To: cornelis
"
Although not exclusively empiricist. The short-cut rendered by the painter Raphael is one of focus, not method. Aristotle the scientist was also Aristotle the Ethicist."
There is no dissociation between empiricism and Ethics. You could still say that Aristotle was "not exclusively empiricist" in that he did he did believe that intuition was important for "understanding principles," something that is important to his work in Ethics, but
Aristotle's epistemology is thoroughly empirical, even to the point of arguing that art itself has its orgins in experience:
"
. . . from sensation memory is produced in some , not in others. therefore the former are more intelligent and apt at learning than those which cannot remember. [. . .] the human race lives by art and experience: and from memory experience is produced in men: for many memories of the same thing produce finally the capacity for a single experience [. . .] and art arises, when from many notions gained by experience one universal judgement about similar objects is produced
with a view to action experience seems in no respect inferior to art . . ."
To: StJacques; betty boop
You could still say that Aristotle was "not exclusively empiricist" in that he did he did believe that intuition was important for "understanding principles," something that is important to his work in Ethics, but Aristotle's epistemology is thoroughly empirical, You have two things going here, as did Aristotle.
Perhaps this "luminosity" of the phronimos is but a spiced-up euphemism for mere empirical intuitions?
I must say the sublimation of "empirical science" into an exclusive domain chartered by sense perception is a wonderful theft.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson