Аналіз особливостей обґрунтування знань Арістотелем

Abstract

На основі опрацювання праць Арістотеля виявлено випадки коли він доводить такі положення, які в подальшому виявилися фактично хибними. Продемонстровано, що подібна еристичність була властива також працям його вчителя Платона. Проаналізовано причини цього явища. Обґрунтовано, що воно зумовлене тим, що реально діючим критерієм істинності знань була відповідність їх онтологічній концепції. Це допускало обґрунтування шляхом не цілком коректних доведень з метою пояснення явищ, у сподіванні, що відповідність онтологічній концепції повинна стати гарантом того, що дане конкретне пояснення має виявитися істинним.

The subject of study, that has results represented in this publication, is the following problem. In the age of antiquity, one can often find cases of not only false knowledge building but also its proof. The explanation, which a modern day scientist presents as an assumption, the author of that time submitted as a thesis with proof attached to it. This article analyzes the causes of this phenomenon. The following number of works of Plato and Aristotleare used for this research: «Phaedo» (Plato), «De Caelo» (Aristotle). The works mentioned above allow us to analyze the deductive chains of Plato and Aristotle. The analysis of these works shows that Plato’s and Aristotle’s practice of scientific reasoning had its eristic component. This publication analyzes the probable causes of the mentioned above phenomenon. It is concluded that the cause of rather popular usage of incorrect proofs could be the fact, that the cognition was to formulate the most general philosophical principles, and then – to formulate plausible explanation of specific phenomena on this basis. For example, Plato originally formed an ontological concept, and after that, outlined explanations of natural phenomena in his work «Timaeus» accordingly, which was a general practice of his. There was no other way to obtain and justify knowledge. There were neither the tools of empirical researh, nor the awareness of the importance of this method of cognition.That is why ancient philosophers could not implement the criterion of empirical confirmation. As a result, the only working criterion of truth was a conformity between already constructed explanations and general philosophical principles as well as ontological concept. The awareness of the inability to verify the explanations in some other way and the lack of predictions whether it could be done in the future led to the creation of a specific to the age of antiquity method of cognition. The method consists of the following ideas in order: 1) formulate the ontological concept; 2) construct the explanation of specific phenomena that would not contradict this ontological concept; 3) find the proof for these explanations. Thus, the ancient methodology allowed justifying knowledge by using not entirely correct proofs to explain different phenomena with the hope that compliance with the ontological concept should become a guarantee that this particular explanation must be true.