Augustine's Argument Analysis

Words: 1495
Pages: 6

In Metaphysics IV, Aristotle insists that “[we] must state whether it belongs to one or to different sciences to inquire into the truths which are...called axioms, and into substance” (1005a 18-20). He maintains that “it belongs to the philosopher...who is studying the nature of all substances, to inquire...into [such truths]” (1005b 5-10). And, seeing as substance precedes the subject matter of the special sciences, the goal of the science of being qua being is to establish truths which are applicable to all other sciences. Of these truths, the most fundamental, and firmest, “is that regarding which it is impossible to be mistaken...a principle which every one must have who understands anything...and that which every one must know who knows anything, [and] must already have when he comes to a special study” (1005b 5-20). This most fundamental principle has come to be known as the Principle of Non-contradiction (PNC).
While the name implies there is one
…show more content…
That is, he wants to show that “neither any one of those who maintain this view nor any one else is really in this position” (1008b 10-15). To do this, he asks a series of questions: “For why does [a man] not walk early some morning into a well or over a precipice, if one happens to be into way? Why do we observe him guarding against this, evidently because he does not think that falling in is alike good and not good?” (1008b 15-20). These are simple questions intended to account for the individual's observable belief discordant behavior. For, if one truly believed that “falling in is alike good and not good”, then there would be no need to avoid the danger. However, as Aristotle points out, the man does avoid the danger, implying he does not take falling to be both good and not good. This appears sufficient to prove that “what [he] says, he does not necessarily believe” (1005b