ACCORDING TO MANY of the most authoritative interpreters and commentators of Aristotle, there is in his thought "a discrepancy between the real and the intelligible," that is to say, a failure to reconcile the requirements of his ontology with those of his logic and epistemology. From the point of view of his ontology, the individual, in effect the substance provided with matter, is basic, while the universal is derivative. From the point of view of his logic and epistemology, only the "ideal," …
Read moreACCORDING TO MANY of the most authoritative interpreters and commentators of Aristotle, there is in his thought "a discrepancy between the real and the intelligible," that is to say, a failure to reconcile the requirements of his ontology with those of his logic and epistemology. From the point of view of his ontology, the individual, in effect the substance provided with matter, is basic, while the universal is derivative. From the point of view of his logic and epistemology, only the "ideal," that is to say, what is universal and formal, is intelligible; and therefore, if the intelligible coincided with the real, this would also have to be basic ontologically. This conflict in his system is usually attributed to the existence of two incompatible strands of thought, one of which is close to a form of empiricism and is typically Aristotelian, while the other is "idealistic" and derives from Plato.
