Abstract

The majority of current interpreters of Aristotle’s theory of perception assume that perception must be understood as a passive process. This assumption is mainly justified by systematic considerations. Particularly influential for the ongoing debate on the proper understanding of Aristotle’s theory is the work of Myles Burnyeat, whose interpretation amounts to a devastating critique of the Aristotelian philosophy of perception. This paper wants to shed some light on the kind of activity that is involved in perception. It will be shown that by considering the special kind of activity with which Aristotle identifies perception many of the problems that are seen by Burnyeat and others can be circumvented and a coherent interpretation can be provided, which, in turn, must be considered to be essential in order to judge the systematic relevance of Aristotle’s theory of perception.