Posterior Analytics The Posterior Analytics is a text from Aristotle 's Organon that deals with demonstration, definition, and scientific knowledge. In book 1 chapter 3 he discusses two different views on if know ledge which he says neither of these views are either true or necessary. In the first view that is discussed Aristotle says “Some people think that because [knowledge through demonstration] requires knowledge of the primary things, there is no knowledge;”
By this he is saying that some people assume that there is no knowledge at all. By this thinking we would face an infinite regress. Which means that these people assume that we cannot know posterior because it is based on prior things and that would be based on prior knowledge …show more content…
Let us first determine what we mean by belonging in every case, in its own right, and universal.” To start Aristotle explains what it means to belong in every case. To belong in every case means to not just belong in some cases but also to belong in all cases as well. The example Aristotle uses is that of how the term animal belongs to every man. In every case of man the term animal also applies to man also. If the term animal belongs to every man then it would also be true that this is a man and this man is also an animal. A sign that we are using this determination to see where the demonstrations are derived is when we are asked if something belongs in every case we use the objection, does it fail to belong in some cases or at sometimes. This means we ask a second question to answer the first question, we are does it fail in sometime to find out if it belongs in every …show more content…
The two arguments that Aristotle defuses are first, the argument that knowledge can only be proven through demonstration and because there cannot be an infinite regress because there is no primary knowledge therefore, nothing can be know. Second, that there is knowledge and everything can be demonstrated. The problem with both of these arguments that Aristotle points out that I highly agree with is the fact that both these arguments depends on all knowledge being demonstrated.
If all knowledge could be demonstrated then this means that nothing is self-evident. If everything has to be proven then there would be no knowledge that exists without being proven. Aristotle and I both believe that there is a type of knowledge that is a primary knowledge that all knowledge is based on and that is what makes it possible to disprove both those arguments because there is some knowledge that cannot and does not need to be
By this he is saying that some people assume that there is no knowledge at all. By this thinking we would face an infinite regress. Which means that these people assume that we cannot know posterior because it is based on prior things and that would be based on prior knowledge …show more content…
Let us first determine what we mean by belonging in every case, in its own right, and universal.” To start Aristotle explains what it means to belong in every case. To belong in every case means to not just belong in some cases but also to belong in all cases as well. The example Aristotle uses is that of how the term animal belongs to every man. In every case of man the term animal also applies to man also. If the term animal belongs to every man then it would also be true that this is a man and this man is also an animal. A sign that we are using this determination to see where the demonstrations are derived is when we are asked if something belongs in every case we use the objection, does it fail to belong in some cases or at sometimes. This means we ask a second question to answer the first question, we are does it fail in sometime to find out if it belongs in every …show more content…
The two arguments that Aristotle defuses are first, the argument that knowledge can only be proven through demonstration and because there cannot be an infinite regress because there is no primary knowledge therefore, nothing can be know. Second, that there is knowledge and everything can be demonstrated. The problem with both of these arguments that Aristotle points out that I highly agree with is the fact that both these arguments depends on all knowledge being demonstrated.
If all knowledge could be demonstrated then this means that nothing is self-evident. If everything has to be proven then there would be no knowledge that exists without being proven. Aristotle and I both believe that there is a type of knowledge that is a primary knowledge that all knowledge is based on and that is what makes it possible to disprove both those arguments because there is some knowledge that cannot and does not need to be