David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Classical Quarterly 50 (02):402- (2000)
As Aristotle himself says, A.Po. 2.13 is an attempt to provide some rules to hunt out the items predicated in what something is, namely to discover definitions. Since most of this chapter is devoted to the discussion of some rules of division , it may be inferred that somehow division plays a central role in the discovery of definitions. However, in the following pages I shall not discuss what this role is. Nor shall I discuss what place division has in the wider discussion of definition and explanation as it emerges from A.Po. 2. 1 shall rather focus on the argument that Aristotle reports and discusses in A.Po. 2.13.97a6–22, and which our extant sources ascribe to Speusippus. As will become clear later on, this argument undermines the possibility of giving any definition, and Aristotle deals with it here because he can block it by exploiting some properties of the method of division
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Karin Verelst (2008). On What Ontology is and Not-Is. Foundations of Science 13 (3):347-370.
Similar books and articles
Andrea Falcon (1996). Aristotle's Rules of Division in the Topics. Ancient Philosophy 16 (2):377-387.
Devin Henry (2012). A Sharp Eye for Kinds: Plato on Collection and Division. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 41 (January):229-55.
Annamaria Schiaparelli (2003). Aristotle on the Fallacies of Combination and Division in Sophistici Elenchi 4. History and Philosophy of Logic 24 (2):111-129.
Hallvard Fossheim (2012). Dialectic as Inter-Personal Activity: Self-Refutation and Dialectic in Plato and Aristotle / Luca Castagnoli ; The Role of the Respondent in Plato and Aristotle / Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila ; Division as a Method in Plato. In Jakob L. Fink (ed.), The Development of Dialectic From Plato to Aristotle. Cambridge University Press
Jonathan Barnes (1971). Homonymy in Aristotle and Speusippus. Classical Quarterly 21 (01):65-.
John Dillon (1983). Speusippus Leonardo Tarán: Speusippus of Athens: A Critical Study, with a Collection of the Related Texts and Commentary. (Philosophia Antiqua, 39.) Pp. Xxvii + 521. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Paper, Fl. 244. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 33 (02):225-227.
Julie K. Ward (2008). Aristotle on Homonymy: Dialectic and Science. Cambridge University Press.
Leonardo Tarán (ed.) (1981). Speusippus of Athens: A Critical Study with a Collection of the Related Texts and Commentary. E.J. Brill.
S. Marc Cohen (1973). Plato's Method of Division. In J. M. E. Moravcsik (ed.), Patterns in Plato's Thought. Reidel 181--191.
Kenneth Dorter (2006). The Method of Division and the Division of the Phaedrus. Ancient Philosophy 26 (2):259-273.
Andrea Falcon (2005). Aristotle and the Science of Nature: Unity Without Uniformity. Cambridge University Press.
Paul Schollmeier (2004). Toward a Rhetoric of Anthropology. Social Epistemology 18 (1):59 – 69.
Added to index2010-12-09
Total downloads9 ( #341,453 of 1,790,408 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #269,116 of 1,790,408 )
How can I increase my downloads?