ARISTOTLE'S THEORY OF PRACTICAL COGNITION ARISTOTLE'S THEORY OF PRACTICAL COGNITION BY TAKATURA ANDO Litt. D. Profeuor of Philosophy at Ritumekan University, Kyoto SECOND EDITION • SPRINGER-SCIENCE+ BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V. 1965 ISBN 978-94-017-7089-7 ISBN 978-94-017-7142-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-7142-9 Copyright 1965 by Springer Science+ BIISiness Media Dordrecht OrigjnaJb p11blished I!J Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands in 1965 Srftcover reprint qf the hardcover 1st edition 1965 All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to reproduce this boo.~ or parts thereof in any form FIRST EDITION 1958 SECOND EDITION 1965 PREFACE I have much pleasure in writing a preface to Mr. Takatura Ando's book on Aristotle. Apart from his intrinsic importance, as one of the three or four greatest of all philosophers, Aristotle is important on having given for many centuries the greatest influence in moulding the thought of European countries. The language difficulty has no doubt prevented him from exercising very much influence on Japanese thought, and I welcome very warmly to hear that Mr. Ando is about to have his book printed in Japan. I hope it will be widely circulated, as it must certainly deserve that. W. D. ROSS AUTHOR'S FOREWORD In publishing this book, I cannot prohibit myself of reminding the days and nights when it was written. In that era of world wide madness, Aristotle's philosophy was the only refuge wherein my depressed mind could come to life. It was written bit by bit under all desperate circumstances throughout the war time. My heart was set on the completion of this work while the fate allowed me to live. It was nearly carried out by the end of the war. Having no hope of survival, I buried my manuscript in the earth, without however any expectance of a better lot for it. The situation grew worse and worse. Towns aad cities were burnt and perished day by day. There remained only few of them. In a summer night of 1945, an inauspicious siren blew as if pro nouncing our end. I let my wife take refuge with the child, and lied alone on the ground beside the hole in which my manuscript was stored. The blue sky was scattered with twinkling stars, and the buzzying of air corps came far over from the depth of serene night. I .was gazing the stars with resignation and despise to human nature, but the corps passed over my head without making any attack. Few minutes later, the sky grew red near the horizont, and I found that the victim of that night was the un fortunate neibourghing city. After few days the citizens of Hirosima and Nagasaki met the atmost misery in the history. The war was over, and I survived with my manuscript. Since that time I tried to publish this manuscript only in vain. At last, I came to the idea to translate it in English and show it to Sir W.D. Ross. When this idea was realized, to my great joy, he gave me a letter full of favour. He acknowledged that he was in the same opinion with regard to many of my arguments, and guaranteed that my treatise would be able to contribute to modem study of Aristotle. Being much encouraged by this letter and following his advice, I engaged in revising my English by the aid of Dr. S. Nivison of vii viii AUTHOR'S FOREWORD Stanford University. Now, I am firmly convinced of myself being the most fortunate fellow who lived under that starly heaven, not only to enjoy again the Lipton tea, of which I sadly dreamed in that dreary nights, but also to get the favour of an eminent British scholar, not only to taste again Californian raisins that I vainly desired in that weary days, but also to receive kindness of an excellent American scholar. I debt my English also to my previous colleague Mr. Tyuzo Utidate, who read through my manuscript and gave many advices. My special thanks are due to Prof. John D. Goheen of Stanford University, who paid warm attention to my work and gave me some help. I am grateful to Miss Nobuko Iwai for her assistance. As regards English rendering of the text, I owe much to Oxford translations and Hicks's De Anima. 1958 T.A. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION The correction of this new editon was restricted to numerous misprints and some grammatical errors, not because the author found little demand for change but beca~se he found that most of the faults could not be improved unless they were rewritten. It is doubtful whether this book in such a defective form is still worthy of circulation; the author humbly begs tolerance of readers for his negligence of thoroughgoing revision. 1965 T.A. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION GENERAL REMARK ON THE SUBJECT OF INQUIRY 1 CHAPTER I THE STRUCTURE OF THE SOUL § 1. Soul and Body 5 § 2. The Problem of 'Voii' not1JTt"o' 17 § 3. Against Brentano's Interpretation 33 § 4. Solution of the Problem . . . 55 § 5. Comparison with Plato's Thought • 75 § 6. Parts of the Soul . . . . • • 85 CHAPTER II THE FUNCTIONS OF THE SOUL § 1. The Development of Functions 98 § 2. The Reference of Functions 114 § 3. Desire and Pleasure 136 § 4. Voluntary Act . • • • • • • 145 CHAPTER III PRACTICE AND PRODUCTION § 1. Practice and Production 175 § 2. Comparison with Kant's Theory . . . . 190 § 3. The Relation between Practice and Production 200 CHAPTER IV THE STRUCTURE OF INTELLECT § 1. The Classification of Intellect 208 § 2. Mea and t5oeacn:t"6" Part . . . . 217 § 3. Practical and Theoretical Cognitions 227 § 4. Practical Reason 236 § 5. Prudence • 256 CONTENTS CHAPTER V THE PRACTICAL SYLLOGISM § 1. Deliberation • • • • • • . . 266 § 2. Practical and Productive Syllogisms 274 § 3. Practical Cognition of Ends 284 § 4. Continence and Temperance 300 § 5. The Relation of Practical and Productive Syllogisms 310 § 6. Comparison with Kant 316 INDEXES 323 INTRODUCTION A LL sciences start with Aristotle, as all roads lead to Rome. The dominance of Aristotelianism in the mediaeval period was not conducive to the scientific spirit, to be sure, but that despotic authority which did not 110lerate any criticism was the result of scholastic dogmatism rather than the fault of Aristotle's philosophy. The anti-Aristotelianism of the Renaissance actually had the effect of restoring Aristotle from the darkness of monas teries into the daylight of Hellas. The modern age has started with depreciating Aristotle in contrast to Plato, but as this reaction calmed down, men turned towards the re-estimation of Aristotle. In truth, Platonism in the Renaissance was no more than an artistic enthusiasm, and from the scientific point of view, Plato was no match for Aristotle. Of course we are now aware of the old mistake of interpreting Aristotle as the opponent of Plato. Aristotle was the greatest successor of Plato, and to suspect him of ingratitude is only to betray the mean disposition of a petty-minded person. The influence of the teacher's theory on him is particularly remarkable in practical philosophy. It is not too much to say that Aristotle's practical philosophy owes the greater part of its content to Plato. But it is not the main subject of our study to follow the develop ment of theory between this great master and his great disciple. We are rather interested in the scientific formulations and the positive foundations which the latter gave to the material in herited from the former. Now to be rational means to be "mediated" - in Hegelian terminology - and systematic, and to be positive means to give empirical grounds to ideas. Aristotle surely was lacking in the genius of brilliant phantasy, but it was his remarkable merit that he formulated the ideas which were so to speak floating, both in the prophetic character of Socrates and in the poetic disposition of Plato, into a strictly conceptual system. His rational and positive foundation for practical philosophy was achieved in the region of politics, through his exhaustive study of constitutions, of which we have a glimpse in the Atheniensium Respublica; the equivalent of this, in the region of ethics, is the abundant knowledge contained in his psychological and biological works. Aristotle's I