Abstract
Abstract I argue against the standard interpretation of Aristotle’s account of ‘natural predication’ in Posterior Analytics 1.19 and 1.22 according to which only substances can serve as subjects in such predications. I argue that this interpretation cannot accommodate a number of demonstrations Aristotle sanctions. I propose a new interpretation that can accommodate them.
Highlights
In Posterior Analytics ( APo) 1.19 and 1.22 Aristotle distinguishes between predicating “accidentally” or “not without qualification” and predicating “nonaccidentally” or “without qualification”
V. 42, n. 4, pp. 85-121, Oct-Dec. 2019. Antiquity have called the latter “natural predication”.1. In these chapters Aristotle claims that the premises and conclusions of all demonstrations are natural predications
To understand Aristotle’s theory of demonstration, we need to understand his account of natural predication
Summary
In Posterior Analytics ( APo) 1.19 and 1.22 Aristotle distinguishes between predicating “accidentally” or “not without qualification” and predicating “nonaccidentally” or “without qualification”. If the standard interpretation is right, the major premises of these demonstrations are not natural predications, given that the subject terms do not signify substance.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
