I am very interested in the logical aspect of Aristotelian philosophy, especially how it was used by al Farabi and Ibn Sina in explaining understanding and breaking this complicated process down analytically in order to understand how propositions relate to understanding (at least this is what I have gathered from skimming some of their books).

So my question is basically seeking an amplication of this point of Aristotle's logic. How does Aristotelian logic view the relationship between propositions and understanding?

Intuitively, it seems to me that understanding is more of a variable element that can change over time, and thus is not worth recording down in writing since these notes would not be useful only a few weeks down the line as one's understanding progresses. However, propositions seem to be more grounded and permanent in that they are still useful to a master of a particular science as well as the beginner, and are thus worth recording. This seems to be why textbooks mainly include propositions rather than long passages explaining the heuristics and motivations behind things. (I am aware of counter examples to this, such as Michael Spivak's famous "Calculus" book which basically explains everything about how to think about analysis problems.) It also seems to be the basis for John Locke's opinion in one of his books (can't remember which) that insights, "eureka moments" and other "understandings" (if I may be permitted the barbarism) that one gets are not worth writing down.

I am just looking for amplication on this point, and any resources which nail this down and go into further detail on it.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.