♠Aristotle’s Three Types of Knowledge in The Nichomachean Ethics: “Techné, Episteme and Phronesis”:
Eudaimonia (Ancient Greek: εὐδαιμονία) is a central concept in Aristotelian ethics, translated as happiness, welfare or “human flourishing”.-
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
In The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle (384 /322) describes three approaches to knowledge. In Greek, the three are episteme, techné and phronesis.
Whereas episteme concerns theoretical know why and techné denotes technical know how, phronesis emphasizes practical knowledge and practical ethics.
Aristotle classified knowledge in three different types Episteme (Scientific Knoledge), Techné (Skill and crafts) and Phronesis (Wisdom).
1.►Episteme: It means “to know” in Greek. It is related to scientific knowledge. Attributes: Universal, invariable, context-independent. Based on general analytical rationality. Epistemology, the study of knowledge, is derived from episteme.
Episteme was viewed by the Greeks as a partner to techné. Plato used episteme to denote ‘justified true belief”, in contrast to doxa, common belief or opinion.
2.►Techné: The greek word translates to craftsmanship, craft, or art.
In the Dictionary of Philosophy, it is defined as: “The set of principles, or rational method, involved in the production of an object or the accomplishment of an end; the knowledge of such principles or method; art. Techne resembles episteme in implying knowledge of principles, but differs in that its aim is making or doing, not disinterested understanding”.
Characteristics: Pragmatic, variable, context-dependent. Oriented toward production. Based on practical instrumental rationality governed by a conscious goal. The original concept appears today in terms such as “technique” and “technology.”
For the ancient Greeks, when techné appears as art, it is most often viewed negatively, whereas when used as a craft it is viewed positively because a craft is the practical application of an art, rather than art as an end in itself. In “The Republic”, written by Plato, the knowledge of forms is the indispensable basis for the philosophers craft of ruling in the city.
Aristotle viewed techné as an imperfect human representation of nature. Socrates and Plato also used the word, and distinguished craftsmanship (which they viewed in a positive light) from art (which they viewed in a negative light).
3.►Phronesis It means Practical wisdom. It is related to the following main ideas: Ethics. Deliberation about values with reference to praxis. Pragmatic, variable, context dependent. Oriented toward action. Based on practical value-rationality.
Aristotle distinguished between Sophia and Phronesis in the following manner. Sophia involves reasoning concerning universal truths, while Phronesis includes a capability of rational thinking.
In order to practice phronesis, Aristotle felt that political abilities were required, as well as thinking abilities. Aristotle categorized there elements of character (ethos) in the following manner: 1) phronesis (how to act in particular situations), 2) areté (virtue) and 3) eunoia (goodwill).-
______________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
♠Quotes From Aristotle´s “Nicomachean Ethics”:
“Techné, Episteme and Phronesis”:
Aristotle (384 /322) .-
“What science [episteme] is…will be clear from the following argument. We all assume that what we know cannot be otherwise than it is, whereas in the case of things that may be otherwise, when they have passed out of our view we can no longer tell whether they exist or not. Therefore, the object of scientific knowledge is of necessity. Therefore it is eternal… Induction introduces us to first principles and universals, while deduction starts from universals… Thus scientific knowledge is a demonstrative state, (i.e., a state of mind capable of demonstrating what it known)…i.e., a person has scientific knowledge when his belief is conditioned in a certain way, and the first principles are known to him; because if they are not better known to him than the conclusion drawn from them, he will have knowledge only incidentally”. [N.E. 1139b18-36].
“Since building is an art [techné] and is essentially a reasoned productive state, and since there is no art that is not a state of this kind, and no state of this kind that is not an art, it follows that art is the same as a productive state that is truly reasoned. Every art is concerned with bringing something into being, and the practice of an art is the study of how to bring into being something that is capable either of being or of not being…For it is not with things that are or come to be of necessity that art is concerned [this is the domain of episteme] nor with natural objects (because these have their origin in themselves)…Art…operates in the sphere of the variable”. [N.E. 1140a1-23].
“We may grasp the nature of prudence [phronesis] if we consider what sort of people we call prudent. Well, it is thought to be the mark of a prudent man to be able to deliberate rightly about what is good and advantageous…But nobody deliberates about things that are invariable…So…prudence cannot be science or art; not science [episteme] because what can be done is a variable (it may be done in different ways, or not done at all), and not an art [techne] because action and production are generically different. For production aims at an end other than itself; but this is impossible in the case of action, because the end is merely doing well. What remains, then is that it is a true state, reasoned, and capable of action with regard to things that are good or bad for man. We consider that this quality belongs to those who understand the management of households or states”. [N.E. 1140a24-1140b12].
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Aristotle (384 /322) .-
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
♠Attached Notes: “Techné, Episteme in Plato´s Republic“:
Plato’s uses the notion of techné as a way of explicating central themes, such as virtue, ruling, and the creation of the cosmos. First of all, a craft has a function (ergon); this is what it characteristically does or what it characteristically accomplishes. In fact, he highlights that crafts are differentiated by their specific functions (erga) (Rep. 346a).
While the ergon of a craft is its goal, the goal is frequently identified with a result separate from the activity of the craft. Whereas techné is associated with knowing how to do (epistasthai) certain activities, episteme sometimes indicates a theoretical component of techné, associated then with understanding (gnôsis).
For Plato, Knowledge (episeême) is the ability to know the real as it is (Rep 477b). Knowledge, in the sense of episteme, will be deductive and logical, like mathematics; unlike mathematics, its deductions will be based on foundations that need no further justification. In part it will be something like mathematical deduction based in fundamental reality. When using mathematical thinking as an analogue for dialectic, Platon is still relying on the notion of technê since both geometry and calculation are technai. So even though he distinguishes between techné and episteme, their relation is more of a tension than a divorce.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖❖
______________________________________________________________________________________________
♠Links Post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techne
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/episteme-techne/
http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/threeapproaches.htm
http://ian.umces.edu/blog/2013/08/29/its-all-greek-to-me-the-terms-praxis-and-phronesis-in-environmental-philosophy/
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Aquileana
⚡️La Audacia de Aquiles⚡️ 
Interesantísmo. Desconocía estos tres tipos de conocimiento en Aristóteles. Yo sólo pensé que había una distinción entre conocimiento teorético, o sea la Filosofía y conocimiento práctico, que sería la Tecné.. Ahora aprendí algo nuevo de Aristóteles. Gracias. Sara.
Me alegro de haber hecho algún aporte..
En relación a esta dicotomía entre los dos tipos de saberes que planteabas arriba… Bueno, la distinción no es tan taxativa, de hecho la techné incluye una dimensión ontológica cercana al conocimiento teorético.
Y más aún la Phronesis es la sabiduría práctica, por ende, nuevamente aquí, se observa la convivencia de estos dos tipos de saberes aristotélicos,
Un saludo y muchas gracias, Aquileana 🙂
Aquileana:.
Me detengo en el concepto de teckné porque a mi modo de ver es el más emblemático en lo que se refiere a la crítica que en se le formularía desde la primera guerra mundial.
El concepto clásico de techné, entendido en un sentido amplio como “craftsmanship, craft, or art” responde a un concepto casi utilitarista. Para Aristóteles y la techné era simplemente un conjunto de conocimientos eficaces que explicaban por qué un procedimiento es eficaz.
Con la Weber, Heidegger y la Escuela de Frankfurt, la idea de techné se restringe a una acepción negativa. Para Weber es una de las formas o metodologías que adopta el hombre para dominar la naturaleza a través de la racionalidad científico-técnica.
Heidegger retoma la concepción netamente instrumental y dice que la técnica (techné ) es sólo un medio para crear una finalidad. Para Heidegger la techné es un instrumento y no tanto un hacer en el sentido ingenuo y artesanal que planteaba Aristóteles.
De hecho, el Holocausto fue el apogeo de la racionalidad técnico burocrática. LA técnica fue la cara que adoptó la banalidad del mal para usar una terminología propia de Hannah Arendt.
La distinción entre entre el concepto clásico de techné y técnica instrumental moderna es evidente porque la segunda sólo es un medio para satisfacer un fin. la segunda (puede ser la producción de un objeto pero incluso su destrucción si volvemos al ejemplo de la Shoá. Por su parte, la noción aristotélica de Techné supone una visión ética superado, tiene que ver con la creación de una vida políticamente justa.
Atentamente. Santiago.
Santiago…
Tus aportes y líneas de lectura genealógico/comparativas son excelentes.
Pensé en Benjamin, Horkheimer, Adorno Y Heidegger; pero pasé por alto a Max Weber, quien, en definitiva, fue el primero en acuñar la de racionalidad instrumental (en su caso burocrática para la forma de gobierno con orientación a fines)
Gracias por tu comentario que enriquece proyectiva/ históricamente el post inicial.
Muchos saludos, Aquileana 🙂
Great summary. This makes me want to go back and reread the old man.
I am glad that you enjoyed the post… I agree with you; I do truly believe that “the Nichomachean Ethics” is an obliged (re) lecture, Tom.
Thanks for stopping by, Aquileana 🙂
Thanks @JosepGarcife for sharing this post at twitter.
Cheers, Aquileana 🙂
Reblogueó esto en http://epistemex.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/aristotles-three-types-of-knowledge-in-the-nichomachean-ethics-techne-episteme-and-phronesis/
Reblog de este post en http://www.epistemex.wordpress.com .Gracias mahb, Aquileana 😉
Trato de asegurarte su lectura, adelante, que ahora no puedo. Trato de ponerme al día con lo pendiente.
Mi abrazo, queda pendiente, pues, en su grueso acento: cuando te lea.
Buena noche, excelente Aquileana.
Hola Alberto…
Me parece muy bien que el abrazo se haga efectivo y la lectura quede pendiente.
Otro abrazo para vos y gracias por pasar … Buenas noches y que tengas un excelente fin de semana, Aquileana 🙂
Hello Amalia! Forgive me, while I can get the gist of spanish by reading I cannot speak/type it…
My question in the google thread pertained to the problem that Aristotle identifies that happiness consists in living life in a certain, determinate way, yet the most glaring fact of human existence is that we will all die.
Not to sound morbid! But the challenge here is that if we die, it seems that we cannot live in a manner that produces happiness. So are we to suggest that happiness cannot be obtained?
How do we overcome this?
Welcome to my blog Joe,
Yes I guess your point sounds logically conclusive. But probably Aristotle wasn´t thinking about the aftermaths of virtuous actions after death… Not even in death itself…
I think that in this sense he could have been closer to Epicure than to Stoic philosophers… What counts here is how do we act as we live..
Excellence is a habit for Aristotle and as we practice virtuos, we become virtuos, the more virtuous we are the happier we´ll live as we live on…
Cheers, Aquileana 🙂
It seems as though, given Aristotle’s conclusions, either, 1) happiness is not attainable, at least definitively, or, 2) he holds out hope that perhaps somehow man can have life eternally…it would seem to be the only explanation.
What do you think? I’m open to discussing much of anything though if you aren’t interested in this. 🙂
I am particularly interested in this topic now as I have just written the post today…
Happiness is attainable probaly in a relative way.
Like all virtues are…
By the way I am sure you have heard of the theory of Golden Mean… Each virtue is in a perfect balance between the excess and the defect …
So I guess happiness should be a sort of contemplative state of mind in perfect balance with Physis. Not too much nor too less .. !
Regarding the second point I have no clue about Aristotle´s position towards God´s existence.
In fact he didn´t mention God (maybe godwill, but that is something absolutely different right?)
Aquileana 🙂
See also “Aristotle´s Ethical Theory: On the concepts of Virtue & Golden Mean”. Aquileana 🙂
https://aquileana.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/aristotles-ethical-theory-on-the-concepts-of-virtue-and-golden-mean/
Ok…yes, the golden mean, although that is more Plato than Aristotle, is it not? Particularly in reference to the virtue of temperance. Yet at the same time, can we speak of too much prudence or wisdom? too much courage? too much temperance? too much justice?
Happiness may very well include a contemplative state of mind, but also flourishing of the body and material well being as well. But at the same time, I don’t think there can be too much of happiness, since it is the end/final cause of the virtues to begin with. For example, the archer wouldn’t say, “I must not hit too much of the target?” Instead, she wants to completely hit her target. I think it is the same with happiness. Since it is the highest good, there is no “too much”.
Now about God…Aristotle speaks often of God. First in his “prime mover” argument, Book 8 of the Physics. But exclusively in the Metaphysics, where he reaffirms this proof, and then discusses “natural theology” or the science of all sciences, the science of being qua (as) being.
~Jose 😉
Okay , got your point at the end there are silver means maybe .. Not golden as gold is too pure to be virtuous !!! (speaking in an aristotelic way)… You are right that is hard to measure the quantum of virtues, almost impossible, and if being possible it should be statistically established according to some pattern of perfect virtues scale..
I think that you are right in that image of the archer you have provided.
If we don´t act in a golden (mean) way that must be because we usually exceed the midpoint (We tend to more rather than to less I think)..
As to God, does Aristotle mention “Him” or he just talk about the “Prime Mover “?…
I am asking you this because the difference is important as the Prime Mover could be probaly related with the arjé of pre-Socratic philosophers and not with theological issues;
Aquileana 🙂
Your point about the golden mean is also well taken because virtue is like a mean between extremes, such as courage as a mean between recklessness and cowardice. So perhaps we just mean two different senses.
Now, with God. I don’t believe Aristotle every uses the word “him” with respect to God. This is probably due to his cultural situation. The use of the word “him” is very much a Christian reality.
I don’t think the Prime Mover of Aristotle can be related to the first principle of the pre-Socratics mainly because the pre-Socratics were basically materialists. They all saw in some aspect of matter the first principle of everything that is. Aristotle rejects this. For him, the Prime Mover is clearly supernatural; it is not a natural principle of any kind. From there, “natural theology” seeks to identify what God is not given what we can know of the Prime Mover: God is not temporal (God is eternal); God is not many (God is one); God is not corporeal (God is incorporeal); God is not in motion (God is immutable), and so on…
Joe 🙂
Joe; That´s a good point the one you have provided above.. “not a material principle, but an incoporeal eternal uncaused principle…
Is there any influence of Plato´s idea of God (the more ideal among all the Ideas) and Aristotle´s Prime Mover…
Just wondering because God´s characteristics or attributes seem to fit with those ones of IPlato´s “Ideas”…
Don´t know if you agree with me but after all Aristotle was his disciple, right, so it could be !…
Aquileana 🙂
As far as references, check out:
Aristotle, The Physics, Book VIII, Chapters 4-6
Aristotle, The Metaphysics, Book 12, Chapters 1-6
Regarding The Prime Mover (God) okay…
I´ll check these links out and also that author you mentioned, Philippa Foot. ( Ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa_Foot )
Can´t we connect tomorrow like we did today after I have read a little bit…
Let´s say one hour and a half or two hours earlier than right now ?. Does it fit you … Or anyway… during the week as you wish!. RSVP, Aquileana 🙂
________
Awesome hang out with Joseph Saffiotihie at Google Plus
________
Joseph Saffiotihier à 21:59
+Amalia Pedemonte It seems to me, in the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle seems to be suggesting that ethics is the art of living well; and living well, is what leads to happiness. Yet I have found that sometimes, this conclusion is somewhat circular? It seems as though Aristotle is saying that while happiness is the effect of living well, at the same time, happiness is living well (virtue).
So it sometimes seems unclear if happiness is virtue for Aristotle or whether happiness is an effect of virtue? What do you think?
_______________
Amalia Pedemonte hier à 22:081
+Joseph Saffioti You are making reference to the word: Eudaimonia which is a central concept in Aristotelian ethics, translated as happiness, welfare or “human flourishing”.-
Happiness is life´s aim.. So in fact I believe that by doing so (living well /happy) we are being vituous somehow… For what I understand happiness is an effect of virtue, but virtue is also an habit so, in this sense, as we are happy, we build happiness.
____________
Joseph Saffiotihier à 22:15
You are making reference to the word: Eudaimonia which is a central concept in Aristotelian ethics, translated as happiness, welfare or “human flourishing”.-
Happiness is life´s aim.. So in fact I believe that by doing so (living well /happy) we are being vituous somehow… For what I understand happiness is an effect of virtue, but virtue is also an habit so, in this sense, as we are happy, we build happiness.
Uou write, “Happiness is life’s aim…I understand happiness is an effect of virtue..”
When you say, “happiness is life’s aim”…can you explain what you mean by happiness here? And also, as happiness is an “effect” of virtue, how is it distinct from its cause (virtue)?
_________
Amalia Pedemonte hier à 22:29+1
Yes I know It is circular if it this what you are trying to highlight. However when I mean Life´s aim and effect of virtue in what has to be with Eudaimonia (happiness) I think we are making reference to a First & therefore main virtue, as for instance the idea of God in Plato… Happiness is probably cause and effect at the same time as for Aristotle a human being is virtous when he acts virtuously (agon/character)… So bottom line: happiness is the First Virtue, therefore it is effect of the act of being virtuous & the cause of other subordinate virtues, as it entrains them +Joseph Saffioti
__________
Joseph Saffiotihier à 22:31+1
+Amalia Pedemonte in Book I of Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, he writes,
“Now if the function of man is an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational principle, and if we say ‘so-and-so-and ‘a good so-and-so’ have a function which is the same in kind, e.g. a lyre, and a good lyre-player, and so without qualification in all cases, eminence in respect of goodness being idded to the name of the function (for the function of a lyre-player is to play the lyre, and that of a good lyre-player is to do so well): if this is the case, and we state the function of man to be a certain KIND OF LIFE, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete.”
What intrigues me about this is that Aristotle puts the emphasis on a certain kind of life…yet man dies. Therefore, is it possible for him to obtain happiness given this condition?.
______________________
Joseph Saffiotihier à 22:35
+Amalia Pedemonte I have seen your blog! well done…Now, about this first virtue..we might say it is the “first” virtue, as it is the final cause, or end of the virtues. But is it in fact a virtue, as in a habit? That part I am not so sure about. Aristotle identifies the virtues- prudence, courage, etc..but happiness seems to be the end of them, as a target is the end of an arrow which is fired. We wouldn’t say the target is the “first arrow”; likewise, perhaps happiness is not the “first virtue” but rather the end of the virtues, just as a good painting is the end of an artist’s fine strokes…
Just some thoughts…
___________________
Joseph Saffiotihier à 22:371
+Amalia Pedemonte interesting that you mentioned Plato’s god; if I understood your reference, God is to Plato, what happiness seems to be in Aristotle’s ethics. Not that Aristotle thought happiness was god, but rather that as Plato saw God is the supreme “good” or end of things, so too Aristotle sees happiness as the supreme end of all human action…
At any rate, just curious, what are your thoughts on god?
___________________
Amalia Pedemonte hier à 22:431
+Joseph Saffioti Exactly When you mentioned above the cause & the effects and the circular issue underneath I thought of Aristotle´s Prime Mover who/which moves without moving himself as he (God) is uncaused but causes movement (effect) http://www.logicmuseum.com/ontological/aristotleontological.htm
Regarding God I am catholic but not Orthodox
________________
Joseph Saffioti hier à 22:481
+Amalia Pedemonte Yes. Are you familiar with the prime mover argument from Aristotle’s Physica Book 8?
When you say, “not orthodox” do you mean that you are Roman Catholic? Or are you saying you don’t really practice your faith? Just curious..
Are you familiar with Germain Grisez and John Finnis? What is interesting is that the British philosophers Peter Geach, Elizabeth Anscombe, and Philippa Foot bring British philosophy back to an anthropological vision of ethics, whereas Grisez and Finnis are critical of this, and take a more deontological approach?
____________
Amalia Pedemonte hier à 22:531
sigh I didn´t follow you and as a matter of fact I would love to know about the prime mover argument from Aristotle’s Physica Book 8… The author´s references below are so far beyond my knowledge… But maybe you can instruct me about that argument you have mentioned or send me a link to take a peak… For your information my interests in Philosophy are both theretical & amateur, which means both : that I love wisdom (philos/sophia) and that my perspective is not technical as I am not a philosopher … :-))
___________________
On the issue of Plato and Aristotle. That is a subject of much debate throughout history. The question basically is, “can we reconcile Plato and Aristotle?”
In general, the consensus is yes, even though their approaches were different. They both agree that the “real world” is intelligible, or understandable. They also both agree that we can know absolute, universal truths.
Where they disagree is in terms of how we come to know things. For Plato, we know the “good” through intuition, basically. The shadows of “good” things in this life, are but mere copies of the one template of supreme goodness that dwells in the realm of ideas.
Now Aristotle protests against this in his Metaphysics. He argues that this kind of reasoning leads to all sorts of absurdities. He argues instead, that while God is the supreme good (supreme beauty, etc), it is not because we have an abstract idea in our head.
Instead, Aristotle argues to the existence of a first principle of nature; that is to say, a first principle of everything in motion. This being is the source of everything; everything depends on it; therefore, if there is good in nature, then it comes from this being, ultimately.
For Aristotle, “goodness” follows being; for Plato, “being follows goodness”.
I should add also that “beauty” for Aristotle, follows upon being and goodness; it is logically subsequent to both of these concepts. And speaking of beauty, I just noticed your picture to the right!
Awww, Thanks ..
>For Aristotle, “goodness” follows being; for Plato, “being follows goodness” that was pretty interesting
And as for Plato Beauty Itself is implicit in the Idea of Good, meaning the main & First Idea right ?
> and also were interesting those points to set up in order to highlight the relationship between Plato & Aristotle…
Will leave you for now , as I need to get some sleep, but we can meet tomorrow or another day if you are available !,
So good to come across you!!! , have a beautiful night & we´ll talk soon if you can/want!,
Aquileana 🙂
no problem. Like I said, I can do maybe Monday or Tuesday if that is okay. Seems like I’m maybe two hours behind you. Would 9:30 your time on Monday be okay?
Now Plato would argue that your beauty is a mere shadow or copy of the divine beauty, which exists not in this world, but in the world of ideas. We recognize your beauty because we remember something of the beauty from which we were created (Socrates doctrine of “remembrance in the Meno).
Now Aristotle protests this. He says that in fact, “Aquileana is beautiful.” But if Plato is correct, then there must not be an idea of beauty itself, but of Aquileana, of which her body is just a copy of in this life. Now Aristotle thinks this is an absurdity because we will go on to infinity identifying the source of your image of beauty.
So, instead, Aristotle says, “Aquileana is not merely a copy of the divine beauty. No, she is really beautiful, and she is beautiful on account of the first principle that created everything in this world.”
ok. We can meet up again, but I probably can’t meet up again until maybe Monday or Tuesday. I’ll drop a note to you then, is that okay?
Certainly Joe…
Even better for me so that way I can catch up with all the links & information you suggest me …
You can drop me a note that´s perfect,
Thanks for everyhing you are so wise I can´t even believe that I am talking to you,
Up soon !!!
Aquileana 🙂
Okay I´ll measure the contents… You are right!!!
BTW right now it is almost 1:00 am so maybe we can meet by 10.00 / 10.30 PM ?… And sorry to ask where are you from?
I am from northeast USA, near philadelphia. It seems we have about 2 hrs time difference…is it possible for you to do 9:30? I’ll confirm with you monday.
also, don’t feel like you have to read up on all this so fast! take your time, we can fill in the gaps as we go along! I’ve studied Aristotle at length so I feel at home in this conversation.
Have a great night!
Veo un estudio muy interesante, y en realidad concreto. Veo algo confuso yo, pero quiero entrever lo posible. Un autor, puede levantar ideas geniales o regulares, tal vez hasta malas para la posteridad. La filosofía se desata por explicar causas y esencias del ser, pautas por consiguiente, y va por esas veredas: no llega a conclusión plenamente; entre los grandes de la filosofía, tremendas diferencias y hasta sistemas opuestos.
En todo este campo de hoy, hay parcelas de valor; el intento aristotélico suele seducir por parcelas. Pero si algo me parece mejor desde tu trabajo es intentar saber “de la sabiduría en virtud”, teórica y si en busca de práctica…
Con mi miopía, mis gracias ya dejo por tu trabajo; y mi buen y sencillo abrazo, Aquilenaa. Buen día.
Al; Muchísimas gracias por el comentario. Coincido con vos en lo que se refiere a la Filosofía… No encuentra respuestas decisivas o terminantes simplemente porque su existencia es ociosa y tiene que ver con preguntar insaciablemente . De hecho la palabra Philos apunta a una especie de amor, que como el deseo nunca se detiene (ya lo dijo Hegel). Siguiendo con la etimología Sophia es sabiduría… Qué es ser sabio, creo que tenés razón en tus apreciaciones: La sabiduría no es meramente contemplativa. Es sabio quien reflexiona y actúa en consecuencia. El conocimiento sin acción es incompleto y absolutamente relativo. Creo que el aporte de la ética de Aristóteles se relaciona con la doble vertiente teórico/práctico de la cuestión… Y por eso su legado es importante aún en nuestros días..
Un abrazo, Aquileana 🙂
Gracias @HumanitumIratus por compartir este post en Twitter; Aquileana 🙂
____________________
Thanks @Maxima003 for sharing this post at twitter, Aquileana 🙂
https://twitter.com/Maxima003/status/429996821130141696
____________________
Thanks @thelandoffun for sharing this post at twitter, Aquileana 🙂
https://twitter.com/thelandoffun/status/430202405595017216
____________________
The concept of “practical wisdom” is one I find so interesting. We can be wise, so to speak, but impractical about that which we know; we might use the knowledge in absurd ways without understand we even doing so! To pair the “practical” with the “wisdom” is necessary to achieve success in our lives.
Thank-you for sharing more about Aristotle with us. It’s like a Part 2 to your last Aristotle post, which I know was a great success. I also like the way you changed your site – adding your cute photos, G+ badge AND shining stars are here to help guide me.
Thanks for being a wonderful twinkle star in my life. A wonderful read xoxo,
Christy
Hello Chirsty ,
Thanks for dropping by !!!… You are right about practical wisdom… It is the one that counts as theoretical, speculative knowledge won´t lead us too far…
Going further, parctical knowledge is also related with ethics. For Aristotle the main aim of life is Happiness (eudaimonia) and we reach it through our acts. He said that excellence was a habit. In the ethical sense, If we tend to repeat virtuous acts we will become better as human beings and being ethically better makes us happier.
I am glad that you enjoyed the post and also good to know that you liked the little changes I have done here.
You are also a twinkle star for me, you, my tittle twin star xoxo,
Aquileana 🙂
Thanks @christybis for sharing this post at Twitter, Hugs, Aquileana 🙂
Oh sweetie, of course I shared the post xx Thanks for another wonderful read.
Thanks for your usual support and encouragement Christy…
I have just stopped by your blog to do the personality test.
Gues what? I am like Thomas Jefferson…
I added all my results there in my comment there.
That way you´ll get to know me even better,
Hugs Aquileana 🙂
_______________
“Big Five Personality Test” Via @christybis
_______________
Awww, I’m just catching up on the comments now and going to respond to yours! xoxo Thanks so much for stopping by. YOU are beautiful, inside and outside xoxo
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your words. It was great to take that personality test, #BGP,
ILY & Hugs;
Aquileana 🙂
ILY! Your words are wonderful to read, as well xx
ILY too sweetie… Thanks for dropping by; Hugs to you!
Aquileana 😉
Aquileana, you should start a thread with your photos on the blog so that we can discuss the meaning of beauty…it would be quite appropriate! I would start by pointing out and asking:
“All people would agree that Aquileana is beautiful. But what makes something beautiful? Is Aquileana the definition of beauty or must we search for another definition? Are things beautiful insofar as they approach Aquileana’s beauty or is there another standard of beauty?”
It could be a fun dialogue!
Hello Joe…
Well just tossing me aside, I would say that as I see it there are no standards of beauty…
I think the only serious intend so far in order to define beauty in a mathematical and practical way was Da Vinci´s “Golden Ratio :
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio)
(http://www.intmath.com/numbers/math-of-beauty.php)
Thanks for stopping by, cheers, Aquileana 🙂
You define beauty in terms of mathematics?? If what you are saying is true, then beauty isn’t real, it is just an idea, like any mathematical concept (for mathematical realities are just ideas that abstract quantity).
If that is the case, then you can’t be beautiful.
Now we know plainly this is false 🙂 And also, you and I are not Pythagoreans!
Therefore, there must be some real standard of beauty. And if you are not it, despite all appearance, then there must be some source. And further, we cannot go on through an infinite series of more beautiful things, or else we would have nothing to compare to.
Therefore, we must know, intuitively, there there exists something that is pure beauty, the highest beauty; something whose essence is to be beautiful.
Now if beauty follows upon goodness and being, then it follows that what is most beautiful must be the highest good; and the highest good, must be pure being- what Aristotle would call the “act of being”. Therefore, what is most beautiful, is basically, the Prime Mover.
Otherwise known as “God”.
Now there can be only two other considerations 🙂
Either:
1) Aquileana is “god” given her beauty
or
2) Something greater than Aquileana is the source of her beauty.
I haven’t worked this one out yet but perhaps you can finish it off…
Hello there Joe..
I have doing some research on the topic of “Beauty in Aristotle & Plato”..
Let´s begin with Aristotle: (I am highlighting the main points) & adding the twitter links below linking to the articles that I referred to:
>Aristotle seeks in the Metaphysics to distinguish the Good and the Beautiful thus: the Good is always in action (en praxei); the Beautiful, however, may exist in motionless things as well (en akinetois). Elsewhere he distinctly teaches that the Good and the Beautiful are different (heteron), although the Good, under certain conditions, can be called beautiful.
>It should be noticed that the habit of the Greek mind, gave rise to a certain ambiguity in the meaning of to kalon, which accounts for the prominence the Greek thinkers gave to the connection between the Beautiful and the Good or morally Worthy.
>Another characteristics of the Beautiful fixed by this thinker in the Rhetoric is the absence of all lust or desire in the pleasure it bestows. This is an important point, as suggesting the disinterested and unmonopolising side of aesthetic pleasure. The universal elements of beauty, again, Aristotle finds in the Metaphysics to be order (taxis), symmetry, and definiteness or determinateness (to orismenon). In the Poetics he adds another essential, namely, a certain magnitude, it being desirable, for a synoptic and single view of the parts, that the object, whether a natural body or a work of art, should not be too large, while clearness of perception requires that it should not be too small.
______
As to Plato:
> In The Republic, Plato maintains that in addition to being able to identify a beautiful person or a beautiful painting, we also have a general conception of Beauty itself, and we are able to identify the beauty in a person or a painting only because we have this conception of Beauty in the abstract. In other words, the beautiful things we can see are beautiful only because they participate in the more general Form of Beauty. This Form of Beauty is itself invisible, eternal, and unchanging, unlike the things in the visible world that can grow old and lose their beauty. That Beauty is a form is certain (PHO 100d), but knowing this does little to add to our understanding of what the Beautiful is.
> In Hippias Mayor there is an attempt to define Beauty by showing what it is not. Socrates and Hippias agree that “ the beautiful is that which is pleasing through hearing and sight.”(HMJ 298a, see also GOR 474d-e).
One problem which arises from this definition, however, is that if Beauty is known through sight, it could not be known through hearing, and vice-versa.
Worth noting; If Beauty were visual and aural pleasures, it must always be recognized by both senses simultaneously (HMJ 300a-b)
>The question now remaining is that of the nature of the appropriate, specifically how it might bind together the qualities which have been noted to signal the presence of the Beautiful.
The answer is found in “Charmides” and lies in the untranslatable ‘sophrosyne’. Many have translated it as ‘temperance’, but it certainly means more than that. One commentator notes that it is a sort of excellence for human nature which gives the person inner proportion and harmony.
>The Beautiful and sophrosyne may not be identical, but they are inseparable, and it is sophrosyne’s well-ordering of the signs (e.g., nobility, goodness, humility, modesty) which indicate Beauty’s presence that is a necessary criterion for a person’s being beautiful.
________
Links via @aquileana:
__________
Now this is a post that one must print and contemplate along with the many comments as well made point…lovely and so very interesting!
Bastet/Geogria.
So glad that you liked it.- Thanks for your beautiful words. I much appreciated them
Cheers, Aquileana 🙂
🙂
MISS ARGENTINA ……..
remember “Hello Brains”
well 🙂 HELLO BRAINS ……omg …..
You have a beautiful way of looking at EVERYTHING 🙂
You know this right ? x
Indeed ….:)
Like Robert Graves perhaps 🙂
I think so x
I enJOY everything you write about ….
and the process you give your readers – The contemplation You give us …..
🙂
XXXXXXXXX Genius xxxx
C xx
Dear Cat…
I really appreciate your words & encouragement. You are a great friend C
Being compared with Robert Graves is such a compliment, not sure if I wwill be able to handle this title (LOL)..
Thanks for dropping by and I am delightful to know that you have enjoyed my latest post,
Love! xoxo, Aquileana 🙂
Amazing post dear, I didn’t know about this three kinds of knowledge.
Very interesting and I’ve learned something new.
Thanks so much to sharing with us.
Kisses and hugs. (Have a great week). 🙂
Rotze.
Hello Rotze,
So good to know that you have enjoyed it…
I am also glad to know that it caught you attention.
By the way I loved your latest poem at your blog (truly beautifully written).
Thanks for stopping by-
Hugs & kisses for you too, Aquileana 🙂
Thanks @rotzemardini for sharing this post at Twitter, Aquileana 😉
Reblogged this on Syl65's Blog and commented:
This is my Poet/Sis. She has an awesome blog with some great post. Check her out and follow.
Dear Sylvester; Thanks a lot for sharing poet/bro… You made me really happy.
Sending you hugs ; Aquileana 🙂
_____________________
This post was has been reblogged at http://syl65.wordpress.com/ by @SylvesterPoetry. Aquileana 🙂
_____________________
Very interesting. Well done on the summary. You make Plato so accessible. 🙂
Thanks KH…
I much appreciated it, even more as it comes from you. Have a great sunday Kourtney,
Aquileana 😉
By the way I dropped by Sheila Hurst website & left you a comment there on your enjoyable interview …
http://sheilahurst.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/author-interview-kourtney-heintz/
But it is still awaiting for her approval; Kourtney…
Hugs, Aquileana ! 😉
Thanks @kookadim for sharing this post at twitter.
Cheers, Aquileana 🙂
Interesting and thoughtful post.
Thanks for dropping by. Glad you enjoyed the post. Cheers, Aquileana 😉
Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wished to mention that I’ve really loved surfing around your weblog posts.
After all I’ll be subscribing on your feed and
I’m hoping you write again soon!
Hello and welcome to my blog… Best regards, Aquileana 🙂
Thank you so much, Aquileana. Your post makes my life better!
Thank you for your kind words. I much appreciate them …
Cheers, Aquileana 😛
Actually, there were five types of knowing in the Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle referred to them as five virtues of thought: technê, epistêmê, phronêsis, sophia, and Nous (1139b15).
Sophia has to do with Philos (i.e., philosophy, as you mention above) – but also mathematics and geometry; and Nous is evidently the infinite, unchanging, unmoving (i.e., Parmenidean) element in A’s philosophy and It is closely related to his idea of the rational soul, the Good (agathon) and the Unmoved Mover (occasionally referred to as Divine, theios/theos)…
You might like to check out this link: https://www.philosophie.hu-berlin.de/institut/lehrbereiche/antike/mitarbeiter/menn/apongodasnous.pdf
[…] such addition that Hayekians are bound to find appealing is the notion of practical wisdom; or “phronesis” in Greek. For Aristotle ethical acts are a highly contingent […]
Thanks for the pingback, Aquileana 😛
Una de las mejores y más importantes libros que he leído. Very good post.
Muchas gracias. Me alegro mucho de que te haya gustado este post.
Un gran saludo y gracias por pasar!, Aquileana 😀
Very informative article. Thanks for dropping by 🙂
Thanks as well for taking time to read and comment. All the best to you. Aquileana 😎
Thank you very much.
I am happy to know that you liked the post… All the best to you. Aquileana 😎
You are welcome. I am delighted in your company 🙂
All the best to you too..
Thanks a lot… Have a great day. Aquileana 😀
[…] are being misused here. See Premise 1 (tempting to insert an emoticon here)! Think of the difference between scientific and technical knowledge. Scientific knowledge, such as that about motion and force, is independent of the context of the […]
Very informative article
You might say Aristotle broadly only introduced two types op knowledge: episteme and techne
Very influential for western cultural views was episteme because inherently it presumed a static truth behind reality.
have a look at
http://paradigm-shift-21st-century.nl/aristotle-biography.html
Thanks for the thoughtful comment and I am pleased to know that you enjoyed the post. I will check out the article in a while. thanks for adding its link here. Best wishes. Aquileana ⭐
[…] the Greeks and particularly for Plato, Episteme and Techne represented knowledge of an order completely different from […]
Reblogged this on My Life on the Chicago # 36 Bus and commented:
This is a reblog of great thought. Follow the connection to see ancient thought brought forth to be understood now. We all have heard of Aristotle but how many know anything of his thought. This is not a “Fun” reblog. Read only if you are considering the human condition. It is a serious post. I thank the author for going through the trouble to present this.
Thanks so muh for sharing…. And for the words you have written as “introduction”. I really appreciate it !. Love & best wishes 🙂
[…] Athena symbolizes the feminine content that is oriented toward the masculine and particularly helpful to it. Taken as an inner principle, an aspect of a man’s psyche, she represents the feminine figure of wisdom, “Sophia“. […]
[…] [i] This section draws from Amalia Pedemonte’s helpful “Aristotle’s Three Types of Knowledge in the Nicomachean Ethics”, available here. […]
Just wondering bout Techne and found your site. Very nice.
Thanks so much. Glad to read your feedback… wishing you well 👍⭐️💛