8/13/2019 Aristotle and Aporia

1/3

Critically consider Aristotles method of searching in metaphysics, the method based on

aporiai.

Why does Aristotle think the method based on aporia is the method for searching in

metaphysics? Metaphysics most removed from sensation, common method of gaining

knowledge not adequate. We cannot refer to sensation to solve metaphysical problems.

Therefore how do we search if we cannot be guided by our sensations?

How do we know what to look for, how do we know when we have found it?

Aporia both sets the search and the parameters of the search. We have reached knowledge

when the aporia has been solved we know where to look and we know when we have

found.

What types of knowledge? Explanatory knowledge versus non-explanatory knowledge.

Knowledge by experience is non-explanatory knowledge. Empirical knowledge is non-explanatory. But answers to why questions are explanatory knowledge. Why is x as such,

not what is x.

Trees have leaves is non-explanatory, but why do trees have leaves is explanatory question.

Why not the method of experience, the method based on sensation?

Method of experience built off sensation direct non-explanatory knowledge of sensations.

We start from what is most apparent and move away. Direct sensation, sensation and

memory, knowledge based on judgments.

How do we commonly gain knowledge? Through experience. How can we gain knowledge

devoid of experience metaphysical knowledge? Dont know where to look or when wehave found.

Role of Aporia.

Perplexity and puzzles.

Aporia suggest a knot in our thought. A knot in thought suggests a problem within the things

themselves the things puzzle us, not that we are puzzled about the things and the things

are simple and straightforward.

Perplexity suggest the problem

Puzzle lays the problem our with reasonable arguments for both sides. Not every

dilemmatic problem is an aporia, must be good reason for accepting both horns.

Dilemmatic structure then lays out territory in which we are to investigate.

Does aporiai avoid presuppositions

We are approaching the problem with questions, not theories.

What is being, can we look at being overall, or only in separate sciences?

We are not requiring answers in initial investigation but only laying out both sides of an

problem.

Do all problems fall into two sides? Either /or is there and either/or/or else?

Aporia III Are there only sense perceptible things, or are there also non-sense perceptiblethings? What about the question are there sense perceptible things at all?

8/13/2019 Aristotle and Aporia

2/3

Is to question sense perceptible things to question everything that is. Is there anything. Is

this a position which we can start from?

But on the other hand, philosophers do question whether there are sense-perceptible things

at all it seems that this is a valid question.

What presupposition has Plato made that Aristotles idea of aporia avoid?

Aristotle avoids presuppositions, supposedly.

Plato wants to answer the question of how we can have knowledge. If we cannot look for

what we do not have, then we must have this knowledge already. Therefore, we have Platos

theory of recollection. We know where to look because things are stable and one thing leads

us to the other.

Plato is tied to the theory that all knowledge must come in the form of judgments, and

therefore sense-perception is not a kind of knowledge, since it contains no type of judgment.

But in Aristotle, we know where to look because we have basic, sense-perception and

empirical knowledge of the things. Therefore, preliminary, empirical knowledge can set up

on the right path to explanatory knowledge. We do not only have explanatory knowledge,

and so must have it within us latently already.

In regards of Aporia, we know where to look not because of preliminary empirical

knowledge, but because of perplexity. We see that an issue is unclear and that valid reasons

lead us to hold both sides. The issue cannot be resolved by our examination of sense-

perception. So we cannot further this knowledge, as we do with scientific knowledge, with

an examination of empirical knowledge in order to gain explanatory knowledge. How then

can we gain explanatory knowledge? What is the primary, preliminary knowledge of which

we are to gain this further explanatory knowledge?

We must look at the dilemma and exposit the presuppositions and contents of either horn.

When we examine such contents, we will see either that we cannot hold one or the other, or

that the two can in fact be reconciled.

It is therefore through the aporia that we are to be given the preliminary information with

which we can search for further explanatory knowledge. Without empirical knowledge, and

without the perplexity given by aporia, we have nothing to build off. But the aporia gives us

the foundation for our search for knowledge, as the aporia points to fundamental puzzles in

the nature of what we are asking about.

So the aporia points to the problem, which is not in the first place derived from sense

perception. This can therefore be outlined not from our previous non-explanatory

knowledge, but from the knot in our thought which points to a conflict in the nature of the

thing itself. So we have through the aporia and not through empirical knowledge identified

the problem. How now, are we going to begin searching. Not with empirical evidence, for

this is metaphysics. The aporia resolves the issue into two contrary directions, two

arguments which appear both equally plausible, or at least plausible. By examining these

arguments, we can have the direction of search in metaphysics. By resolving the dilemma,

we can have the end of the search in metaphysics.

8/13/2019 Aristotle and Aporia

3/3

Therefore, Aristotle thinks that aporia are essential in the search in metaphysics. Is we

didnt have aporia perplexity we would not notice there was a problem. And further, if

the perplexity did not lead us to a puzzle we would not know how to identify the problem,

and we would not know where to search. Without aporia, metaphysics would not be

possible? Therefore we cannot do metaphysics without aporia, because we cannot examine

when we have no content to examine, and without sense-perception, which is not thecontent of metaphysical examination and without puzzles, we would have no-where to

search and so no metaphysics.

We could not do metaphysics without aporia, it is through the vehicle of aporia that we can

come to metaphysics. Otherwise there would be no subject matter for metaphysics to ask

about it cannot be about empirical knowledge, what else will give us the subject matter.

How does Plato understanding the possibility of searching in metaphysics? Aporia lead us to

perplexity, to issues about which lead to fundamental dilemmas. However, these lead those

who hold such theories to the view that they do know what they thought they knew, which

is the position of Socrates to gadfly. But does Plato what to assert metaphysical doctrines

also? Not Socrates in the early dialogues.

Does the aporia point to problems in the nature of what we are talking about, or about

puzzles in our thinking only? Is the thing itself not a problem, and only we have a problem

about how we conceptualise the problem? Is this a problem for Aristotle?

Finally, what is the difference between Platos and Aristotles views of aporia? And of

metaphysics. Aristotle does what to arrive at metaphysical theories answers to the

fundamental questions. He is not content just to notice that there are fundamental

difficulties with concepts which we think we know. We doesnt just want to show us these

difficulties like Soc in the early dialogues. He also wants to resolve these difficulties, and hethinks he does this through the aporia. He is not content to rest in perplexity, but moves

from perplexity to identifying the puzzle, to further examining the puzzle and resolving it or

not. Through the primary role of perplexity, leading to the secondary role of the puzzle, we

can make progress in metaphysics. The puzzle rests on the perplexity, and the resolution of

the puzzle gives us the subject matter and answer to our metaphysical questions. Plato

leaves many such questions fundamentally unresolved, leaving us with the knowledge that

we know nothing.