J. L. ACKRILL, Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione. Translated with Notes (Clarendon Aristotle Series). Oxford, Clarendon Press, VII, p. Pr. sh. Aristotle’s Categories is a singularly important work of philosophy. It not only .. Ackrill finds Aristotle’s division of quality at best unmotivated. The Categories is a text from Aristotle’s Organon that enumerates all the possible kinds of Aristotle’s own text in Ackrill’s standard English version is: Of things.

Author: Mocage JoJosida
Country: Luxembourg
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Finance
Published (Last): 16 May 2008
Pages: 457
PDF File Size: 18.98 Mb
ePub File Size: 11.21 Mb
ISBN: 359-7-19377-837-5
Downloads: 42504
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Gulkree

So again we are once again f forced to admit just how difficult it is to pin down a precise interpretation of Aristotle’s work.

To raise just one, we can ask: I like Ackrill’s translation and I like that he gives detailed notes rather than a breezy introduction talking about Aristotle’s life and philosophy. Hamlyn, Classical Review “Ackrill’s translation and commentary on Aristotle’s Categories is an excellent introduction to the treatise.

Mirror Sites View this site from another server: Aristotle’s Categories and de Interpretatione. Write a customer review. On the contrary, it seems to me that there is no doubt that Aristotle could have arrived at a certain a priori proof, a deductive argument for the completeness of the distinction of categories … On the Several Senses of Being in AristotleCh.

On Aristotle CategoriesS. Corresponding to that subject, one might think, is an entity of some kind, namely a cxtegories substance. This page was last edited on 30 Novemberat This system maps readily onto Aristotle’s own terminology, given at 1a Although the latter part of the Categories is interesting, it is not clear that it is integral to either of Aristotle’s classificatory schemes.


J. L. Ackrill, Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione – PhilPapers

Despite the lack of helpful definitions of these two concepts, there is a fairly straightforward, though certainly not uncontroversial, characterization of them that many scholars have adopted. Inspecting all of Aquinas’s derivation to determine its cogency categoriws far too large a project to undertake here. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Each kind aristot,e differentiated into species by some set of differentiae. Furthermore, questions about Aristotle’s views about the nature of some of the species in quantity arise.

Categories and De Interpretatione

It is also, however, a ackrilll and so belongs in a broader class, namely the class of trees, whose extension is wider than the class of maples. The distinction between substance and the rest of the categories, for instance, is built into the subject-predicate structure of our language.

Things that are said according to Aristotle, are words De Int 16a3and so it is natural to interpret his second system as a classification of words. Catetories Submit to Film Festivals. Second, Aristotle’s examples of items belonging to the various categories are generally extra-linguistic. Maybe all metaphysical theorizing is at some level laden with circularity; but circles this small are generally unacceptable to a metaphysician.

Retrieved from ” https: Please try again later. According to Catgories, quantity divides into continuous and discrete quantities; continuous quantity divides into line, surface, body, time and place; and discrete quantity divides into number and speech 4b20— One of these aristoyle ships sooner than the other.


Where does matter fit, if at all, in the categorial scheme? But we can still ask the question: I got this copy used and it was just like new. The objections raised against the linguistic interpretation, however, can again be raised against the concept interpretation as well. History of Western Philosophy. After all, someone might cahegories that Aristotle’s categorial scheme was either in part or in whole mistaken.

Moreover, there is something rather categoriex about the idea that members of natural kinds are a fundamental type of entity in the world and hence that there is a system of kinds of increasing generality to which each such entity belongs. Given the divergence of expert opinion about even the most basic aspects of Aristotle’s Categoriesit is inevitable that an attempt to give a neutral account of the basic positions it contains will be seen as wrong headed, perhaps drastically so, by some scholar or other.

Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione.

But he did not.