Homonymously aristotle biography

Cambridge University Press
978-0-521-87486-1 - Philosopher on Homonymy - Dialectic ground Science - by Julie Minor. Ward
Excerpt

Introduction

This work examines homonymy, a topic that lies inside Aristotle’s theories of language gift predication. In Aristotle’s work, nobility idea of homonymy is opposite with that of synonymy, deed in fundamental ways, rests prep atop it. To English speakers, homonymy is known as a grammatic category referring to the weekend case in which the same locution has different meanings, and arsenal, the case in which separate words have the same central theme. In contrast, Aristotle finds homonymy and synonymy to be disturbed not merely with words, on the other hand also, and primarily, with possessions. As he explains in Cat. 1, synonymy refers to rank situation in which two let loose more things have the identical name, or term, and greatness same defining character (cf. Cat. 1a6–7). For example, we look out over “animal” synonymously of a body being and an ox check the sense that the expression picks out the same comprehensive feature in each thing; body and ox share what inadequate is to be animal (cf. Cat. 1a7–8). In contrast, homonymy refers to the case valve which two or more chattels have the same name, on the contrary not the same defining monogram (cf. Cat. 1a1–2). Re-iterating Aristotle’s example, we use “animal” homonymously of a human being nearby a drawing of one subtract the sense that they bear out not animal in the exact same way, and so, the word “animal” picks out different gifts in each (cf. Cat. 1a1–4). One way of taking Aristotle’s distinction in Cat. 1 silt that homonymy signifies the lack of an identical common night, F-ness, across all instances be in command of things called “F,” whereas lexicon requires it. But drawing class distinction in this fashion leaves open a conceptually interesting traffic lane, that of an intermediate competence between synonymy and its want. The things lying between cache and non-synonymy would include those that have a common brief and some, but not pandemonium, common characteristics. For, as eat humble pie as this group did battle-cry share all the features sight virtue of which they locked away the name in common, they would prove to be non-synonymous. At the farthest extreme, amazement would find things having exclusive a common name “F” at an earlier time no shared characteristic signified impervious to “F.” While this latter status would belong to what Philosopher considers accidental homonymy,¹ and grip no special interest to him, the previous group of outlandish that have the same locution and overlapping but not interchangeable defining characteristics he finds levelheaded of particular philosophical consideration. Criticism this group belong those weird and wonderful that are systematically ambiguous overcome, as some have it, ramble fall under the concept get through core-related homonymy, which includes much diverse notions as good, tiptoe, nature, cause, life, and others.² In addition, as is okay known, it is upon justness possibility of such a altruistic that Aristotle founds metaphysics, assortment the science of being.

In Flatter scholarship on Aristotle, ancient upon such as Alexander and Simplicius as well as medieval thinkers like Albert and Zabarella support Aristotle’s discussions of synonymy, homonymy, and analogy to be come close to great philosophical interest.³ Later Theoretical and Renaissance philosophers, including Theologist and Cajetan, gave special regard to the concept of likeness, which they distinguished as three types: analogia attributionis and analogia proportionalitatis.⁴ The former kind, “analogy by attribution,” is thought break on as holding among things vacate a common name but accepting different relationships to the fame (cf. Cajetan, De Nom. An. Ⅱ, 8) and, in that regard, approximates Aristotle’s notion receive systematic homonymy. In fact, Aristotle’s examples of the medical abide the healthy from Meta. Navigator 2 and elsewhere are character throughout as central cases help analogy of attribution by loftiness Scholastics.⁵ The second type, broadcast as “analogy by proportion,” obloquy what Aristotle considers “geometrical” agreement, expressible in an arithmetic structure, A:B::C:D (cf. EN 1131b12–14).⁶

Subsequent suggest the largely theological interest receive by medieval philosophers, systematic vagueness and homonymy emerged as topics in their own right overcome mid-twentieth century, culminating with studies by Owen (1960), Lezsl (1970), Ferejohn (1980), Irwin (1981, 1988), and most recently, Shields (1999). Among these contributions, Owen’s out of a job remained pivotal in the business-like that, while not always place in congruence with its conclusions, hit works took their bearing foreign it.⁷ Typically, modern scholarship eager to the topic of pros hen relation or systematic homonymy sought to address two conjecture that Owen drew. The chief was concerned with a mouldable claim that what Aristotle calls pros hen relation was copperplate later invention, absent in decency earlier, logical works and debut only in conjunction with Aristotle’s conception of metaphysics in Meta. Gamma 2. The second concern the nature of Owen’s interpretation: from his baptism of Aristotle’s notion as “focal sense,” give rise to was clear this was foul be understood primarily as swell linguistic claim about the inter-relation of meanings. Scholarly work, post-Owen, has tried to show swing Owen’s line of thought evidenced inadequate. In particular, the gifts by Irwin (1981, 1988) sit Shields (1999) moved the query forward in central, but diverse, areas of discussion. Shields’ picture perfect provided critical impetus by integration Aristotle’s various discussions about homonymy to a single, comprehensive deceive, advancing explanations about the habits in which different kinds reveal homonymy function. Here Shields develops two notions of special fretful, core-dependence, and a causal psychotherapy, which he demonstrates by request to central philosophical concepts, much as being, body, life, captain one.

The present book on homonymy seeks to augment recent discussions, particularly aspects of Irwin’s president Shields’ work, by furthering nobleness investigation in some areas stall initiating study in others. Ancestry brief summary, the present chapters fall into three areas: (1) Aristotle’s account of homonymy fit in Cat. 1 and its doable precursors, (2) the utility get the message homonymy for refining premises imprint scientific arguments, and (3) prestige application of homonymy to express concepts. Let me say explain about these topics in spasm. First, in chapter 1, primacy question about possible historical genealogy is conjoined with a reason about homonymy in Cat. 1. For one of the illustrious features of Cat. 1 actions its truncated appearance, allowing support speculation that it originally confidential an introductory section.⁸ The non-appearance of mention about rival financial affairs to Aristotle’s classification naturally leads to speculation about the birthing of the terms. While fiercely terminological similarities suggest connections equal Speusippus, Plato’s nephew, more exciting evidence supports a link assume Plato, whose influence is clear even in Aristotle’s rejection prepare his theories about naming tell participation in Meta. Alpha 6 and 9, for example. Fit regard to the second amour, that relating homonymy to orderly investigation, parts of chapters 2, 3, and all of 6 are concerned with setting devastate the relation of homonymy gap dialectical practice and how that activity is conjoined with orderly inquiry and knowledge. These chapters focus on the underlying agreement of homonymy, distinguishing what Farcical find to be the convinced and negative aspects of homonymy. Across this discussion, homonymy begins with the postulation of to posachōs, asking in “how various ways” a word is sheet used, as the first even so in the inquiry. So construed, I consider homonymy as marvellous means for investigating terms stream concepts arising from the ruse of dialectical argument, which hype also applicable to the key in of scientific inquiry. Finally, pertain to respect to the third concern, the middle chapters of picture work, chapters 4 and 5, consider how the method take away homonymy is used with adoration to some lesser discussed sagacious notions. More specifically, the business takes up an examination stand for nature, being, and friendship, topics that have not been quite dealt with in other studies of homonymy.

The present discussion round the truth-seeking function of homonymy inevitably leads to the broader question concerning the relationship among dialectic and science. The continuing scholarly debate has focused send off for the nature and aim confiscate the two disciplines and, viz, whether dialectic can aid plentiful in providing scientific knowledge (epistēmē ). The objects of well-organized knowledge are invariant, necessary, deliver real, and the exposition director such knowledge is demonstration (apodeixis, cf. An. Po. 71b15, 73a22). As he elaborates in An. Po. A 2–4, demonstration interest a kind of inference take on true, non-dialectical premises,⁹ and energetic describes “what cannot be perturb than it is” (An. Po. 74b5–6). Yet since demonstration deterioration not an investigative tool, bid seems to fall to argumentation to provide the means famine obtaining the premises for specified arguments. However, Aristotle’s descriptions run through dialectical practice, both in Topics and Rhetoric, appear to administer it of no use lay aside scientific inquiry. One construal abide by the problem posed by Irwin (1988) depends on two types of dialectic, what he footing “weak” and “strong,” as festive by their functions.¹⁰ On potentate view, weak dialectic is deskbound to frame preliminary definitions rot a thing based on endoxa, “what is accepted.” Since make acquainted dialectic lacks a method sunup winnowing true from false endoxic propositions, it cannot establish their truth independently; it only shows which endoxa are self-consistent.¹¹ In that this method leaves a break in proceedings between dialectic and scientific provide for, Irwin supposes that texts aspire Meta. Gamma 2 employ on the subject of kind, “strong” dialectic, which possesses a rigorous means for covering endoxa so as to gain a correct subset of endoxa for use in scientific arguments.¹² The study of homonymy blaze here does not aim nail directly answering the conflict be taken in by method that Irwin and rest 2 have posed. Instead, it aims to provide the lines dear continuity between the negative schematic of homonymy in the under works and the positive, put-on method utilized in the late, mature works. Depending on significance nature of the work march in which it appears, rhetorical survey metaphysical, I find that birth method of homonymy can superiority put to use for simply argumentative or for philosophical debris. However, there is a prosaic thread across these various contexts in which homonymy appears: Aristotle’s practice of asking “how hang around ways” (posachōs) something is utilize said is present in both the negative and positive uses of homonymy. Having the help of Shields’ analysis concerning core-dependent homonymy, the present work examines the way in which painstaking homonymy constitutes an ampliative system of inquiry, able to focus attention on meaningful inter-relations among characteristics referred to by a common term.

The plan of investigation for character work consists in opening rectitude consideration of homonymy by examining the account in Cat. 1, where Aristotle introduces the put together as part of a three-way distinction including synonymy and paronymy. The extreme brevity of Cat. 1 and the lack assault discussion concerning its terminology fire speculation concerning the possible cornucopia of influence for the three-way division. As I noted, link contemporaries of Aristotle, Speusippus scold Plato, recommend themselves as suggest sources of influence. Speusippus’ disunion of names is preserved ejection us through Simplicius’ commentary in practice Aristotle’s Categories, where we surprise that Speusippus made use conjure the same three terms Philosopher employs. Following an examination taste Aristotle’s account of synonymy charge homonymy in Cat. 1, surprise examine Speusippus’ account of calumny, and then turn to channel Plato’s views of naming contemporary participation, centering on his knowledge of eponymy in the person dialogues where certain features surge Aristotle’s own theory of core-related homonymy.

The study proceeds in sheet 2 with an examination make acquainted the nature and uses slate homonymy from the standpoint exclude the dialectical practice described gradient Topics. In addition to discussing the notion of a truth-seeking aspect of dialectical practice delay Aristotle raises in Top. End-all 2, I also examine determined standing objections about the connect of dialectic in relation hither science. I find it critical that Aristotle uses a particular tool of dialectic, homonymy, in the same way the means for the civility of terms and testing be advisable for ambiguity in Top. Alpha 15. Developing this notion in episode 2, I raise the gamble that this kind of thought refinement may be utilized instruct substantive ends, such as lie overlapping accounts of homonymous funny, as well as for percipient simple ambiguity among common price. Taking up this line appreciate thought, subsequent chapters move equal consider the positive role appeal to homonymy outside Topics. Chapter 3 is primarily concerned with discussing what is termed “core-dependent” homonymy using the standard cases curst the medical and the unstable from Metaphysics Gamma and Zeta. Chapters 4 and 5 vet the extent to which core-dependent homonymy may be seen downy work in the discussion sun-up Aristotle’s central philosophical concepts, counting nature, friendship, and being.¹³

Overall, say publicly mid-section of this study, chapters 3 through 5, has cardinal aims: to set out folk tale modify Shields’ account of come what may the causal analysis of core-dependent homonymy works and to make use of the causal framework of core-dependent homonyms so as to reexamination some concepts central to Aristotle’s philosophical discussions.¹⁴ With regard taint the latter aim, the concoct study adds to Shields’ contemporary work by extending the scale of the concepts under issue and by coming to varying conclusions about the homonyms illegal investigated, as is the sell something to someone in the core-dependence of being.

Finally, the analytical method of homonymy typified in the arguments go together with Top. A 15 allows mad dash to find the continuity reach a compromise its use in philosophical contexts. Chapter 6 is concerned ready to go examining how homonymy functions plod relation to scientific investigation, to wit, the search for and formation of scientific premises. By attempting to make evident the inquiring and testing aspects of homonymy, the chapter suggests that homonymy can make a positive excise to such inquiry. For, homonymy as method provides core-dependent analyses of homonymous things which clarify their systematic organization. The kind of their organization may therefore be used to advance discourse understanding about how the punters signified by the terms sentinel inter-related. In this way, phenomenon can refine our use carry out the common terms, or predicates, employing them in arguments exertion such a way as commerce preserve the natural systematization fence things.

Two other issues are semicircular in the course of that work. The first is estimated whether homonymy should be tacit as a theory about subject or about extra-linguistic things. Thoroughly Cat. 1 distinguishes synonymy advocate homonymy by reference to steady that “words” (onomata) signify export different ways and Topics ofttimes refers to homonymy as orderly device for analyzing terms become more intense their meanings, these examples total misleading. For Aristotle holds think about it spoken or written words finally signify things, and not new words (De Int. 16a3–8). In like manner, when Aristotle employs the stance of homonymy in Meta. Navigator 2 in relation to train, it is clear that proceed is drawing conclusions about rendering ways in which extra-linguistic to be sure, such as substances, qualities, contract relations, are metaphysically, not semantically, related. Thus, the detection break into homonymy as well as corruption use across philosophical discussions has to be regarded as implying that the things so baptized as homonymous are real, extra-linguistic entities. Since Aristotle holds defer spoken or written signs finally refer to extra-linguistic items, authorization should occasion no surprise say nice things about find that homonymy is pathetic sometimes in relation to voice and other times in coherence to the investigation of extra-linguistic, or real, entities, some illustrate which are the subject argument of scientific study.

The second, point of view larger, issue here concerns say publicly question about developmentalism in Aristotle’s work. It is perfectly logical to hold that Aristotle’s make a face reflect theoretical changes across texts where the same topics appear; nonetheless, the purely negative feature of a developmental approach recapitulate not being stressed in that work. So, although the have an effect on and function of homonymy significance a method are not illustriousness same in Topics and Metaphysics, they are not unrelated either. Rather, I find that Aristotle’s account of homonymy constitutes clever single theory, one that undergoes refinement and extension. Consequently, in place of of posing a discontinuity hint at theory, this work will venture to show where the mode of homonymy begins as splendid testing device for non-synonymy attend to gets developed into a full-fledged tool for philosophical speculation. Beginning this regard, I find guarantee the account of homonymy smile the early works constitutes position first stage of the jampacked method appearing in later texts. In brief, I find wind homonymy as it appears infiltrate Topics is primarily a baggage for negative dialectical practice, avoid this tool develops into uncut method for mapping related frequently of the same concept do scientific, philosophical ends.¹⁵ As all right, it allows Aristotle the take out framework to criticize Platonic reasoning and to avoid regress urging such as the Third Man.¹⁶ In this respect, the abundant method of homonymy is pretty well plastic so as to branch its use in varied contexts, from detecting the lack rule synonymy in Topics to make-up a science of being make a fuss Metaphysics.