Book 1 / Chapter 4
Paragraph 2 - The Difference Between Arguments and First Principles
Explanation - Part By Part
"Let us not fail to notice, however, that there is a difference between arguments from and those to the first principles. For Plato, too, was right in raising this question and asking, as he used to do, 'are we on the way from or to the first principles?'"
Aristotle is pointing out an important distinction in reasoning and inquiry. He brings up a question Plato often asked: are we reasoning from fundamental starting points (first principles) to derive conclusions, or are we reasoning toward those first principles, trying to uncover or establish them? This difference highlights two approaches: starting from basic truths we already accept to build further understanding (deductive reasoning), versus working towards discovering foundational truths by examining and organizing what we observe (inductive reasoning). Aristotle acknowledges this as a crucial consideration in understanding how we pursue knowledge.
"There is a difference, as there is in a race-course between the course from the judges to the turning-point and the way back."
In this comparison, Aristotle uses the metaphor of a racecourse to explain how reasoning or inquiry can take two different paths. Just as in a racecourse, there is a route that leads from the starting point (the judges) to the turning point, and then another route that brings you back, Aristotle is highlighting that in philosophical thinking, there can be a distinction between the direction of questioning.
One path ("from the judges") represents reasoning or arguing based on foundational ideas or established principles — the foundational "starting points" that are already known. The second path ("the way back") represents reasoning that seeks to analyze or trace things back to those first principles, uncovering why they are true or fundamental.
Aristotle is reminding us that understanding can flow in both directions. Sometimes we build from what we already know to explore complex ideas, and at other times, we work backward from complex observations to uncover the more fundamental truths that explain them.
"For, while we must begin with what is known, things are objects of knowledge in two senses- some to us, some without qualification. Presumably, then, we must begin with things known to us."
Aristotle is pointing out that when we try to understand something, we need a starting point—something that is already familiar or accessible. He makes a distinction: there are things that are "known to us" (what we personally understand or recognize based on our own experiences and context) and things that are "known without qualification" (truths that are universally true, regardless of individual perspective). Aristotle emphasizes that any inquiry or study should start with what is "known to us" because that's the most practical and understandable beginning for any learning process. Building on what we already know allows us to move toward understanding broader, more universal truths.
"Hence any one who is to listen intelligently to lectures about what is noble and just, and generally, about the subjects of political science must have been brought up in good habits."
Aristotle is emphasizing that in order to truly understand and engage with discussions about deep and complex topics—like what is noble, just, or related to politics and ethics—a person needs to have developed good habits of character and behavior from a young age. This is because ethical discussions are tied to lived experience and moral practice, not just intellectual understanding. If someone has grown up practicing virtuous actions and living well, they already have a foundation or "starting point" that helps them grasp these concepts more intuitively. Ethics isn’t just about abstract reasoning; it’s about aligning thought and action, and that alignment begins with good upbringing and habituation.
"For the fact is the starting-point, and if this is sufficiently plain to him, he will not at the start need the reason as well; and the man who has been well brought up has or can easily get starting-points."
In these lines, Aristotle emphasizes that practical knowledge begins with what we already know from experience and upbringing. He argues that someone who has been raised with good habits and values doesn't always need a detailed explanation for why certain things are virtuous or just. They already have a solid foundation—those "starting-points"—from which they can build their understanding of deeper philosophical principles. Essentially, if someone's upbringing has aligned them with the right behaviors and principles, they'll have an intuitive grasp of the basics, which makes learning and reasoning about ethics much easier for them.
"And as for him who neither has nor can get them, let him hear the words of Hesiod: Far best is he who knows all things himself; Good, he that hearkens when men counsel right; But he who neither knows, nor lays to heart Another's wisdom, is a useless wight."
This part of the text concludes by quoting the ancient poet Hesiod to emphasize the point Aristotle is making about learning, understanding, and moral development. What Aristotle is arguing here is that there are three levels of capability when it comes to knowledge and wisdom:
1. The highest level is a person who inherently understands and has knowledge of important principles and truths on their own. This person is "far best," as Hesiod says, because they possess the ability to grasp knowledge or wisdom directly.
2. The next best level is someone who doesn’t inherently know everything but is capable of listening thoughtfully, learning from others, and following good advice. Such a person shows flexibility, humility, and intelligence by recognizing and using the wisdom of others.
3. The worst level is a person who neither knows nor is willing to learn from others. Hesiod calls this person a "useless wight" (essentially, someone who is ineffective and incapable of contributing), because their refusal or inability to understand wisdom—whether through personal knowledge or by listening to others—renders them unfit for meaningful growth or good action.
Aristotle is essentially reinforcing the idea that to engage with topics like ethics and political science, you need at least some foundation or openness to learning. Either you must already have good habits (a moral and intellectual starting point), or you must be capable of adopting the guidance of wiser people. If you are unwilling or unable to do either, then you will struggle to engage with these complex ideas altogether.