A Question on Aristotle's Categories

  • Thread starter Thread starter freeload
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

freeload

Guest
According to Aristotle in his book entitled Categories, Section 1 Part 5 paragraph 9:

Now the same relation that subsists between primary substance and everything else subsists also between the species and the genus to which the primary substance belongs, on the one hand, and every attribute which is not included within these, on the other. For these are the subjects of all such. If we call an individual man ‘skilled in grammar’, the predicate is applicable also to the species and to the genus to which he belongs.

Now my question is why did Aristotle say that if we say: “Individual man is skilled in grammar.”, we can also apply the predicate “skilled in grammar” on species: man, and genus: animal, as if saying “Man is skilled in grammar.” if not all men are skilled in grammar and “Animal is skilled in grammar.” if not all animals are skilled in grammar? :confused:

I know this is not so much about faith but I think this is the right place to ask since St Thomas Aquinas based his Summa Theologica on Aristotle’s logic.
 
He seems to be using simple categorization instead of inherited categorization, and yes I agree with you, I don’t agree with his assertion. A modern day analogy of inherited categorization is OOP. If you have an “Animal” object, and a “Person” object is inheriting from that, the Person object can have traits that the Animal object does not, but everything the Animal object has the Person object by inheritance also has.

Remember, at the time they didn’t categorize animals like they do today, that was started in the 1700’s by This fellow:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Linnaeus

Before that, they were categorized however one wanted… for instance, by their utility in the fields. So in this respect, Aristotle might have made valid points if you looked at how they might have organized such things at the time. Not to mention that species and genus weren’t even really words back then… I think someone took some liberty translating the ancient greek there.

Hope that helps 🙂
 
liquidpele said:
He seems to be using simple categorization instead of inherited categorization, and yes I agree with you, I don’t agree with his assertion. A modern day analogy of inherited categorization is OOP.
Before that, they were categorized however one wanted… for instance, by their utility in the fields.
Click to expand...
Can you give a link or even just your insight, just to give me an idea, on how Aristotle did his “Simple Categorization” when he was writing his Categories?

I have read that Aristotle’s biological classification is obsolete. It was replaced by Carl Linnaeus’ classification. But I just would like to know so that I can clear this problem up.

Thank you for 🙂 your reply , and thank you in advance!
 
freeload said:
According to Aristotle in his book entitled Categories, Section 1 Part 5 paragraph 9:

Now the same relation that subsists between primary substance and everything else subsists also between the species and the genus to which the primary substance belongs, on the one hand, and every attribute which is not included within these, on the other. For these are the subjects of all such. If we call an individual man ‘skilled in grammar’, the predicate is applicable also to the species and to the genus to which he belongs.

Now my question is why did Aristotle say that if we say: “Individual man is skilled in grammar.”, we can also apply the predicate “skilled in grammar” on species: man, and genus: animal, as if saying “Man is skilled in grammar.” if not all men are skilled in grammar and “Animal is skilled in grammar.” if not all animals are skilled in grammar? :confused:

I know this is not so much about faith but I think this is the right place to ask since St Thomas Aquinas based his Summa Theologica on Aristotle’s logic.
Click to expand...
It’s pretty simple (I think): Aristotle is just saying that if we say “Socrates is skilled in grammar,” we imply that “a man is skilled in grammar” and that “an animal is skilled in grammar.” This is because ‘man’ and ‘animal’ are ‘said of’ Socrates as the species and genus to which he belongs (i.e., Socrates is a man and Socrates is an animal).

liquidpele, are you suggesting there is something controversial about the translation of eidos and genos (I believe) by ‘species’ and ‘genus’?
 
Betterave said:
It’s pretty simple (I think): Aristotle is just saying that if we say “Socrates is skilled in grammar,” we imply that “a man is skilled in grammar” and that “an animal is skilled in grammar.”
Click to expand...
I see so Aristotle was using “a” as a quantifier as if saying that only one man among the rest is skilled in grammar. And also only one animal among the rest is skilled in grammar! 👍

Thank you Betterave for clearing things up.

I still would like to hear opinions from others though just to make sure.
 
Betterave said:
It’s pretty simple (I think): Aristotle is just saying that if we say “Socrates is skilled in grammar,” we imply that “a man is skilled in grammar” and that “an animal is skilled in grammar.” This is because ‘man’ and ‘animal’ are ‘said of’ Socrates as the species and genus to which he belongs (i.e., Socrates is a man and Socrates is an animal).

liquidpele, are you suggesting there is something controversial about the translation of eidos and genos (I believe) by ‘species’ and ‘genus’?
Click to expand...
Ah, good catch. I believe you are right on the mark there.

Well, perhaps I’m wrong about the translation. Typically such words (scientific words in general) come from Latin and not Greek, although the two are close in some respects. I do wonder if the meaning has not changed since then though.
 
freeload said:
I see so Aristotle was using “a” as a quantifier as if saying that only one man among the rest is skilled in grammar. And also only one animal among the rest is skilled in grammar! 👍

Thank you Betterave for clearing things up.

I still would like to hear opinions from others though just to make sure.
Click to expand...
Actually no. It might be helpful to remember that there is no indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’) in Greek (or Latin). There is no implication about ‘only one.’ The issue is simply one of entailment: ‘said of’ a primary substance entails ‘said of’ (in some sense) its species and genus too. And to be more precise, I think Aristotle means *‘sayable *of’ at least some of the things which belong to that species and genus.

liquidpele, many Latin and Greek words are already related (e.g., genos - genus) and I believe Greek is usually the language of origin. So I think most scientific terminology is actually *more *Greek-based than Latin, even though it *is *also technically quite correct to say that it is Latin-based.
 
Betterave said:
Actually no. It might be helpful to remember that there is no indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’) in Greek (or Latin).
Click to expand...
Ok, so you’re saying, Aristotle never used the indefinite articles “a,” and “an.”
Betterave said:
There is no implication about ‘only one.’ And to be more precise, I think Aristotle means *‘sayable *of’ at least some of the things which belong to that species and genus.
Click to expand...
But despite of that, he still managed to say that some of men, and animals are skilled in grammar.
 
freeload said:
Ok, so you’re saying, Aristotle never used the indefinite articles “a,” and “an.”

But despite of that, he still managed to say that some of men, and animals are skilled in grammar.
Click to expand...
Sorry for bringing up the point about indefinite articles; it wasn’t really germane. Aristotle does use the expression anthropos tis, for example, when he wants to be clear that he is referring indefinitely to ‘some particular man’. The point is really just that ‘a man’ doesn’t imply ‘only one man’.
 
Betterave said:
The point is really just that ‘a man’ doesn’t imply ‘only one man’.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification. I guess after all the responses, I finally got the idea. Thanks to Betterave and liquidpele for sharing their opinions on the thread. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top