Table Of ContentARISTOTLE'S THEORY OF
PRACTICAL COGNITION
ARISTOTLE'S THEORY OF
PRACTICAL
COGNITION
BY
TAKATURA ANDO
Litt. D. Profeuor of Philosophy
at Ritumekan University, Kyoto
SECOND EDITION
•
SPRINGER-SCIENCE+ BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V. 1965
ISBN 978-94-017-7089-7 ISBN 978-94-017-7142-9 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-7142-9
Copyright 1965 by Springer Science+ BIISiness Media Dordrecht
OrigjnaJb p11blished I!J Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands in 1965
Srftcover reprint qf the hardcover 1st edition 1965
All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to
reproduce this boo.~ or parts thereof in any form
FIRST EDITION 1958
SECOND EDITION 1965
PREFACE
I have much pleasure in writing a preface to Mr. Takatura
Ando's book on Aristotle. Apart from his intrinsic importance,
as one of the three or four greatest of all philosophers, Aristotle
is important on having given for many centuries the greatest
influence in moulding the thought of European countries. The
language difficulty has no doubt prevented him from exercising
very much influence on Japanese thought, and I welcome very
warmly to hear that Mr. Ando is about to have his book printed
in Japan. I hope it will be widely circulated, as it must certainly
deserve that.
W. D. ROSS
AUTHOR'S FOREWORD
In publishing this book, I cannot prohibit myself of reminding
the days and nights when it was written. In that era of world
wide madness, Aristotle's philosophy was the only refuge wherein
my depressed mind could come to life. It was written bit by
bit under all desperate circumstances throughout the war time.
My heart was set on the completion of this work while the fate
allowed me to live. It was nearly carried out by the end of the
war. Having no hope of survival, I buried my manuscript in the
earth, without however any expectance of a better lot for it.
The situation grew worse and worse. Towns aad cities were burnt
and perished day by day. There remained only few of them.
In a summer night of 1945, an inauspicious siren blew as if pro
nouncing our end. I let my wife take refuge with the child, and
lied alone on the ground beside the hole in which my manuscript
was stored. The blue sky was scattered with twinkling stars, and
the buzzying of air corps came far over from the depth of serene
night. I .was gazing the stars with resignation and despise to
human nature, but the corps passed over my head without making
any attack. Few minutes later, the sky grew red near the
horizont, and I found that the victim of that night was the un
fortunate neibourghing city. After few days the citizens of
Hirosima and Nagasaki met the atmost misery in the history. The
war was over, and I survived with my manuscript.
Since that time I tried to publish this manuscript only in vain. At
last, I came to the idea to translate it in English and show it to Sir
W.D. Ross. When this idea was realized, to my great joy, he gave
me a letter full of favour. He acknowledged that he was in the
same opinion with regard to many of my arguments, and
guaranteed that my treatise would be able to contribute to modem
study of Aristotle.
Being much encouraged by this letter and following his advice,
I engaged in revising my English by the aid of Dr. S. Nivison of
vii
viii AUTHOR'S FOREWORD
Stanford University. Now, I am firmly convinced of myself
being the most fortunate fellow who lived under that starly
heaven, not only to enjoy again the Lipton tea, of which I sadly
dreamed in that dreary nights, but also to get the favour of an
eminent British scholar, not only to taste again Californian raisins
that I vainly desired in that weary days, but also to receive
kindness of an excellent American scholar.
I debt my English also to my previous colleague Mr. Tyuzo
Utidate, who read through my manuscript and gave many advices.
My special thanks are due to Prof. John D. Goheen of Stanford
University, who paid warm attention to my work and gave me some
help. I am grateful to Miss Nobuko Iwai for her assistance. As
regards English rendering of the text, I owe much to Oxford
translations and Hicks's De Anima.
1958 T.A.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
The correction of this new editon was restricted to numerous
misprints and some grammatical errors, not because the author
found little demand for change but beca~se he found that most
of the faults could not be improved unless they were rewritten.
It is doubtful whether this book in such a defective form is still
worthy of circulation; the author humbly begs tolerance of readers
for his negligence of thoroughgoing revision.
1965 T.A.
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION GENERAL REMARK ON THE
SUBJECT OF INQUIRY 1
CHAPTER I THE STRUCTURE OF THE SOUL
§ 1. Soul and Body 5
§ 2. The Problem of 'Voii' not1JTt"o' 17
§ 3. Against Brentano's Interpretation 33
§ 4. Solution of the Problem . . . 55
§ 5. Comparison with Plato's Thought • 75
§ 6. Parts of the Soul . . . . • • 85
CHAPTER II THE FUNCTIONS OF THE SOUL
§ 1. The Development of Functions 98
§ 2. The Reference of Functions 114
§ 3. Desire and Pleasure 136
§ 4. Voluntary Act . • • • • • • 145
CHAPTER III PRACTICE AND PRODUCTION
§ 1. Practice and Production 175
§ 2. Comparison with Kant's Theory . . . . 190
§ 3. The Relation between Practice and Production 200
CHAPTER IV THE STRUCTURE OF INTELLECT
§ 1. The Classification of Intellect 208
§ 2. Mea and t5oeacn:t"6" Part . . . . 217
§ 3. Practical and Theoretical Cognitions 227
§ 4. Practical Reason 236
§ 5. Prudence • 256
CONTENTS
CHAPTER V THE PRACTICAL SYLLOGISM
§ 1. Deliberation • • • • • • . . 266
§ 2. Practical and Productive Syllogisms 274
§ 3. Practical Cognition of Ends 284
§ 4. Continence and Temperance 300
§ 5. The Relation of Practical and Productive
Syllogisms 310
§ 6. Comparison with Kant 316
INDEXES 323
INTRODUCTION
A
LL sciences start with Aristotle, as all roads lead to Rome.
The dominance of Aristotelianism in the mediaeval period
was not conducive to the scientific spirit, to be sure, but
that despotic authority which did not 110lerate any criticism was
the result of scholastic dogmatism rather than the fault of Aristotle's
philosophy. The anti-Aristotelianism of the Renaissance actually
had the effect of restoring Aristotle from the darkness of monas
teries into the daylight of Hellas. The modern age has started
with depreciating Aristotle in contrast to Plato, but as this reaction
calmed down, men turned towards the re-estimation of Aristotle.
In truth, Platonism in the Renaissance was no more than an artistic
enthusiasm, and from the scientific point of view, Plato was no
match for Aristotle.
Of course we are now aware of the old mistake of interpreting
Aristotle as the opponent of Plato. Aristotle was the greatest
successor of Plato, and to suspect him of ingratitude is only to
betray the mean disposition of a petty-minded person. The
influence of the teacher's theory on him is particularly remarkable
in practical philosophy. It is not too much to say that Aristotle's
practical philosophy owes the greater part of its content to Plato.
But it is not the main subject of our study to follow the develop
ment of theory between this great master and his great disciple.
We are rather interested in the scientific formulations and the
positive foundations which the latter gave to the material in
herited from the former.
Now to be rational means to be "mediated" - in Hegelian
terminology - and systematic, and to be positive means to give
empirical grounds to ideas. Aristotle surely was lacking in the
genius of brilliant phantasy, but it was his remarkable merit that
he formulated the ideas which were so to speak floating, both in
the prophetic character of Socrates and in the poetic disposition
of Plato, into a strictly conceptual system. His rational and
positive foundation for practical philosophy was achieved in the
region of politics, through his exhaustive study of constitutions,
of which we have a glimpse in the Atheniensium Respublica; the
equivalent of this, in the region of ethics, is the abundant knowledge
contained in his psychological and biological works. Aristotle's
I
