“ARISTOTLE’S EPISTEMOLOGY”

______________________________

A Term Paper

Presented to the Faculty of the

Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies

College of Arts and Sciences

University of San Carlos

Cebu City, Philippines

______________________________

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirement for the Course

Ancient Philosophy

_______________________________

Submitted by

RIJEE MARLUPE D. BANGOY

Ph-B 1

OCTOBER 2014
Introduction:

Philosophy has become a part of our history and our life, particularly the Western

Philosophy. It plays a vital role in the society in the sense it is very influential and it shapes the

course of history of man and the society. In our day to day life, we are filled with Philosophy and

it is present and living with us.

Through Philosophy, we can gain Knowledge and Wisdom. It exercises our mind to think

thoroughly and critically. In addition, Philosophy seeks eternal truth rather than action, and as

such it seeks first causes and the principles from which all truth derives.1 As what I’ve mention

earlier, through philosophy, we can gain knowledge and wisdom but the question is how? In this

paper, you’ll find out how humans can gain knowledge and for my topic, it talks about

“Aristotle’s Epistemology” or his Theory of Knowledge.

Aristotle was born in the year 384 BCE in the small town of Stagira located at the

northeast coast of Thrace. His father was a physician of the king of Macedonia. On his early

childhood, he had a great interest in biology, and science in general and it was nurtured during

his childhood days. In the age of 17, he went to Athens to enroll in Plato’s Academy, where he

spent the next twenty years as a pupil of Plato and a member of the Academy. He was deeply

influenced by Plato’s thought and characteristic. While he was in the Academy, he started to

write dialogues in a Platonic style. 2

He left the Academy at around 348/47 BCE and accepted the invitation of Hermias to

come to Assos, near in Troy. Hermias had formerly been a student at the Academy and now the

1
Reginald F. O’Neil, S.J., “Readings in Epistemology” (PRENTICE-HALL, INC. 1963) Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., pg. 20

Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser, “Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History of Philosophy” 8th
Edition (McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2008), pg. 68
ruler of Assos. Being somewhat of a philosopher-king, he assembled a small group of thinkers

into his court and here, for the next three years, Aristotle was able to write, teach, and carry on

research. Later on, he got married to Pythias, the ruler’s niece and adopted daughter. After

Aristotle returned to Athens, his wife died and then he entered into a new relationship with a

woman named Herpyllis, which was never legalized. Yet, it was a happy, permanent and

affectionate union from which there came a son, Nicomachus. It is where his work named

“Nicomachean Ethics” was derived.3

In the year 343/42, Aristotle was invited by Philip of Macedon to tutor his 13 year old

son, Alexander. When Alexander ascended the throne after his father Philip’s death, Aristotle’s

duties as tutor came to an end, and after a brief stay in his hometown of Stagira, he returned to

Athens at the year 335/34 BCE. And there, he founded his own school known as the Lyceum.

Named after the groves where Socrates was known to have gone to think and which were the

sacred precincts of Apollo Lyceus.4

“When Alexander died in 323 BCE, a wave of anti-Macedonian feeling arose, making

Aristotle’s position in Athens precarious because of his close connection with Macedonia. Like

Socrates before him, Aristotle was charged with “impiety, but, as he is reported to have said,

“lest the Athenians should sin twice against philosophy,” he left the Lyceum and fled to Chalcis,

where he died in 322 BCE of a digestive disease of long standing. In his will he expressed his

humanity by providing amply for his relatives, preventing his slaves from being sold, and

providing that some of the slaves should be emancipated. As with Socrates and Plato, Aristotle’s

thought was of such decisive force that it was to influence philosophy for centuries to come.

3 Ibid, pg. 69

4 Ibid
From the vast range of his philosophy, we will consider here some aspects of his logic,

metaphysics, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.” 5

5 Ibid, pg. 70
Body:

“All men by nature desire to know”6 This is the very first line of the book “Metaphysics”

that Aristotle wrote. However, this is not the only motives. In addition, there is this desire in us

to know certain kinds of things simply for the sake of knowing.7

On the first line, I was convinced on his line and it motivated me to choose his “Theory

of Knowledge”. His theory of knowledge talks about how people gain knowledge. We can find it

by reading Aristotle’s “Metaphysics”. For me, it is very evident that men really desire to know

something out of nothing. Humans as we are, we are very curious on the things around us. At

first, we are so naive and innocent. As time goes by, we have that desire to know.

Aristotle says that “Wisdom” is a type of knowledge and he even considers it as the

highest type of human knowledge. He traces the development of the mind from perception,

through memory, experience, and art.8 It is true that we can also gain knowledge through this

memory, experience, and art. First, our memory, we can gain knowledge through memory

because of our idea back in our mind. For example, you saw a chair before and then let’s assume

now that you don’t see any chair around you. And then, back in your mind, you already know

what the chair looks like because you already know the essentiality of the chair and it has been

imprinted in your mind. That is memory. Second is the experience, we can also gain knowledge

through experience in the sense that it is quite alike in the memory. You experience something

and then you are already aware of your past happening. Lastly is the art. The word art here is not

6 Aristotle, “Metaphysics”, Bk. 1, Chaps. 1

7 Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser, “Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History of

Philosophy” 8th Edition (McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2008), pg. 73

8 Reginald F. O’Neil, S.J., “Readings in Epistemology” (PRENTICE-HALL, INC. 1963) Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., pg. 20
really mean an art like those drawings, sculptures, statues and etc. but it means “skill”. From the

previous two, this is now the application. What is now in your mind already applies and putting

it into action.

Knowing starts from “sensation”. As what Aristotle said, “There is nothing in the mind

without passing through first the senses.” It is very clear that “knowing” starts first at the senses,

particularly in seeing, the sense of sight.

“But even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything

else. The reason is that this, most of all senses, makes us know and brings to light many

differences between things.”9

“But the human race lives also by art and reasoning. Now from memory, experience is

produced in men”10 An example of this is when you see something and then you put it into an

action. It is because, what you see is already in your mind, and then, by the product of your

memory, it would turn into action and the humans are the only being that can do more in the

sense that they have the skill to do things. After the art, there is this so-called “reason”. The

human beings are the only ones who have the capacity to reason-out things. Though men and

animals share the same commonality in the sense that they both have external senses but they

still differ in the sense that animals don’t have the capacity to reason out. That’s why we

(humans) are considered as the highest type of all animals.

“With a view to action experience seems in no respect inferior to art, and men of

experience succeed even better that those who have theory without experience. The reason is that

9 Aristotle, “Metaphysics”, Bk. 1, Chaps. 1

10 Ibid
experience is knowledge of individuals, art of universals, and actions and productions are all

concerned with the individual.”11 On the line “With a view to action experience seems in no

respect inferior to art”, it is true because experience is just a know-how method or in other

words, “familiarity”, while art is purely learnt or have been studied.

On the next line, “and men of experience succeed even better that those who have theory without

experience”, in this line I would confirm on these because a man of experience with action is

more successful than those men who only have ideas and didn’t putting it into action. They (men

of experience) are more advantage because they have already the experience and already know

what to do unlike the inexperience or the men of theories; they just end up on what is in their

mind and didn’t apply those theories. That’s why Aristotle stated that “experience is knowledge

of individuals.”

“Thus, lowest on the scale is “sensation”, which man has in common with all animals.

Experience, which results from many memories of the same thing, is higher and is had only by

man.”12 Both man and animals have the same sensation, particularly the external senses or also

called as the common sense (sight, taste, smell, touch and hearing) but the only thing that is

different is the “experience” because they don’t have the same knowledge with men and they

don’t have the capability to do things like men do.

“Aristotle says that the investigation of truth is difficult because our knowledge is so

fragmentary.”13 In this line, he pointed out that seeking the truth is difficult because our

11 Ibid

12 Reginald F. O’Neil, S.J., “Readings in Epistemology” (PRENTICE-HALL, INC. 1963)

Englewood Cliffs. N.J., pg. 20

13 Ibid, pg. 21
knowledge is fragmentary in the sense that what is in our mind is lacking and our capacity of

knowing is only limited.

“He notes that Philosophy seeks eternal truth rather than action, and as such it seeks first causes

and the principles from which all truth derives.”14 This line clearly states that Philosophy is the

one who can find the Truth because it goes beyond and deeper of what we can think and it is also

true that it seeks the first cause and principles in the sense that Philosophy starts from

questioning things and on that question, Philosophers try to find its causes, answers and

solutions.

Aristotle’s Epistemology wouldn’t be complete if I’ll not be exposing his “Abstraction”.

For me, I find as one of the important content of his theory. The definition of Abstraction:

“Abstraction is the process when the mind denudes the phantasm of its

individuating notes and retains only the essentials.”

In other words, Abstraction is all about concepts and ideas in our mind and something

beyond our tangible senses. It removes the non-essentials because we only see the essentiality of

a thing. For example, a book, what makes a book a book? The answer is its “bookness”. The

essentiality of the book is its content. Though, books have different colors, sizes and etc. but

these differences are not the essentials that what makes a book a book. Another example is the

chair. Though chairs have different designs, we already know what the concept of a chair is

because the essentials already imprints in our mind.

“It can easily seem that abstract concepts do not strictly apply to reality. The concept

horse, for example, is supposed to apply to all horses, of whatever color. But obviously it could

14 Ibid
not do so if it had as its content a horse of any one definite color; if it were the concept of a

brown horse, for example, it could not apply to a black one. In order to apply to all horses, then,

the concept horse must have as its content a horse of no determinate color. But in that case the

concept still does not apply strictly to any actual horse; for every actual horse has some

determinate color. Either the concept horse somehow falsifies reality, then, or else—as

Aristotle’s teacher Plato had argued—its actual referent is not any physical horse but the

transcendent, immaterial Form of Horse, which indeed has no determinate color, and of which

our familiar physical horses are merely an inadequate reflection. Hence abstractions have either

mysterious otherworldly referents or no referents at all; in either case, they cannot refer to the

familiar objects of ordinary experience.”15

In addition of my topic, I will also expose the Stoic Theory of Knowledge which is

somehow quite related on Aristotle’s Epistemology. First, I will expose their background.

“Stoicism as a school of philosophy includes some of the most distinguished intellectuals

of antiquity. Founded be Zeno of Citium (334-262 BCE), who assembled his school on the stoa

(Greek for “porch”, hence the term Stoic), this philosophical movement attracted Cleanthes (303-

233 BCE) and Aristo in Athens. Later it found such advocates in Rome as Cicero (106-43 BCE),

Epictetus (60-117 CE), Seneca (ca. 4 BCE-65 CE), and Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE).

This influence helped to fix the overwhelming emphasis of Stoic philosophy upon ethics,

although the Stoics addressed themselves to all three divisions of philosophy formulated by

Aristotle’s Lyceum, namely, logic, physics, and ethics.”16

15 http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae9_3_1.pdf (October 8, 2014)

16Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser. “Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A History of
Philosophy” 8th Edition (McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2008). pg. 97-98.
 According to the Stoics, their Theory of Knowledge is that “the mind is blank at birth

and builds up its store of ideas as it is exposed to objects. These objects make impressions on

our mind through the channel of the senses.

Sounds like Aristotelian Epistemology or I may say that their theory was inspired by

Aristotle. In addition, as what Aristotle said, “there’s nothing in the mind without passing

through first at the senses.” As what I’ve mentioned earlier in the previous part of my paper, the

process of knowing starts first at the senses particularly the sense of sight. Our mind is blank at

first, Unlike Plato’s Epistemology, he’s theory was that knowing is just a “recollection”. Stoics’

philosophy strongly supports Aristotle’s Epistemology. We can clearly say that the Aristotle’s

Epistemology is quite related with the Stoic Philosophy, particularly their Theory of Knowledge.

In Modern Philosophy, Immanuel Kant expounds their philosophy, especially in his “Critique of

Pure Reason”. He also emphasizes that what man really needs to know, what can we know and

what is to know.
Conclusion:

For my conclusion, I find Aristotle’s philosophy, particularly his Epistemology or the

Theory of Knowledge convincing and interesting because it is presented in a realistic view.

Throughout my term paper, I really appreciate his work, though his theory is quite complicated

in the sense that I’m having a hard time in understanding his work, particularly his

“Metaphysics”. But, the very essence of his theory is how humans can gain knowledge.

Aristotle’s Epistemology and Stoics Theory of Knowledge taught me that in knowing

things, “sensation” is always present. We cannot gain knowledge without the senses. We cannot

deny the fact that in every process of knowing, “sensation” is always present. Abstraction and

Sensation are related in the sense that without the sense of sight, there’s no abstraction back in

our mind. We cannot know things without the “Abstraction” because for me, it is the very

essence in knowing and it retains only the essentials.

Bibliography:

Primary Source:

Aristotle, trans. by Hippocrates G. Apostle “Aristotle’s Metaphysics”. London:

Indiana University Press.

Secondary Source:

O’Neil, Reginald F. S.J. “Readings in Epistemology”. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,

PRENTICE-HALL, INC. 1963)
Samuel Enoch Stumpf and James Fieser. “Socrates to Sartre and Beyond: A
History of Philosophy”. 8th Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2008.
Long, Roderick T. “REALISM AND ABSTRACTION IN ECONOMICS:
ARISTOTLE ANS MISES VERSUS FRIEDMAN”