Abstract

The case for believing that aristotle thought perceptible qualities to be 'secondary' qualities or sense data has no firm grounds. Three types of argument for it are examined and claimed to be mistaken: the argument from the identity of act and object of perception, The argument from the "de anima" definitions, The argument from the formula 'receiving the form without the matter'. It is more likely that aristotle believed thinking to be involved in perception, So that his doubts about faculty psychology are to be taken seriously