Ancient

[1.3.8] Aristotle’s Knowledge/Science Generating Process

A. L. Komáromi6 Comments

In this UML Activity Diagram, I propose a reconstruction of the scientific “business” process using the following Aristotelian (384-322 BC) concepts elaborated in the works Physics, Metaphysics, Posterior Analytics, related to psychology (see [1.3.6]), logic (see [1.3.9]), and scientific inquiry:

  • sense perception
  • observation
  • memory
  • induction (epagôgê)
  • generalization
  • intuition
  • first things (archai) or priori, premise, hipothesis
  • deduction, syllogism (sullogismos ) (see [1.3.9])
  • causation (aition); four causes (material, efficient, formal, final) (see [1.3.4])
  • knowledge (which is about universal, necessary things with identified causes) (epistemê)
Aristotle’s knowledge/science generating process
Activity Action/Description
Start
Careful OBSERVATION• Sense-perception of object
• Store & Recollect the facts
Inference using INDUCTION“it is induction (epagôgê), or at any rate a cognitive process that moves from particulars to their generalizations, that is the basis of knowledge of the indemonstrable first principles of science.” (R. Smith)

• Organize the facts
• Sort out irrelevant facts
• Generalization
• Use bottom-up syllogism: “there is an induction as a kind of syllogism. We can describe it as a bottom-up syllogism. Induction in this sense means finding out an appropriate middle term where both extreme terms are given” (R. Smith)
• Identify first things (archai; a priori; premise; hypothesis) with the help of intuition
Inference using DEDUCTION“A deduction is speech (logos) in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from those supposed results of necessity because of their being so. Each of the “things supposed” is a premise (protasis) of the argument, and what “results of necessity” is the conclusion (sumperasma).” (R. Smith)
In Aristotle’s model, there is no observational/experimental verification of the knowledge (loop back to the beginning of the process).

• Generate new knowledge using dialectical syllogism
• Identify the Four Causes with demonstrative syllogism (apodeixis): “The demonstrative syllogism, (apódixis) which produces genuine knowledge, science or epistemé, does not aim to lead from premises to a conclusion up to then unknown. On the contrary, in the demonstrative syllogism, also, the conclusion is an observed fact previously known. The scientific explanation, the reason why, the (dióti), or “cause”, will when found form the premise from which that observed fact can be demonstrated as a conclusion. Thus the scientific syllogism derives facts already known through observation, from reasons why, or archai. It is not a logic of the discovery of new facts, but a logic of proof, of formalizing or systematizing facts already known.” (S. Sfekas)
• Record Scientific knowledge (episteme)
End

NOTE: This is the first UML Activity Diagram I present on this blog. For modelling business processes there is an alternative standard also in use: BPMN, (Business Process Model and Notation) managed also by OMG.

Sources:

  • Andersen, Hanne and Hepburn, Brian, “Scientific Method“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
  • Galik, Dusan. “Induction in Aristotle’s System of Scientific Knowledge”. Organon F. 13. 495-505., 2006
  • S. Sfekas: Aristotelian Fundamentals of the Practice of Knowledge and Information, conference paper, 2017
  • Shields, Christopher, “Aristotle’s Psychology“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
  • Smith, Robin, “Aristotle’s Logic“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

First published: 18/04/2019

[1.3.7] Hylomorphism in Aristotle’s Psychology

A. L. Komáromi9 Comments

Aristotle (384-322 BC) in De Anima analyzes different essential aspects of the soul using the structure of hylomorphism (see also [1.3.5]), based on the following analogy:

Hylomorphism in generalObjectMatterForm
Hylomorphism in living beingLiving BeingLiving BodySoul
Hylomorphism in perception PerceptionPerceptive FacultyObject of Perception
Hylomorphism in thinking ThinkingMindObject of Tought

The corresponding models are presented below:
1. Hylomorphism in living beings:

Hylomorphism in living being

“the presence of the soul explains why this matter is the matter of a human being, as opposed to some other kind of thing. Now, this way of looking at soul-[human] body relations as a special case of form-matter relations treats reference to the soul as an integral part of any complete explanation of a living being, of any kind. To this degree, Aristotle thinks that Plato and other dualists are right to stress the importance of the soul in explanations of living beings. At the same time, he sees their commitment to the separability of the soul from the body as unjustified merely by appeal to formal causation: he will allow that the soul is distinct from the body, and is indeed the actuality of the body, but he sees that these concessions by themselves provide no grounds for supposing that the soul can exist without the body. His hylomorphism, then, embraces neither reductive materialism nor Platonic dualism. Instead, it seeks to steer a middle course between these alternatives by pointing out, implicitly, and rightly, that these are not exhaustive options.” (Read more)

2. Hylomorphism in perception:

Hylomorphism in perception

“Aristotle claims that perception is best understood on the model of hylomorphic change generally… : ‘the perceptive faculty is in potentiality such as the object of perception already is in actuality’ and that when something is affected by an object of perception, ‘it is made like it and is such as that thing is…
S perceives O if and only if: (i) S has the capacity requisite for receiving O’s sensible form; (ii) O acts upon that capacity by enforming it; and, as a result, (iii) S’s relevant capacity becomes isomorphic with that form.” (Read more)

3. Hylomorphism in thinking:

Hylomorphism in thinking

“thinking consists in a mind’s becoming enformed by some object of thought, so that actual thinking occurs whenever some suitably prepared mind is ‘made like’ its object by being affected by it.
This hylomorphic analysis of thinking is evidently a simple extension of the general model of hylomorphic change exploited by Aristotle in a host of similar contexts. Accordingly, Aristotle’s initial account of thinking will directly parallel his analysis of perception (De Anima iii 4, 429a13–18). That is, at least in schematic outline, Aristotle will offer the following approach. For any given thinker S and an arbitrary object of thought O:
S thinks O if and only if: (i) S has the capacity requisite for receiving O’s intelligible form; (ii) O acts upon that capacity by enforming it; and, as a result, (iii) S’s relevant capacity becomes isomorphic with that form.” (Read more)


The source of all citations and more about the topic in: Shields, Christopher, “Aristotle’s Psychology“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

First published: 15/4/2019
Updated: 9/2/2021 added Body:Soul relation