English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Aristotle authored an infl uential account of the factors that can either enhance or detract from sapheneia (usually translated into English as ‘clarity’) in thought or expression. He also criticized various earlier thinkers for failing to make things saphes or ‘clear’, identifi ed truth and sapheneia as the twin standards by which his own philosophical accounts ought to be judged, and introduced a well-known distinction between ‘things clearer (saphestera) to us’ and ‘things clearer (saphestera) by nature’. It would appear then that clarity was a major Aristotelian concern — and to some degree it was. But in what follows I will try to show that what Aristotle often had in mind when he spoke about sapheneia was not clarity but either a detailed and accurate accounting of the phenomena or the attainment of full scientifi c knowledge.

Saphêneia in Aristotle: ‘Clarity’, ‘Precision’, and ‘Knowledge’