Apprehension and Argument

In order for there to be knowledge, there must be at least some primary elements which may be called 'starting points'.

This book offers the first synoptic study of how the primary elements in knowledge structures were analysed in antiquity from Plato to late ancient commentaries, the main emphasis being on the Platonic-Aristotelian tradition. It argues that, in the Platonic-Aristotelian tradition, the question of starting points was treated from two distinct points of view: from the first perspective, as a question of how we acquire basic knowledge; and from the second perspective, as a question of the premises we may immediately accept in the line of argumentation. It was assumed that we acquire some general truths rather naturally and that these function as starting points for inquiry. In the Hellenistic period, an alternative approach was endorsed: the very possibility of knowledge became a central issue when sceptics began demanding that true claims should always be distinguishable from false ones.

The first synoptic research in monograph form concerning the theme of starting points for knowledge through the whole period from Plato to the late ancient commentators on Plato and Aristotle Unique in analyzing the most important common features and differences in various ancient theories about what kind of starting points are involved in knowledge Includes in a concise form discussions about some of the most central passages about this theme in the ancient texts Particularly important, because it provides a comprehensive picture of how passages and theories, which are often discussed in separate studies, are connected

Texte du rabat

If we know something, do we always know it through something else? Does this mean that the chain of knowledge should continue infinitely? Or, rather, should we abandon this approach and ask how we acquire knowledge? Irrespective of the fact that very basic questions concerning human knowledge have been formulated in various ways in different historical and philosophical contexts, philosophers have been surprisingly unanimous concerning the point that structures of knowledge should not be infinite. In order for there to be knowledge, there must be at least some primary elements which may be called 'starting points'.

This book offers the first synoptic study of how the primary elements in knowledge structures were analysed in antiquity from Plato to late ancient commentaries, the main emphasis being on the Platonic-Aristotelian tradition. It argues that, in the Platonic-Aristotelian tradition, the question of starting points was treated from two distinct points of view: from the first perspective, as a question of how we acquire basic knowledge; and from the second perspective, as a question of the premises we may immediately accept in the line of argumentation. It was assumed that we acquire some general truths rather naturally and that these function as starting points for inquiry. In the Hellenistic period, an alternative approach was endorsed: the very possibility of knowledge became a central issue when sceptics began demanding that true claims should always be distinguishable from false ones.

Contenu

From the contents

Acknowledgements.- Abbreviations and a Note on the Texts.- Introduction.- Part I: Platonic-Aristotelian Tradition.- 1. Premises of Argumentation. 2. Intellectual Apprehension.- Part II: Alternative Approaches. 3. Hellenistic Philosophy.- Conclusion. Bibliography. Index of Contents. Index of Names.- Index of Cited Texts.