Document Type : The Quarterly Jornal
Authors
1
PhD Student, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Wisdom, Faculty of Islamic Sciences and Research,Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran
2
Associate Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Wisdom, Faculty of Islamic Sciences and Research, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran
3
Assistant Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Wisdom, Faculty of Islamic Sciences and Research, Imam Khomeini International University (IKIU), Qazvin, Iran
10.22081/jpt.2025.71409.2214
Abstract
Abstract
Aristotle's methodology in Physics has always been a subject of debate among commentators. On one hand, interpreters like Owen emphasize Topica and consider his approach dialectical, based on the analysis of accepted beliefs (endoxa). On the other hand, scholars such as Bolton, focusing on the coherence between Physics and the Posterior Analytics, argue that Aristotle's method is scientific-empirical, highlighting the role of sensory observation and induction in discovering universal laws. This article, by examining apparent differences in the definitions of concepts like "universals" and "particulars" in Aristotle’s texts, demonstrates that these contradictions do not stem from methodological inconsistencies but rather from differences in levels of cognition. In Physics, "universal" refers to vague concepts closely related to sensory perception, whereas in the Posterior Analytics, universals are abstract principles. Despite challenges such as ambiguity in the role of dialectic and incorrect comparisons with modern science, Aristotle's method ultimately combines dialectic and empiricism. This approach does not reduce to a single method but reflects an interaction between philosophy and observation, aiming at a deeper understanding of nature through conceptual analysis and empirical data.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)