ARISTOTLE AND THE EARLIER PERIPATETICS vol.I by Eduard Zeller, B.F.C.Costelloe 1897

:
176 ARISTOTLE
THE PHILOSOPHY OF APISTOTLE 176
also notice that in Aristotle the empirical effort is still
facts which has drawn down on him often enough the
too often crossed by the speculative and dialectic
reproach of an unphilosophic empiricism. He 1 was
methods which he took over directly from Platonism.
not only one of the highest speculative thinkers—he
Indeed, so far as natural science goes, it would be more
was also one of the most accurate and untiring observers,
just to charge him with too little empiricism than too
and one of the most erudite men of learning that the
much. 1 But it would be far truer to say simply that
world knows. As in his general theory he conceived
he carried both methods as far as could be expected of
of experience as the condition precedent of thought,
his day. The science of the Greeks began with speculation.
The empirical sciences only attained to any
and of perception as the matter out of which thoughts
come forth, so in practice he did not fail to provide for
sort of development at a late date, and largely by the
his own system a broad substructure of experiential
efforts of Aristotle himself. Therefore it was natural
knowledge, and to base his philosophic dicta upon an
that the dialectical method of Socrates and Plato, with
all-round appreciation of the data of fact. Especially
its logical dissections and connections of ideas, guided by
in regard to any theory of nature he insists that we
current opinions and the indications of language, should
should first know the phenomena and then look about
take precedence ofany strict empirical rules. Aristotle
for their causes. We 2 could not, of course, expect to
stood in a close relation to the dialectical movement, and
find in him the sureness and accuracy of method which
brought it in theory and practice, as we have just said,
empirical science has in modern times attained. In
to completion. It was not to be expected that the
Aristotle's day it was only in its infancy, and it suffered
art of empirical investigation should find in him an
from the complete lack of the proper aids to observation
and of the support of a developed mathematics. We
discrimination between the two methods was as yet far
equally complete exponent, and therefore an accurate
1
Thus Schlbiermachbb, and appears to be in every way un-
off. That could only come after the fuller development
Gesch. d. Phil. p. 120, says of tenable—that Aristotle's general
Aristotle: We cannot deny that bent made him ' ' more suited for
of the empirical sciences and the direct investigation
there is a great want of specula- the collective comprehension of
of the theory of knowledge, which the modern centuries
tive genius,' &c, and on p. 110 empirical and historical data,
he contrasts the older Academics than for the solving of metaphywith
him, as being ' more specula- sical difficulties.'
have brought to pass. All the greater is the credit
tive '; but he sets out with a prin- " Thus Part. An. due to Aristotle that his wide and direct scientific
i. 1, 639, b,
ciple, according to which Aristotle 7 sqq., 640, a, 14.; Hist. An. i.
instinct led him even so soon to turn to the methods of
must certainly come off badly 7, 491, a, 9 sq. ; Meteor, iii. 2,
'Never has one who first went 371, b, 21 ; Anal. Pr. i. 30, 46, a,
through a great mass of empirical 17 sqq. Aristotle appeals here (as
1
work become a
This charge has been made a one-sidedness not
true philosopher.' in Part. An. uncommon
639, b, 7) especially
Thus also Stbumpell, Theoret. to the progress of astronomy
by Bacon, and, since the above with him, by LANGE, Oesch. d.
Phil. d. Gr. 156, who delivers about which was first written, by Lewes
see infra, ch. ( Arv- Mater, i. 61 sqq.
ix.
stotle,
the judgment—which, however, (middle). Cf. Eugken, Methode
§ 91, 97) i
and, through
canscarcelyhereconciledwithhis d.ArUt. Fonch. 122 sq.
own observations on pp. 184 sqq.,