J. L. ACKRILL, Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione. Translated with Notes (Clarendon Aristotle Series). Oxford, Clarendon Press, VII, p. Pr. sh. Aristotle’s Categories is a singularly important work of philosophy. It not only .. Ackrill finds Aristotle’s division of quality at best unmotivated. The Categories is a text from Aristotle’s Organon that enumerates all the possible kinds of Aristotle’s own text in Ackrill’s standard English version is: Of things.
|Published (Last):||28 January 2014|
|PDF File Size:||11.69 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.2 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Aristotle’s Categories (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
But here it is important to distinguish between internal and external questions concerning a system of categories. The most fundamental category is arustotle. Ackrill is at University of Oxford.
Please try again later. Susanne Bobzien – – In D.
Dumb Ox Press, A regimen, he says, is healthy because it is productive of health; urine is healthy because it is indicative of health; and Socrates is healthy because he has health. It may be that the questions that we in fact ask will yield Aristotle’s categories; but what we should want to know is whether we are asking the right questions. In this part,  Aristotle sets forth four ways things can be said to be opposed.
So, Aristotle’s decision to make quantity a highest kind appears well motivated.
This passage illustrates the tenor acorill the Medieval derivational approach. The distinction between substance and the rest of the categories, for instance, is built into the subject-predicate structure of our language. Indeed, it is far from clear where matter belongs in the categories. A brief discussion of each of these classes should suffice to bring out their general character. As it turns out, although Avkrill did not know of any procedure by which Aristotle might have generated his list of categories, scholars have given a number of proposals.
Academic Tools How to cite this entry. The Clarendon Categories and de Interpretatione J. Write a customer review.
As a result, Aristotle’s categorialism is firmly anti-Platonic. Rather, they are themselves essential unities, and indeed not predicable at all. Review “an admirable and ingenious piece of philosophical scholarship” D.
Cornell University Press, But, if anything, speech would seem to be some kind of vocal sound, which arguably is a kind of affection. So, to the extent that the interest arisotle the history of philosophy lies in the way in which ideas have had an influence from generation to generation, Aristotle’s categorial aristotel is worth studying not only for the doctrines it contains but also for the interest that other philosophers have taken in it and the philosophy that they produced by using it as a springboard.
So, Aristotle’s category of relatives is a kind of halfway house between the linguistic side of relations, namely relational predicates, and the ontological side, namely relations catsgories. The works of Aristotle on Logic. And as a matter of acckrill fact the lack of any justification for his list of highest kinds has been the source of some famous criticisms.
Categories (Aristotle) – Wikipedia
His favorite examples are an individual man and a horse 1a20, 2a Continental Philosophy categorize this paper. Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPaperswith links to its database.
This system maps readily onto Aristotle’s own terminology, given at 1a Moreover, why does Aristotle include speech as a species in the category of quantity? Discover Prime Book Box for Ackrll.
Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione
Given the divergence of expert opinion about even the most basic aspects of Aristotle’s Categoriesit is inevitable that an attempt to give a neutral account of the basic positions it contains will be seen as wrong headed, perhaps drastically so, by some scholar or other.
Haaparanta, Leila, and Heikki J.
Hence, it cannot stand firm as a correct set of categories. Perhaps the most interesting question concerns the fact that some of the species in quantity appear to be quantified things rather than quantities themselves.
Find it on Scholar. So, for instance, every material particular must be related to a particular. According to the commentators in this tradition, Aristotle’s highest kinds are capable of a systematic and arguably entirely a priori derivation.
There is also a glossary and index of subjects which are helpful. Even so, despite its wide-reaching influence — and, indeed owing to that influence — any attempt to describe categorialism faces a significant difficulty: The division proceeds by way of two concepts: Aristotle’s system, however, begins to look somewhat awkward when his list of highest kinds is scrutinized.
But of course, the difficulty in establishing its ultimate correctness is not peculiar to Aristotle’s categorial scheme.