Evan Dutmer","doi":"10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v14i2p130-146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this essay I will argue for an interpretation of the remarks of Physics 1.1 that both resolves some of the confusion surrounding the precise nature of methodology described there and shows how those remarks at 184a15-25 serve as important programmatic remarks besides, as they help in the structuring of books 1 and 2 of the Physics. I will argue that “what is clearer and more knowable to us” is what Aristotle goes on to describe in 1.2—namely, that nature exists and that natural things change—his basic starting-point for natural science. This, I shall hope to show, is the kind of “immediate” sense datum which Aristotle thinks must be further analyzed in terms of principles (archai) and then causes (aitia) over the course of Physics books 1 and 2 to lead to knowledge about the natural world.[1] Such an analysis arrives at, as I shall show, a definition (horismos) of nature not initially available from the starting-point just mentioned (i.e., it is in need of further analysis), and which is clearer by nature.[2] It is not my aim here to resolve longstanding debates surrounding Aristotle’s original intent in the ordering and composition of the first two books of the Physics, nor how the Physics is meant to fit into the Aristotelian corpus taken as a coherent whole, but rather to show that the first two books of the Physics, as they stand, fit with the picture of methodology for natural science presented to us in 1.1. \n  \n[1] An interesting consequence of this, and one which I shall not pursue in this paper at any length, is that the progression from what is clearer to us and what is clearer by nature is by necessity a form of revision: i.e., the Physics should not be seen as a work validating the “starting-point” of 1.2 contra the monists, but a work which gradually builds to the language of matter and form as what is clearer by nature. \n[2] Viz., what we find at the beginning of 2.1: “this suggests that nature is a sort of source (arche) and cause (aition) of change and remaining unchanged in that to which it belongs primarily of itself, that is, not by virtue of concurrence” (192b20-22).","PeriodicalId":185531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ancient philosophy","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of ancient philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v14i2p130-146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this essay I will argue for an interpretation of the remarks of Physics 1.1 that both resolves some of the confusion surrounding the precise nature of methodology described there and shows how those remarks at 184a15-25 serve as important programmatic remarks besides, as they help in the structuring of books 1 and 2 of the Physics. I will argue that “what is clearer and more knowable to us” is what Aristotle goes on to describe in 1.2—namely, that nature exists and that natural things change—his basic starting-point for natural science. This, I shall hope to show, is the kind of “immediate” sense datum which Aristotle thinks must be further analyzed in terms of principles (archai) and then causes (aitia) over the course of Physics books 1 and 2 to lead to knowledge about the natural world.[1] Such an analysis arrives at, as I shall show, a definition (horismos) of nature not initially available from the starting-point just mentioned (i.e., it is in need of further analysis), and which is clearer by nature.[2] It is not my aim here to resolve longstanding debates surrounding Aristotle’s original intent in the ordering and composition of the first two books of the Physics, nor how the Physics is meant to fit into the Aristotelian corpus taken as a coherent whole, but rather to show that the first two books of the Physics, as they stand, fit with the picture of methodology for natural science presented to us in 1.1.   [1] An interesting consequence of this, and one which I shall not pursue in this paper at any length, is that the progression from what is clearer to us and what is clearer by nature is by necessity a form of revision: i.e., the Physics should not be seen as a work validating the “starting-point” of 1.2 contra the monists, but a work which gradually builds to the language of matter and form as what is clearer by nature. [2] Viz., what we find at the beginning of 2.1: “this suggests that nature is a sort of source (arche) and cause (aition) of change and remaining unchanged in that to which it belongs primarily of itself, that is, not by virtue of concurrence” (192b20-22).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
亚里士多德的自然科学方法论(物理学1-2):一个新的诠释
在这篇文章中,我将对物理学1.1的注释进行解释,这既解决了围绕方法论的精确本质的一些混乱,也表明了184a15-25的注释如何作为重要的纲论性注释,因为它们有助于构建物理学的第1册和第2册。我将论证亚里士多德在第1.2章中继续描述的“对我们来说更清晰、更可知的东西”,即自然存在,自然事物变化,这是他自然科学的基本起点。我希望表明,这是亚里士多德认为必须根据原理(archai)进一步分析的那种“直接的”感觉基准,然后在物理学第一册和第二册的课程中,导致关于自然世界的知识正如我将说明的那样,这样的分析得出的自然的定义(恐怖主义)最初不是从刚才提到的起点(也就是说,它需要进一步的分析)得到的,而且自然地更清楚我在这里的目的并不是要解决长期以来围绕亚里士多德对《物理学》前两本书的排序和组成的初衷的争论,也不是要解决《物理学》如何融入亚里士多德的语料库作为一个连贯的整体,而是要表明,《物理学》的前两本书,就其现状而言,符合第1.1章所呈现给我们的自然科学方法论的画面。[1]一个有趣的结果,并且我不追求任何长度,本文是我们更清晰的进展和清晰的天性是必要修正的一种形式:即物理不应被视为一个工作验证1.2魂斗罗一元论者的“起点”,但工作逐步构建物质的语言和形式的清晰自然。[2]也就是说,我们在2.1开头发现:“这表明自然是一种变化的源(起源)和原因(起因),并在它最初属于它自己的地方保持不变,也就是说,不是由于并发”(192b20-22)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Linguistic (and Ontological?) encounters between Plato and Karl Popper O ponto de intersecção entre compostos naturais propriamente e não propriamente substanciais em Aristóteles On Becoming Fearful Quickly: A Reinterpretation of Aristotle’s Somatic Model of Socratean akrasia. Some remarks against non-epistemic accounts of immediate premises in Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics O justo cívico em Ethica Nicomachea V.6
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1