structure for 'Theory of Logic'    |     alphabetical list of themes    |     unexpand these ideas

5. Theory of Logic / L. Paradox / 2. Aporiai

[conflicts of thought that baffled and provoked the Greeks]

21 ideas
How can you seek knowledge of something if you don't know it? [Plato]
     Full Idea: How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing that you did not know?
     From: Plato (Meno [c.385 BCE], 80d05)
     A reaction: Vasilis Politis cites this as a nice example of the 'aporiai' (puzzles) which Aristotle said were the foundation of enquiry. Nowadays the problem is called the 'paradox of enquiry'.
We must start with our puzzles, and progress by solving them, as they reveal the real difficulty [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: We should first address those puzzles ('aporiai') that first arise. ..Subsequent progress depends on the resolution of the first puzzles, and one cannot solve these without knowing the difficulty, and our confusion shows this to be the case.
     From: Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 0995a27-)
     A reaction: This stands in nice opposition to the Wittgenstein view, that confusion is largely a self-inflicted wound arising from our language, having little to do with reality. For Aristotle it is reality which is the source of our mental confusion. He's right.
Aporia 1: is there one science of explanation, or many? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 1: Is it the task of a single science to investigate all the different causes and explanations of things, or is this the task of fundamentally different sciences?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 0996a18-b26) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: [This is the 10,000th idea to be entered into this database - 1st February 2010, at 7:21pm] I think there are two sorts of philosopher - those, like myself, who cling on to the idea of one science, and the pluralists, perfectly happy with many.
Aporia 2: Does one science investigate both ultimate and basic principles of being? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 2: Is it the task of a single science to investigate both the ultimate principles of being and the basic principles of reasoning (e.g. non-contradiction)? Or is this the task of fundamentally different sciences?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 0996b26-997a15) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: Although I favour the dream of one science dealing with everything, I hesitate over this aporia. I like the unity of modern science and metaphysics, but maybe logic precedes them both and has a different basis. Nice question!
Aporia 3: Does one science investigate all being, or does each kind of being have a science? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 3: Is it the task of a single science to investigate all beings, or is it the task of fundamentally different sciences to investigate different kinds of being?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 0997a15-25) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: One might ask whether neuroscience is entirely distinct from psychology, or partical physics from biology.
Aporia 4: Does metaphysics just investigate pure being, or also the characteristics of being? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 4: Is the task of metaphysics only to investigate the (primary) beings or also to investigate the common characteristics of the (primary) beings?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 0997a25-34) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: Politis points out that metaphysics would then be in danger of collapsing into all sorts of special sciences.
Aporia 5: Do other things exist besides what is perceptible by the senses? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 5: Do only sense-perceptible things exist or do non-sense-perceptible things exist, too, in addition to or besides (para) sense-perceptible ones?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 0997a34-998a19) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: Nowadays we have discovered so much that is beyond our natural perceptions that it is obvious that there may be stuff we can never detect. ...And yet if 'to exist is to have causal powers' then everything would be detectable in principle. Hm.
Aporia 6: Are the basic principles of a thing the kinds to which it belongs, or its components? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 6: Are the principles of a thing the kinds to which the thing belongs or are they rather the ultimate elements that are present in the thing and compose the thing?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 0998a20-b13) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: This is the heart of the modern debate on essentialism, between sortal essentialists (Brody and Wiggins) and those basing essences on powers and basic stuff (Ellis, Fine). I say the sortal bunch are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Aporia 7: Is a thing's kind the most general one, or the most specific one? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 7: If a thing's principle is its general kind, is that the most general kind to which it belongs, or the least general kind to which it belongs?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 0998b13-999a23) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: This is a question for the sortal essentialists. I think it amounts to an argument against sortal essentialism, because there are nested kinds, and nothing to decide which one of them matters,
Aporia 8: Are there general kinds, or merely particulars? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 8: Do general kinds exist at all, in addition to the sense-perceptible particulars?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 0999a24-b24) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: Aristotle is beginning to confront the whole issue of natural kinds. It seems OK to say that the elements are natural kinds, but things get more difficult when you talk about 'planets' or 'tigers'. Aristotle decides there are natural kinds.
Aporia 9: Is there one principle, or one kind of principle? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 9: Are principles one in kind, or one in number?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 0999b24-1000a04) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: A key aporia, which can be answered in both directions. In what respects are the essences of two different human beings identical? It is a key question for any essentialist.
Aporia 10: Do perishables and imperishables have the same principle? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 10: Are the principles of perishable and imperishable things the same, or different?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1000a05-1001a03) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: Locke proposed that having a 'life' was an essential distinction between these two, but this has been rather undermined by modern biochemistry. Aristotle wants to know if nature is a unity.
Aporia 11: Are primary being and unity distinct, or only in the things that are? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 11: Is primary being simply being itself and unity itself, or is primary being rather things that are and are one?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1001a04--b25) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: I can't make sense of 'being' in itself, though Heidegger seems to have devoted his life to the idea. It appears that Aristotle agrees with me.
Aporia 12: Do mathematical entities exist independently, or only in objects? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 12: Are numbers, solids, surfaces and points themselves the primary beings or are they primary beings only because other things (e.g. this horse) have such geometrical and in general mathematical properties?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1001b26-1002b11) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: The thinking of Pythagoras and Plato hovers behind this question. Aristotle seems to be groping for a compromise view.
Aporia 13: Are there kinds, as well as particulars and mathematical entities? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 13: Are there kinds ('eidé') in addition to or besides both sense-perceptible things and the entities postulated by mathematics?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1002b12-32) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: This seems close to Aporia 8 (Idea 11269). I can't make sense of a kind which has no particulars, except as a fond memory, like the dodo, and a fictional entity like the gryphon. ...Or perhaps something we aim to bio-engineer.
Aporia 14: Are ultimate causes of things potentialities, or must they be actual? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 14: Are the elements of things potentialities and capacities for causing and generating those things or are they what actually causes and generates those things?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1002b32-1003a05) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: We would now call this a question about 'dispositions', and the consensus seems to be that they are potential rather than actual, since a vase may be fragile without having to actually break.
Aporia 15: Are the causes of things universals or particulars? [Aristotle, by Politis]
     Full Idea: Aporia 15: Are the principles of things universals or particulars?
     From: report of Aristotle (Metaphysics [c.324 BCE], 1003a05-17) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.4
     A reaction: Aristotle seems to be groping for a compromise answer. Explanations must be universal, but primary being seems to reside in the particulars. The modern idea of Aristotelianism is universals-only-in-particulars.
Puzzles arise when reasoning seems equal on both sides [Aristotle]
     Full Idea: The equality of opposite reasonings is the cause of aporia; for it is when we reason on both [sides of a question] and it appears to us that everything can come about either way, that we are in a state of aporia about which of the two ways to take up.
     From: Aristotle (Topics [c.331 BCE], 145b17), quoted by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 3.1
     A reaction: Other philosophers give up on the subject in this situation, but I love Aristotle because he takes this to be the place where philosophy begins.
A problem is a solid mass, which the mind must break up [Novalis]
     Full Idea: A problem is a solid, synthetic mass which is broken up by means of the penetrating power of the mind.
     From: Novalis (Logological Fragments I [1798], 04)
Before we seek solutions, it is important to invent problems [Deleuze]
     Full Idea: The art of constructing a problem is very important: you invent a problem, a problem-position, before finding a solution.
     From: Gilles Deleuze (A Conversation: what is it? What is it for? [1977], I)
     A reaction: I get the impression that Deleuze prefers problems to solutions, so the activity of exploring the problem is all that really matters. Sceptics accuse philosophers of inventing pseudo-problems. We must first know why 'problematising' is good.
By using aporiai as his start, Aristotle can defer to the wise, as well as to the many [Haslanger]
     Full Idea: The Aristotelian method of working form aporia allows one to use as starting points not only what is said by 'the many', but also what is said by 'the wise', including philosophers.
     From: Sally Haslanger (Persistence, Change and Explanation [1989], 1 n2)
     A reaction: [She mentions Nussbaum 1986:ch 7 for the opposing view] I like this thought a lot. Aristotle's democratic respect for widespread views can be a bit puzzling sometimes.