Aristotle Considered Experiential Knowledge of Lower Value

Aristotle gave the name experience to change which is irregular, and differentiated this from scientific knowledge, or rational knowledge. The only changes that could come within the scope of science were those which moved in the direction of, and which were governed by, final cause——the chick and the oak, again. Typical of the things which Aristotle regarded as certain, and therefore admissible to the realm of science, were the stars of the heavens which could be counted and which moved in fixed orbits, and triangles, the angles of which invariably equalled two right angles. Because such things were fixed and invariable, he took them as rational knowledge, but the questions of a man’s height or his rate of growth, or of the temperature in winter and in summer, referred at best to probabilities, and therefore were not proper subjects for scientific inquiry. The disparagement of experience, which is mutable, and the exaltation of rational knowledge, which is static and immutable, constituted Aristotle s most important legacy to western thought. This legacy resulted in a fundamental problem in the history of philosophy the problem of the relative status of experience and reason in epistemology. This problem generated centuries of controversy

This brings us to the fifth characteristic of Aristotle’s type of thinking, the division of all knowledge into two levels—the higher, of which astronomy and arithmetic are examples, and the lower, which embraces such things as human behavior—morality social change, ethics, sociology, philosophy of human life. Because these latter do not have a fixed direction of change, are unpredictable, have no complete form toward which to change, and are related to no final cause, they constitute a level of knowledge that is lower than that which deals with the eternal and the immutable. This relegation to inferior status of all human behaviors and practical actions, of politics and social philosophy, remained characteristic of western thought for nearly two thousand years.

A theory which denies the possibility of an ultimate criterion of human behavior and practical affairs renders impossible any perfect knowledge in this realm. The search for perfect knowledge must begin with that which is certain and immutable; it cannot be achieved by doing, which is inferior to knowing. The implication is that men can approach the most complete and highest form of their behaviors through knowledge, which must be sought within the mind. Doing involves others and therefore can never be completely interior, as thought is. Philosophers seek knowledge through contemplation and therefore live rational lives. This life of reason is the greatest happiness to which man may aspire.