Abstract
In the Prior and Posterior Analytics, Aristotle introduces a distinction between two ways in which one might know or have understanding of a proposition: universally and particularly. Roughly speaking, to know that P universally is to know a universal proposition Q from which P follows (regardless of whether one knows that P follows from Q), whereas to know that P particularly is to have knowledge of P through having knowledge that Q and having seen that P follows from Q. I argue that this distinction is deployed in Nicomachean Ethics VII 3, 1146b35-1147a10, and that in that passage, Aristotle does not describe a case of akrasia, but rather another case where one might act against one's knowledge, namely, by acting against one's universal knowledge that one should not do such-and-such.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 29-63 |
| Number of pages | 35 |
| Journal | Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy |
| Volume | 27 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2012 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Classics
- Philosophy
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Colloquium 2: An aristotelian distinction between two types of knowledge'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver