Abstract
Abstract Aristotle contrasts episteme and doxa through the key notions of universal and necessary. These notions have played a central role in Aristotle’s characterization of scientific knowledge in the previous chapters of APo. They are not spelled out in APo I.33, but work as a sort of reminder that packs an adequate characterization of scientific knowledge and thereby gives a highly specified context for Aristotle’s contrast between episteme and doxa. I will try to show that this context introduces a contrast in terms of explanatory claims: on the one hand, episteme covers those claims which capture explanatory connections that are universal and necessary and thereby deliver scientific understanding; on the other hand, doxa covers the explanatory attempts that fail at doing so.
Highlights
In Posterior Analytics I.33, Aristotle presents a contrast between episteme and doxa
We find Aristotle very naturally calling causes episteta in Metaphysics 982b2-4 – and this is enough to show that conclusions of demonstrations are not the only items which Aristotle identifies as episteta
One might say that the minor premise is immediate in both syllogisms – or at least in the geometrical example, in which the minor premise seems to be the definition of its subject
Summary
In Posterior Analytics I.33, Aristotle presents a contrast between episteme and doxa. The contrast between episteme and doxa in APo I.33 is strictly focused on opinions expressing explanatory claims Such a restriction is a natural step in the context of APo, for Aristotle has characterised episteme in terms of grasping explanatory connections.. Such a restriction is a natural step in the context of APo, for Aristotle has characterised episteme in terms of grasping explanatory connections.2 When he starts I.33, his purpose is to delineate the difference between scientific knowledge (i.e., the higher form of knowledge defined by the grasp of appropriate explanations) and a specific kind of opinion that could be confounded with scientific knowledge, namely, the kind of opinion expressing explanations that are not the ultimate ones. Far from aiming at an overarching characteristion of what
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
