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

Apeiron

A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science

Ed. by Wildberg, Christian / Morison, Benjamin

Online
ISSN
2156-7093
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Ahead of print

Issues

Blind-Spots in Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Perceptual Mean

Roberto Grasso
Published Online: 2019-04-02 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2018-0060

Abstract

This paper aims to identify several interpretive problems posed by the final part of DA II.11 (423b27–424 a10), where Aristotle intertwines the thesis that a sense is like a ‘mean’ and an explanation for the existence of a ‘blind spot’ related to the sense of touch, adding the further contention that we are capable of discriminating because the mean ‘becomes the other opposite’ in relation to the perceptible property being perceived. To solve those problems, the paper explores a novel interpretation of Aristotle’s claims, arguing that they describe a homeostatic physiological reaction by which the sensory apparatus responds to perceptible stimuli. According to the proposed interpretation, such homeostatic reaction constitutes a necessary condition for perceiving what Aristotle refers to as ‘proper’ perceptible features, which include properties like ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ as well as colors and sounds.

Keywords: Aristotle; perception; blind-spot; mean; homeostasis

References

  • Ackrill, J.L. 1981. Aristotle the Philosopher, 1 ed. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bolton, R. 2005. “Perception Naturalized in Aristotle’s De Anima.” In Metaphysics, Soul, and Ethics in Ancient Thought: Themes from the Work of Richard Sorabji, edited by R. Salles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bradshaw, D. 1997. “Aristotle on Perception: The Dual-Logos Theory.” Apeiron 30 (2): 143–61.Google Scholar

  • Broadie, S. 1991. Ethics with Aristotle. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Burnyeat, M. 1992. “Is an Aristotelian Philosophy of Mind Still Credible? (A Draft).” In Essays on Aristotle’s De Anima, edited by M.C. Nussbaum, and A.O. Rorty, 15–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Burnyeat, M. 1995. “How Much Happens When Aristotle Sees Red and Hears Middle C? Remarks on De Anima 2. 7-8.” In Essays on Aristotle’s De Anima, edited by M.C. Nussbaum, and A.O. Rorty, 421–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Caston, V. 2004. “The Spirit and the Letter: Aristotle on Perception.” In Metaphysics, Soul and Ethics: Themes from the Work of Richard Sorabji, edited by R. Salles, 245–320. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cohen, S.M. 1992. “Hylomorphism and Functionalism.” In Essays on Aristotle’s De Anima, edited by M.C. Nussbaum, and A.O. Rorty, 57–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Corcilius, K. 2014. “Activity, Passivity, and Perceptual Discrimination in Aristotle.” In Active Perception in the History of Philosophy, 31–53. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Ducharme, A. 2014. “Aristotle’s Mark of Sentience.” Apeiron 47 (3): 293–309.Google Scholar

  • Ebert, T. 1983. “Aristotle on What Is Done in Perceiving.” Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung 37 (2): 181–98.Google Scholar

  • Everson, S. 1997. Aristotle on Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Freeland, C. 1992. “Aristotle on the Sense of Touch.” In Essays on Aristotle’s De Anima, edited by M.C. Nussbaum, and A.O. Rorty, 227–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Grasso, R. 2013. “Receiving Forms without the Matter in Aristotle’s DA II.12.” Philosophical Inquiry 36 (1–2): 23–44.Google Scholar

  • Gregoric, P. 2007. Aristotle on the Common Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hicks, R.D. 1907. Aristotle De Anima. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hursthouse, R. 1980 “A False Doctrine of the Mean.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 81: 57–72.Google Scholar

  • Hursthouse, R. 2006. “The Central Doctrine of the Mean.” In The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, edited by R. Kraut, 96–115. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Johansen, T.K. 1997. Aristotle on the Sense-Organs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Johansen, T.K. 2002. “Imprinted on the Mind: Active and Passive in Aristotle’s Theory of Sense Perception.” In Theories, Technologies, Instrumentalities of Color: Anthropological and Historiographic Perspectives, edited by B. Saunders, and J. van Brake, 1–18. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar

  • Johansen, T.K. 2005 “In Defense of Inner Sense: Aristotle on Perceiving that One Sees.” Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 21: 235–76.Google Scholar

  • Johnstone, M.A. 2012 “Aristotle on Odour and Smell.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 43: 143–83.Google Scholar

  • Lear, J. 1988. Aristotle: The Desire to Understand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Magee, J.M. 2000. “Sense Organs and the Activity of Sensation in Aristotle.” Phronesis 45 (4): 306–30.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Murphy, D. 2005 “Aristotle on Why Plants Cannot Perceive.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 29: 295–339.Google Scholar

  • Perälä, M. 2018. “Aristotle on Perceptual Discrimination.” Phronesis 63 (3): 257–92.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Polansky, R.M. 2007. Aristotle’s De Anima. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Price, A.W. 1996 “Aristotelian Perceptions.” Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium of Ancient Philosophy 12: 285–309.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Roreitner, R. 2014. “Perception and Hylomorphism. Receptive Activity of Senses in Aristotle´S De Anima II,5.” Eirene: Studia Graeca et Latina 50: 176–207.Google Scholar

  • Ross, D. 1961. Aristotle, De Anima. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Scaltsas, T. 1996. “Biological Matter and Perceptual Powers in Aristotle’s De Anima.” Topoi 15 (1): 25–37.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shields, C. 2016. Aristotle: De Anima. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sisko, J.E. 1996. “Material Alteration and Cognitive Activity in Aristotle’s “De Anima”.” Phronesis 41 (2): 138–57.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sisko, J.E. 1998 “Alteration and Quasi-Alteration: A Critical Notice of Stephen Everson, Aristotle on Perception.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 16: 331–52.Google Scholar

  • Slakey, T.J. 1961. “Aristotle on Sense Perception.” Philosophical Review 70 (4): 470–84.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sorabji, R. 1974. “Body and Soul in Aristotle.” Philosophy 49 (187): 63–89.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • Sorabji, R. 1992. “Intentionality and Physiological Processes: Aristotle’s Theory of Sense-Perception.” In Essays on Aristotle’s De Anima, edited by M.C. Nussbaum, and A.O. Rorty, 195–225. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Sorabji, R. 2001. “Aristotle on Sensory Processes and Intentionality: A Reply to Burnyeat.” In Ancient and Medieval Theories of Intentionality, edited by D. Perler, 49–61. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

  • Sorabji, R. 2004. “Aristotle on Colour, Light and Imperceptibles.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 47 (1): 129–40.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tracy, T.J. 1969. Physiological Theory and the Doctrine of the Mean in Plato and Aristotle. Chicago: Loyola University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-04-02


This work was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, (https://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001807, Grant Number: 2016/02485-0).


Citation Information: Apeiron, ISSN (Online) 2156-7093, ISSN (Print) 0003-6390, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2018-0060.

Export Citation

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

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in