• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.144
• /
• pp.285-318
• /
• 2017

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the basic conception and attitude of Aristotelian philosophy by observing the transmission of his writings. The attempt to understand Aristotelian philosophy as a consistent, uniform, and unique system seems to be a natural expectation in the face of the scientific position of this philosophy. But if one looks at the history of the transmission and the edition of his works, this expectation does not correctly understand the Aristotelian philosophy, but misunderstands it. From this problem-consciousness I examine the structural features of Aristotelian philosophy by drawing attention to the work of Andronicus of Rhodes, who was the first editor of the Corpus Aristotelicum around the 1st century BC. This study is related to the historical understanding of the transmission of the Aristotelian writings, and to the classical-philological view of the transmission of writings, and also to the broad and profound understanding of the whole philosophy of Aristotle. Finally, I conclude that it is best to understand the Aristotelian philosophy in the pluralistic perspective as Aristotle himself did.

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.119-145
• /
• 2001

아리스토텔레스의 논리학은 그 도구적, 방법론적 성격 때문에 보통 "organon"이라고 불린다. 많은 아리스토텔레스 연구자들은, 그의 논리학 이론들이 그가 손댄 여러 분야의 연구에서 정밀 도구 구실을 하는지를 밝히는 데 몰두해 왔다. 지난 30년 넘는 세월 동안 아리스토텔레스 연구를 이 끌어왔던 논의 가운데 하나인, "genos"와 "eidos"의 쓰임에 논의도 바로 그런 연구 전통에 잇닿아 있다. 이 논의는 요즘 일단락된 것으로 받아들여지고 있다. 아리스토텔레스의 논리학에 나오는, 게노스와 에이도스에 의한 분류는 그의 생물학 연구에서는 별 가치가 없다는 것이 일반적인 의견이다. 생물학 연구에서는 문제의 두 개념이 논리학에서처럼 "유"와 "종"의 뜻으로 쓰이는 것이 아니라 상대적인 개념으로 쓰이며, 그렇기 때문에 생물 분류와 무관하다는 말이다. 하지만 문제의 두 개념들이 등장하는 구절들을 문헌학적인 방법을 써서 분석해 보면, 이런 일반적인 의견은 별 근거가 없는 것으로 드러난다: 생물학에서 eidos는 개별자들을 포함하는 종을 가리키는 개념으로, 절대적으로 쓰인다. genos의 경우는 그 쓰임이 좀 더 복잡하지만, 아리스토텔레스가 생물학에서 내세우는 생물의 형태론적 구 분과 관련해서 쓰일 때는 언제나 "유"를 뜻한다. 그런 점에서 genos와 eidos는 본질적으로 생물 분류에 쓰인 개념들이다. 이런 사실은 곧 아리스토텔레스의 논리학이 그의 생물학 연구에서 유용한 도구로서 쓰임을 보여주는 하나의 증거이다.

• Journal for History of Mathematics
• /
• v.22 no.1
• /
• pp.1-24
• /
• 2009

In this paper we have inferred the influence of Zeno on the construction of the potential infinite of Aristotle based on arguments of Zeno's paradoxes. When we examine the potential infinite of Aristotle as the basis of the ancient Greek mathematics, we can see that they did not permit the concept of the actual infinite necessary for calculus. The reason Why they recognized the potential infinite, denying the actual infinite as seen in Aristotle's physics could be found in their attempt to escape the illogicality shown in Zeno's arguments. Accordingly, this paper could provided one of reasons why the ancient Greeks had used uneasy exhaustion's method instead of developing the quadrature involving the limit concept.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.129
• /
• pp.291-313
• /
• 2014

The aim of this paper is to clarify the Aristotle's conception of change(kinesis). Aristotle defines the change as a process which actualize a potentiality. From Aristotle's definition of the change, a number of consequences flow directly about how to conceptualize it. First, the change is fundamentally directional. Second, if we do not know what the change is directed toward, we do not understand what the change is. Third, everything that changes is caused to change by a distinct cause of change, a changer. Fourth, there is a single actualization of cause and subject of the change. All change, for Aristotle, is the change of an enduring subject. And all change occur in the infinite(to apeiron) which is time, space, matter. It would be absurd to equate the whole and the infinite, for that would be to say that the unlimited had a limit. The infinite does not contain, but in so far as it is infinite, is contained. And due at least in part to its potentiality, the infinite is unknowable. Because it lacks a form. The infinite traditionally derived its dignity from being thought of as a whole in which everything is contained. But Aristotle removes the infinite from its position of majesty. Aristotle's this idea was a revolution in philosophical perspective.

• Journal of Science Education
• /
• v.38 no.1
• /
• pp.96-102
• /
• 2014

The advent of meteorology was not appeared by instance. At first, Meteorology was accomplished by Aristotle, who was Greek natural philosopher. In a book he called Meteorologica, which dates to around 340 BCE, Aristotle dealt with the properties and processes of weather phenomena which described in the pre-age of Aristotle. This book's title originate to the word of meteorology. Aristotle's Meteorologica was assembled by his theories, as well as the wisdoms of historian, philosopher and epic in pre-age of Aristotle and his age. The purpose of this study was to search for the scientific background of writing of historically important book, Meteorogica.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.141
• /
• pp.187-202
• /
• 2017

The aim of this paper is to clarify the difference between the concept of deduction-induction and Aristotle's concept of syllogismos-epagoge. First, Aristotle does not use the expression 'invalid syllogismos'. But a valid deduction is distinguished from a invalid deduction in modern logic. Second, from Aristotle's point of view syllogismos is paralleled by epagoge. Because syllogismos is equivalent to epagoge in logical form. But a disturbing lack of parallelism exists between deduction and induction by which the standards for establishing inductive conclusions are more demanding than those for deductive ones. Third, instructors in introductory logic courses ordinarily stress the need to evaluate arguments first in terms of the strength of the conclusion relative to the premises. Accordingly, students may be told to assume that premises are true. But Aristotle does not assume that premises are true. A syllogismos start from the conceptually true premise and a epagoge start from the empirically true premise.

• 발명특허
• /
• v.5 no.3 s.49
• /
• pp.15-17
• /
• 1980

그리스고전기의 마지막을 장식한 아리스토텔레스(Aristoteles, B.C. 384-322)는 철학자로서 유명하지만 과학자로서도 그에 못지 않게 중요하다. 그의 과학은 17세기에 근대과학이 나오기 까지 2천년동안 서구를 지배했기 때문이다. 과학사상 아무도 그토록 깊고 오래 계속된 영향을 남긴일이 없다. 대대로 명의를 배출한 집안에 태어난 아리스토텔레스는 어려서부터 철저한 의학교육을 받았다. 그때에는 의사가 되려면 철학을 공부해야 된다는 것이 상식으로 되어 있었기 때문에 플라톤이 만든 아카데미아(Akademia)에 입학했다. 플라톤과의 만남은 아리스토텔레스의 일생에 지을수 없는 자국을 남겼다.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Earth Science Education
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.158-170
• /
• 2022

The purpose of this study is to understand the characteristics of Aristotle's view of nature that is, the static view of the universe, and find implications for education. Plato sought to interpret the natural world using a rational approach rather than an incomplete observation, in terms of from the perspective of geometry and mathematical regularity, as the best way to understand the world. On the other hand, Aristotle believed that we could understand the world by observing what we see. This world is a static worldview full of the purpose of the individual with a sense of purposive legitimacy. In addition, the natural motion of earthly objects and celestial bodies, which are natural movements towards the world of order, are the original actions. Aristotle thought that, given the opportunity, all natural things would carry out some movement, that is, their natural movement. Above all, the world that Plato and Aristotle built is a static universe. It is possible to fully grasp the world by approaching the objective nature that exists independently of human being with human reason and observation. After all, for Aristotle, like Plato, their belief that the natural world was subject to regular and orderly laws of nature, despite the complexity of what seemed to be an embarrassingly continual change, became the basis of Western thought. Since the universe, the metaphysical perspective of ancient Greece and modern philosophy, relies on the development of a dichotomy of understanding (cutting branches) into what has already been completed or planned, ideal and inevitable, so it is the basis of traditional teaching-learning that does not value learner's opinions.

• Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.164-174
• /
• 1996

본연구는 자유낙하 운동에 대학 학생의 개념을 이 개념의 역사적 변천 과정과 비교하여 분석하였다. 네 연령층(ll세,13세, 15세, 17세)으로부터 총 737명이 설문조사에 참여하였으며,설문에서 주어전 문항들은 자유낙하 운동과 관련하여 과거의 과학자(예를 들어, 아리스토텔레스, 임페루스 이론가, 갈릴레오)들이 고민하였던 핵심 문제를 반영하는 것이었다. 설문에는 세 문항이 포함되었으며,각 문항은 자유낙하 운동에 관한 세 가지 측면(즉,운동의 원인,낙하높이와 낙하속력의 관계,낙하 체의 무게와 낙하속력의 관계)에 각각 관련된 것이었다. 낙하운동의 원인에 대혜서, 전체 학생의 4.3%, 25.5%. 62.7%가 아리스토텔레스,임페루스스,갈릴레오적 관점을 각각 지닌 것으로 나타났다. 낙하높이와 낙하속력의 관계에 대혜서는,20.0% 와 29.0%의 학생들이 각각 아리스토텔레스와 갈릴레오적 관점을 지닌 것으로 냐타났다. 그리고 낙하체와 무게와 낙하속력의 관계에 대혜서는,19.0%,34.8%,42.2%의 학생들이 아리스토텔레스,임페루스,갈리레오적 관점을 지닌 것으로 나타났다. 개별 문항에서 부분적으로 임페루스적 관점으로부터 갈릴레오적 관점으로의 변화가 나타났으나,전체적으로 연령이 증가함에 따라 학생의 개념이 현대적 관점으로 변화한다고 판단 하기는 어려웠다. 그리고 본 연구로부터 학생의 개념과 그 개념의 역사적 변천 과정에 사이에 상당한 유사성과 함께 차이점이 존제함을 알 수 있었다.

• Journal of Educational Research in Mathematics
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.727-745
• /
• 2017

This study investigated the Aristotle's continuity and the historical development of continuity of function to explore the differences between the concepts of mathematics and students' thinking about continuity of functions. Aristotle, who sought the essence of continuity, characterized continuity as an 'indivisible unit as a whole.' Before the nineteenth century, mathematicians considered the continuity of functions based on space, and after the arithmetization of nineteenth century modern ${\epsilon}-{\delta}$ definition appeared. Some scholars thought the process was revolutionary. Students tended to think of the continuity of functions similar to that of Aristotle and mathematicians before the arithmetization, and it is inappropriate to regard students' conceptions simply as errors. This study on the continuity of functions examined that some conceptions which have been perceived as misconceptions of students could be viewed as paradigmatic thoughts rather than as errors.