Analysis Of Aristotle's De Anima

844 Words4 Pages
In book II chapter 4 of De Anima, Aristotle describes what constitutes as nourishment and generation. He then moves onto book II chapter 5 to discuss the concept of sensation and perception. More specifically, he claims that perception is a kind of alteration because it has the capability to be moved and affected. Aristotle then poses a puzzle to why the perception of the senses (perpetual capacities) doesn’t occur and why the perceptual capacities cannot produce perception without the aid of an external object which is composed of fire, earth, and other elements. Aristotle states that perception is potentially active and uses the example of a fire to support his claim. Like a fire, it cannot burn by itself and needs something to spark and…show more content…
He supports his argument by presenting 3 different examples of scientific knowers to relay his point. The first, is one can be a scientific knower because of the fact one is a human. The human species is one that has the ability to attain scientific knowledge. The second is one that has the knowledge of grammar is inherently a scientific knower. In this capacity, the person has the ability and or wish to engage in contemplation. The final way that Aristotle presents would be someone who is already engaged in the act of contemplating. In other words, the person realizes their knowledge and can use that knowledge appropriately. This is someone who is fully utilizing the senses. The first two cases that Aristotle presents are examples of potential scientific knowers due to the fact the first was able to learning from and the second due to having the knowledge of grammar and arithmetic but not using…show more content…
He explains that perception is both external and particular. Aristotle states how the perception of productive things is external or goes through the senses such as what is visible and audible. In contrast, Aristotle states that scientific knowledge holds a universal component and are embedded in the soul. The result is that he claims that it is up to “us” or the individual to understand whenever we wish (potentiality) yet we cannot perceive whenever we desire to due to the fact a perceptible object must be present to
Open Document