This collection of essays highlights Ancient, Byzantine and Medieval developments in the discussion of scientific method and argument in the comment(arie)s on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics and related methodological passages in the Aristotelian corpus. Despite the importance of these discussions, the larger part of the commentary tradition on the Posterior Analytics still remains uncharted. The contributors to this volume identify and explore three important strands of interpretation, viz. (1) the reception of Aristotle’s logic of inquiry and theory of concept formation in Posterior Analytics II 19; (2) the influence of the Posterior Analytics on the evaluation of metaphysics as a science; and (3) the reception of Aristotle’s theory of demonstration, definition, and causation in Posterior Analytics book II.

Aristotle's “Posterior Analytics”, Book II, Chapter 19, contains one of the most significant texts in the history of philosophy and, in particular, the field of epistemology. Paolo C. Biondi's book offers a new English translation, along with a commentary and critical analysis, of this important text. The originality of the translation is grounded in the exegesis found in the commentary, which also provides an overview of the interpretations of many Aristotelian philosophers from the Greek commentators through to contemporary scholars. The critical analysis is an in-depth essay on Aristotle's thoughts on logic and psychology. Even though the essay's main argument — that human intuition lies at the base of the mind's grasp of the principles of science — reaffirms the traditional position, the conclusion is arrived at by an ingenious step-by-step study of each of the various human faculties of cognition, a study that is much like the process of putting together the pieces of a puzzle.

Reading Aristotle with Thomas Aquinas: His Commentaries on Aristotle’s Major Works offers an original and decisive work for the understanding of the thought of Thomas Aquinas. For decades his commentaries on the major works of Aristotle have been the subject of lively discussions. Are his commentaries faithful and reliable expositions of the Stagirite's thought or do they contain Thomas’s own philosophy and are they read through the lens of Thomas’s own Christian faith and in doing so possibly distorting Aristotle? In order to be able to provide clarity and offer a nuanced response to this question a careful study of all the relevant texts is needed. This is precisely what the author sets out do to in this work. Each chapter is devoted to one of the twelve commentaries Thomas wrote on major works of Aristotle including both his massive and influential commentaries on the Metaphysics, Physics and Nicomachean Ethics as well as lesser known commentaries. Elders places Thomas’s commentary in its historical context, reviews the Greek, Arabic and Latin translation and reception of Aristotle’s text as well as contemporary interpretations thereof and presents the reader with a thorough presentation and analysis of the content of the commentary, drawing attention to all the places where Thomas intervenes and makes special observations. In this way the reader can study Aristotle’s treatises with Thomas as guide. The conclusion reached is that Thomas’s commentaries are a masterful and faithful presentation of Aristotle’s thought and of that of Thomas himself. Thomas’s Christian faith does not falsify Aristotle’s text, but gives occasionally an outlook at what lies behind philosophical thought.

Aristotle described the scientific explanation of universal or general facts as deducing them through scientific demonstrations, that is, through syllogisms that met requirements of logical validity and explanatoriness which he first formulated. In Chapters 19-23, he adds arguments for the further logical restrictions that scientific demonstrations can neither be indefinitely long nor infinitely extendible through the interposition of new middle terms. Chapters 24-26 argue for the superiority of universal over particular demonstration, of affirmative over negative demonstration, and of direct negative demonstration over demonstration to the impossible. Chapters 27-34 discuss different aspects of sciences and scientific understanding, allowing us to distinguish between sciences, and between scientific understanding and other kinds of cognition, especially opinion. Philoponus' comments on these chapters are interesting especially because of his metaphysical analysis of universal predication and his understanding of the notion of subordinate sciences. We learn from his commentary that Philoponus believed in Platonic Forms as inherent in, and posterior to, the Divine Intellect, but ascribed to Aristotle an interpretation of Plato's Forms as independent substances, prior to the Demiurgic Intellect. A very important notion from Aristotle's Posterior Analytics is that of the 'subordination' of sciences, i.e. the idea that some sciences depend on 'higher' ones for some of their principles. Philoponus goes beyond Aristotle in suggesting a taxonomy of sciences, in which the subordinate science concerns the same scientific genus as the superordinate, but a different species. This volume contains the first English translation of Philoponus' commentary, as well as a detailed introduction, extensive explanatory notes and a bibliography.

This study explores the theoretical relationship between Aristotle’s theory of syllogism and his conception of demonstrative knowledge. More specifically, I consider why Aristotle’s theory of demonstration presupposes his theory of syllogism. In reconsidering the relationship between Aristotle’s two Analytics, I modify this widely discussed question. The problem of the relationship between Aristotle’s logic and his theory of proof is commonly approached from the standpoint of whether the theory of demonstration presupposes the theory of syllogism. By contrast, I assume the theoretical relationship between these two theories from the start. This assumption is based on much explicit textual evidence indicating that Aristotle considers the theory of demonstration a branch of the theory of syllogism. I see no textual reasons for doubting the theoretical relationship between Aristotle’s two Analytics so I attempt to uncover here the common theoretical assumptions that relate the syllogistic form of reasoning to the cognitive state (i. e. , knowledge), which is attained through syllogistic inferences. This modification of the traditional approach reflects the wider objective of this essay. Unlike the traditional interpretation, which views the Posterior Analytics in light of scientific practice, this study aims to lay the foundation for a comprehensive interpretation of the Posterior Analytics, considering this work from a metaphysical perspective. One of my major assertions is that Aristotle’s conception of substance is essential for a grasp of his theory of demonstration in general, and of the role of syllogistic logic in particular.

Stephen Gersch charts the influence of the late Greek philosopher Proclus from his own lifetime down to the Renaissance (500-1600 CE).

This book presents cutting-edge concepts on the question of trust. Written by leading experts, it investigates a paradoxical feature of contemporary society: while information and communication technologies, on the one hand, and scientific discourses, on the other, can promote more informed participation in public and democratic life, they have also led to a dramatic decline in our communicative and cooperative skills. The book analyzes the notion of trust from an interdisciplinary perspective by combining the normative (continental) and empirical (Anglo-American) approaches and by considering the political, epistemological, and historical transformations in the interpersonal relationships sparked by new technologies. Using trust as a model, it then investigates and clarifies the new types of participation that are made possible by scientific and technological advances.