previous next

‘The reason of this is, that the one seems to have what is his own (that which naturally and properly belongs to him), the other not; for that which constantly presents the same appearance (shews itself in the same light) is thought to be a truth (or substantial reality), and therefore it is supposed that the others (οἱ ἕτεροι δοκοῦσιν) have what does not really belong to them. Here we have a good example of the distinction between φαίνεσθαι and δοκεῖν. The former expresses a sensible presentation, a φαντασία, an appeal to the eye or other senses: δοκεῖν is an act of the understanding, an operation and result of the judgment, a δόξα an opinion or judgment, appealing to the reasoning faculty or intellect, consequently τὸ φαίνεσθαι represents a lower degree of certainty and authority than δοκεῖν. Eth. Eud. VII 2, 1235 b 27, τοῖς μὲν γὰρ δοκεῖ, τοῖς δὲ φαίνεται κἂν μὴ δοκῇ: οὐ γὰρ ἐν ταὐτῷ τῆς ψυχῆς φαντασία καὶ δόξα. The distinction appears again in περὶ ἐνυπνίων c. 3, 461 b 5, φαίνεται μὲν οὖν πάντως, δοκεῖ δὲ οὐ πάντως τὸ φαινόμενον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν τὸ ἐπικρῖνον κατέχηται μὴ κινῆται τὴν οἰκείαν κίνησιν. Ib. 462 a 1, οὐ μόνον φανεῖται, ἀλλὰ καὶ δόξει εἶναι δύο τὸ ἕν, ἂν δὲ μὴ λανθάνῃ, φανεῖται μὲν οὐ δόξει δὲ, κ.τ.λ. See also Waitz ad Anal. Post. 76 b 17, II p. 327.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: