Homeworks academic service


Comparative essay contrasting both kant and aristotle s vi

No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.

Earlier versions of the contents of this book were presented in a very diferent form in some of my previous Italian books and articles cf. Sgarbi 2010a; Sgarbi 2010b; Sgarbi 2010c; Sgarbi 2010d; Sgarbi 2012. Interaction with many scholars and conference presentations prompted me to write a compelling new book in English on the topic to reach a broader audience.

While any list of reasonable length would be undoubtedly incom- plete, I nonetheless wish to acknowledge the great help of Seung- Kee Lee and Riccardo Pozzo. I am particularly grateful to the four peer-reviewers and to Robert Norris for the linguistic revision of my book. Despite the invaluable assistance of many people, any and all errors or shortcomings in this book are mine, and mine alone. All Greek and Roman authors are cited in their most familiar single-name form, both in the text and in the bibliography, for exam- ple, Cicero not Marcus Tullius Cicero and Quintilian not Marcus Fabius Quintilianus.

My general rule has been to preserve original spelling and punctua- tion, even when erroneous, except where there are critical editions. Sometimes, when itting quotations around the text, I have silently changed a lowercase initial letter to an upper, or vice versa, as the sentence requires.

Princeton University Press, 1984. CL Louis Couturat ed. OP Johann Eduard Erdmann ed. One way is to actualize his thought and to ind relevant ideas in answer to contemporary questions.

But such a reading of Kant can also be carried out by means of two diferent herme- neutical and methodological approaches: However, this approach is oten unable to reconstruct the context from which a work emerges, the reasons for the formation of particular ideas rather than others, and the tensions that underlie the philosophical development of an author.

Comparative essay contrasting both kant and aristotle s vi

Conversely, a historical approach to the sources seems to provide the tools necessary for compensating for the lack of an immanent interpretation of the text, and despite its reconstructions being no more than probable, they nevertheless seem to me to ofer new hints and open up new possibilities for further research. Relying solely on an immanent interpretation entails making the misleading assumption that all the thought of an author can be contained in a text.

Anyone fortunate enough to have the experience of writing and thinking is well aware that the writ- ten lines and words are not always a faithful relection of what we have in mind, and that a great deal more lies behind and between the lines.

For this reason, I have chosen to follow the methodology of the history of sources. For instance, a close reading of the Critique of Pure Reason has never solved questions about its formation, and on certain knotty issues it has in fact given rise to thousands and thou- sands of readings.

Reconstructions based on the history of sources are perhaps only probable, but when carried out systematically they can prove far more revealing while allowing us thoroughly to under- stand the ideas of an author, thereby transforming our initial persua- sion into conviction.

Instead of a self-referential and mute text, the historical approach ofers the scholar a work that converses not only with our questions, but also with problems and philosophical issues pertaining to the tradition from which it emerges. Kant mentions Aristotle and Aristote- lian philosophers only a hundred times in all his works printed and manuscript. In this book, I will examine the most relevant passages. We must confess openly that concerning these kinds of sources we have no evidence in other authors that Kant read Aristotelian works, nor do the textbooks he used during his lessons testify to a good knowledge of the Aristotelian tradition.

  1. In my view, logic, epistemology, and methodology are the key disciplines to understanding how and why Kant elaborated his new transcendental philosophy, with the Critique of Pure Reason stand- ing as an independent eclectic form of philosophy against Wolian rationalism and British empiricism. It would be a mistake to say that in this survey Kant is presented as an Aristotelian.
  2. Related Post of aristotle essays.
  3. Conversely, a historical approach to the sources seems to provide the tools necessary for compensating for the lack of an immanent interpretation of the text, and despite its reconstructions being no more than probable, they nevertheless seem to me to ofer new hints and open up new possibilities for further research. Compare and contrast aristotle and platos political theories philosophy essay of plato contrasting and clashing with aristotle's of both knowledge and.

In his recent book, Graham Bird maintains that there is a major division in the interpretation of Kant, between traditionalists and revolutionaries. He recognizes that the traditionalist position was once dominant, but that in the last thirty years revolutionary interpretations have found more favor.

In my view, logic, epistemology, and methodology are the key disciplines to understanding how and why Kant elaborated his new transcendental philosophy, with the Critique of Pure Reason stand- ing as an independent eclectic form of philosophy against Wolian rationalism and British empiricism.

Kant, however, came to this doctrine only ater two decades of failed attempts and only, as I have already mentioned, comparative essay contrasting both kant and aristotle s vi turning away from Wolian rational- ism and British empiricism.

Historical comparisons between Kant and Aristotle in the ields of metaphysics, logic, and methodology are few and far between. Privileging the Aristotelian tradition, however, does not mean reducing the Critique of Pure Reason to a work related exclusively to Aristotelianism: It would be a mistake to say that in this survey Kant is presented as an Aristotelian: During the second half of the sixteenth century, Aristotelianism in Europe beneited from the dissemination of new editions of Aris- totelian writings.

From there it spread all over Europe, gaining purchase in Protestant Germany, in particular, where a reading of Aristotle expurgated of Catholic and Scholastic issues was warmly received during the Reformation, thanks primarily to Philipp Melanchthon.

In particular, it is possible to recognize a shit in interest from dialectics to the methodology of sciences as a result of the widespread dissemination of the ideas of Paduan Aristotelianism at the Albertina, especially those of Jacopo Zabarella.

It was not only the oicial philosophy according to the university statute, but it was widely recognized, as well as highly regarded, for its opposition to the modern thinkers. Ater Rabe, the most important Aristotelian was Johann Jakob Rohde, professor of logic from 1720 to 1727. He professed Aristotelianism through- out his academic life, as his academic program Meditatione philo- sophica qua Aristotelica sapientissimus de veritate shows.

Both scholars were deeply involved in Aristotelian philosophy. To the ield of logic he contributed the Elementa philosophiae rationalis seu logicae 1747the result of a decade of teaching that was studied also by Kant during his university years. In the second half of the sixteenth century, there was a renewed interested in Aristo- telianism with the dissemination of the works of Jacopo Zabarella. Aristotelianism was characterized by a careful exegesis of Aristote- lian works in the original Greek, and by the production of large com- mentaries and propaedeutic companions, while Scholastic Protestant philosophy aimed to establish methodologically the relations among the various philosophical disciplines, in particular the connection with theology, the queen of all disciplines.

Both these philosophical perspectives denied modern science and methodology, preferring to be anchored in their own traditions instead. In this sense, both Aris- totelianism and Protestant Scholastic philosophy were conservative. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, however, teachings show that Protestant Scholastic philosophy had lost out to Aristotelianism.

Philosophy itself was subordinated to the teaching of the Bible, dogmatics, ethics, and catechism. Diferent was the situation of the Aristotelians, who, though mar- ginalized, had not been banned, and continued to profess their doc- trines, albeit iltered through the Eclectic perspective.

Both Pietists and Aristotelians rejected modern science and its philosophical approach. Meanwhile, English empiricists such as Locke were gaining popularity, and by the end of 1750s the works of Chris- tian August Crusius were enjoying great success. Furthermore, second-generation Wolian text- books also incorporated Lockean ideas and doctrines. Kant was to some extent inluenced by it at least up to 1756, thanks also to the predominance of the Berlin Academy, which favored Crusians over Comparative essay contrasting both kant and aristotle s vi.

To conclude, in the 1720s, ater an early dissemination of Wolf- ianism, Pietism became dominant, favoring Eclecticism, which included among its exponents the Aristotelians. Eclecticism did not undermine religious authority, being directed primarily toward the investigation of philosophical truth, and overlooking theological issues. Meanwhile, Lockean and Crusian philosophy, thanks also to the sup- port of the Berlin Academy, won widespread acclaim at the expense of Wolian rationalist doctrines, especially among the younger fac- ulty members.

Pietism had the merit of promoting a secular eclectic philoso- phy and bracketing metaphysical and theological problems that might involve questions of faith. Baumgarten and Meier themselves, usually considered champions of Wolianism, were thought of as eclectic philosophers. Indeed, the former acknowledged his indebt- edness not only to Wolf, but also to Protestant scholastic philoso- phers such as Maier, Calov, and Aepinus, while the latter supported clearly heterodox Wolian positions.

It was later joined by Eclecticism and, for a short period of time, Wolianism. Eclecticism, favored by Pietism, took control in the second comparative essay contrasting both kant and aristotle s vi of the 1720s, and held it until the second half of the 1740s.

What is more, of the four professors who were very close to Kant, Kypke and Georg Gottfried Teske deined themselves as Aris- totelians, while Karl Gottlieb Marquardt and Martin Knutzen were extremely well-versed in Aristotelian doctrines.

What has all this to do with Kant and his philosophical develop- ment? Shedding light on these elements helps us understand how during his college and university years Kant received an eclectic edu- cation and acquired a broad knowledge of the multifarious logical and metaphysical positions.

His numerous precritical attempts must be seen in the light of the diferent stimuli to which he was exposed, and about which he would have been called on to form an opinion before taking any serious stance with regard to them.

Kant denies that facultative logic can be based on the philosophical attempts of John Locke and Nicolas Malebranche, who were more concerned with psychology or metaphysics. In the irst section, I examine facultative logic in Aristotle and the Aristotelian tradition with particular reference to Zabarella and the rise of gnos- tology and noology.

In the second section, I show that Kant can be considered as a part of this philosophical Aristotelian tradition from the time of his early writings up to the Critique of Pure Reason. He narrows his inquiry into the genesis of the structures of the mind to physiology, whose key historical igures were, in his view, Aristotle and Locke.

Chapter 2 is divided into three sections.

Aristotle Essay

I start by examining the conception of the matter and form of knowledge in the Aristotelian tradition, focusing par- ticularly on the meaning of the conceptual pairs of things considered res considerata and the way of considering modus considerandi in Zabarella. I begin by investigating Kantian positions on syllogistic and Leibniz- ian combinatorics, and then go on to show how from the failure of a syllogistic and combinatorics Kant elaborated his doctrine of catego- ries.

In the third part, I show the reason why Kant divided transcendental logic into analytic and dialectic, and why the former precedes the latter. In particular, I emphasize the epistemological value of analytic and dialectic for Aristotle. From the failure of mathematics as a descrip- tive tool of reality, Kant makes his irst attempts at developing a methodology, leading up to the Critique of Pure Reason.

In the conclusion, I show how the failure of the precritical logi- cal and metaphysical projects prompted Kant to develop the Critique of Pure Reason.

Comparative essay contrasting both kant and aristotle s vi

As this prospectus makes clear, I do not proceed by extrinsically comparing Kant with Aristotle. I have tried as far as possible to reconstruct all the most important pas- sages illustrating the transmission of ideas from Aristotle to Kant. Of course, it is not possible to outline the entire history of the doctrine of categories, or the division of logic into analytic and dialectic.