ARISTOTLE's THEORY OF DIVISION

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONAristotle's discussion of division is scattered over several texts. Aristotle's very way of dealing with division is afirst reason for this. Each time Aristotle talks about division he is content merely to deal with particular aspects of it as a method. In fact, either he rejects division insofar as a method of proof in APr B 31 and in APo B 5 , or he documents the connections between division and the hunting out of a definition in APo B 13, or he raises criticisms against a particular version of division in PA A 2-4. But Aristotle's full confidence in division as a method is a second reason for this. It is often said that Aristotle developed division as a method for the collection and the study of zoological data. This is true only in part: Aristotle, in fact, deals with division in non-zoological contexts and for non-zoological purposes as well. In Metaph. Z 12 Aristotle is concerned with the unity of definition, and he appeals to division because this method can help him to solve this particular definitional puzzle. In APo B 13 he exploits division and its properties to offer a solution to another definitional puzzle which undermines the possibility of giving any definition and which all extant Greek commentators ascribe to Speusippus.Even if Aristotle's discussion of division is so scattered, it provides us with a theory of division. A brief summary of the major results Aristotle obtains helps to make this point clear. In APo B 13 he focuses on the role that division plays in the search for a definition. Whatever this role is, it cannot be that of proving a definition. Both in APr A 31 and in APo B 5 Aristotle deals with the claim that division comes deductively to its conclusion, or that division proves the definition it reaches. He does not agree with this claim and explains why it cannot be. To argue that division has no inferential power Aristotle undertakes a formal analysis of the procedure through which a definition is obtained by division. On the other hand, PA A 2-4 is nothing but a presentation of his own method of *I use the following abbreviations: PA for Parts of Animals; APr for Prior Analytics; APo for Posterior Analytics; Metaph. for Metaphysics.APo B 13,97a6-22. One might claim that the way Aristotle's extant work has come to us is a third, external, reason which explains, at least in part, why Aristotle's discussion is scattered over several texts. In fact, all today's editions of Aristotle's work ultimately go back to Andronicus of Rhodes, who published the great edition o f Aristotle in the 1st century BC, and he probably had to make some arbitrary choices about where some of our texts were to be inserted. At least Metaph. Z 12 and PA A 2-4 seem to be relatively independent compositions. Metaph. Z 12 does not fit in the plan of Book Zeta as a whole. See on this point M. Frede and G. Patzig, Aristoteles. Metaphysik. Band II: Kommentar (Miinchen 1988) 221-223. On the other hand, PA A is clearly distinct from the rest of PA. This book is a collection of at least three independent...

The Function Argument in the Eudemian Ethics

“…5 Cf. Balme 1992, 104;Falcon 1997. Aristotle may be additionally motivated to adopt dichotomous division if his argument's target audience comprises Academics (argued below), who would be familiar with Plato's Sophist and Statesman.…”

Los géneros como efectos de sentido: para una semiótica de la cultura

“…Se podría reformular la instancia: los efectos de género actuarían como una suerte de mapa meta-enciclopédico que indica 14 Nos referimos, sobre todo, al Sofista, a las Categorías, a De Partibus Animalium I y a Metafisica, Z. En lo que respecta a la diairesis platónica, véase Moravcsik (1973) y Brown (2010); para la aristotélica, Falcon (1997); y para la crítica aristotélica a Platón en relación con esto, Zanatta (1989).…”

The Eleatic Stranger's Method in Aristotle's Ethics

“…23See also Balme (2003) 101–19 and Falcon (1997) concerning the issues of how Aristotle incorporates, criticises and develops the Platonic method of division.…”