Categories (Aristotle)

The categories (old Greek περὶ τῶν κατηγορίων Perì TON katēgoríōn, latin Categoriae ) is a signature of the philosopher Aristotle. You will be counted in the tradition of Aristotle's logical writings. It forms in the traditional - not even derived from Aristotle - order of his writings the beginning of the so-called Organon. Like almost all of Aristotle's writings was also the text of the categories were not originally intended for publication, but belongs to the so-called Prague Matien, which probably originally represented lecture notes and material collections of Aristotle.

Theme of Scripture are categories, understood as a statement schemes in terms of something existing. Aristotle introduces the categories a new kind of logical expressions that allows predicates of subjects to distinguish and classify the predicates logically. He is concerned, fundamentally and completely determine the forms by which individual words can be usefully related to statements. His classification of schemes statement is geared towards simple, non - composite linguistic expressions such as " Socrates ", " man " or "white." Because expressions, terms and signified are not always clearly distinguished, one interpretation is also possible, according to the same time the reality will be divided into types of objects and properties (in the sense of an ontology ). Introduced by Aristotle here terminology, but also the link between language, logic and metaphysics were decisive for the traditions of Western and Islamic philosophy to modern times.

2.2.1 The list of categories
2.2.2 The substance ( Chapter 5 )
2.2.3 The accidents

Tradition, title and structure of categories

In the traditional - not even derived from Aristotle - order of its six logical writings, the categories are at the beginning. Like almost all of Aristotle's works and the text of the categories was probably originally not intended for publication, but belongs to the so-called Prague Matien, which presumably represent lecture notes and material collections of Aristotle.

The very short font categories is probably not completely preserved. Address the lack of an introduction as well as the partially abrupt transitions between sections for the fragmentary character. In the traditional version, it consists of fifteen, often very short chapters. This division probably does not come at all points of Aristotle himself, but possibly goes to the later editors of his works, Andronicus of Rhodes, back. Even the title is probably not of Aristotle, but was probably Andronikos in the 1st century BC before. Perhaps this was the original title of the font per tôn Topon ("the Preliminary of the Topics " ), with which Scripture is addressed in the ancient literature in part.

Probably the font categories emerged at the time of the first visit of Aristotle in Athens when he was a member of the Platonic Academy. Maybe she Aristotle written after the Topics, which also has a ( slightly different ) list of all ten categories. The function of the categories in the categories appears opposite the extended in the Topics by now with the concept of the first substance ( which is not found in the Topics ) is situated a thesis about what would be the ontologically basic. As Aristotle explains in this theory, the individual individual objects as the basis of all existence, he seems to have implicitly incorporated a competing model to the theory of Plato. After a few artists these argued that the general objects ( namely, the ideas or the uppermost ranges) are ontological priority. It is striking that Aristotle Plato - unlike in probably later writings - in this critical debate never called and no such theory explicitly criticized.

The authenticity of the signature, or parts of Scripture, especially the Postprädikamente, has been disputed. The reasons for this were that Aristotle refers at any other point on the categories and that the substance doctrine of metaphysics with the partially incompatible categories. Chance the spuriousness was already represented in the ancient world, but especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, it is generally believed that Scripture, apart from a few interpolated lines, derived from Aristotle.

Content

Preliminary Definitions

Homonymy, synonymy and Paronymie

At the beginning of the category font Aristotle points out in a very short chapters, the terms homonymy, synonymy and Paronymie who with him have a different meaning in today's parlance. He calls such " beings " (on, another translation is: things ) the same name ( homonyms ), has the same name ( onoma ), but has a different concept of essence (logos teis ousias ). So a painted man has the name " living creatures " ( zoon ), just like a real person 's name " being" has. The name " being" related concept of essence but each other, because the real man as opposed to painted a vivid living things. Synonym, however, Aristotle calls such " beings ", which has the same name and the same concept of essence. For example, a person has the name of " being" and falls under the concept of " living things ", just like a cow named " creatures " has and falls under exactly the same concept of " living creatures ". Conjugate Aristotle calls " a being " which is nachbenannt for something else. So the " grammarian " is nachbenannt "grammar".

The importance for the subsequent correspondence is that identifications of words are always predicated synonymously when they fall below a species or genus. Thus, the word " Socrates " with " person" or " being" replace and take on the same object reference. Accordingly, "white" should be replaced by " colored". However, this relation is not reversible. One can not describe the individual Socrates the general meaning of living organisms. Homonym, however, a word as is "light", which may refer to a weight, on the other, the difficulty. Aristotle has in many places pointed out that words like beings, the One, the good or justice can be said in many ways. The distinction thus serves to clarify language and as a tool to assign words to a class of words ( the categories ).

Unconnected and connected word

Aristotle divided the " linguistic expressions " ( legomena, another translation is: words) firstly, those in a " connection" ( symploke ) can be pronounced as "man running". And secondly, into those that are pronounced without a connection, such as " man ", " bull" or " running". ( Cat 2, 1a16ff )

The outspoken without connecting words, such as " person" or " running" can can be neither true nor false. True or false can only be in connection Pronounced words such as "man running" ( the intentioned person could indeed sit ). In conjunction pronounced words form either an affirmation ( "man running" ) or a negation ( "man is not running "). (Cat 4, 2a4ff. )

Object category font are the unconnected words. This allows Aristotle to supplement words in a sentence ( Synkategoremata as prepositions, pronouns, conjunctions or ) ignored. The copula is not included. To him, it 's all about words ( singular and general terms ) that ( a well-formed subject-predicate sentence ) taking in a statement the place of an object or a predicate, and refer to something ( a reference object have ). Related words are subject to the right of the categories below in the Organon paper entitled "The doctrine of the sentence" ( Peri Hermeneias ). The question of the scope for linking words has already been discussed in the Platonic Academy and is found in the Sophist dialogue ( 262-264 ) again, which originated in the time when Aristotle was a member. The developed there thoughts Aristotle does not comment directly.

The hypokeimenon

A hypokeimenon is what constitutes its unchanging content in an individual subject. A road may be wet or dry, crowded, secluded, easily accessible or brightly lit, there is always a (certain) road. The term can hypokeimenon of "subject ", " substrate " or " Underlying " be translated. The Underlying comprises the features in an individual, which are regularly rediscover in other individuals of the same species. An example of an Underlying is a specific, single person, such as " Socrates " or a single, particular horse. From such Underlying may now be somewhat predicated what it determines closer, such as " Socrates is a man " or " Socrates is ". The Underlying is the grammatical and logical subject of a statement. Ontologically, it is a carrier of properties and characteristics. An Underlying is indivisible and the number by one, an individual object as a whole, with the result that it can not be predicated of an object other than characteristic itself. A deeper analysis of the concept with the distinction of form and matter can be found in the later treatise On birth and death ( De generatione et corruptione I 4, 6 319b - 320a 7).

The four types of beings

Aristotle distinguishes four different types of " beings " (on). To distinguish these four types he uses two classification criteria:

Are predicated of an Underlying. (As in the statement " Socrates is a man " of the term " person" of the Underlying " Socrates " testified ) First, everything that exists can be predicated of one Underlying either or are not predicated of any Underlying ( as a particular perceived at an Underlying "white", although in this article is, but is not predicated of him, one does not say: " Socrates is a white ").
Being an Underlying. Second, all being either in a Underlying (as a particular perceived at one Underlying "knows" this is ) or not in an Underlying (as the term " person," not to the Underlying " Socrates ", but only by him can be said ). Aristotle points out here that he first, with this in- be - something does not mean a part of the Underlying, ie not as the beard or an arm of Socrates. And secondly, something that alone, so without that it is in Socrates or any other Underlying, can not be.

Everything there (all " beings " ), that is always in two relationships with a Underlying, resulting in four different types of " beings " are done:

In this four-division of the essence of the reasoning of Aristotle is included on the being who he fundamentally designs in the category font and followed with further and deeper analysis in his other work, especially in metaphysics on. Something that can not be stated as a property of something else, is an independent object, a concrete individual thing, a distinct individual in itself, which forms the basis of beings. It is a carrier of properties. A Individuuem can not take the place of a predicate in a predicative sentence. Contrast, are non- substantial properties such as illness, knowledge or colors. These are not by themselves, but being only dependent. They only exist if they have truly become as a property or characteristic in a single thing. You can refer to these general terms as Eigenschaftsuniversalien. They differ from the Substanzuniversalien in that they are characterized by an "in -ness" in the particulars. The collective terms for species ( eidos, Latin species) and genera ( genos ), however, are not in individual things, but can be predicated only on these. From a certain people can testify that he meets the definition of a man, the kind of people that they meet the definition of the genus living things. A natural kind ( species infima ) is the kind that is not divisible into other species. It comprises at least one individual that has the specific Artdifferenz. Also, species and genera are only available when individual things exist that can be combined in such a collective term due to a specific Artdifferenz. Because in statements Substanzuniversalien can perform the same function as individuals and are also derived from these, Aristotle distinguishes in the fifth chapter (see below) between first and second substance.

Specific problems in the interpretation of the four-division prepare the individual characteristics, that is, the type of relationship and Eigenschaftsuniversalien of individuals, particularly in terms of the question whether it is for those entities are autonomous. Aristotle says: "With" in an Underlying " I mean, what is in something, not as a part, and not separated can exist from that in which it is. " ( Cat 2, 1a 24-25) The traditional interpretation, for John Lloyd Ackrill is formulated here a " Untrennbarkeitsregel " after which the individual property no longer exists, if the respective property carrier no longer exists. The problem is that some properties are universal, which normally can not be limited by an individual individual. The response of the traditional interpretation has it that the respective property is individualized in a single carrier. The wisdom of Socrates is not the same as that of Plato, but each one particular. The Untrennbarkeitsregel has the purpose to ensure ( against Plato's ideas ) that you can not accept a separately existing entity, the general wisdom in addition to the individuated in Socrates wisdom. The debate was triggered by G.E.L. Owen with the thesis that one of individualization only reason speaks, because the observed properties are not specified enough. However, it is conceivable for each property that they can be repeated in another subject. The white in the beard of Socrates can also be found in another beard again. As long as the repetition of the color is not detected, it is a different color. Against this view is the basic contradiction between ( spatio - temporal ) individuality and repeatability. A third interpretation of Michael Frede considered an individual capacity as an accident, which is a distinct entity, as long as there are any articles in which it can be. As long as there are beards, they can also be carriers of the white from the beard of Socrates. For demonstration draws Frede et al a passage from the fifth chapter of the category approach Scripture: " Again. Color is to the body, and consequently in an individual body, because if it is not on any individual body, then not even to body at all. " (Cat 5, 2b, 1-3) color is for Frede something universal, which each have a specific has individual subject to subject. It is occurring in an individual capacity as an infima species ( artbildende difference) of a property or characteristic conceive. Christof Rapp holds both the traditional as well as the fredische interpretation possible.

Transitivity of individual species and genus

In the third chapter, Aristotle notes that a statement about something that is not an Underlying, even for the Underlying this is true. If one says, for example, people are living creatures, so also the individual human being is a living being. Aristotle describes here the relation " is predicated of ". It is important to make sure that this conclusion is not correct, if the relation is not in both directions has the same content. So the statement " is son of" only one level applicable, namely the Son to the Father. However, one can the relation " is a descendant of " applied to both the father and the grandfather or other ancestor.

Aristotle has in addition to the fact that species that belong to different genera, have a different Artdifferenz. Thus, one can distinguish living things around in turnround, biped, flying animals or aquatic animals. The genus science, however, requires other distinctions. Features that are applicable to organisms other hand, can be applied to the sub-species of the flight and aquatic animals. In the reception will be critically noted that Aristotle has not made any clear exposition of the difference of a predication about the relationship between genus and species ( subset ) on the one hand and on the type and individual ( amount of element ) on the other. In contrast, one can object that genera and species are not to be regarded as sets and subsets, but as independent structures, as indeterminate General. Another objection to this criticism is that Aristotle is not talking about predications, but about the naming ( labeling ) of individuals and their implications or connotations ( metalepsis ) here.

The relationship shown here is called hypernym and hyponym in linguistics with the terms and is a central semantic relation in semantic networks, taxonomies and thesauri.

The categories ( 4 to 9 chapters)

The list of categories

Aristotle enumerates a list of ten different types of " words " ( legomena ), the so-called ten categories. A spoken word referred to by Aristotle without connecting either a thing, a size, a texture, a relationship, a place, a time, a state, a have, an act or a suffering. (Cat 4, 1b 25ff )

Given here is list of the 10 categories will appear in Aristotle for the first time in the Topics (Top I 9, 103b 22 ), where Aristotle deals with the principles of dialectical argumentation, with the correct statement ways, especially in regards definitions and conclusions ( syllogism ). The only difference is the name of the first category, the " What's something " (ti estin ) is called in the Topics. The answer to this question can ( a feature, not the substance itself) be either an identification of a substance or a statement about this first substance that falls under one of the nine other categories. Topic of the Topics are the genres of predicates and not the genera of beings. In the Topics Aristotle also points out that every statement also fall within one of the predicables, so either definition, genus, proprium or commercial. Categories and predicables therefore are not mutually exclusive, but are different criteria for the assessment of what is stated. Through the analysis of expressing himself on their conceptual status towards it is possible to avoid shifts in meaning and fallacies, as they were used in the eristic and the sophistry of his time, or criticize. Examples provided Aristotle in the Sophistic refutations (eg Soph el 22, 178 b 24 ff), but also in other writings, such as against Parmenides (Phys. I 3) or Plato ( An. Post. I 22, 83a 24ff and with regard to the good in EN I4, 1096A 11ff ).

In the Topics Aristotle also explains the function of the terms homonymous and synonymous with the category system. While expressions that are within a category (ie, individual, species, genus ), are synonymous, is a term like the good homonym, he is equivocal. " It is also to pay attention to the shapes of the categories look at the word and to check whether they are the same in all cases. When they become not the same, then the linguistic expression is apparently homonym. So good in the food what causes pleasure in the healing arts, however, is what causes health. In relation to the soul, called 'good' a quality, eg, prudent ',' brave 'or' justice '; the same is true if you, well refers ' to humans. Sometimes being the good, the When, how, what happens at the right time, for example, a good is; because as Good is referred to what is happening at the right time. Frequently described as good and the quantity, eg, moderate '; because it is also called the Moderate a good. So it is in 'good' to a homonymous expression. " (Top 15 I, 107a 3-11) Here is the logic of language function categories in the confrontation with sophistical arguments in the foreground. " It is also clear, as one has to deal with the circuits that are based on the same name of that which is not the same as we have the various forms of the categories. " ( Soph el I 22, 178a 4-6 ).

By category writing in the first category is now called ousia, is also the focus of the analysis is no longer in the speech analysis but in explaining the beings. The distinction between first and second substance plays an essential role, which is not resumed in the later works. The concept of substance is the central concept of metaphysics, wherein the first substance is subjected by the distinctions of matter and form or possibility and reality and act and potency only in the mature philosophy of Aristotle a deeper analysis. In examining the various uses of the word " being" in the later writings ( Met V 7, 1017a 22 -30; VI 2, 1026a 33; VII 1, 1028a 10-13 ) is the being defined by the categories ( horistai to on, Met VII 3, 1029A, 21). Aristotle speaks there directly from the " categories of beings " ( kategoriai tou ontos; Met V 28, 1024b 13; IX 1, 1045 b 28; Phys III 1, 200 b 28. ). The categories are used to analyze beings, insofar as it is predicated.

This direct ontological reference is in the category of writing not yet so clear. In trying to determine the purpose of the categories in this work, various proposals have been made in the interpretation of history. The spectrum of views of ancient commentators, reports on the Simplicius, this is the modern interpretations comparable. According to Simplicius, there were the opinions which are categories

Simplicius himself refused all three positions as too one-sided. Instead, he formulated in accordance with Porphyry a differentiated function of the categories: " They are the simplest linguistic expressions which refer to things insofar as they are indicative, but not so far as they are mere forms of speech. " Made a significant contribution to the new debate about the categories in the 19th century, Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg made , the ( in direct contrast to Simplicius ) emphasized the connection with the grammatical functions in a sentence. Hermann Bonitz, however, understood the categories as pure modes of being. When Otto Apelt the verbal testimony ways are in the foreground. He described the categories as " classes of predicates ." Karl Bärthlein referred to the argument that the 2nd - 9th category, because they are dependent on the substance, could have no independent ontological significance. For Franz Clemens Brentano, in turn, the categories of " top terms" or "highest concepts of positive predicates " were so have their own reality. Directly opposite the view of reality of the categories, Martin Heidegger presented with the statement " categories are not real terms ', but truss, in which all the real terms are registered! Do not put things in their true nature are described therein and not already noticed some generic terms ( γένη! ), but the conditions of the possibility of genera at all. " Categories refer to the level of the Being of beings, they are" provisions that every being already underlie that must be every being, when it should be. " the double meaning of the categories ( semantically as a statement form and ontological reality as content) raises Ingemar Düring forth. " They serve as instruments for the classification of the types of movement and change; they describe different forms or manifestations of being and any of the categories can be attributed to another or to a common ἀρχή [ arché = level]. " Andreas Graeser describes the categories as" importance classes, natural classes of things ", which therefore both a verbal as well as have an ontological content. This also emphasizes Klaus Oehler: " As everywhere in Aristotle's aim in the category analysis, the investigation of linguistic expression to the underlying logical and noematic [ epistemological ] structures and finally ontic to the fundamental for him circumstances. " Michael Frede has the involvement of Topik three uses of the term categories are distinguished: ( i) categories in the technical sense of the word as predications, (ii) classes of predicates determined by each predication in question, and (iii ) as the highest classes of beings. The latter meaning is found only in the category heading. Ludger Jansen believes that the categories serve different logical- dialectical and ontological features that lead to the respective categories are assigned to different elements.

The basic meaning of the categories of Aristotelian philosophy is evidenced by the large number of to be found in various works lists. Klaus Oehler has compiled a list with a more than 60 nominations of at least three categories.

The substance ( Chapter 5 )

The list of categories follows in a kind of phenomenology a closer look at the main categories. The first category - not only in sequence - is the ousia. The substance is the Principal and Exquisite, because it is the subject to which each statement applies. With this thesis, Aristotle is clearly and unambiguously against the theory of ideas of his teacher Plato, without this (here) explicitly to address. The primacy in the investigation of the being has full the individual. Not the universal, as mentioned by Plato in the Sophist highest genera of thought ( being, rest, exercise, identity, diversity ) has priority, but the individual without the universal can not exist (Cat 5, 2b 5) The problem that Plato assigns a being of non-being in the Sophist, Aristotle criticized with the argument that being is not one, but an ordered according to the categories of plurality. ( Met XIV 2, 1088b 35 - 1089a 31) "Unlike Plato, he attacks the question from below to: he always goes by the natural processes of " This contrast between Aristotelian realism and idealism Platonic universals is based on, the through the whole history of philosophy is an essential object of philosophical debate was up to the present.

In the analysis of the concept of ousia Aristotle distinguishes now - according to the logic of the second chapter - between the first substance ( prote ousia ) and the second substance ( ousia deutera ). "Second substances are called the species, which include the substances in the first sense, they and their genres.. Heard So for example, a certain person to the kind of person and the kind of the kind is the sense of being "( Cat 5, 2a 15-18 ) Aristotle as a result a number of observations about the properties of statements about substances:

Cat 5, 2a 19ff: from a subject either the name or as a substitute be predicated of his term. Term means in Aristotle the species or genus, under the definition of the substance falls, so: because this ( death- ti) is Socrates or this there is a two-legged, rational sense beings. This does not apply to properties. One can not say that a body is the color white.
Cat 5, 2a 34ff: Second substances ( the kind of person ) be predicated of a subject characteristics ( White ) in or on a subject. Both are available only when there is a first substance. One could not say something is white when there is no body. Similarly, there would be no concept man, if it were not for single people. The reverse, the question of whether there could be first substances, if there were no second substances or properties is not considered by Aristotle.
Cat 5, 2b 7ff: species are closer to the substance as a species, because they are more concrete. For Aristotle, there is thus a hierarchy of beings. The more general a term, the lower the certainty and thus the reference to individual thing. The term animal is less substance than the concept man.
Cat 5, 2b 29ff: Even between the first substance, second substance and properties, there is a hierarchical ( transitive ) relation. ( - 9 category, the second " all the rest " =) testified the peculiarities During second substances indicate the importance of a first substance to be with the properties. These peculiarities are the same if one uses the concept of species instead of the name. " This man is wise " applies just as " Socrates is wise " when you mean with " this man " Socrates.
Cat 5, 3a 21ff: Similar to the second substance is also the Artdifferenz ( eudopoios diaphora ) in any subject, but is predicated only of this. The features " on feet outgoing" and " bipedal " apply to several individuals, are thus predicated of man as a type and (due to the transitive relationship necessary) by Socrates as a certain person. Oehler points out that the specific difference is not included directly in the scheme of categories, because it does describe a property, but is used to distinguish species within a genus, so to speak, inherent in the concept of the second substance. He cites the Topik: " No difference, as well as the genus is not, is one of the accidents, because it is not possible that the difference to get a cup of tea as well as can not come. " ( Top Z 6, 144a 24ff )
Cat 5, 3a 29ff: If you " be at home " speaks of, so are not meant the physical parts of a substance. Head and hand are part of the substance of Socrates and can not get akzidenziell or not get it. The Artdifferenz differs from the physical parts in that it is purely conceptual formed. Again a difference in the ontological conception to Plato expresses, in which the properties are still considered part of sensible object. Aristotle has distinguished ontologically clear distinction between the physical parts and properties ( Sachhaltigkeiten ), which are always dependent. (see also: Met VII 1, 1028a 13 -b 7) Gerold Prauss sees this as a progress of philosophical reflection.
Cat 5, 3a 33ff: All substances and differences Derived is predicated synonymously. The common sense of plants and creatures - propagation by seed - also applies to each individual.
Cat 5, 3b 10ff: The difference of the first and second substance is that of unity and multiplicity. The second substance is related to the first as a quality. But it is not quality because it does not fall under the criterion of in- his and is not akzidenziell.
Cat 5, 3b 24ff: substances do not have a contrarian contrary. You are not know at a certain point and black at the same time.
Cat 5, 3b 33ff: For substances there is no more or less. This is not the relation of different substances to each other, but a man can not be more of a man than another. The criterion therefore does not apply to accidents, but on species and genus.
Cat 5, 4a 10ff: Only substances can however take contrarian in itself. " For example, a certain man, though he soon white one and is the same, sometimes black, hot and cold, good and bad. " This characteristic of change have the other categories, the accidents, not. Properties themselves can not be carriers of properties again A certain white is under the same circumstances always a certain white.
Cat 5, 4a 22ff: As a small digression affects the finding that statements lack the property of changeability. Speech and opinion may soon be true or untrue soon, not because their properties change, but the underlying circumstances. The statement " Socrates is sitting " is wrong when Socrates has risen. In the way Aristotle gives here a realistic concept of truth, which is bound to the conformity of thought / statement and reality (correspondence theory). The theme is missing otherwise still in the category font and is only in metaphysics discussed more (especially in the chapter on the modality of substances Met IX, 1051 b).

The accidents

All that which is in a subject, is an accidental property for Aristotle. These can be either individual or general ( see Chapter 2: the kinds of beings ). These properties are the remaining nine categories. They are all ontologically dependent on a (first) substance, ie they can not exist independently, but they are affected by the relationship of the in-being. The discussion of the main properties of quantity, quality and Relative found in the Glossary of Terms of metaphysics ( Met V 13, 14, 15) using a similar method. This is one of the evidence that Aristotle developed his theory of scriptures in the category of beings in the later work based sets, if slightly modified in details and in perspective.

" A Quantitative called what in components is easily dismantled so that each of them is two or more, by its nature, a one and a specific individual. Quantity is a quantitative, if counted, size, if it can be measured. But amount is called, potentially in non Steady, but size, which can be disassembled into Steady " (Met. V 13, 1020a 7-11 ). Such a definition is still missing in the category heading. Here Aristotle is suddenly one with the distinction that some quantitative, others are discreet continuously. Discrete things are countable. This includes speech, which consists of syllables. The components of any continuous things such as line, surface, body, or the time and location each have a common border. Quantities can also be such that their parts have a location to each other as in the geometric variables, or they have no spatial reference and have instead an order, an order on as time, numbers, or the speech.

A feature of the quantitative is that it has no opposite. Two or three cubits long cubits long are certain values to which one can form no contrarian. Similarly, there is no quantity in the more or less because it is intended. Not to include quantitative terms such as big and small, much or little, sooner or later, because they need a reference. You belong to the category of the relative; because a grain of millet can be referred to, for example, as large as a mountain and small. The most reliable feature of the qualitative is that it is either equal or unequal. Properties such as color or states ( qualities) are not equal to or not equal, but similar or not.

Relative need a reference. This applies as greater than or double for comparative words. But also things like attitude, condition, perception, knowledge or situation is what Aristotle Relative, because these terms get their meaning only through the relation to something. An attitude is an attitude in relation to something, a knowledge the knowledge of something or the location of a location to something. Relative may be contrary how to drive and wickedness or knowledge and ignorance. You can also express a greater or lesser degree ( intensity ). There are also relative, for it is nothing. So you can not talk about a more or less twice in the double.

A feature of the relative is the inverse relationship, the reciprocal, so to respect between master and servant, or between twice and half This is due to the formation of concepts. Thus bird and wings are not reciprocal, but probably Winged and wings. One can not express the reciprocal relationship if you are not the right relationship level selects such as the slave of a man, the inverse relationship ( man a slave ) does not work. A Relative must express the peculiarity of the relationship. Not everything is Relative simultaneously. For the knowable or perceivable there already before known or perceived.

Not for the relative count individual substances, not their parts, although each substance is related to something. If you tell this mountain is small ( or large), then the relative smallness and not the individual country. In this case, however, the substance must be known so ever about them a Relative can be said.

Aristotle defines quality than that which you call the condition (property in the strict sense ). In the text he speaks of Beschaffensein of man, but also leads to other examples. The concept of quality includes various features. Aristotle distinguishes four types.

The first type he calls attitude ( habitus ) and condition ( disposition ). The habitus, such as types of knowledge or efficiencies (skills ), describes stable properties, whereas the states, heat or health, can change relatively quickly. One can characterize this type of quality as acquired characteristics. The second type of quality refers to natural properties, which are expressed in skills, ability and inability, eg when a boxer. They may include characteristics such as hard and soft. The third type is called Aristotle affective qualities, have the passive objects to be as sweet or sour. Affective means here that these properties are perceived as such in the sense perceptions. It touches something and realize that it is warm or cold, you eat the honey and taste that it is sweet. The fourth type of quality is calculated as the figure ( shape) or shape that things can have as round or square. The difference to the first three types of quality is the fact that such properties are closely associated with the determination of a character object. A ball is round, a cube is square, a sheet is flat.

A special role in relation to the quality of the similarity plays. The similarity itself is an expression from the category of relativa. Because similarity is always in relation to something. ( Cat. 7, 6b 9-10, 22-23 ). But For every quality that similarity is the sole peculiar feature. "For similar one to the other only because of its quality. " ( Cat. 8, 11a 16-17 ) similarity is so the proprium of quality. This similarity is intimately connected with the feature of more or less and while the proprium of quantity is the Maßgleichheit. In Dictionary of Terms Aristotle confirms this distinction: " The same fact is that whose essence is one, is similar to that of which the quality is; and is equal to that of which the quantum is a ". (Met V 15, 1021a 11-12)

Aristotle points out that his analysis is not complete and one with some features may also discuss in what categories they belong to, for example, whether loose or tight and smooth and rough not more in the nature of the situation as to the quality belong, because these properties are determined by how the positions of the parts contained in the objects to each other certain. In contrast to the quantity it is the quality opposites like black and white, pointed and round, just and unjust. If something is a quality that its opposite is a quality. In some qualities there is also a more or less and about in steep or loud. For others, such as geometric shapes, there is not.

In the ninth chapter Aristotle goes very close to the action and suffering, and points out that the other categories can be analyzed similarly to the before standing.

The Postprädikamente ( 10th to 15th chapter)

From the 10th to the 15th chapter deals with Aristotle terms that are not included in the table of categories. These are the " contrast " ( 10th and 11th chapter), the "Before " ( chapter 12 ), the " same time " ( Chapter 13 ), the "movement " ( Chapter 14 ) and the " Have " ( Chapter 15 ). It has been referred to these concepts later than the Postprädikamente. The modern interpreters agree that these terms are not directly related to the theory of categories. Therefore, one also assumes that the reconciliation, ie the final note in Chapter 9 ( Cat. 11b 10-15) and the introductory sentence to the 10th chapter (Cat 11b 15-16), were included in the text subsequently to the to reduce breakage. Because the reference to category theory is not directly produced, doubt has already been in ancient times, such as already in Andronicus of Rhodes, expressed as to whether this portion of Scripture is ever real. Such doubts were renewed during the 19th century. Michael Frede, who argues for the authenticity, points out that matching formulations can be found in both parts. Above all, he sees a unified approach, if one does not consider the writing in terms of the categories, but primarily under the question, which most general concepts can be said in many ways, so are homonymous. This the first chapter would get the sense of an introduction. Another important note for Frede is the fact that the notion of category itself in the category font only once on a subordinated place (Cat 10b 19-20) occurs. This is also suggested that in the Glossary of Terms in Metaphysics V not only categories, but (apart from the movement ) and the Postprädikamente be dealt with and the entire book by Diogenes Laertius the title "On words with many meanings " ( tôn Perì possachôs Legomenon ) has.

In the investigation of the concept of opposites ( antikeimenon ) no longer works Aristotle to the difference of substance and accident, but instead introduces four kinds of opposition, which are also found in other parts of his work ( Top. II 8 or Met X 3ff ).

The Relative ( pros ti), which is given by a ratio, a comparison or a reference as double and half, knowledge and knowable or Science.
The contrarian ( enantion ) may have different structural features. On the one hand are the exclusive contrast how sick and healthy, or odd and even. On the other hand, there are contrarian, which allows an alternative, such as good and bad or black and white. Such qualities must not be present as an alternative necessary. In these cases, there is then a middle as gray. The above examples show variable properties. Furthermore, there are also natural contrasts in objects such as cold ice and warm fire that will not lose these properties.
Deprivation ( steresis - privation ) and possession ( hexis - habitus ) refer to a state of a substance and the absence or presence of a feature such as blindness and vision. Such properties actually consist of nature, but are not necessary ( Proper ). You can only occur at certain substances. A plant can not be described as blind and a fish not as legless.
Affirmation ( kataphasis ) and negation ( apophasis ) systematically include in the sentence and judgment doctrine and deepened in other works (Int 7 and An.pr. I 1 ) are dealt with, because the contradiction is bound to a statement ( the words " in connection "). There is also a general description of the logical square.

Also, for the term of sooner or later ( proteron - hysteron ) Aristotle calls the four expressing himself.

Temporal: the temporal sense
Epistemic: in terms of a sequence of the simple is earlier than several times ( counting)
Ontologically in an order that is earlier than the Simple Complex (point, line, surface, body )
By definition: by prioritizing the better, more important or more worthy than previously considered.

There are systems and relationships that do not fall under the distinction of sooner or later. This applies, among other things, for the classification of objects according to species and genera. Socrates is at the same time ( hama ) and human beings. If something is double, at the same time is also the half. Things can be at the same time in one place, happen at the same time or according to the nature at the same time. The latter are not in the relation of cause and effect, because then they would be time, sooner or later.

In the investigation of the motion ( kinesis ) Aristotle cites six types. These are becoming, passing away, increase, decrease, change and change of location. Here you can see a four-division here when referring to the underlying categories; because the growth and decay refers to a substance that increases and decreases to a quantity. Furthermore, the change affects the quality and the change of location of where the category. The Opposing the motion is rest. The concept of motion, as Aristotle used it here is very wide and includes the development.

The concept of having ( echein ), as Aristotle conceives it at this point, is no analysis of the category, but an investigation of the varied language use. From Have one speaks in a habit (virtue ) of a quantity (size ) of wear (clothes ) of part ( have a hand ) be contained by something ( in a jar ) or in a transferred sense of a relationship (man and women, but not in the sense of possessing, but of living together ).

Reception

In the Peripatetic school, the Aristotelian school, the writing category as well as in the early Hellenistic philosophy had no special significance. Only the Stoa had developed his own theory of categories, which aimed at a classification of the real and distinguished four classes of beings. Only with the compilation of the works of Aristotle by Andronicus of Rhodes in the 1st century BC, which set categories as an introduction to the first place of the whole work, the categories gained considerably in importance. Along with De Interpretatione the categories were the most rezipierte work of Aristotle, perhaps the philosophy as a whole. Both documents were the basis of the philosophy of education since the Roman Empire. They were subsequently into Latin ( the 4th century ), Armenian, Syriac ( fifth century), and later into Arabic (9th century ), Old High German (11th century) and later translated into other languages.

Soon after Andronikos, who doubted the authenticity of the self Postprädikamente, the practice began to individual plants to comment. The categories were are of critical importance. Many of these comments are known by Simplicius, who described in the introduction to his famous research. One of the first major commentators next Boethos of Sidon, a student of Andronicus, was the Peripatetic Alexander of Aphrodisias, who regarded the categories as the beginning of logic. Other commentators in the 2nd century and were Lucius Claudius Nikostratos. They both sat down polemically critical look at the categories.

For the following antiquity of the ontological point of view remained dominant. Plotinus criticized in the Enneads VI Aristotle's theory of categories, by. Among the Aristotelian categories that relate to sensuously perceptible world such added, referring to the conceivable world The categories as a statement ways are not sufficient, the true Being as Such, to grasp its essence. Needs to capture the being as a whole in addition to the categories of the classification of the top genres of thought ( megista genes) occur, as it had stated in Plato 's Sophist. At the same time, Plotinus, the categories for the material world on five also reduced ( being, quantity, quality, relation, and movement). His student Porphyry wrote a comment with which he distanced himself part of Plotinus, as well as influential in the Middle Ages Isagoge ( introduction writing in the categories). During the comment of Iamblichus of Chalcis was lost, the written in dialogue form, mediating between Plato and Aristotle, his pupil Dexippos text is received. Other important and received comments come from Boethius, Simplicius and Ammonius Hermeiou. From Ammonius - school are more comments ago by the Neoplatonic philosopher John Philoponus, Olympiodorus, Elias and David. While most comments were written for introductory school purposes, has especially the comment of Simplicius as that of Plotinus and Boethius a scientific-philosophical claim. Simplicius argued against Plotinus considers Aristotle's categories would need to be supplemented by another, relating to the conceivable world class type. As a result, the view prevailed that the Aristotelian categories are sufficient for a description of the world.

In the fourth book of the Confessions, Chapter XVI, says Augustine, that he with about twenty years the font Categoriae decem - 've read - a widely used free paraphrase of the category heading. He came to understand this scripture, but not understood to mean that one can not interpret as a substance as all beings in the sense of categories God. Only in faith can we recognize God's greatness and goodness. For Augustine, God is the only unchanging substance that has no accidents.

In the philosophy of the Middle Ages the categories and De Interpretatione formed until the 12th century, together with the Isagoge of Porphyry who - later called - old logic, the Logica vetus. In philosophical teaching of the Middle Ages this into Latin translated and annotated by Boethius 's writings were the introduction in the curriculum of Logica. Johannes Scotus Eriugena looked at the categories on the basis of Categoriae decem in terms of possible God predicates in the " peri physeon I" Thomas Aquinas tried a deduction of the categories, where he has prevailed since antiquity basic assumption that thought, language and being as parallel construed, are not addressed. This principle was first criticized by William of Ockham, who because of his nominalism as understanding things ( entia rationis ) conceives the categories; this separation and the resulting view is based view as the impetus of modern epistemology.

Immanuel Kant mentions Aristotle and its categories in the Critique of Pure Reason. He criticized the fact that Aristotle has not derived from a principle. "It was a sagacious man worthy of a stop of the A r i s t o t e l e s to visit these basic concepts. But since he had no Principle, so he took them on as they pushed open to him, and drove the first ten on that he g o r i e s e t e n called ( predicaments ). " Since Kant, however, aimed at pure to find concepts of the understanding, which he called categories then, his view is not in accordance with the Aristotelian goal, regardless of whether one perceives it as ontologically, predicative or grammatically.

John Stuart Mill held the insights of categorization for relatively small and made even funny: "It is a mere list of distinctions, which marks out the language of common life in a crude way, by the same time makes only a very weak or no attempt to the Rational penetrate through philosophical analysis only those ordinary distinctions. Such an analysis (including only the most superficial kind ) would have shown that the enumeration suffers from abundance and deficiency at the same time. Some items are omitted and other frequently stated under different titles. It's like trying to divide the living beings in humans, quadrupeds, horses, donkeys and ponies. " From the perspective of Mill feelings and states of consciousness neither the substances still under the accidents are particularly to be subsumed.

In the philosophy of the present, the doctrine of the categories of Aristotle, especially in the ordinary language philosophy has been taken of Analytic Philosophy, a prominent example of Gilbert Ryle in The Concept of Mind. Categories are neither completely derivable for Ryle, as their number is uncertain, yet systematically organize. Immediately to the doctrine of the categories referred to in the four categories ontology by Jonathan Lowe. This distinguishes the categories of objects ( substances) of types ( Substanzuniversalien ) of attributes ( Eigenschaftsuniversalien ) and the Modie (tropical or individuated properties ) by a substantial / not substantial combines the pair of terms with the distinction between particular and universal, and from this his four fundamental categories derived.

Text output

Aristotle: Kategoriai. In: Lorenzo Minio - Paluello (ed.): Aristotelis Categoriae et liber de interpretatione, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1949 ( authoritative critical edition )
Aristotle: Kategoriai. In: Immanuel Bekker (ed.): Aristotelis. Opera. 1831-1837

Aristotle: Categories. Translated by Klaus Oehler. In: Hellmut Flashar (ed.): Aristotle. Works in German translation. Volume 1, Part 1, University Press, Darmstadt 1984
Aristotle: Categories, hermeneutics. Greek - German, translated by Hans Günter Zekl, Meiner, Hamburg 1998
Aristotle: Categories and hermeneutics. Translated by Paul Gohlke, Ferdinand Schöningh, Paderborn 1951.
Aristotle: Categories or teaching of the basic concepts. Translated by Julius von Kirchmann, Erich Koschny, Leipzig 1876
Aristotle: Categories. Doctrine of the sentence. Translated by Eugen Rolfes, Meiner, Leipzig 1922.

Aristotle: Categories, translated by Ella Mary Edghill
Aristotle: Categories (PDF, 22 kB ), Chapter 1-5, translated by John Lloyd Ackrill
Aristotle: Categories, Audio Book, translated by Octavius Freire Owen

Aristotle: Categoriae vel praedicamenta. Translated by Boethius. In: Lorenzo Minio - Paluello (ed.): Aristotle Latinus. Volume I, Part 1-5, De Brouwer, Bruges- Paris 1961

468208