Document Type

Article

Language

eng

Format of Original

21 p.

Publication Date

12-2004

Publisher

Elsevier

Source Publication

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science

Source ISSN

0039-3681

Original Item ID

doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.04.001

Abstract

There is agreement neither concerning the point that is being made in Posterior analytics 96b15-25 nor the issue Aristotle intends to address. There are two major lines of interpretation of this passage. According to one, sketched by Themistius and developed by Philoponus and Eustratius, Aristotle is primarily concerned with determining the definitions of the infimae species that fall under a certain genus. They understand Aristotle as arguing that this requires collating definitional predictions, seeing which are common to which species. Pacius, on the other hand, takes Aristotle to be saying that a genus is studied scientifically through first determining the infimae species that fall under that genus. This interpretation attributes to Aristotle a distinction between primary and derivative subjects. I argue for Pacius's interpretation, defending it against Barnes's objections.

Comments

Accepted version. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 35, No. 4 (December 2004): 707-727. DOI.

NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, VOL 35, ISSUE 4, December 2004, DOI.

Included in

Philosophy Commons

Share

COinS