Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie

Ed. by de Boer, Karin / Carriero, John / Horn, Christoph / Meyer, Susan Sauvé / Serck-Hanssen, Camilla

Editorial Board: Adamson, Peter / Allen, James V. / Bartuschat, Wolfgang / Curley, Edwin M / Emilsson, Eyjólfur Kjalar / Floyd, Juliet / Förster, Eckart / Frede, Dorothea / Friedman, Michael / Garrett, Don / Grasshoff, Gerd / Guyer, Paul / Irwin, Terence / Kahn, Charles H. / Knuuttila, Simo / Koistinen, Olli / Kosch, Michelle / Kraut, Richard / Longuenesse, Béatrice / McCabe, Mary / Pasnau, Robert / Perler, Dominik / Radcliffe, Elizabeth S. / Reginster, Bernard / Simmons, Alison / Timmermann, Jens / Trifogli, Cecilia / Weidemann, Hermann / Zöller, Günter

CiteScore 2018: 0.53

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.395
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.195

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 101, Issue 2


Aristotle and Crossing the Boundaries between the Sciences

Lindsay Judson
Published Online: 2019-07-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2019-2005


On the basis of what Aristotle says in the Posterior Analytics about how sciences are differentiated and about the impermissibility (save in some exceptional cases) of ‘kind-crossing’, many commentators suppose that when it comes to his scientific practice, Aristotle treats the boundaries of the sciences as impermeable, so that if subject-matter X is the business of one science, it simply cannot (save for the exceptional cases) be the business of another. I call this the impermeable boundary theory of the sciences: knowledge is divided into watertight compartments, determined by their distinct genera, and what goes on in one compartment cannot turn up in another. I argue that, even if this is a correct account of Aristotle’s position in the Analytics, the view that he accepts the impermeable boundary theory when it comes to his scientific and philosophical work outside the Analytics is simply untenable.

  • Achtenberg, D. 2002 Cognition of Value in Aristotle’s Ethics: Promise of Enrichment, Threat of Destruction. Albany.Google Scholar

  • Adams, M. P. 2015. “Demarcating Aristotelian Rhetoric: Rhetoric, the Subalternate Sciences, and Boundary Crossing”. Apeiron 48, 99–122.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Barnes, J. 1994. Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics: Translated with a Commentary, 2nd edition. Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Bolton, R. 1991. “Aristotle’s Method in Natural Science: Physics I”. In Aristotle’s Physics: A Collection of Essays. Ed. L. Judson. Oxford, 1–29.Google Scholar

  • –. 2010. “Biology and Metaphysics in Aristotle”. In Being, Nature, and Life in Aristotle. Eds J. G. Lennox/R. Bolton. Cambridge/New York, 30–55.Google Scholar

  • Bostock, D. 1994. Aristotle’s Metaphysics Books Ζ and Θ: Translated with a Commentary. Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Burnyeat, M. 2001. A Map of Metaphysics Zeta. Pittsburgh.Google Scholar

  • –. 2004. “Introduction: Aristotle on the Foundations of Sublunary Physics”. In Aristotle’s On Generation and Corruption I. Eds F. de Haas/J. Mansfeld. Oxford, 7–24.Google Scholar

  • Charles, D. 2000. “Metaphysics Λ 2: Matter and Change”. In Aristotle’s Metaphysics Lambda: Symposium Aristotelicum. Eds M. Frede/D. Charles. Oxford, 81–110.Google Scholar

  • Clarke, T. 2017. “Physics I.2”. In Aristotle’s Physics I: The Principles of Natural Things. Ed. D. Quarantotto. Cambridge.Google Scholar

  • Distelzweig, P. M. 2013. “The Intersection of the Mathematical and Natural Sciences: The Subordinate Sciences in Aristotle”. Apeiron 46, 85–105.Google Scholar

  • Falcon, A. 2005. Aristotle and the Science of Nature: Unity without Uniformity. Cambridge/New York.Google Scholar

  • Frede, M. 2000. “Metaphysics Λ 1”. In Aristotle’s Metaphysics Lambda: Symposium Aristotelicum. Eds M. Frede/D. Charles. Oxford, 53–80.Google Scholar

  • Hankinson, R. J. 2005. “Aristotle on Kind-Crossing”. In Philosophy and the Sciences in Antiquity. Ed. R.W. Sharples. Aldershot, 23–54.Google Scholar

  • Irwin, T. 1981. “Aristotle’s Method of Ethics”. In Studies in Aristotle. Ed. D. J. O’Meara. Washington, DC, 193–223.Google Scholar

  • –. 1988. Aristotle’s First Principles. Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Jaeger, W. 1948. Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of his Development, trans. by R. Robinson, 2nd edition. Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Johnson, M. R. 2009. “The Aristotelian Explanation of the Halo”. Apeiron 42, 325–58.Google Scholar

  • Judson, L. 1997. “Aristotle on Fair Exchange”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 15, 147–75.Google Scholar

  • –. 2015. “Aristotle’s Astrophysics”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 49, 151–92.Google Scholar

  • –. 2017. “Physics I.5”. In Aristotle’s Physics I: The Principles of Natural Things. Ed. D. Quarantotto. Cambridge.Google Scholar

  • –. 2019. Aristotle, Metaphysics Λ: Translated with an Introduction and Commentary. Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Kung, J. 1982. “Aristotle’s ‘De Motu Animalium’ and the Separability of the Sciences”. Journal of the History of Philosophy 20, 65–76.Google Scholar

  • Lennox, J. G. 1986. “Aristotle, Galileo, and ‘Mixed Sciences’”. In Reinterpreting Galileo. Ed. W. A. Wallace. Washington, D. C., 29–51.Google Scholar

  • –. 2005. “The Place of Zoology in Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy”. In Philosophy and the Sciences in Antiquity. Ed. R.W. Sharples. Aldershot, 55–71.Google Scholar

  • –. 2008. “‘As if we were Investigating Snubness’: Aristotle on the Prospects for a Single Science of Nature”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 35, 149–86.Google Scholar

  • –. 2010. “Aristotle’s Natural Science: the Many and the One”. Apeiron 43, 1–24.Google Scholar

  • Leunissen, M. 2010. Explanation and Teleology in Aristotle’s Science of Nature. Cambridge.Google Scholar

  • McKirahan, R. D. 1978. “Aristotle’s Subordinate Sciences”. The British Journal for the History of Science 11, 197–220.Google Scholar

  • –. 1992. Principles and Proofs: Aristotle’s Theory of Demonstrative Science. Princeton.Google Scholar

  • Mueller, I. 2006. “Physics and Astronomy: Aristotle’s Physics II.2.193b22–194a12a”. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 16, 175–206.Google Scholar

  • Nussbaum, M. C. 1978. Aristotle’s De Motu Animalium. Princeton.Google Scholar

  • Owen G. E. L. 1966/1986. “The Platonism of Aristotle”. Proceedings of the British Academy 51, 125–50; reprinted in Owen, Logic, Science and Dialectic: Collected Papers in Greek Philosophy. Ed. M. Nussbaum. London, 200–220.Google Scholar

  • Peramatzis, M. 2011. Priority in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Rapp, C. 2016. “The Principles of Sensible Substance in Metaphysics Λ 2–5”. In Aristotle’s Metaphysics Lambda – New Essays. Ed. C. Horn. Boston and Berlin, 87–117.Google Scholar

  • Roche, T. D. 1988. “On the Alleged Metaphysical Foundation of Aristotle’s Ethics”. Ancient Philosophy 8, 49–62.Google Scholar

  • Ross, W. D. 1936. Aristotle’s Physics: A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Scott, D. 2015. Levels of Argument: A Comparative Study of Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford.Google Scholar

  • Steinkrüger, P. 2018. “Aristotle on Kind-Crossing”. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 54, 107–58.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-07-01

Published in Print: 2019-06-28

Citation Information: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, Volume 101, Issue 2, Pages 177–204, ISSN (Online) 1613-0650, ISSN (Print) 0003-9101, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2019-2005.

Export Citation

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in