Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Aristotle's definition of rhetoric, "the faculty of observing, in any given case, the available means of persuasion", presupposes a distinction between an art (τέχνη, techne) of speech–making and a cognitively prior faculty of discovery. That is so because, before one argues a case, one must discover what is at issue.
Aristotle clarifies the magnitude in relation to questions [clarification needed] of "wrongdoing" meant for judicial rhetoric. Chapter Fifteen Aristotle summarizes the arguments available to a speaker in dealing with evidence that supports or weakens a case. These atechnic pisteis contain laws, witnesses, contracts, tortures, and oaths.
Aristotle defined rhetoric as "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion", and since mastery of the art was necessary for victory in a case at law, for passage of proposals in the assembly, or for fame as a speaker in civic ceremonies, he called it "a combination of the science of logic and of the ethical ...
Aristotle's immanent realism means his epistemology is based on the study of things that exist or happen in the world, and rises to knowledge of the universal, whereas for Plato epistemology begins with knowledge of universal Forms (or ideas) and descends to knowledge of particular imitations of these. [52]
Any school of thought that takes one of Aristotle's distinctive positions as its starting point can be considered "Aristotelian" in the widest sense. This means that different Aristotelian theories (e.g. in ethics or in ontology) may not have much in common as far as their actual content is concerned besides their shared reference to Aristotle.
For Aristotle, both matter and form belong to the individual thing (hylomorphism). Aristotle's theory of universals is Aristotle's classical solution to the problem of universals, sometimes known as the hylomorphic theory of immanent realism. universals are the characteristics or qualities that ordinary objects or things have in common.
One was how physical things can exist as certain types of intelligible things, e.g., Argos and Garmr are both dogs despite being very different because they have the same type of substantial form: it is the substantial form that makes the physical thing intelligible as a particular kind of thing; in other words, such is the Aristotelean ...
Sachs (2005), amongst other authors (such as Aryeh Kosman and Ursula Coope), proposes that the solution to problems interpreting Aristotle's definition must be found in the distinction Aristotle makes between two different types of potentiality, with only one of those corresponding to the "potentiality as such" appearing in the definition of ...