The Logic of Science: a Translation of the Posterior Analytics of Aristotle: With Notes and an Introduction

by Edward 1823-1902 Poste

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

Genres: Philosophy, Logic, Nonfiction, Classics, Ancient History, Mathematics

170 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 348

Reviews

[Tyler · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was incredible. I honestly have to give it up for the footnotes in my edition: they make a relatively interesting read needlessly complicated. I honestly really enjoyed Posterior Analytics more than Prior Analytics, but a thorough understanding of Prior Analytics, where Aristotle develops his logical system, is necessary before beginning Posterior Analytics. I would honestly recommend Metaphysica before Prior Analytics as well, just in case you need a grounding in that literature also.

It's more of an entertaining read than Prior Analytics, but that's because it toys with the foundation that Prior Analytics sets up. Prior Analytics is the almanac, and Posterior Analytics is the opinion article. A beautiful work, and it raises some basic fundamental questions on epistemology and scientific development that are still raised to this day.

[Illiterate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aristotle initiates the philosophy of science. By today’s standards, he’s pretty confused, eg. associating causal explanation with mathematical proof.

[David]

More enjoyable than Prior Analytics for sure. Aristotle addresses the differences between Demonstrations and Definitions, along with Essential Substance, Basic Principles and the like.

I thought it was an interesting approach to distinguish a definition from a demonstration. Though not without its exceptions. I've been asked many times in my math classes, "What's the difference between a Definition and a Theorem/Lemma/Proposition?". I never really know how how to answer because it's one of those things you just know, but can't explain. Like asking someone what they mean when they say "I".

His approach is complicated because he needs to distinguish an essential substance from a definition for things to make sense but also a definition needs to be like a demonstration but not a demonstration. It's a bit convoluted and still he has to deal with exceptions but it's a cool attempt.

He also distinguishes between fact and opinion, fact and reasoned fact and a few others I can't remember. It's convoluted but when you get past all that, the system itself is simple enough. A bit too idealized though.

His system is all very nice and clean but because of it's idealistic nature, it doesn't permit, most notably to me, any infinite regress of causes without any compelling proof of why. He basically just says that it wouldn't make sense. Being a mathematician, the concept of infinity is something that I'm comfortable with admitting into a system and even see its utility. Take an ascending chain of ideals for some ring for example. In Aristotle formulation, only Noetherian rings are permissible and valid for any syllogistic argument. That's kinda boring. lol

But I had fun with it. I didn't realize how much Kant builds upon from this work of Aristotle. When I read the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant seemed like an original genius but Aristotle sets the groundwork here in this book. The Critique doesn't seem so novel anymore. Still a fascinating work, just not as out of left field as I initially though.

[Anmol · Rating 3 out of 5]

Now, this was much more interesting than the chore that was Prior Analytics(though that does not say much!). My boy Aristotle here differentiates the universal from the particular, and correspondingly, demonstration from perception. He asks the deceptively simple question - how do we know if we know something? (Socrates' infamous answer notwithstanding). Perception fails, but comprehension/understanding based on demonstrations and deductions from universal truths can possibly provide us with "true knowledge".

Book 2 >>> Book 1.

This is pretty much the gist that I got from my reading. I didn't bother going too deep into the definitions and syllogisms, because I'm only reading this for general philosophy and not out of interest for logic (at least for now).

[Beansism · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you got through prior analytics without crying and dread starting posterior analytics, rest assured it is much easier to follow and isn't 10 hypothetical syllogisms on each page

[Brian Schiebout · Rating 3 out of 5]

Posterior Analytics is Aristotle's book on inductive reasoning for logic. My copy was translated from Greek by G. R. G Mure. The book deals mostly with the question of how people learn new things. While a whole book seems like a bit of overkill for this topic I believe that Aristotle is attempting to show why all of the completing ways that people argue that people learn are incorrect. In order to due this he uses the logic which this section of his literature is based on to explain how both his way is the only logical one and that other ways don't make any sense. In the end he concludes that all new knowledge comes from our senses of nature but that we must look from the perspective of what has happened(posterior) to determine cause and effect. This book at times leans further toward the more theoretical than on the practical basis but I believe that he is merely explaining why the practical is needed. All knowledge comes from reasoned arguments based on the facts which are known to us. At times we can reason falsely because of either incorrect data or incorrect axioms but overall knowledge is based on reason. While as a modern I am much more of a follower of Popper than Aristotle I can see how if one truly takes what he is saying it could present a basis for knowing more about the world. I enjoyed his reasoning and the completeness which he uses to both state his views and discredit the views which he disagrees with. However at times the work does not explain fully that the opposition is in opposition to him which can lead to people approaching science from a perspective of reasoning from axioms rather than from senses. We must remember that God gave us senses to observe the world and a brain to process what he has put in it for his glory.

[Syeeda · Rating 1 out of 5]

I do respect how rigorous Aristotle’s works on logic are, but this was dreadful to get through. Like watching paint dry. Easily one of the most boring and uninteresting reads ever.

[Alp Turgut · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aristoteles'in bilginin mantık yoluyla nasıl elde edilebileceğini aynı "Poetics / Poetika"da olduğu gibi düz bir dille milattan önceki yaşamış insanlara anlatmaya ve ilkel yollarla kanıtlamaya çalıştığı "Posterior Analytics / İkinci Çözümlemeler", 21. yüzyıl okuyucusuna içerik açısından fazla birşey katmayan okuması oldukça zor bir eser. Zamanın şartlarını öğrenme açısından yararlı olsa da Aristoteles'in kullandığı kanıtlama metodu açıkçası günümüzün çok ama çok gerisinde. Buna rağmen ilk bilgi-kuramı kitabı olması sebebiyle oldukça değerli bir eser olduğuna şüphe yok.

23.04.2015
İstanbul, Türkiye

Alp Turgut

http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...

[Ling Xuan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aristotle up'ed the ante for Ancient philosophy with the introduction to his demonstrative logic system, which is scattered with genius ideas applicable to philosophy of science, inductive skepticism, holism to name a few that I managed to pick out. Also nascent is the turn towards an (relatively) increased importance of sense-perception aka empiricism, which is a stark difference and departure from Plato's rationalist approach.

A intensive tomb, not quite for the philosophically fainthearted. A breakthrough from Plato's meandering narrative style which means "shit is about to get serious" and it did.

[Jacob · Rating 5 out of 5]

Does pretty much what it says on the tin.

[Kate12341 · Rating 2 out of 5]

"How did life come to be?" said Aristotle as he lit up his crack pipe

[Jack Pettifor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Posterior Analytics continues the theme of Aristotle being hugely systematic, very clever, and overwhelmingly boring. Here, from what I could gather, the main discussion is centred around the nature of science (as general disciplinary knowledge, or episteme) and the relationship between science and truth. In the course of this Aristotle distinguishes definition from demonstration, critiquing sceptical arguments against the possibility of understanding by asserting that some elementary principle are presupposed for knowledge, yet not demonstrable via demonstration. These principles ground the possibility of knowing, and are themselves, in some more or less obscure manner, given by perception. It feels like this is one of the major springboards for Kant in his latter works in the Critiques, to assert that the presentation of the principles to us will be grounded in the very form of reason. I will definitely need to re-read all of Aristotle's works from the Organon, because they're clearly a goldmine; the goldmine just so happens to smell like freshly sown manure on a hot summer's day.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Continuing my Aristotelian kick, I went to these core texts on how we think about public speaking, debate, and art. This is the original "How to Win Friends and Influence People." And it is resoundingly good. Each text looks specifically at how we talk to each other. What makes an argument compelling or beautiful or logical? The human brain is something of a black box and Aristotle is translating how its unique mix of emotions, reasoning, and animal instincts work together in constructing identity, both for ourselves and for our ideas.

Posterior Analytics will require further study as I felt I didn't give it appropriate attention. In a sense, it would probably read easier almost as a mathematic textbook with illustrations and figures outlining his concepts. Aristotle created logic by carefully paying attention to details and demonstrating the first principles in any argument. It is not that humans did not engage in these questions prior to Aristotle. But his ability to outline everything concisely was really unmatched to that point in our history. Perhaps it hasn't been matched since?

Read more at https://znovels.blogspot.com/2022/04/...

[B.D.N. · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's one of those things... although Aristotle doesn't exactly fire me up philosophically speaking, it'd be ridiculous to not give this full marks. His genius is boundless, and it truly is staggering to think one man covered so much theoretical ground and did so over two thousand years ago. His rigor is exhausting, but also a large part of his appeal. I'm curious how source Aristotle laid out these concepts, because the lecture notes we have are insanely meticulous. This book is the foundation of Science as we think of it today.

Plus, I think Nous is a nifty concept that's one of Aristotle's more interesting devices– even if it is a bit controversial.

[Jairo Fraga · Rating 3 out of 5]

Vejo aqui algo como uma prévia de conhecimento a priori e à posteriori, que veio um bom tempo depois de Aristóteles.
Fala bem sobre as relações de causalidade, demonstrações, silogismos e categorizações deles.
Aristóteles dá uma breve noção do seu vasto conhecimento para a época, fala sobre diversos assuntos, como astronomia, geografia, geometria, biologia, etc.
Assim como nos analíticos anteriores, uma simbologia matematicamente adequada ajudaria muito na compreensão.

[Emre · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nedenin nedenini sorgularken o nedendeki nedenin neden orada ve ne şekilde, ne ile oluştuğunu inceliyor kısacası. Örnek vermek gerekirse bir üçgenin kaç kenarı var ve o kenarlar neyi ifade ediyor. Bilgiyi derinlemesine irdelerken bilginin elde ediliş biçimi olan deneyim, akıl ve tümevarım gibi kavramların yöntemlerini örneklendiriyor.

[Santiago González · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me ha encantado, vaya trabajo tan grande de Aristóteles fundando una teoría bastante sólida del conocimiento científico. Mucho más divertido que los analíticos primeros, lectura muy recomendada aunque tienes que tener conocimiento previo del resto de libros del Órganon

[Ekin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Çok kötü bir çeviri, tavsiye etmem.

[Andy Febrico Bintoro · Rating 4 out of 5]

If we compare to modern logic, perhaps we would found many weakness here, but it's undeniable that this book is a basic foundation to modern logic.

[Gabrielle John · Rating 4 out of 5]

well written, and very effective. Found a center with this. Aristotle specifically resonates with me.

[Juliana Knot]

Summer research

[Casss Macaulay · Rating 3 out of 5]

Que es esta mierda dios

[Caeparius]

c pas long et pourtant c bien chiant pff guez

[Jerome · Rating 4 out of 5]

Translations of Aristotle are a dime a dozen, but what makes this edition of Posterior Analytics worth having are the ~270 pages of commentary. Apostle is on of the most exacting translators of Aristotle, but not always the easiest to read. But in this logic text, clarity comes not from smooth prose, but from a solid commentary.

[Karl Hallbjörnsson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was huge for philosophy, I guess. Pretty dry and sometimes a pain to get through. Still, since scholars believe much of Ari's surviving work to be comprised of lecture notes and other scribbles, I've gotta cut the guy some slack. I've heard that his Metaphysics are better. So looking forward to that.

[Bread · Rating 5 out of 5]

more interesting to read than the prior analytics. discusses epistemology as well as logic, like if scientific knowledge rests on indemonstrable basic premises, how to determine the essence of a thing, knowledge of universals compared to particulars, etc

[Roger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not really something you "read". I finish what I start though.

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 3 out of 5]

Läsning 2: Lättare att förstå med mer erfarenhet, men i princip en ganska krävande text om kuskapsteori och bedömning av exempel och förklaringar.

Läsning 1: Svårgenomtränglig; tidvis informativ.