Filozofski vestnik | Letnik XXXVII | Številka 1 | 2016 | 27-52
Matteo Cosci*
In Which Sense is Intellective Knowledge Said to be "More True" Than Scientific Knowledge? A Problematic Comparison in Aristotle, An. Post. II 19
According to Aristotle, some forms of knowledge and their corresponding cognitive conditions (e^eiq) are always true, while others can be false.1 This remark comes out right near to the end of Posterior Analytics2, where it is said that "opinion" and "calculation" are potentially false, whereas "scientific knowledge" and "intellective knowledge" (eniar^^n and vovq) are always true3. These latter forms, both meet the condition for truthfulness, but intellective knowledge is said to be not only more accurate (äKpißearepov) than scientific knowledge, but also more true (äXnöearepov, in ioobii).
In this framework, then, a question that may arise is: in which sense is intellective knowledge said to be more true than scientific knowledge?
Before we attempt to answer this problematic question, or even explain why it is problematic, it may be helpful to start by citing the relevant text below, which is the famous conclusion of Aristotle's Analytics (in Barnes' version4 on Ross' edition5). Our two terms of comparison have been left untranslated, namely scientific knowledge and intellective knowledge, as, respectively, episteme and nous, for the sake of clarity:
Of the intellectual states by which we grasp the truth, some are always true and some admit falsehood (e.g. opinion and calculation do -whereas episteme and 27 nous are always true); and no kind <of knowledge> apart from nous is more ex-
1	A first version of this paper was presented at the University of Maribor on the occasion of "Aristotle's Posterior Analytics" conference (6'h Oct. 2015). I am grateful to the entire audience and in particular to Petter Sandstad for his detailed comments. Many thanks to Magdalene Beaver for her insightful revision of my text and to Matjaž Vesel for his careful editorial advice.
2	Aristot., Post. An. II, 19, ioob5-8.
3	As we know also from Aristot., Eth. Nic. VI, 3, 1139b14-36.
4	Barnes (1993) 74.
5	Ross (1964) 100b5-17.
* Ca' Foscari University of Venice
28
act [aKpißsaTspov] than episteme. Again, the principles of demonstrations are more familiar [yvupi^^repai], and all episteme involves an account [^erä Xöyov], Hence there will not be episteme of the principles; and since nothing apart from nous can be truer than episteme [äXnOearepov... emar^^n^ ^ vovv], there will be nous of the principles. This emerges both from our present inquiry and also because, just as demonstration is not a principle of demonstration, so episteme is not a principle of episteme. Thus if we have no other kind <of knowledge> apart from episteme, then nous will be the principle of episteme. And the principle will relate to the principle as episteme as a whole is related to its object as a whole6.
For a start, it can be noted here that intellective knowledge can be truer than scientific knowledge (evöexerai elvai: it is possible that it is, 100b 11-12), and it can be so solely in the case of comparison with scientific knowledge. Secondly, intellective knowledge is said to be truer via a process of elimination, since it is the only plausible remaining candidate, being an always-true form of knowledge, which has been left to compete for the role of starting-point of scientific knowledge.
Between the lines we can perhaps read a sort of argumentum ad absurdum: if
scientific knowledge were the starting-point of itself then it would certainly be independent and self-sufficient in its entireness, since it is an always-true form of knowledge as such. However, since scientific knowledge cannot be the starting-point of its own knowledge - it would be absurd to maintain such a statement. Scientific knowledge cannot prove its own principles since principles as such cannot be demonstratively proved. Therefore the starting-point of scientific knowledge must be something else, namely a different kind of knowledge that must satisfy the requirement of being always-true for the sake of the truth of science's deducted conclusions. The only alternative and always-true kind of knowledge is nothing else but nous. It seems right that for Aristotle only nous could aspire to be set as episteme's starting-point: not opinion, not calculation and not episteme itself. So, the elimination process which leads to isolate intellective knowledge is yet an important element to consider for assessing its asserted superior truth: nous is not said to be the most true thing in absolute terms, but it is said to be truer only in comparison to episteme. For noüs is superior only because, apparently, no other forms of knowledge can provide the truthfulness that episteme can already assure by itself (except for principles).
Aristot., Post. An. II, 19, ioob5-i7.
6
In other words, it seems on first impression that noüs is truer than episteme, because episteme needs it to be truer for its demonstrative purpose, and not because noüs needs to "impose" itself as truer, so to say, in order to master and rule over scientific knowledge, being itself a self-subsistent true form of knowledge.
Why the "more true"-qualification is problematic?
The differential truth between these two forms of knowledge needs some more clarification, since both scientific knowledge and intellective knowledge are said to be always true. In a strong sense, "always true" means that their truth-value, if they are actual scientific or intellective knowledge7, is necessarily true in every case and it does not change over time. We should note here that the Aristotelian conception of science, and the ancient one in general, is very different from the modern, "fallibilist" idea of scientific inquiry. For the Greeks, if what is known is emar^^n ("what is stable and firm")8, then it should be irrevocably and permanently true, because its object stays the same and can never change: so when the object of emar^^n turns out to be demonstrated, a geometrical theorem for instance, it will be true once and for all. Similarly, intellective knowledge is a cognitive state that, when it comes to actuality (ev evepyeia), guarantees ipso facto permanent truth as well9.
Why, then, is intellective knowledge said to be "truer" (aXndtarepov, in ioobii) than scientific knowledge? Why not some other, less compromising qualification, for instance, "more concise"? The comparison that we can find in the final lines of paragraph 19 is really surprising for the reader because it comes to be set
Aristotle considers also the case in which we can reach some "accidental" knowledge (e.g. when the knowledge of the conclusion is more sound than the knowledge of the principles from which that conclusion has been inferred) but in this case we are not dealing with actual emar^^n. Aristotelian emar^^n seems to be never accidental. Cf. Aristot., Eth. Nic.
VI, 3, ii39b34-36.
Cf. "what one can have emar^^n of is that which cannot be otherwise". Burnyeat (i978) 98. Some, as for example McKirahan, maintain that these states are not always infallible because we are not always aware that what we have is actual science or actual intellection. I am not very persuaded by this point because each understanding seems to come together with the self-awareness (avvalaOnatq) of having that knowledge, otherwise it would not be useful as such. However this interpreter is also disposed to concede that "if we have vov^ or emar^^n of p, then necessarily p is true". McKirahan (i992) 239.
29
8
between two states which are both considered, let us say, 100% true, and that in theory are both always and necessarily true.
It is not just a terminological issue, since the adjective aXnOearepov is even more controversial with Aristotle's Principle of Excluded-Middle in mind. The Principle of Excluded-Middle (Metaph. r 7), basically denies the existence of an intermediate degree of truth. As the Latins translated it: "tertium non datur", no third option is given between truth and falsity. Most importantly, this principle does not exclusively apply to propositional logic10. Aristotle applies the Principle of Excluded-Middle to both scientific knowledge and to intellective knowledge, as we can conclude also from the process of the so-called "intellection of indivisibles" in De An. III 6 and Metaph. & 10 (where, I maintain, the indivisibles mentioned there and their features are the same kinds of object as the principles mentioned at the end of Analytics)11. In this regard, we can only attain the truth as a mental, direct catch or firm grasp. The case of a "missed grasp" öiyyaveiv) of those objects of understanding is neither falsity nor a partial truth, but nothing except ignorance (ayvoia), which is not a third truth-value, but a total absence of knowledge. So both actual science and actual intellection must be infallible, and plain "truth" is the one and the same truth-value they necessarily can have. How is it then that having vovq of p is said to be even "truer" than having eniar^^n of p?
To further clarify the issue, it is worth noting here Schlick's recent words: "nous is more exact and more true than demonstrative knowledge, but how can it ever be that something is more exact and true above every other thing? When something is true and we know it, then, as it is expected, this is also exact, but from that point onwards any increase is not possible. By itself, a comparative of "true" 30 does not seem reasonable to be as such12. Moreover, as it has been noticed, there
Cf. dalla Valeria (2009).
On this point see Berti (1978) 141-163.
In a footnote here, Schlick (2011) 200, n. 414, takes correctly in consideration the case of Metaph. r 4, 1008b34-36, where Aristotle points out that those who say less falsity turn out to say more true, e.g. those who confuse number 4 instead of 5, make a minor mistake in comparison to those confuse 5 with 1000. Just two considerations: in this case, we are neither on the level of intellective knowledge nor on the level of scientific one, but on the level of calculation, which, as stated, can be false. Secondly, here we are speaking of degrees of falsity or error, not of degrees of truth (which for Aristotle comes always without degrees). Third, in the expression "saying more true" (^äXXav äXnöeveiv), "more" should
10
11
12
could be some cases in which it is possible to have true knowledge both by means of nous and by means of demonstrative proof, and in these cases proof should be preferred. If, then, nous is superior to proven science, as it has been noticed as well, it is not so because its knowledge is preferable in every cases"13.
We will now briefly take into consideration five different accounts found in recent literature about the specific meaning of aXnOtarepov, arguing that they are not fully satisfactory answers, and then offer five alternative points in order to explain in which sense intellective knowledge is said to be "more true" than scientific knowledge by Aristotle.
Five solutions proposed (and dismissed)
1.	One solution has been proposed by the seminal Lesher's article14, who takes "more true" to mean "more informative": "Some propositions - he writes -may be more informative (disclose more information or conceal less, than others, and hence be aX^dtaxEpov)"^5. But it is hard to maintain that simple intuitions could bring us a higher quantity of information compared to long-structured demonstrations.
2.	Biondi's commentary of these lines refers to the heideggerian etymological meaning of "aX^Oearepov", saying that "in Greek aX^Oearepov poses no problem and makes sense because, as the etymology of the term shows, it means uncovered, unhidden, revealed. Therefore, the notion of uncovering more or less of the truth is possible and one can speak of one piece of knowledge being truer than another".16 But, again, it seems implausible that Aristotle drew upon an etymological meaning so different from the common one without making us aware. Moreover, it is not clear why the suggested superior uncoveredness of intellective knowledge should be more revealing in
be applied to 'saying' and not to 'true'. (Cf. "The few times that Aristotle uses 'mallon' to modify 'alethes' or 'aletheuein' the adverb definitely has a rather loose sense, sometimes equivalent to 'more like'". van Rijen (1988) 112). I have discussed this passage in Cosci
(2014) 69-77.
Schlick (2011) 200. My transl. Lesher (1973), 64, n.2. Ibid.
Biondi (2004) 64.
31
13
14
15
32
comparison to scientific knowledge. If principles are self-evident truths once they are understood, what could intellect ever add in term of uncoveredness to their self-evidence?
3.	Unsatisfied by similar, current solutions, Bechler wrote: "how to explain Aristotle's declaration that noüs is more true and more exact than episteme and is, like episteme, 'unfailingly true'17? For instance, Modrak asks this but provides only the lame answer that this is what Aristotle believed18. A better direction seems to be that all concepts "from abstraction" are obtained in the inductive process (epagoge) by constructions that consist in the progressive suppression of properties according to need. It is only by being constructs that they can be maximally true, absolutely certain and exact"19. The problem with this interpretation is that inducted concepts are not "constructed" in any intentional way "according to need", i.e. there is no deliberate control over the way in which universals emerge from reiterated memories and experiences. The simplification process mentioned here is beyond the subject's power, since for Aristotle, there must be an objective procedure. Moreover, it is not very clear in which sense the suppression of unessential properties should determine a superior truth. Was not scientific knowledge about what is essential as well?
4.	Bäck has a turn and en passant refers aXnOearepov to the operation of the intellect itself, saying that "the truer the apprehension, the better the demon-stration"20. It may be objected that such a mental status does not come in degrees, nor does apprehension of the principles seem to be a matter of levels of understanding. For, the term "apprehension" comes from the Greek word ävr^x^f^q that means a single grasp, so it is not clear how a single, conceptu-
The reference here is to Post.An. 99b27; ioob6, 8, 12. Modrak (1987) 175.
Bechler (1995) 228, n.2. Emphasis added. The excerpt follows in this way: "This would explain why epagOge is not a generalization process (Hamlyn (1976) 167-180), why even
one case may suffice for it (e.g. 'Callias', in 1oob2), and why Aristotle is not bothered by any Humean inductive doubt (Modrak (1987) 174-175)". Ibid. Even if this specification might explain why concepts acquired by induction are true, it leaves unanswered why for Aristotle they should be regarded as truer than analogous concepts proved by demonstration
(where there is no generalization, where one proof suffices, and where there is no room for epistemic doubt as well). Bäck (1999) 176.
17
18
19
al grasp may come swiftly but little-by-little. (Additionally, &vr'iXnf'iq is not an Aristotelian term, but was probably introduced with this technical meaning of "intuitive apprehension" later, by Alexander of Aphrodisias).
5. Among all the solutions proposed, the Late-ancient interpretation is to be avoided the most, as those shared by Ammonius, Pseudo-Philoponus, Syr-ianus21 and many other concordistic commentators. Late platonic philosophers defended not only the higher (self)evidence of the principles, but also their ontological priority, i.e. their superior degree of (noetic) being, mantain-ing, with Plato and against Aristotle, that principles are encoded as a-priori truths in our psychic background since the moment of soul's coming to be, rather than acquired by perception during one's own life22. Their interpretation usually ended up with considering the vovq as a sort of superior faculty of sudden intuition, like a deep enlightenment or inner insight with a share with the divine, that regards the intellections of major truths as a sort of me-ta-epistemic illumination or even recollection of rather mystical, transcendent Principles. Plutarch even wrote that intellection was a sort of "lightening flash" that for Aristotle, as well as for Plato, allows to attain the pure truth of what is first "like it happens in a mystery initiation"23.
For better or for worse, this is simply not Aristotle's approach and considering such a conceptual shift, it is clear how much the original Aristotelian theory of intellective knowledge was altered and re-worked.
Unlike such a Neoplatonic trend, 1 would rather argue that Aristotelian scientific knowledge and intellective knowledge share always one and the same truth-value, i.e. there are not different degrees of truth among intellection and science for Aristotle. 1n what follows, 1 will maintain that the meaning of "aXnOearepov" is not about different degrees of truth, but different degrees of accuracy in the sense of the word "äKpißearepov" will have, and, finally, different capacity of entailing (the same "degree" of) truth.
33
Cf. Longo (2005) 198-199.
Cf. Sorabji (2010).
Plut., Mor. (De Is. et Osir. 77), 382d4-e2.
21
In which sense is intellective knowledge said to be "more true" than scientific knowledge? Five Answers
In what follows, five answers are proposed to the question about the meaning of aXnOearepov, which is said of intellective knowledge. Although I consider all of them somehow concurrently explicative, the fifth answer was probably what Aristotle most had in mind when he wrote his conclusion, as some parallel passages proves. In the last paragraph I will advance some final considerations about the asserted "major" truth as related to time of understanding.
1. More exact because of its unitary object. As Aristotle argues, on one hand there cannot be any scientific knowledge of first principles, because scientific knowledge is constituted by conclusions obtained through valid demonstrative inferences, whose principles are already given and acquired. On the other hand, intellective knowledge reaches exactly those first principles which are required by every science in order to start its demonstrative processes and gain its conclusions. So there cannot be any scientific knowledge of the principles, as said, because scientific knowledge is just about demonstrative inferences and deductive processes, whose first principles are by their own nature not subject to demonstrations (unless falling into fallacies of circular proofs), while intellective knowledge truthfully provides those principles required in order to start the demonstrative proofs24.
34
Our first angle is that intellective knowledge can be "more true" due to its alleged superior accuracy, since this is the standard meaning of äKpißeq in its reference as well25. We should now follow this parallel track, for most of the times that Aristotle uses the word "true" (äX^dtc) as a comparative adjective,
"[...] because the principle of demonstration cannot be demonstration, in the same way neither could <the principle> of scientific knowledge be scientific knowledge". Aristot., Post. An., II, 19, ioobi2-i4.
"We can begin by noticing the connection between akribeia and truthfulness. There is not an English translation of akribeia that does it justice in all contexts. Usually it is translated as 'precision' or 'exactitude', though in Nic.Eth. VI.7 Ross translates the adjective as 'finished'. The word does have both the sense of perfection and of precision. Something is akribes when it is rendered to absolute perfection, with neither too much nor too little. And 'in general, - as Barnes says - being akribes seems to amount (vaguely enough) to being of good epistemic quality'". Lear (2005) 103-104.
24
25
he makes so in hendiadys with adjectives meaning exactitude or precision, as in this case (ioob9)26, so that "aXnOearepov" and "äKpißearepov" can be considered synonyms27, for a higher realization of truth implies a higher degree of accuracy, rather than the opposite, since there is no need to make reference to different levels of truth as such, nor to ontological differences between them, in accordance with the Aristotelian Principle of Excluded-Middle.
Some hint in this direction can come from few lines before, right when Aristotle wrote that sense-perception could not be more honourable, i.e. more trustworthy, in terms of precision (ri^iurepa Kar'äKp^ßelav)^8 in respect of the gnoseological states that will follow. We may argue then, that the äKp^ßela of the knowledge provided by a certain state (and, correspondingly, its trustworthiness) is what determines its ranking among others.
If, as previously said, the etymology of aX^dtq does not help us much in comprehending the comparison between intellective and scientific knowledge, maybe then the etymology of its associate qualification, akin to it, may tell something more about the presumed intensification of understanding involved. For it is the case that the etymology of the adjective äKpißeq has different and curious layers of antecedent meaning, all of which somehow survive in the background in its classical acceptation of "exact".
On one hand, the first part of the word (äKp-) almost certainly came from the adjective äKpoc;-. the highest, the topmost, the summit29, while on the other hand the second part of the word (-iß) perhaps came from e'ißeiv (with itac-ism), an ancient or epic form for Xelßeiv (cf. Latin libare). to pour, to spill. So,
All the cases when this happens have been taken in consideration in Cosci (2014): 215-132. Plato had already linked these concepts together (e.g. Phil. 58c 2-3), without implying any particular difference between them.
Also from a psychological point of view, "Aristotle says that, for each part of the rational soul, the virtue [sc. the excellence] of each part is the state by which one is most of all truthful (^aXiara äX^devaei; ii39bi3). But how do we determine which state this is? Aristotle says that of all the good states of theoretical reason, philosophical wisdom (aofla) turns out to be its proper virtue because it is äKpißearärn (most äKpiß^q) (1141^16). This suggests, then, that akribeia is a mark of truthfulness". Lear (2005) 104. Aristot., Post.An., II, 19, 99b33-34.
"The sense points to äxpoq as first part of the word". Liddell-Scott (1940) 52, s.v. "axpiß^q, eq".
35
26
27
28
36
as first suggested Schwyzer30, its most concrete meaning might came from the action of äKpoq plus eißeiv, namely "pouring from above" or "pouring up to the edge", maintaining that this action was performed up to the right level, for example in a cup filled with water or wine just up to its brim: nothing more and nothing less, but collimating the content with the container31. The consequent idea of a full level completion that is "nothing too much" but "just full enough"32 might have come came from this image of accurate pouring of liquid until saturation.
An alternative etymology of äKpißeq reads it as a compound of aKpiiq), "mountain top", in dative-locative, and ß^vai, "to go", so originally it would have meant the act of reaching the highest peak of a mountain33. If this is rather the ancient origin of the word34, then the original sense of exactness would be the one of making the grade to the top, amounting to the highest and most strategic level (of vision, of control, of understanding), after having full-filled the climbing or the hike uphill, where no further ascension is possible, but just completeness and accomplishment.
In both etymological cases, when applied to qualify forms of linguistic expression, äKpißeq described an essential and dry style, usually linked with scientific attitude for unambiguous references, with no more words than necessary (cf. äKplßoXoy^a, "rigorous precision"). What happened next was that over time this adjective was used more and more to denote exactness, precision, accuracy and even perfection, especially in dialectical-philosophical contexts35. To put it in Lesher's words, it meant nothing less than "to speak in the 'highest', most refined, most polished or exact manner"36. Finally the verb äKpißöu), in its absolute meaning, for Aristotle already meant "to be exact, to correspond exactly"37. Correspondence means perfectly fitting the words
Schwyzer (1922) 12-13. Chantraine (1977) 51.
Hence also the documented meaning of äKpißeq as "parsimonious", i.e. not dissipating, not exceeding the measure. Cf. Adrados-Somolinos (2012). Tichy (1977).
Beekes-van Beek (2009) 56 s.v. 'äKpiß^q, eq'. Cf. Kayser (1974). Lesher (1973) 63, n. 50.
As registered by Liddell-Scott (1940) 52 s.v. (3). Cf. Kurz (1970).
on the essences of the things, matching item to item without adjustments, approximation or vague "empty space". So the idea of "full-top" survives underneath relating to intellective knowledge, the most precise knowledge.
As said, intellective knowledge deals with the understanding of principles of demonstrations (al apxal r&v anoS£li,£Uiv) and the principles of demonstrations, being on the top of demonstrative chains, bring about more knowledge overall, not because they are "more informative", but because many dependent consequences are drawn from them, with a sort of waterfall effect. In addition, Aristotle states that the principles of demonstrations are "yvwpi^^repai", meaning not only that they are "better known" than demonstrations in virtue of their simpler structure, but also that they are "better known" "by nature", i.e. just in virtue of their own unqualified nature (their being änXüc;, even if enmattered). "Better known" in themselves also means that they are epis-temologically prior38. Therefore, principles turn out to be more explanatory, since they state some general claims which are relevant for all the cases they encompass. For example, principles like definitions (on which demonstrations often depend), are necessary to develop and deductively explain many and different following cases39. Additionally, from an operative point of view, the knowledge of premisses should be more clear and precise than something which is not yet known but should derive its truth from those starting-points.
Precision and clarity (aaf^v£^a), after all, were synonyms as well not only for Plato40 but also for Aristotle, as he explicitly writes41 that what is more pre-
"Since the supreme or first principles within a given discipline are the basis on which the truth of all the other principles can be proven (and thereby known in in the most scientific sense of 'knowledge'), they can be said to be 'better known' or 'epistemological prior' to all the conclusions that can be deduced from them, even though our knowledge of them is not prior in time". Lesher (2010) 149. Cf. "One science is more precise (äKpißearepa) than another and [or: i.e.] prior to it (nporepa) both if it is at the same time of the fact and of the reason why...". Aristot., Post.An. I, 27, 87^31-32.
From an epistemological point of view "only if the foundations are secure will whatever derives from them be secure; and any security which the derived truths possess must be derivative of the security of the foundations. This indeed is the sense in which they must be more secure - yvupi^^repai: 'better known' or perhaps even 'more cognitive' - than what they support". Hankinson (2011) 38.
In Plato's Philebus, Socrates proposed a sort of ranking of the kinds of pleasure based on their greater or lesser precision and clarity (55c-59d). Aristot., Top., II, 4, 111^8-9.
37
38
39
40
matteo cosci
cise, is what it is, "by nature", more clear. For, as Lesher correctly points out, Aristotle speaks of things that are "'clear in themselves'' [rfi fvaei aaffi\ in so far as they are the basic elements and causes whose identification enables us to define the essential nature of things, identify the connections that hold among their attributes, and thereby know them in the fullest and most proper sense of 'know'" - being this evidently the case of the principles - and then he added that "Aristotle also speaks of... achieving 'precision' (to aKpißeq) and giving a aafecTepov or 'more precise (or detailed)' account on some topic"42, validating in this way the semantic affinity that was pursued here.
On the other hand, Lesher's exegesis translates aKpißecTepov as "most exact", but not in the sense of accuracy, rather in the sense of what is "most in possession of its first principles"43, and this requires some further explanation.
The problem of this interpretation is that if we take the comparison (set by the comparative adjective) as "being (more) in possession of (its own) first principles", then this is a criterium which is not equally applicable to our two terms of comparison, namely intellective knowledge and scientific knowledge. For, scientific knowledge has and makes use of demonstrative principles for its operativity, whereas intellective knowledge is the possession of demonstrative principles. "Being in possession of (some) demonstrative principles" is a requisite which is mandatory for scientific knowledge in order to work as such, i.e. demonstratively, while "being in possession of (demonstrative) principles" is intellective knowledge as such44, and not simply a requisite or its point of arrival, since it is a status "on act" rather than a process.
38
Providing a couple of parallel passages about the use of the adjective äKpißeq as a superlative or as a comparative of majority, Lesher reminds us that Aristotle previously wrote that sciences which possess the greatest äKp^ßela (in respect to others) are those which proceed from first principles or from as near to them as possible (Post. An. I, 24, 86a 13-21) and that the closer they are to principles, the more rigorous (äKpißeaTaTai) they are (Metaph., A, 2, 982a
42	Lesher (2010) 155.
43	Ibid. 63. This view is shared also by Balthussen (2007) 59.
44	Cf. "vavq is one and the same thing with what is universal (the vonTov)". Couloubaritsis (1980) 470.
25-26). But Lesher's reference is not fully satisfactory since this criterium is at play between demonstrative sciences in those cases, while for the case under study here we should take a comparison in terms of a higher äKp^ßela between, for instance, the knowledge of a geometrical theorem (demonstrative) and the knowledge of a geometrical axiom (intellective), and not between the precision of two different sciences. However it still remains valid that working on a more theoretical and formal level is symptom of a higher scientificity, at least because there are an inferior number of particular variables to account for. So if we apply this criterium to our comparison, higher precision would perhaps mean to master a kind of knowledge with a minor error rate, or with a lower susceptibility to error. In the case of intellective knowledge, this would always be equal to zero (or, if not reached, ayvoia of principles).
This consideration leads us to the main argument regarding the aXnOtarepov's aKpißearepov explanation. Intellective knowledge is more precise than scientific knowledge because its object of understanding is simple, immediate and unitary. In fact, science requires middle-terms, causal inquiries, inferential swerves and, most distinctively, it needs more than one element - at last two premisses and one conclusion. With many elements, the risk of error could be just around the corner. Instead, intellective knowledge works with just one element at a time: for instance one definition, one axiom, one universal quantification, etc.45 Mistake will be practically and theoretically impossible here, because Aristotle claims that to have a cognitive in-sight of a certain essence does not leave any room for error, but simply and without any fault shows its "what it is" or "what applies to all and every case" (or, in case of missed understanding, it leaves just a blank mind in its regard). One intellective perception is for one simple, undivided and indemonstrable item, so to say, with a 1:1 focus, therefore it necessarily turns out to be congruent and straightforward. The link between precision and simplicity is clear when Aristotle states that being able to detect and isolate simple and unitary elements within a composite framework (e.g. what is the point within the solid) is proper only to some uncommon and precise (äKpißovc) intelli-
39
Moreover major simplicity means major abstractability. Cf. Granger (2000) 301; 313, who noted that abstractability of the object is what allows the clear distinction of the principles and their exactness.
gence4^. So it has been suggested47 that this understanding is more accurate because, for Aristotle, it is more analytical, that is to say that it is more able to discern those aspects which are more essential (hence more universal) and more elementary (and so no more reducible) of some object of knowledge. In this sense, intellective power is the faculty which is most able to disassemble phenomenal multiplicity and empirical complexity into their invariant constitutive elements, not only for the sake of cognitive economy, but also and most importantly to avoid infinite regress in causal inquiry. Moreover, always regarding the exactness/simplicity correlation, in Metaphysics M Aristotle adds that:
As much more prior and simple things (nporepuv... Kai änXovarepuv) will be object <of knowledge>, as much more <such knowledge> will have exactness (^äXXov exsi TO äKpißec,), in fact this is simplicity (to knXovv),48
40
Cognitive exactness derives from its focus on the simplicity of undivided, no-composed items (Tä äy.£pfi), which can be detected and recognized, at the end of a long inductive process, as unitary and self-integrated notions. Increasing the precision of understanding (äKpißeaTepav) simply means tending towards a more accurate and rigorous definition of what-is-not-many, that must be uniquely as it only is. The whole inductive process can be described in terms of tendency towards unity, and intellection can be regarded as the last tone of a (chronologically) antecedent gnoseological continuum. Once the unity/exactness of our understanding is reached, for Aristotle, we have infallibility, which we have also in so far as we reach the conclusion of a scientific demonstration once it is proved. The difference is that, along the process of acquisition, the former guarantees by itself a minor chance of error in virtue of the nature of the specific object of its cognition49. There-
Aristot., Top. VI, 4, 141b13. Cf. Detel (1998) 169-172.
Cf. Rev. Ox. transl.: "In proportion as we are dealing with things which are prior in formula and simpler, our knowledge will have more accuracy, i.e. simplicity". Aristot., Metaph. M,
3, 1078^9-11.
Cf.: "the simpler things are, the less room there is for error, and so the greater the chance of precise and certain knowledge". Annas (1976) 150. And also: "the degree of exactness of a certain science depends on the simplicity of its object and on the [conceptual] priority of its corresponding notion in respect to the notions of other sciences' objects". Zanatta (2009) 1801, n.61. My transl.
46
47
48
fore I suspect that the asserted higher truth of intellective knowledge prima facie depends on a higher accuracy with which it necessarily understands its unitary object. However it has to be specified that higher truth does not mean superior truth as such, but inferior prospect of error in the process of reaching that cognitive status if compared to science (as long as abstraction stays true along the road towards principles from its starting sensations and their stabilisation and consolidation through memories and experiences).
Once we have knowledge of principles, then it will surely be sharper and more clear-cut than a step-by-step processual articulation. Scientific knowledge is a process which always comes together with some discourse or reasoning (^era Xoyov), while intellective knowledge, apparently, is more direct and immediate, so that - we might say - the processuality of science is mediated by middle-terms, and so less straight-to-the-point in comparison to a single act of understanding performed by intellective knowledge.
2. Higher certainty, higher conviction. The kind of knowledge requested in order to understand the principles should not only be more precise, but also more secure and reliable than the kind of knowledge which makes a consequent use of those principles. Intellective knowledge then should be correct not only in itself (in so far as it is, as it necessarily is, true knowledge), but also should be such in relation to the latter form of knowledge. This is because scientific knowledge is fundamentally dependent on it, both for its coming to be and for its truthfulness50. For the truth of demonstrations depends on the truth of premisses, so that the comprehension of principles must be more certain and more sound than demonstrative knowledge itself.
However, reliability is a normative standard requested just a parte subjec-ti. Furthermore, it is not an intrinsic property of principles, nor of cognitive understanding that they entail just because of themselves (as for instance Descartes would have desired). Nonetheless, since intellective knowledge is meant to be a stable psychic condition of discriminative understanding, what Aristotle seems to claim is that it is the most discriminative condition, or, at least, that it is more discriminative than the one constituted by the
"There is such a deduction in so far as these items - the premisses from which it preceeds -are the case". Aristot., Pr.An. I, 2, 72^26.
41
status that we are in when we have scientific knowledge (which, anyway, is almost the maximum that we can attain). It remains undeniable however that the evidence that intellective knowledge and scientific knowledge can respectively provide has the same "epistemic weight" since both of them are knowledge au pair51, even if their ways of comprehension are different.
Difference in the kind of provided evidence can be found between these two forms of knowledge, but not between the truth of their contents. On one hand, there is a difference in the certainty that is required in their understandings and, on the other hand, in the conviction that they can provide once they are reached. So it is not just a matter of knowledge as such, but also of reliability in regard of such knowledge. Trustworthiness and conviction are requirements that, for Aristotle do not merely need to be satisfied from a theoretical point of view, but are in fact guaranteed by principles because of the inductive ground on which they are permanently built. So their being äXnöearepov also depends on their being more trustworthy and convincing (niarörepov) than every other thing, because they have their remote and uninterrupted origin in the empirical world via perception52.
42
In Post An. I, 2, 72a 25-29, we are informed that conviction comes to us mainly via (syllogistic) proofs, but, even more, it should come via what guarantees demonstrative proofs, namely principles, which must be even more known, i.e. known in advance (npoyiyv^aKsiv ... y.äXXov)53. Everything that we know for sure and that we are irrefutably convinced about, is persuasively in our possession because of what stays upstream in the inferential process, namely principles. Consequently, it is genuinely unavoidable that principles turn out to be, as for Aristotle should be, what is simpliciter better known and more convincing (la^ev re Kal marevo^ev ^äXXov)54.
Someone who is demonstratively persuaded of something (or who is going to deductively reach his comprehension of some thing) must have-Aristotle says -
Cf.: "When we comprehend an indemonstrable principle as a generalization from specific
instances, we have an understanding of that truth which parallels the understanding we have through demonstration". Modrak (1981) 74. Emphasis mine.
Cf. Bronstein (2012) 29-62.
Ibid. 28-29. See my point n. 4 below for this meaning of ^äXXov. Ibid. 31-32.
51
52
a better understanding of the principles (^aXXov yvup^ZElv) on a cognitive level and be better convinced of them (^äXXov niareveiv) on a psychological level than in respect of everything will ever follow from that. For him, nothing else can be more known and more convincing than the understanding guaranteed by a firm grasp on the principles55. The subject of such strong comprehension cannot be persuaded to change his mind for any dialectical or scientific reason, once they are understood as true. True principles entail a higher, right conviction. This is a fundamental element in understanding why, from a subject's perspective, their knowledge is said to be äX^Oearepov.
3. A more leading and orientative knowledge. Aristotle probably attributes the qualification of äX^Oearepov to intellective knowledge in an analogous manner to the way when, at the beginning of Metaphysics, he attributes a higher gnoseological status to art (rexvn) in respect of bare expertise (e^neipla). He wrote: "we are persuaded that the master-workers in each craft are more honourable and know in a more authentic sense (y.äXXov elSevai) and are wiser than the manual workers, because they know the reasons for the things that are done"56. So those technicians who are "more architectural" (äpxireKxovaq), i.e. those who hold head-positions of higher management, were well regarded as they had to be more honourable (ny-iurepovc) and more wise (aofwrepovq) than executors57. And that happens even if, on a practical level (only), the latter may seem to be more often successful in solving some episodical problems because of their skilled acquaintance with particulars. Nonetheless, the former, thanks to their unbiased and more general knowledge, are closer to actual wisdom (aofla). They have a better understanding of why they are doing what they do. They are more aware of the cause of their effects and the final aim of their efforts is probably clearer to them, since they are more used to dealing with universal issues rather than with particular ones58. Because of that, they are also able to teach and master what they
Cf.: "This connection between the knowable (familiar) and the convincing is significant... It
points... to a corresponding difference of cognitive state between the man who has the conviction which comes from a grasp of first principles and the man whose conviction rests on
experience". Burnyeat (1978) 127-128. Conviction can come also from scientific conclusions, but for Aristotle the principles of any true conclusion are always more convicting as such. Aristot., Metaph., A, 1, 980^24-29. Ibid., 980^31- 981b1.
Cf. Cambiano (2012) 17-20.
43
55
56
57
know59. Similarly here, the knowledge of principles is said to be äXnöearepov than scientific knowledge, as there, 1 guess, architectural art was more likely said to be aofwrepovq or ^aXXov eiSevai than practical expertise. The proportion is the same, because the "master-workers" turn out to be more leading and directive than the "manual workers", because the content of knowledge that they have is more general and unbound from immediate practicality. When compared to intellection, demonstrative ability can be regarded as a form of "practicality" too. Moreover, the similarity follows also the fact that the former is what enables demonstration and teaching, being itself the reason from which derivative forms of knowledge, e.g. sciences, proceed60. Following this analogy, we may say that intellective knowledge with its truth is "more architectural", namely more "hierarchically upper-ordered", than scientific knowledge itself.
4. The Rule of the Comparative. 1n order to understand the comparison raised by the adjective äXnöearepov, we should also keep in mind the so called "rule of the comparative". When Aristotle makes a comparison and in particular when he says that something is "more" than something else, he can intend the comparison in two different ways. For, as he stated in his Protrepticus, the comparison could be meant to point out either a difference of ontological degree (i.e. something is "more X" than something else, if the former exhibits a higher intensity of being X), or, as here, the comparison should be regarded in terms of conceptual priority or logical antecedence (i.e. something is "more X" than something else if, in respect to X, the former comes first from an ax-iological point of view than the latter)61.
44
Aristot., Metaph., A, 1, 981^7-10.
As Wians said, "one must surely agree that for Aristotle the main task of the teacher lay in imparting a deeper grasp of principles", and that is possible because the teacher, as it is expected for being one who knows his subject, already has understood the principles of his science and master them with confidence. Wians (1989) 250.
"This adverb [^aXXov] means 'more' and points out a difference in quantity or intensity when it refers to some predicates which are said of different subjects according to an always identical definition (univocal predication), while it means 'rather' and opposes a certain true and proper sense (äXnOüq Kai Kvptuq) [e.g. "being good" said of the healthy/"be-ing true" said of intellective knowledge of principles] to some other derivative and less strict senses when it is referred to some predicates which are said of many subjects in different ways, but with reference to a common meaning (analogical predication) ["being good" said of a healthy diet, a healthy habit, etc./"being true" as said of scientific proof,
59
60
61
For we use "more" (^äXXov) not only in respect of excess in things for which there is a single definition, but also in respect of what is prior and posterior; for example, we say that the healthy is "more good" than the things that are conductive to health, and that what is valuable by its own nature is "more a good" than what is productive of it.
The healthy (being healthy), Aristotle says, is "more good" in respect of healthy things, i.e. things that are only instrumentally healthy (for instance, a healthy diet), not because health as such exhibits a more intense degree of goodness (as Plato may have maintained), but rather because it comes first from a conceptual point of view, namely because healthy things are said so ("healthy") just paronymically in reference to health, that is essentially good, so that also their "being good" is dependent on the conceptually antecedent being good of the health. So, health as such is said to be "more good" than healthy things, because it is good in a non-derivative way, and so does its self-subsisting definition. This comparative rule should count for our problem too, since the pattern at play is the same. In fact, among the things that are said to be true, intellective knowledge of the principles is "more true" than demonstrative knowledge, not because the former exhibits a higher degree of truth, but because it is more conductive to truth (in the sense specified before), coming first from a logical point of view being the truth of the premisses antecedent to the truth of the conclusion. Therefore, "more" does not specify here any increase of intensity of being, but only conceptual antecedence. In this sense, "more true" can be explained as meaning "both true and conceptually prior"62.
5. The Principle of Causal Synonymy. According to another concurrent Aristotelian principle, as Lesher noticed63, something is more of- or to a greater 45 degree an X, when it is the reason why (a/r/a) other things possess the prop-
of a certain evidence, etc.]. Protrepticus' text [as the one quoted below] reminds us that, in this latter case, different attributions of one common predicate are those meant by priority-posteriority relations". de Strycker (1969) 303. My transl.
The argument from exactness can also be reduced to the present one, as Barnes (1993) 190 said: "The criteria <for comparative exactness> are held together, in a loose way, by the notion of priority (cf. 87^31)". Cf. Lesher (1973) 63-64.
62
46
erty of X (An. Post. I, 2, 72a 29-30; 72a 37-b4; Metaph. a, 1, 993^ 24-26)64. It is the principle that will be famous under the Scholastic label: "propter quod alia, id maximum tale". For example, Aristotle says, the element of fire is the most hot thing, because, directly or indirectly, it is the cause of "being hot" of all the other things which share the property of "being hot", so the element of fire can be identified with the hot as such. Technically speaking, the synonym predication that is common to both the terms of comparison is superior -superior because prior - in that term that is the-cause-of that very same predication in the other. So intellective knowledge can be said to be "truer" than scientific knowledge because intellective knowledge is the reason why demonstrative knowledge is what it is, namely true. In fact intellection provides principles to science and scientific conclusions can be said to be true in virtue of their true principles and not the other way round65. Intellective knowledge is "more cause of truth" than science and, finally, in this sense it is said to be aXnOearepov. I maintain so in force of the fact, that An. Post. II 19 should be read as a parallel of Metaph. a 1 (where the notion of being a higher cause of truth comes from)66. There Aristotle is speaking about the relation between (intellected) premisses and (demonstrated) conclusion, and not, as many philosophers thought (such as Alexander, Averroes, Aquinas among others)67, about the relation between the heavenly movers of celestial bodies and celestial bodies themselves. For, in Metaph. a 1 Aristotle wrote: "the most true thing is that what is the cause of the being truth of the consequent things (aXndiararov to toI^ varepoi^ [i.e. conclusions] ainov rov aX^Oemv elvai)"68. That is causal priority in the sense of causal and conceptual antecedence69. As in An.Post., the premisses are said to be more true (or even the truest) than what follows from them. Moreover, the premisses are said to be more cause of truth than the conclusions, because the conclusion has the property of "truth" just in virtue of the property of "being true" that premisses "share"
64
65
Cf. Hankinson (2001) 125-200. Cf. also Lloyd (1976) 146-156.
Cf. "<For Aristotle> principles are the most elementary components of theorems, so they
are truer or true in the highest grade too, because the truth of theorems depends on the
truth of the principles (cf. Metaph. a 1, 993^ 24-31.)". Detel (1993) 886. My transl.
Cf. Cosci (2014) 91-96; 540-542.
Cf. Berti (2003) 167-182; Cosci (2014) 84-102; 195-206.
Aristot., Metaph. a, 1, 993^27. Cf. Jaeger (1957) 35.
Also Salmieri wrote something similar: "the principles are the cause of the objects of epis-teme; so, by deducing these effects from the principles, one sees the effects as following necessarily from necessary causes". Cf. Salmieri et al. (2014) 2.
66
67
68
with them, transmitting their own truth-value in the proper way. That is precisely the application of the Principle of Causal Synonymy in regard of the property of "being true". In this sense, we may say that intellective knowledge and scientific knowledge share equal capacity of truth-bearing, but the explanatory power of intellective knowledge, given its superior generality and logical antecedence, can be applied to a higher number of cases.
A "more direct" way of knowledge
Finally, the comparison set by aX^Oiarepov can be understood also in terms of time. What is ongoing underneath here is not a comparison between intellective knowledge and scientific knowledge on a time basis in the sense of durability, i.e. how longer they last, since both of them are everlasting. The notion of time implied here is about what I shall call "inferential speed". It regards how much processuality is needed before reaching the comprehension of their respective object of knowledge, or, in other words, the elapsed time before acquiring their full understanding, in the consideration of the amount of steps requested. Now, scientific knowledge always needs more than one cognitive step in order to reach its conclusion, whereas, at the end of the preparatory inductive process, intellective knowledge needs zero steps on its side, so that its "inferential speed" is so maximised that is not even "inferential".
After all, a peculiar, important quality that Aristotle attributes to cognitive intellection is fast perspicacity or alacrity^0. As it is said in Nicomachean Ethics, "perspicacity (ävx^vola) is a kind of mental promptitude (evarox^a, literally: the ability of directly hitting the target)" and "mental promptitude does not imply reasoning (avev Xoyov) and it is somehow fast (raxv r;)"71. Such cognitive quality is more a disposition of men of insight, rather than of hard scientists.
'Avxivoia, also translated as "acumen" (Barnes), "quick wit" (Kosman) or "mental readiness" (Mignucci). Traditionally, this quality underlines noüs' heuristic character (cf. "e^iq evpevriK^", Suda, s.v.), being its peculiar avxivoia, as Damascius said, "an acute and tight-witted natural power capable of being applied in many directions [intellectual as well practical] in a short amount of time, very quick to understand and recognise the traces of what it is seeking" (fr.71 Zintzen [31 Asmus]). For Aristotle it describes noüs' capacity for finding missing explanatory middle-terms (Post.An., I, 34). It is a natural talent, but differently developed among men. Cf. Simard (1946) 220-225. Aristot., Nic. Eth., V, 10, 1142^ 6-7; 5-6.
47
70
48
As Tuominen wrote: "Aristotle's reference to agility and quickness of intellect (ävx^vola, in Post.An. I, 34) affirms that it is vovq that comes to grasp explanations; the more agile it is, the quicker it grasps what explanation is^'72. Its higher speed in understanding depends on the more direct way in which intellective knowledge grasps its object. This might have influenced its qualification as äXnOearepov.
On these lines, one more and last reference should be taken in consideration: since it is the only other passage in Analytics where Aristotle uses the adjective "more true", it turns out to be very useful for having a last look at our puzzle. In fact, in Prior Analytics 1. 27, Aristotle interestingly uses the comparative adjective in the following way:
The more appropriate [per se] premisses one has available, the faster one will hit upon a conclusion, and the more these belong in truth, the more one will hit upon demonstration (Saw ^ev yap av nXetövwv toiovtwv evnap^ Tiq, OäTTov evrev^erat av^nepäa^an, Saw S'av äXnOearepuv, ^äXXav änaSel^et)73.
Aristotle provides two correlations here, where the latter is dependent on the former:
1.	the more is <the pertinence of> the premisses, the faster is the reach of the <true> conclusion, and:
2.	the more these premisses belong in truth, the more one will hit upon demonstration.
The first correlation comes as a requirement of selection of proper and pertinent premisses in order to straightforwardly reach the conclusion. The adjective öäTTov, comparative from raxvq, means "faster" and it describes what I called the "inferential speed" of reaching the right conclusion. In this context, it is a sort of conceptual component of "truer", as it seems from the second, consequent correlation.
72	Tuominen (2010) 140. My italics. Cf. also Tuominen (2007) 68-111.
73	Aristot., Pr.An., I, 27, 43b8-11.
The antecedent of the second correlation, namely "the truer are the premises" does not mean "the more the truth of the premisses is"74, but it means "the more premisses <among the pertinent ones> are true". I would interpret here: the more premisses are higher-orderly true, namely are more architectonically true in the senses specified before.
The correlative result of this condition is here "the more one will demonstrate (y.aXXov anoS£li,£i)". This has been interpreted in terms of quantity or frequency (as "demonstrate more often; produce more demonstration")75, or in terms of ease and probability (as "one has better chance of producing a demonstration the more one is supplied with true propositions")76. In any case, it is not a matter of intensity or degrees of demonstration (since demonstration is either reached or is not), but rather a difference of capacity of demonstrative power. Similarly, it is the case of truth here, since some premisses (i.e. first principles) are more truth-bearing formulae than others premisses, but none of these are "more true" as such.
So, the more premisses are true, namely the more premisses are higher-orderly true, the more demonstrative power will be available. Therefore one last important difference between scientific knowledge and intellective knowledge is neither about the truth-value, nor about the persistence of it (which is the same and everlasting), but about the type of access: inferential in the former case, while direct (or intellective) in the latter.
In any case there is no room for hierarchical degrees of truths whose ordering would be dependent on how their knowledge was gained: for Aristotle, in so far as it is knowledge, it is true.
References
Adrados-Somolinos (2012), Adrados, F.R. and Somolinos, J.R., Diccionario Griego-Es-
panol online (since 2012), s.v. http://dge.cchs.csic.es/xdge/ äKpißäZu Annas (1976), Annas, J., (ed.), Aristotle's Metaphysics, Books M and N, transl. with introd. and notes, Clarendon, Oxford 1976.
49
74	Namely, not as intended by Bäck: "the truer the apprehension, the better the demonstration". Cf. before, p. 140 [internal reference].
75	Smith (1989) 151, where it is said also that "demonstration does not seem to admit degrees".
76	Striker (2009) 193. Cf. also Mignucci (1969) 444-445.
Balthussen (2007), Balthussen, H., "Did Aristotle have a concept of intuition? Some thoughts on translating nous", in: E. Close, M. Tsianikas, G. Couvalis (eds.), Greek Research in Australia [Proceedings of the Sixth Biennial International Conference of Greek Studies, Flinders University June 2005, Flinders University Department of Languages - Modern Greek], Adelaide 2007, pp. 53-62.
Bäck (i999), Bäck, A., "Aristotle's Discovery of First Principles", in: M. Sim (ed.), From Puzzles to Principles? Essays on Aristotle's Dialectic, Lanham at al., Lexington i999, pp. 55-78.
Barnes (i993), Barnes, J., Aristotle. Posterior Analytics, 2nd ed., Clarendon, Oxford i993.
Bechler (i995), Bechler, Z., Aristotle's Theory of Actuality, SUNY press, Albany (NY) i995.
Beekes-van Beek (2009), Beekes, R.S.P., van Beek, L., Etymological Dictionary of Greek, Brill, Leiden-Boston, 2009.
Berti (i978), Berti, E: "The Intellection of 'indivisibles' according to Aristotle, De Anima III 6", in: G.E.R. Lloyd, G.E.L. Owen (eds.), Aristotle on Mind and the Senses, Proceedings of the 7th Symposium Aristotelicum, Cambridge i978, pp. i4i-i63 (reworked as: ID., "Encore sur l'intellection des 'indivisibles' selon Aristote, De anima III 6", in A. Alberti (ed.), Realtä e ragione. Studi di filosofia antica, Firenze i994, pp. i23-i36).
Berti (2003), Berti, E., "Aristotelisme et neoplatonisme dans le Commentaire de Saint Thomas sur la Metaphysique" [2003], in: Id., Nuovi studi aristotelici, vol. IV.i, Medioe-vo e Rinascimento, Morcelliana, Brescia 2009, pp. i67-i82.
Biondi (2004), Biondi, P.C. (ed.), Aristotle, Posterior Analytics II 19, Introd., Greek text, translation and commentary, accompanied by a critical analysis, Les Presses de l'Universite Laval, Laval 2004.
Bronstein (20i2), Bronstein, D., "The Origin and Aim of Posterior Analytics II.i9", Phrone-sis, 57, (i/20i2), pp. 29-62.
Burnyeat (i978), Burnyeat, M.F., "Aristotle on Understanding Knowledge", in E. Berti (ed.), Aristotle on Science. 'The Posterior Analytics', Antenore, Padova i978, pp. 97-i40.
Cambiano (20i2), Cambiano, G., "The Desire to Know the Desire to Know. Metaphysics A i", in C. Steel, O. Primavesi (eds.), Aristotle's Metaphysics Alpha. Symposium Aristo-50	telicum, OUP, Oxford 20i2, pp. i7-20.
Chantraine (i977), Chantraine, P., Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue greque. Histoire des Mots, ed. Klincksieck, Paris (i968i) i977.
Couloubaritsis (i980), Couloubaritsis, L., "Y-a-t-il une intuition des principes chez Aris-tote?", Revue Internationale de Philosophie, vol. 34.3, (i33-i34/i980), p. 470.
Dalla Valeria (2009), Dalla Valeria, L., Il principio del 'terzo escluso' nella Metafisica di Aristotele [PhD dissert.], Padova 2009.
de Strycker (i969), de Strycker, £., "Sur un emploi technique de ^äXXov chez Aristote", Mnemosyne, 22, (3/i969), pp. 303-304.
Detel (i993), Detel, W., Aristoteles. AnalyticaPosteriora, 2 voll., Akademie Verlag, Berlin
i993.
Detel (1998), Detel, W., "Aristotle's Posterior Analytics and the Path to the Principles", in: N. Avgelis and F. Peonidis (eds.), Aristotle on Logic, Language and Science, Sakkoulas Pub., Thessaloniki 1998, pp. 169-172.
Granger (2000), Granger, G.G., La theorie aristotelicienne de la science, 2e ed. rev., Aubier, Paris 2000 (19761).
Hamlyn (1976), Hamlyn, D.W., "Aristotelian Epagoge", Phronesis, vol. 21 (2/1976), pp. 167184.
Hankinson (2001), Hankinson, R.J., Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought, OUP, Oxford 2001.
Hankinson (2011), Hankinson, R.J., "Avant nous le deluge. Aristotle's Notion of Intellectual Grasp", in: B. Morison and K. Ierodiakonou (eds.), Episteme, etc. Essays in Honour of Jonathan Barnes, OUP, Oxford 2011, pp. 30-59.
Jaeger (1957), Jaeger, W., (ed.), Aristotelis Metaphysica, OUP, Oxford 1957.
Kayser (1974), Kayser, J.R.K., " 'Axpiß^ Xöyov, äKpißoXoyei, äKpißearäro^ [Precise Argument, to Argue Precisely, and to be Precise] in nOAITEIA 340e-341b, 503b2", Apeiron, 8
(1/1974), pp. 31-32.
Kurz (1970), Kurz, D., Akribeia. Das Ideal der Exaktheit bei den Griechen bis Aristoteles, Göppingen Akademische Beiträge, Göppingen 1970.
Lear (2005), Lear, G. R., Happy Lives and the Highest Good. An Essay on Aristotle's Nico-machean Ethics, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford 2005.
Lesher (1973), Lesher, J.H., "The Meaning of vov^ in the Posterior Analytics", Phronesis,
18 (1/1973), pp. 44-68.
Lesher (2010), Lesher, J.H., "Sapheneia in Aristotle. 'Clarity', 'Precision', and 'Knowledge'", Apeiron, 43, (4/2010), pp. 143-156.
Liddell-Scott (1940), H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised and augmented throughout by Sir H. Stuart Jones, with the assistance of R. McKenzie, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1940.
Lloyd (1976), Lloyd, A.C., "The Principle That the Cause Is Greater than Its Effect", Phro-nesis, 21, (2/1976), pp. 146-156.
Longo (2005), Longo, A., Siriano e i principi della scienza, with a pref. by J. Barnes, Bibli-opolis, Napoli 2005.
McKirahan (1992), McKirahan, R.D., Principles and Proofs, Aristotle's Theory of Demonstrative Science, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1992.
Mignucci (1969), Mignucci, M., (ed.), Gli Analitici Primi, Loffredo, Napoli 1969.
Modrak (1981), Modrak, D.K., "Aristotle On Knowing First Principles", Philosophical Inquiry, 3, (2/1981), pp. 63-83.
Modrak (1987), Modrak, D.W., Aristotle: The Power of Perception, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1987.
Ross (1964), Ross, W.D., Aristotelis Analytica Priora et Posteriora, with Lorenzo Min-io-Paluello, Clarendon, Oxford 1964.
51
Salmieri et al. (2014), Salmieri, G., Bronstein, D., Charles, D., Lennox, J.G., "Aristotelian episteme and the relation between knowledge and understanding", Metascience, 23, (2014) [online 2013], pp. 1-35.
Schlick (2011), Schlick, A.J., Über den Satz des Widerspruchs im vierten Buch der aristotelischen Metaphysik, Königshausen & Neuman, Würzburg 2011.
Schwyzer (1922), Schwyzer, E., "Deutungsversuche griechischer, besonders homerischer Wörter", Glotta, 12, (1.2/1922), pp. 8-29,
Simard (1946), Simard, E., "La solertia er la decouverte des hypoteses", Laval theologique etphilosophique, 2, (1/1946), pp. 220-225.
Smith (1989), Smith, R., (ed.), Aristotle, Prior Analytics, Hackett, Indianapolis, Cambridge, 1989.
Sorabji (2010), Sorabji, R., "The Ancient Commentators on Concept Formation", in: F.A.J. De Haas, M. Leunissen, M. Martijn Bos (eds.), Interpreting Aristotle's Posterior Analytics in Late Antiquity and Beyond, Leiden, Brill 2010, pp. 3-26.
Striker (2009), Striker, G., (ed.), Aristotle, Prior Analytics. Book 1, Clarendon, Oxford 2009.
Tichy (1977), Tichy, E., "Gr. äKpi-ß^q 'den Gipfel ersteigend'", Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, 36, (1977), pp. 151-172.
Tuominen (2007), Tuominen, M., Apprehension and Argument. Ancient Theories of Starting Points for Knowledge, Springer, Dordrecht 2007.
Tuominen (2010), Tuominen, M., "Back to Posterior Analytics II 19: Aristotle on the Knowledge of Principles", in: James H. Lesher (ed.), From Inquiry to Demonstrative Knowledge: New Essays on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, Apeiron. Special Issue, 43, (2-3/2010), pp. 115-154.
van Rijen (1988), van Rijen, J., Aspects of Aristotle's Logic of Modalities, Springer, Dordrecht 1988.
Wians (1989), Wians, W., "Aristotle, Demonstration, and Teaching", Ancient Philosophy, 9, (2/1989), pp. 245-253.
Zanatta (2009), Zanatta, M., (ed.), Aristotele, Metafisica, voll. 2, Rizzoli, Milano 2009.
52