An Iconoclastic Interpretation of Hypotheses in the Posterior Analytics
-
Christopher M. Lutz
Abstract
In the Posterior Analytics, there are at least three types of first principle from which the demonstrative sciences proceed: axioms, definitions, and hypotheses. Of these, it is perhaps most difficult to pin down what Aristotle means by a hypothesis (ὑπόθεσις). Traditionally, hypotheses have been understood as distinct existence claims (‘S exists’), yet this interpretation has significant problems, partly resulting from Aristotle’s seemingly contradictory characterizations of hypotheses (characterizations written off as ‘nontechnical’ by traditionalists). Despite these problems, however, the traditional interpretation has persisted, as its challengers have struggled to offer a compelling alternative. This paper argues for an interpretation of hypotheses that centers on their interplay with definitions. On my view, both definitions and hypotheses are predicative propositions (‘P belongs to S’) serving as premises in demonstrative syllogisms. They are distinct insofar as in definitions the predicate (a definiens) inheres in the ‘what it is’ of the subject, whereas in hypotheses the subject inheres in the ‘what it is’ of the predicate (an in-virtue-of-itself accident of that subject). Together, definitions and hypotheses bring about a demonstrative conclusion that very much resembles the hypothesis. This interpretation, while admittedly iconoclastic, is more consistent than the traditional one with more of what Aristotle has to say about hypotheses throughout the Posterior Analytics.
Acknowledgements
For their generous help with various parts of this paper, I would like to thank Ron Polansky, Emily Katz, Kelly Arenson, Molly Wallace, Dan Cook, Jeremiah Noonan, John Henry Reilly, the past and present members of the Ancient Greek Reading Group at Duquesne University, and two anonymous referees. Any and all mistakes are my own.
References
Ackrill, J. L. 1963. Aristotle’s Categories and de Interpretatione. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan. 1975. Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics, 1st ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan. 1993. Aristotle Posterior Analytics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bolton, Robert. 1976. “Essentialism and Semantic Theory in Aristotle: Posterior Analytics, II, 7–10.” Philosophical Review 85: 514–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/2184277.Search in Google Scholar
Bronstein, David. 2016. Aristotle on Knowledge and Learning: The Posterior Analytics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198724902.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Lesley. 1994. “The Verb ‘to be’ in Greek Philosophy: Some Remarks.” In Companions to Ancient Thought 3: Language, edited by S. Everson, 212–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Charles, David. 2000. Aristotle on Meaning and Essence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chiba, Kei. 2012. “Aristotle on Heuristic Inquiry and Demonstration of what it is.” In The Oxford Handbook of Aristotle, edited by C. Shields, 171–201. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195187489.013.0008Search in Google Scholar
Cornford, F. M. 1932. “Mathematics and Dialectic in the Republic VI.–VII. (I.).” Mind 42: 37–52.10.1093/mind/XLI.161.37Search in Google Scholar
Crager, Adam. 2015. “Meta-Logic in Aristotle’s Epistemology.” Dissertation: Princeton University.Search in Google Scholar
Crivelli, Paulo. 2011. “Aristotle on Syllogisms from a Hypothesis.” In Argument from Hypothesis in Ancient Philosophy, edited by A. Longo, 95–184. Naples: Bibliopolis.Search in Google Scholar
Demos, R. 1944. “The Structure of Substance According to Aristotle.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 5: 255–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/2102755.Search in Google Scholar
Demoss, David, and Daniel Devereux. 1988. “Essence, Existence, and Nominal Definition in Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics II 8–10.” Phronesis 33: 136–52. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852888x00126.Search in Google Scholar
Deslauriers, Marguerite. 1993. “Critical Notice.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 23: 637–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1993.10717339.Search in Google Scholar
Deslauriers, Marguerite. 2007. Aristotle on Definition. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/ej.9789004156692.i-230Search in Google Scholar
Ebert, Theodor. 1998. “Aristotelian Accidents.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 16: 133–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238157.003.0005.Search in Google Scholar
Ferejohn, Michael. 1991. The Origins of Aristotelian Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.10.2307/j.ctt211qx1cSearch in Google Scholar
Ferejohn, Michael. 2013. Formal Causes: Definition, Explanation, and Primacy in Socratic and Aristotelian Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199695300.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Frede, Dorothea. 1974. “Comment on Hintikka’s Paper ‘on the Ingredients of an Aristotelian Science’.” Synthese 28: 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00869498.Search in Google Scholar
Fritz, Kurt von. 1955. “Die Archai in der Griechischen Mathematik.” Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 1: 13–103.Search in Google Scholar
Goldin, Owen. 1996. Explaining an Eclipse: Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics 2.1–10. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.10.3998/mpub.14794Search in Google Scholar
Goldin, Owen. 2019. “Kath’ Hauta Predicates and the “Commensurate Universals”.” Manuscrito 42: 44–84. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2019.v42n4.og.Search in Google Scholar
Gómez-Lobo, Alfonso. 1977. “Aristotle’s Hypotheses and the Euclidean Postulates.” The Review of Metaphysics 30: 430–9.Search in Google Scholar
Gómez-Lobo, Alfonso. 1980. “The So-Called Question of Existence in Aristotle, An. Post. 2.1–2.” The Review of Metaphysics 34: 71–89.Search in Google Scholar
Granger, H. 1981. “The Differentia and the per Se Accident in Aristotle.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 63: 118–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/agph.1981.63.2.118.Search in Google Scholar
Hamlyn, D. W. 1961. “Aristotle on Predication.” Phronesis 6: 110–2. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852861x00143.Search in Google Scholar
Harari, Orna. 2004. Knowledge and Demonstration: Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.Search in Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1972. “On the Ingredients of an Aristotelian Science.” Noûs 6: 55–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214513.Search in Google Scholar
Inwood, Brad. 1979. “A Note on Commensurate Universals in the ‘Posterior Analytics’.” Phronesis 24: 320–9. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852879x00207.Search in Google Scholar
Jacobs, W. 1979. “Aristotle on Nonreferring Subjects.” Phronesis 24: 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852879x00180.Search in Google Scholar
Kahn, Charles. 1966. “The Greek Verb ‘to be’ and the Concept of Being.” Foundations of Language 2: 245–65.Search in Google Scholar
Kirwin, C. A. 1971. Aristotle: Metaphysics Books Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/oseo/instance.00262325Search in Google Scholar
Landor, Blake. 1981. “Definitions and Hypotheses in Posterior Analytics 72a19–25 and 76b35–77a4.” Phronesis 26: 308–18. https://doi.org/10.1163/156852881x00079.Search in Google Scholar
Landor, Blake. 1985. “Aristotle on Demonstrating Essence.” Apeiron 19: 116–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron.1985.19.2.116.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, H. D. P. 1935. “Geometrical Method and Aristotle’s Account of First Principles.” The Classical Quarterly 29: 113–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0009838800020474.Search in Google Scholar
Lennox, James. 2001. Aristotle’s Philosophy of Biology: Studies in the Origins of Life Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lennox, James. 2021. Aristotle on Inquiry: Erotetic Frameworks and Domain-Specific Norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139047982Search in Google Scholar
Leszl, W. 1981. “Mathematics, Axiomatization, and the Hypotheses.” In Aristotle on Science: The Posterior Analytics, edited by E. Berti, 271–328. Padua: Antenore.Search in Google Scholar
Loux, M. 1991. Primary Ousia: An Essay on Aristotle’s Metaphysics Z and H. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lukasiewicz, Jan. 1957. Aristotle’s Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Malink, Marko. 2013. Aristotle’s Modal Syllogistic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674726352Search in Google Scholar
Malink, Marko. 2017. “Aristotle on Principles as Elements.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 53: 163–214.10.1093/oso/9780198815655.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Mansion, Suzanne. 1976. Le Jugement d’existence Chez Aristote, 2nd ed. Louvain: Éditions de l’Institut supérieur de philosophie.Search in Google Scholar
McKirahan, Richard. 1992. Principles and Proofs: Aristotle’s Theory of a Demonstrative Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Mendell, Henry. 2019. “Aristotle and Mathematics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/aristotle-mathematics/.Search in Google Scholar
Mignucci, M. 1975. L’argomentazione Dimostrativa in Aristotele: Commento Agli Analitici Secondi. Padua: Antenore.Search in Google Scholar
Owen, G. E. L. 1965. “Aristotle on the Snares of Ontology.” In New Essays on Plato and Aristotle, Vol. 3, edited by R. Bambrough, 69–95. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Owen, G. E. L. 1975. “The Platonism of Aristotle.” In Articles on Aristotle: 1. Science, edited by J. Barnes, M. Schofield, and R. Sorabj, 14–34. London: Duckworth.Search in Google Scholar
Owens, Joseph. 1978. The Doctrine of Being in the Aristotelian Metaphysics: A Study in the Greek Background of Mediaeval Thought, 3rd ed. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.10.1163/9789004626249Search in Google Scholar
Pacius, J. 1597. Aristotelis Stagiritae Peripateticorum Principis Organum, 2nd ed. Frankfurt: Heredes Andreae Wecheli.Search in Google Scholar
Patzig, Günther. 1968. Aristotle’s Theory of the Syllogism: A Logico-Philosophical Study of Book A of the Prior Analytics. Trans. Jonathan Barnes. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.Search in Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, Christian. 2024. “Aristotle on the Cause of Unity: The Argument of Metaphysics H.3–6.” Phronesis 69: 123–57. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685284-bja10083.Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, Richard. 1953. Plato’s Earlier Dialectic, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1949. Aristotle’s Prior and Posterior Analytics: A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/actrade/9780199244959.book.1Search in Google Scholar
Sorabji, Richard. 1980. Necessity, Cause, and Blame: Perspectives on Aristotle’s Theory. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Search in Google Scholar
Sorabji, Richard. 1981. “Definitions: Why Necessary and in What Way?” In Aristotle on Science: The Posterior Analytics, edited by E. Berti, 205–44. Padua: Antenore.Search in Google Scholar
Szabó, Árpád. 1960. “Anfänge des Euklidishen Axiomensystems.” Archive for the History of the Exact Sciences 1: 37–106.10.1007/BF00357394Search in Google Scholar
Tiles, J. 1983. “Why the Triangle Has 2 Right Angles Kath’ Hauto.” Phronesis 28: 1–17.10.1163/156852883X00013Search in Google Scholar
Tredennick, Hugh. 1960. Aristotle: Posterior Analytics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Upton, Thomas V. 1991. “The if-it-is Question in Aristotle.” Ancient Philosophy 11: 315–30. https://doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil19911126.Search in Google Scholar
Zuppolini, Breno. 2018. “Aristotle on per Se Accidents.” Ancient Philosophy 38: 113–35. https://doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil20183817.Search in Google Scholar
Zuppolini, Breno. 2019. “Avoiding Infinite Regress: Posterior Analytics I 22.” Manuscrito 42: 122–56. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6045.2019.v42n4.bz.Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
