Philosophy: Sophist, Syllogism and Propositions

Aristotle starts by saying we suppose ourselves to possess knowledge of a thing, rather than accidentally knowing it (sophist). He asserts that we know all events by demonstration: by a syllogism that is a product of scientific knowledge. Assuming this is true, the premises must be true because we can’t know what doesn’t exist, they must be primary or basic truths which is an immediate proposition, they must be indemonstrable because you need a demonstration to know something demonstrable, they must cause the conclusion, and they must be better known and prior to the conclusion. If a syllogism is without these things, it is no demonstration.

Objects nearer to sense are prior and better known to man and the most universal causes are furthest from sense.

He then defines the following. A proposition is part of an enunciation. If it’s dialectical, it assumes the part indifferently, if it’s demonstrative, it lays down one part and definitely excludes the other. Enunciation denotes either part of a contradiction. A contradiction is an opposition that contains an affirmation and a negation. An immediate basic truth of syllogism is a thesis. Something a student must know to know anything else is an axiom. If a thesis asserts, it’s a hypothesis, otherwise it’s a definition.

In summary he remarks that the ground of knowledge is a demonstrative syllogism and the ground of that syllogism is premises so we must know (be convinced of) the primary premises better than the conclusion. Nothing can be better known to a man who seeks knowledge through demonstration than the basic truths.

Part 2

Next, Aristotle explains that knowledge is in the answers of four questions: whether there is a connection between an attribute and a thing, the reason ...

... middle of paper ...

...edge that one already has, the Forms are used as reference points that allow you to identify other things. In this sense, Forms answer the question of what a thing is.

I think I agree more with Aristotle’s theory on the nature of science. It seems reasonable that there are layers of causation in the world that if broken down, reveal the basic truths, rather than everything being a direct representation of the unchanging Forms. It makes sense for things to be derivatives of things that are not necessarily basic truths. I feel that Aristotle’s ideas more clearly describe connections between things without solely relying on commonality in the basic truths behind them. I also like that Aristotle’s theory answers more questions than what a thing is, I feel the combination of syllogisms with causation is more able to provide conclusions than the theory of the Forms.