A Reading in the Book: Aristotle's Theory of Knowledge

 A Reading in the Book: Aristotle's Theory of Knowledge 

- by Dr. Mustafa Al-Nashar

Introduction to the Author:

Dr. Mustafa Al-Nashar stands as one of the most prominent contemporary Egyptian thinkers and philosophers. Born on September 30, 1953, in the village of Shawar, Tanta Center, Gharbia Governorate, Egypt, he earned his Ph.D. in Greek Philosophy with Honors from Cairo University in 1985. His thesis focused on Aristotelian Epistemology. Dr. Al-Nashar has authored over fifty scholarly works in various philosophical fields, particularly Greek Philosophy and Ancient Egyptian Thought. Among his most notable intellectual contributions is his effort to trace Greek philosophy back to its Eastern roots, emphasizing the Egyptian origins of philosophy in general and Greek philosophy in particular.

Book Topics:

1. Introduction: pp. 11-22

2. Chapter One: The General Framework of the Problem of Knowledge in Greek Philosophy: pp. 27-33

3. Chapter Two: Sensory Knowledge: pp. 39-64

4. Chapter Three: Rational Knowledge: pp. 69-86

5. Chapter Four: Intuitive Knowledge: pp. 91-110

6. Conclusion: p. 113

Exploration of the Book's Topics: (Summary of the Introduction and Chapters One and Two)

Introduction:

a) Aristotle's Status and Distinction from Plato:

According to the author, Aristotle holds a distinguished position among the world's philosophers. Alongside his teacher Plato, Aristotle's influence on subsequent philosophical thought is undeniable. While absorbing Plato's theories, Aristotle added his own unique spirit and vision, establishing a new methodology and doctrine that drew attention and placed him as a rival, even surpassing his teacher in many areas of philosophy.

The author contrasts Plato's motivations, which were often intertwined with ethical, religious, and political purposes, with Aristotle's more expansive and opportune approach, better suited to the intellectual climate of that era. Bertrand Russell aptly categorized thinkers into two camps: those driven by religion and ethics (Plato) and those driven by science (Locke and Hume). Aristotle, along with Descartes and Berkeley, defies this categorization, drawing motivation from both ethics and religion on one hand and science on the other.

b) Aristotle's Scientific Method:

Aristotle, an innovative philosopher, logician, and scientist, sought to liberate science from the superstitions and myths that had plagued it in previous eras. The author highlights Aristotle's approach to scientific inquiry, emphasizing his meticulous verification of information through observation and rational analysis.

Aristotle's passion for unraveling the universe's mysteries is evident, even in his acknowledgment of the elusive nature of their true causes. He placed faith in the ability of deductive reasoning and syllogism to yield sound knowledge, particularly when grounded in prior observations and experiences.

c) The Nature of Logic and Its Connection to Knowledge:

Aristotle focused on studying the mind and its cognitive abilities, while simultaneously attempting to establish the necessary rules to govern rational thinking, preventing the mind from straying beyond the realm of valid knowledge. Thus, Aristotle founded logic and distinguished it from other sciences. He also delved into epistemology, as logic, for Aristotle, was distinct from metaphysics in its precise sense, which he considered the science of existence.

Aristotle did not envision a separation of the study of knowledge from logic and metaphysics. Instead, his epistemology remained intertwined with logic, and the values and methods of acquiring knowledge formed a unified subject of study.

d) Aristotelian Influence:

Despite Aristotle's immense influence during his time, subsequent philosophers failed to surpass his thought and develop his ideas, leading many to unjustly blame Aristotle for stagnation and hindering the progress of human thought, particularly in the scientific realm.

Nevertheless, Aristotle held a special interest in the field of science, establishing a theory of knowledge based on four pillars: definition, syllogism, induction, and causality. He emphasized these elements in his analyses, drawing upon a sound examination of human means of knowledge and the vast potential of the human intellect.

Chapter 1: The Origin of Epistemology, its Concept and Scope

I. The Birth of Epistemology: Its Definition and Field

English philosopher John Locke is considered the first to delve into epistemology as an independent discipline in his book "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," published in 1690 at the end of the 17th century. This work is considered the first systematic scientific study to examine and analyze the origin, nature, limits, and degree of certainty of knowledge.

However, Aristotle can be considered to have touched upon epistemology in his writings, including "De Anima" ("On the Soul"), "De Memoria et Reminiscentia" ("On Memory and Recollection"), and the first book of "Metaphysics." Despite Aristotle's general focus on psychology in its empirical and contemplative aspects, as well as his general metaphysical principles, his interest in knowledge and ethics formed a point of convergence with his metaphysical principles, and is considered necessary for ethics. He also shed light on the foundations of logic in Aristotle's theory of knowledge, which forms the key to his doctrine.

II. The Method of Greek Philosophers in Posing the Problem of Knowledge

The author argues that the Greek method of posing the problem of knowledge can be broadly distinguished into three main trends:

1. The first trend: focused on the problems of competence, as long as philosophy dealt with subjects that transcended the limits of human experience.

2. The second trend: focused on the fact that philosophy deals with phenomena that cannot be reached by sensory knowledge or perception, and are subjects that have been addressed since the time of the pre-Socratic philosophers.

3. The third trend: focused on another set of fundamental problems that deal, in principle, with the processes of thought and sensory operations, such as: how does vision occur? How does thinking happen? How does memory occur?

III. Aristotle Continues the Method in a Better Way

The author explains that Aristotle was right when he clearly linked epistemology to his theory of science, as he found that human cognitive abilities and perceptual means enable him to construct numerous theories, through which he can uncover the secrets of this world. Consequently, his treatment of the means of knowledge contributes to the revelation of human's true capabilities, and thus contributes to the construction of a theory of science that enables humans to develop knowledge steadily and without interruption.

Chapter Two: The Significance of Sensory Knowledge in Aristotle's Philosophy

I. The Primacy of Sensory Knowledge in Aristotle's Epistemology

Aristotle firmly believed that the path to knowledge begins with the information provided by our senses. Through careful observation and understanding, we can validate and confirm our empirical observations.

II. Sensory Perception and Aristotle's Critique

Aristotle explains sensory perception by distinguishing between actual sensation and potential sensation. He asserts that the faculty of sensation does not exist in actuality but only in potentiality. He compares this concept to fuel that does not ignite on its own without an external source of fire. If it could ignite itself, there would be no need for an actual burning flame.

III. The Locus and Subject of Sensation

Aristotle suggests that sensation originates from the heart, referring to the perception of objects that are sometimes tactile, such as taste. At other times, he views the heart as the principle of all senses. This ambiguity reflects Aristotle's uncertainty regarding the precise location and origin of sensation in animals and humans. While he struggled to pinpoint the exact center of the senses, he does mention that the senses of sight, hearing, smell, and taste are located in the head, while touch is the only one located outside the head.

IV. Analyzing Sensory Perception through the Five Senses

Aristotle emphasizes that we must first examine the objects of sensation (sensibles) before considering any particular sense. He classifies sensibles into three categories: two primary types and one secondary type. The primary types, which are infallible, include color for sight, sound for hearing, and taste for flavor. Touch, on the other hand, has diverse objects. These "sensibles by nature," as Aristotle calls them, are directly perceived. In contrast, "common sensibles," such as motion, rest, number, shape, and size, are not exclusive to any one sense but are shared by all.

V. The Common Sense

The common sense is an internal sense that integrates all the sensations received from the external senses. It acts as a central hub for these senses, where their impressions converge and true perception occurs, according to Aristotle.

VI. The Formation of Images in the Internal Sense

Aristotle maintains that there is no fundamental distinction between external and internal sensation. If any difference exists, it is merely superficial, relating to the means rather than the essence of perception. Therefore, Aristotle's critics erred in interpreting these superficial differences as evidence of his inability to formulate a unified theory of both external and internal sensation.

VII: Imagination and Its Distinction from Sensation and Thought:

Aristotle discussed imagination in detail in his book "De Anima" (On the Soul). While the term did not appear in pre-Socratic thought and emerged primarily in the writings of later commentators, it is sparingly mentioned by Plato in "The Republic." For Plato, the activity of this faculty was limited to interpreting the correctness or incorrectness of sensation.

Aristotle, on the other hand, examined imagination as one of the human faculties of knowledge and defined it precisely, stating: "Imagination is something distinct from sensation and thought, although it cannot exist without sensation, and without imagination, thought and belief cannot occur."

VIII: Memory and Its Difference from Sensation and Imagination:

Aristotle defines this faculty precisely in his discussion of it, saying: "It is neither a sensory perception nor a representation, i.e., not imagination, but an impression on one of the two with the condition that a period of time has elapsed. As can be observed, there is nothing we call memory of what is happening at the present moment, because the present is the subject of sensory perception alone, while the future is the subject of expectation. The subject of memory, however, is the past, so all memory is related to a time that has passed."

IX: The Importance of Sensation and Experience in Knowledge and Induction:

Despite Aristotle's emphasis on the importance of sensation and experience as a degree of human knowledge, he viewed them as merely a degree with a limit to their importance. If a person wants to rise from the particular to the general, or wants to demonstrate, the senses cannot do that, nor can mere experience achieve it. For Aristotle, the temporal precedence of the senses does not mean their priority; it is a lower rank, from which we must rise to higher ranks, so that knowledge is realized for us and we possess the reins of true knowledge.

X: The Impossibility of Demonstration by Sense and Errors of the Senses:

After Aristotle explained the importance of the senses and what they offer in terms of knowledge that constitutes experience, he made it clear to us that while he valued sensory knowledge, he did not favor this type of knowledge. This is because he believed that understanding is closer to science than experience. We believe that scientists are wiser than men of experience, and this is because they know the cause while others do not. Men of experience know that something is like this, but they do not know the reason, while others, i.e., men of science, know why it is like this, i.e., they know the cause. Therefore, we also believe that those who direct and manage work are more worthy of our esteem than the ordinary workers who carry it out, because the former know the causes and reasons for everything they do.