An Analysis of Aristotle's Claim - Essay Example

? An Analysis of Aristotle’s Claim that “all men by their very nature feel the urge to know” Yassine Elfarri Submission Word Count: 2,987 Introduction The Metaphysics of Aristotle starts with the statement, “All men by nature desire to know”.1 Aristotle sees in human beings a desire, a need, which pushes them toward knowledge. Obviously, this desire does not greatly influence some people; but for others it serves an essential part in their everyday lives. Aristotle certainly thinks it was such desire that inspired and drove him to investigate, seek answers, and reflect that eventually resulted in the writing of his Metaphysics.2 Aristotle thoroughly studied the concept of ‘knowledge’ in Metaphysics. He believes that human senses do not create wisdom, only experience. An individual remains unaware of the substance of a desire unless s/he discovers what truly fulfills it. Through its fulfillment individuals discover what is being desired by the desire. Hence Aristotle talks about the ‘delight’ individuals get from their senses. If the knowledge individuals desire for were only a way to achieve another objective, for instance, power, then the inherent desire would not be a yearning for knowledge.3 That human beings delight in the mere use of their senses is an indication that they do have a yearning for knowledge. This essay analyzes Aristotle’s argument that “All men by nature desire to know”. The analysis includes a discussion of the following questions: how does knowledge arise, and what characterizes scientific knowledge? How does Knowledge Arise? Aristotle classified knowledge into three main groups. He thinks that all ideas are either theoretical or productive or practical. Theoretical knowledge pursues neither action nor production, but only truth. It comprises everything that people now regards as science, and in the point of view of Aristotle it includes thus far the ultimate part of the entirety of human knowledge.4 On the other hand, productive sciences focus on the production like farming, engineering, and so on. And practical sciences focus on action, such as how a person has to behave or respond in various situations. The basic assumptions of Aristotle’s model of scientific knowledge start with the broad statement that every intellectual learning and teaching develop from prior knowledge.5 Aristotle believes that the two forms of initial knowledge are needed—knowledge that an object exists, and knowledge of what that object is. This prior knowledge may involve the existence of an object, or to the description of certain concepts.6 It should also be established that scientific knowledge cannot arise through sense-perception, and that scientific knowledge is developed by using the ‘syllogistic’ technique, which is how a person gives a scientific explanation of specific patterns and facts by demonstrating how they logically arise from specific first premises.7 For Aristotle, knowledge is not only having verified, factual belief. Knowledge is a concept quite precise for Aristotle. There are only certain statements that can be known. According to Aristotle, so as to know some statement P, first, P must be essentially correct or factual and, second, one should be capable of proving or demonstrating P from ideas that are essentially universal and factual. A ‘universal statement’ is defined as basically a statement about a group of objects, instead of a statement about a specific object.8 How Aristotle defines knowledge shows that statements such as “the speaker is a man” and “the boy is sad” are not bodies of knowledge, for only universal statements can be known, and the two abovementioned sample statements are specific, instead of universal statements. Aristotle would argue that a person ‘perceives’ that the speaker is a man, and a person ‘perceives’ that the boy is sad. Aristotle clearly explains that wisdom is the knowledge of causes and principles, because a person who has knowledge of such, also has knowledge of the outcomes of which they are the cause. Knowledge arises in relation to the nature of that which has knowledge, and not in accordance to the nature of the known.9 For that reason, particulars, when they are seen enclosed in their causes, are afterwards recognized or known in the best way; and this is the uniqueness and greatness of intellectual perception, and bears a resemblance to the knowledge of Divinity.10 However, Aristotle differentiates ‘knowledge’ from ‘perception’ (i.e. children and animals do not possess knowledge, only perception). Aristotle believes that perception can be true or untrue, but he avoids referring to true perception as knowledge. If knowledge of P necessitates that P should be based on essentially correct universal ideas, then P can certainly not be a specific claim like “the speaker is a man”. Aristotle thinks that perception is specific, while knowledge is universal. Still, knowledge starts with, and arises from, perception. Aristotle is an advocate of empiricism, and believes that all knowledge absolutely arises from sense perception alongside memory.11 In Aristotle’s view, the universals on which contemplation works, come from an unprocessed material that is an outcome of perception—memory. Aristotle claims that memory is a ‘residue’ produced by perception. The functioning of the world on the human senses creates a residue or imprint on the human consciousness.12 If such imprint recurs several times ‘experience’ arises. Aristotle sees experience as a ‘primitive universal’. Hence, experience is the ‘primitive universal’ or the elementary material from which scientific knowledge arises. A person gains wisdom and understanding by mentally dealing with these materials.13 Aristotle identifies three distinct forms of knowledge, namely, knowledge from experience, art, and science. If an individual has gained knowledge on his/her own on how to do a specific activity by trying various techniques on his/her own, then s/he acquired knowledge through experience. An individual, for instance, may have learned that drinking a cup of coffee is an effective way of remedying intoxication or that sponge bath is a good way of lowering fever. S/he may be uncertain of the reasons why these techniques are effective, but s/he simply has knowledge that they are.14 When experiences in a particular domain are brought together, knowledge from art may arise. At this point, a person not merely has knowledge of how to do a task, but s/he also starts to have knowledge of the reason underlying it. A person who has learned a skillful craft has this form of knowledge, such as carpenters, farmers, physicians, etc. When such crafts appear in a society it becomes structured. Once a society becomes structured in this manner, and skillful crafts exist, scientific knowledge becomes likely to emerge. Aristotle suggests mathematics, philosophy, and sciences as examples of this scientific knowledge.15 Aristotle believes that scientific knowledge is distinguished by the exercise of demonstrative reasoning. Demonstrative reasoning refers to the process of deduction known to be reliable and derived from real principles which are known to be factual because they are immediate. Aristotle recognizes scientific knowledge solely based on the method through which it is acquired.16 However, Aristotle further argues that scientific knowledge should be knowledge of what is true and universal, and that the principles of the reasoning which produces scientific knowledge should be associated with the deductions. Apparently, these circumstances transcend method and focus on the object of knowledge itself.17 Aristotle argues that there is a type of deduction that produces scientific knowledge and by acquiring it the requirements of scientific knowledge are met. However, because not all logical deductions are a scientific demonstration, the distinction between evidence and other logical deduction will be present in the nature of the principles.18 Still, it becomes obvious at this point that the primary interest of Aristotle in the expression of the logical order of scientific knowledge, not the formation of a method or system for scientific investigation. In order to gain knowledge of a particular, a person should gain knowledge of the universal where it belongs. Aristotle believes that ‘induction’ and ‘intuition’, which can arise from particular to universal, are the roots of scientific knowledge.19 Even though the universal, as main principle, is the root of the scientific knowledge derived through deductions from it, a scientific knowledge of it is not possible because otherwise there would be an unending regression. Knowledge, according to Aristotle, arises through answering four questions: first, whether the relationship of an aspect with an object is real; second is the reason behind the relationship; third, whether an object exists; and, fourth is the nature of the object.20 Scientific knowledge of an object needs answers to these four important questions regarding the four kinds of its causes. These causes are referred to as the ‘final’, ‘formal’, ‘efficient’, and’ material’ cause of an object. The response to a demand for a scientific explanation of a phenomenon for Aristotle should be in relation to at least one of these causes. The ‘final’ cause is the underlying reason for making something; the ‘formal’ cause is how this something will be created; the ‘efficient’ cause is how that something was created or what it originated from; and the ‘material’ cause is what something is made of.21 It is logical to believe that metaphysical skepticism, as explained by Aristotle, starts from a lack of knowledge of the causes of being, from where appreciation of the ultimate outcomes emerges, and then acquires its completeness when the principles and causes of the universe are known. Aristotle explains in the Posterior Analytics that knowledge is not always demonstrative, for knowledge of the direct principles is separate from demonstration. Moreover, he also argues that scientific knowledge of such direct principles cannot be achieved by means of perception, even if the perception were correct.22 What Characterizes Scientific Knowledge? Aristotle claims that scientific knowledge is the knowledge of the necessary and universal properties of objects. These are absolute fundamental properties of objects that underlie their shown mutable properties. Aristotle expands the thinking of his forerunners who categorized the world into two: the shown shifting domain of chance and the concealed unchanging domain of necessity, with matching forms of knowledge—scientific knowledge and opinion.23 Scientific knowledge as awareness of the necessary, absolute, and universal is essentially factual, it cannot be untrue. In contrast, opinion could be correct or incorrect, and if it is correct then primarily by chance. Moreover, a person can claim to have scientific knowledge of an object or, more specifically, to claim to possess correct knowledge of it, if s/he is aware of its main requirements, first causes, and first principles.24 Furthermore, it is not adequate to interpret the nature of objects; one has to give an explanation of the cause of it, and to explain this cause does not suggest making plain hypothesis. One has to validate, explain, or prove his/her claim or, in the view of Aristotle, to use either demonstrative or inductive method. Aristotle views metaphysics as a pursuit of the ultimate kind of knowledge, which human beings desire. Generally, he identifies two stages of knowledge, the lower and higher knowledge; and Aristotle believes that metaphysics is the greatest form of knowledge.25 Lower knowledge focuses on facts; it is knowledge of something, but not the reason behind it. In contrast, higher knowledge focuses on explanations or causes; it is knowledge of the reason behind an object or phenomenon. Lower knowledge is completely factual, whereas the higher form is explanatory knowledge. 26 It is important to remember that Aristotle claims that these two forms of knowledge comprise two stages of knowledge, because he thinks that explanatory knowledge is more accurate and firmer than lower form of knowledge.27 Hence Aristotle differentiates between explanatory or scientific knowledge, on the one hand, and non-explanatory knowledge on the other hand. Aristotle claims that metaphysics is a form of explanatory knowledge, a science in itself. Perceptual consciousness is the origin of human knowledge. Human beings are capable of having some form of perceptual consciousness from birth and without using intellect or imagination, but cannot use intellect or intellect without using perception.28 Aristotle views scientific knowledge as the pinnacle of human knowledge and the most excellent form and the objective of human reasoning. Aristotle believes that the most elementary or essential characteristic of scientific knowledge is being a ‘knowledge of explanations’. Aristotle identifies three major characteristics of scientific knowledge: first, scientific knowledge is about knowledge of the explanation or the reason behind things; second, scientific knowledge is not a connection between an individual and a particular that exists to the individual; and, third, scientific knowledge refers to the universal, not the particular.29 Scientific knowledge is different from perceptual consciousness in relation to each of these characteristics. A major characteristic of scientific knowledge is its focus on explanations. Aristotle provides a description of demonstration that shows the idea that scientific knowledge requires having knowledge of explanations. When a person has a demonstration, s/he possesses scientific knowledge. Aristotle demands that the principles of the demonstration be immediate and factual.30 Another major characteristic of scientific knowledge is that its composition is general in a manner that the composition of perceptual consciousness is not. Scientific knowledge concerns the universal, whereas perceptual consciousness is about the particular or individual properties. Aristotle argues repetitively that scientific knowledge revolves around the universal. For instance, in the Posterior Analytics, he states, “for one necessarily perceives particulars, whereas understanding (episteme) comes by becoming familiar with the universal”.31 It is due to the fact that scientific knowledge concerns the universal that a person cannot acquire it merely by using perception, which recognizes particulars. Aristotle mentions in Nicomachean Ethics that “knowledge is belief about things that are universal and necessary”.32 He differentiates knowledge of the particular by means of perception with knowledge of the universal by means of scientific knowledge. Real sensation embodies the stage of the use of knowledge. However, there is a difference between real sensation and knowledge; the things that stimulate the sensation are external. The basis of such difference is that what real sensation recognizes is individual, whereas what knowledge recognizes is universal, and these essentially reside in the soul.33 This is the reason an individual can think when s/he desires or has to, but his/her sensation does not rely on him/herself—an external thing should exist. Another characteristic of scientific knowledge relates to the form of psychological condition a person has when s/he applies scientific knowledge. Perceptual conditions, the conditions a person has when perception is used, are relational conditions. They are cognitive associations between the one who perceives and a particular case of a sensible aspect of a thing that exists to the one who perceives.34 Not like perceptual conditions, intellectual conditions, which are the conditions a person has when intellect (and hence scientific knowledge, which is a state of intellectual ability) is used, are not cognitive associations between a thing and a specific case of an aspect of a particular.35 So what is the importance of this difference between intellectual conditions and perceptual conditions to the subject of scientific knowledge? The difference between perception and scientific knowledge does not necessarily imply that the latter is completely unrelated to particulars. When a person has scientific knowledge of, for instance, the type of ‘plant’, what a person knows affect the nature of specific plants. The idea here is that when a thinking person uses scientific knowledge, his/her cognitive condition is not a connection between the thinker and a certain particular. Aristotle’s characterization of scientific knowledge is actually an effort to develop it as an ‘axiomatic-deductive’ process. The bottom of the process is made up of axioms—immediate principles as a knowledge of the first premises—and principles about the fundamental nature of things which individuals acquire by means of intuition and induction.36 At this point one can deduce every knowledge-- verify all claims via deduction from the first principles, or demonstrate how all other statements of the system relate to its principles-- as outcomes of these first principles. Conclusions Aristotle pioneered the formation of a full mechanism of scientific knowledge as an axiomatic-deductive mechanism, and had completed its theoretical inquiry. His assumptions had a huge influence, even though indirect, usually intermediated and unseen, on the advancement of science. Numerous scholars who had exerted efforts to create a system of scientific knowledge on the same premises were unaware of the influence by Aristotle’s framework. In essence, the core messages of the axiomatic-deductive system of scientific knowledge are twofold: first is the assurance of indispensable truth of scientific knowledge that rests in a process by which one have acquired it; and, second is the requirement to verify or explain all claims made in science. Aristotle was perhaps the first who had explored and studied scientific knowledge in a systematic manner. Even though he was not the first who made a distinction between common knowledge or opinion and scientific knowledge, he described and explained scientific knowledge, identified its fundamental characteristics and studied the methods of achieving the true scientific knowledge. Bibliography Bunnin, Nicholas & Eric Tsui-James. The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Feser, Edward. Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Lear, Jonathan. Aristotle: The Desire to Understand. UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Politis, Vasilis. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Aristotle and the Metaphysics. London: Routledge, 2004. Reeve, C.D.C. Substantial Knowledge: Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 2000. Read More