Not Excluding Aristotle

Many historians rank Aristotle (Ἀριστοτέλης 384 BC – 322 BC) among most important philosophers of the Western Tradition. This chapter presents a brief biography and a short introduction to Aristotle's innovations.

Aristotle was born in the Macedonian town of Stageira. His father, Nicomachus, was the personal physician to King Amyntas of Macedon. Aristotle's close relation to the aristocracy would prove valuable throughout the philosopher's career.

When Aristotle was eighteen, he moved to Athens to join The Academy. Aristotle studied under Plato for twenty years. It is likely that later dialogs of Plato reflected discussions with Aristotle.

During this period the Macedonian kings gained influence throughout the Greek states, which would have benefitted Aristotle politically. It is likely that the Athenians, who preferred the Athenian Democracy to the new hegemony would have resented Aristotle's political connections.

On Plato's death, control of the academy transferred to Plato's nephew. With this change in the political landscape, Aristotle left Athens for the Anatolia region of modern Turkey. This area was near the stomping grounds of the ancient Ionians.

While in Anatolia, Aristotle took to the study of nature. For this work, Aristotle is often numbered among the pioneers in the science of zoology.

Circa 343 BC, Aristotle was summoned by King Philip of Macedon to tutor his son Alexander (Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας 356 BC 323 BC). While the content of these lessons are unknown, Alexander was to become a legendary leader who carved out an empire that that ranged from the Punjab region of India to Egypt, and was dubbed with the name Alexander the Great.

By 335 BC, Aristotle had returned to Athens where he established a school called The Lyceum. Legend holds that Aristotle would teach by wandering around the Lyceum, as such his followers are often called Peripatetic (περιπατητικός). It is likelyt that the Lyceum attracted the top research talent from Greece.

After the death of Alexander the Great, Aristotle was charged with impiety. Not wishing to share the fate of Socrates, Aristotle fled Athens for Macedon. He died shortly after his escape.

Improvements of Aristotle

It is tempting to position Aristotle's work as some sort of radical departure from Plato. It appears, however, that Aristotle was a life long admirer of Plato, and that he was attempting to correct weaknesses in Platonic reasoning. Likewise, it is likely that Plato would have welcomed Aristotle's structured approach to reasoning.

For that matter, I believe that one of the defining characteristics of classical thinkers is that they were looking to improve what came before, as opposed to modern thinkers who seek radical departures from the past.

The method of seeking improved reasoning often leads to dramatic changes in one's world view. Each generation sees the world from a slightly different perspective and the improvements that they work to achieve often result a truly radical improvement. Conversely, those who are driven by the desire to create radical change often fail to fully appreciate the depth of the reasoning that came before. Such thinkers tend to produce ideologies which are regressive.

Aristotle saw the arguments that Plato made to support the forms as weak, and set forth on an ambitious project of categorizing the different arguments and definitions to improve the theory. Two key elements of Aristotelian thought are direct observation of nature and detailed categorization of the observations.

Aristotle spent time categorizing fallacies, building hierarchy of definitions and was involved in a detailed search for those arguments which brought thinkers closer to truth.

During this process, Aristotle developed a system of reasoning called "analysis." The process later came to be known as "logic." At heart, logic is the study of the structure of ideas.

The role of logic can best be understood in the context of the classical curriculum called "The Trivium." The three legs of the trivium are Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric. Grammar is the study of the structure of language. Logic is the study of the structure of ideas and rhetoric is the study of persuasive argumentation. With grammar, one learns the basic structure of language, in logic one learns how to put together and develop ideas. In rhetoric, one learns how to make compelling arguments for their positions.

In the categorization of the trivium we see that logic is something that transcends the structure of language. Logic is used as a tool for broadening one's understanding of an issue. It is not designed as a tool for winning arguments. The art of winning arguments is rhetoric. Logic is intended as a tool for investigating ideas and making sure that they are sound.

The key structure in Aristotelian logic is a thing called the syllogism. A syllogism is an argument with a major premise, minor premise and conclusion. For example, we can conclude from the major premise "All men are mortal" and the minor premise "Socrates is a man" that "Socrates is mortal."

Using just a few premises and well formed definitions, a logician can piece together extremely complex analytical frameworks. We can judge the viability of complex systems simply by seeing if the premises contradict each other.

Syllogistic logic is like the phonetic alphabet in that it presents logic in the context of a spoken language. The syllogism seems to mesh well with the way we humans think. That is, it is intuitive. Since the syllogism has a simple linguistic form, the syllogism allows us to communicate to others our reasoning process.

Plato's Theory of Forms was dependent on appeals to the supernatural pre-existence of Forms. Aristotle improved upon Plato's work by changing the focus from these appeals to the supernatural to the structure of the ideas behind the forms. BTW, it is common for historians to capitalize the term "Forms" when used in reference to Plato, but to leave the term in lower case when used in context of Aristotle.

While one might still believe that forms have a separate existence from our minds, the goal of the logician is to make sure that the ideas we have about forms are consistent.

Formal Logic

As I understand, the term "formal logic" referred to the structured use of logic in the study of forms. Interestingly, the formal logic put forward by Aristotle is often labeled as informal logic.

The Exluded Middle

Aristotelian logic holds to the Law of the Excluded Middle. In formal reasoning, the premises one uses should evaluate to true or false. When a statement cannot be resolved to a clear true or false answer, the traditional thinker rejects the statement as a premise and looks for better wording.

The goal of the logician is clarity of thought. Muddled premises with nebulous answers lead to slopping thinking and to sloppy results.

Traditional thinkers consider the pursuit of a statement that does not have a clean "yes/no" answer as if did to be the fallacy of false dichotomy.

In logic, one seeks clarity of thought. The Law of the Excluded Middle helps simplify the thinking process. Unfortunately, many modern thinkers have been trained to see the law of the excluded middle as black and white thinking. I contend that black and white thinking only occurs when people hold false dichotomies and are unwilling to examine the foundations of their thinking.

Analytics v. Dialectics

The innovation of logic did not eliminate the need for the dialectical argument. It simply changed the emphasis. The goal of analytics is to build sound logical model. Philosophers continued to use the dialectic argument to hone definitions and premises. Within the Aristotelian tradition, there is a symbiotic relation between dialectics and analytics. One uses open inquiry and dialectical arguments to drill down to basic definitions and premises. They would then use analytics to build working systems.

Quality reasoning is largely the matter of using the right tool for the right job. One uses dialectical style arguments to dig down and test the integrity of the definitions and premises in a system. They use analytics to build up working systems.

Using the tools at the wrong time leads to poor reasoning. For example, it is impossible to build a quality system of reasoning when one has faulty premises and nebulous definitions. Likewise, one can't really build a sound system of reasoning based on dialectics alone as dialectical systems tend to be rife with contradictions.

Quality reasoning involves both processes.

As it stands, there has been a great deal of quality reasoning in the past. It is far more productive for students to learn both the strengths and weaknesses of this quality reasoning than it is to expect students to somehow derive from the æther some sort of perfect understanding through dialectic methods. In most cases, it is people who seriously delve into understanding the current state of thought that are best positioned to develop monumental improvements.

This means that best approach to prosperity is for schools to concentrate on teaching students

It is difficult to build a sound system of ideas based on dialectics arguments because such arguments are rife with contradictory forms. With analytics one reduces the number of contradictions in a system; however, there is more than one possible analytical framework for organizing a society. Analytics does not provide a mechanism for determining which analytical model to use.

Balanced Reasoning

Logic is often portrayed as cold and dictatorial while dialectics is portrayed as open handed and balanced. I believe the opposite is true.

The analytic thinker appears dictatorial because they seek out firmly stated arguments backed up by cleanly defined reasons.

Dialecticians appear balanced because they state multiple sides of an issue in their rhetoric.

I contend that the true test of the openness of a system is not found in the quality of the rhetoric, but in the decision making process. The analytical process leads to decision making that is backed up by clearly stated reasons. The dialectical process leads to decisions that are often capricious or politically motivated.

When a society is committed to the analytical process, then people are better able to understand the reasoning behind a system and can sway leaders from poorly reasoned decisions by point out the flaws in the reasoning. Even when a society holds faulty reasons for decisions, the decision making process is predictable which makes it easier for people to adapt and overcome the poor reasoning of the leaders.

Conversely, it is impossible to ever clearly understand the decision making process of a dialectician. Such thinkers hold contradictory opinions in their mind then spurt forth with dictates in an unpredictable fashion.

Some might claim that the dialectical process is preferable in situation where there are true conflicts for a society to overcome.

I think that the reverse is true. When there is a legitimate conflict, it is possible for the society to encapsulate the conflict in an analytic framework to help mitigate the conflict.

There is nothing inherently closed minded or imbalanced in analysis. There is nothing inherently imbalanced in being able to state the reasons for one's decisions.

Balance was actually a primary concern of Aristotle. We can clearly see this in his works on ethics and theatre. In ethics, Aristotle noted that pushing any virtue to an extreme would create a vice. The wise approach to virtue is to find the mean between the vice that occurs from the absence of virtue and the vice that arises from the excess of the virtue.

In theatre, Aristotle's definition of a tragedy (the highest form of drama) would involve a tragic flaw. The tragic flaw was a virtue pushed to an extreme.

Potential v. Actual Infinity

In mathematics, Aristotle showed his aversion to absolutes by drawing a distinction between potential and actual infinity. Aristotle would except that the set of Natural Numbers was potentially infinite (there is no upper bound to the set). He would not accept arguments based on a completed set of infinity.

It should be noted that the Greeks had been discussing paradoxes associated with infinity since Pythagoras. By the time of Aristotle, it was clear that the constant prattling about paradoxes and the infinite was not advancing the cause of reason.

Aristotle made attempts to resolve a small number of the paradoxes presented by Zeno. Most of the paradoxes come when people try to push a statement to an absolute. Aristotle's solution to paradoxes was to discourage preoccupation with infinity, absolutes and paradox. We should accept the limits of our reasoning.

In this regard, I still see a great deal of value in the theory of forms. It is possible for humans to create logical models which describe mathematical space or the physical worlds. The logical models, themselves, are never more than attempts to represent and understand physical structures or mathematical constructs.

NOTE, in Transfinite Theory modern thinkers claim to be able to use Hegelian style dialectics to create a completed infinity. I have yet to see any indication that any of these thinkers have managed to count all possible Natural Numbers; and I continue to think it is wise to avoid absolutes.

Lecture Notes

There are many positive aspects to Aristotle's thoughts; However, the works we have are difficult to read, and are notoriously full of mistakes.

One problem is that most of Aristotle's writings have been lost. The writings we have are lecture notes. These are either notes that Aristotle used as a basis for a lecture, or notes students took during a lecture. The articles Aristotle wrote for distribution were lost with time. Historians have reference to works meant for public consumption. The copies for these works are lost.

An interesting twist of history is that scholars have the works by Plato intended for distribution, but none of the lecture notes.

One very interesting difference between Aristotle and Plato is that a very large number of the statements associated with Aristotle have been refuted. Plato's writings simply hint at forms. As such there is no way to refute Plato. I contend that statements written in a manner that can be refuted is much more valuable than writing that is done in a way that shields the writer from criticism. I believe that the best way to advance our understanding of the world come when people make clear statements that can be proven true or false.

Many readers are turned off by the large number of mistakes in Aristotle's writings. I find the mistakes comforting. IMHO, Any quality researcher will have reams of notes filled with ideas that were tried proved faulty. Imagine a murder investigation. A good investigator will look at all potential suspects with an eye toward their guilt despite the truth that only one of the suspects is guilty. In my opinion, quality research involves making a large clearly defined statements that prove false.

Aristotle's Children

The innovation of analysis appears to have dramatically improved the rational style of the Ancient Greeks. In the work "Aristotle's Children," Richard Rubenstein makes the argument that great cultures tend to wax and wane with their appreciation of Aristotle.

The pattern crosses cultures. A variety of cultures waxed and waned with their appreciation of logic. Rubenstein points out that Pagans, Christians, Muslims and Jews all had golden ages following their discovery of Aristotelian logic.

A common pattern of development is that a small group of researchers would discover the works of Aristotle. The scholars would apply logical analysis to their community's needs. During this process they would develop innovations that led to dramatic improvements in the wealth and quality of life of their culture.

A generation or two into the golden age, the leaders of the newly empowered culture would realize that there was no logical reason that they were the overlords. It was simply happenstance that their fathers stumbled on Aristotle. Were others to discover the secret, they would disrupt the social order.

To maintain the power structure those empowered would find ways to undermine the teaching of logic. One can do this either by removing the study of logic from the curriculum, or by overburdening the subject with convolutions which make the study of logic appear dry and irrelevant to daily life.

The trick to sustained prosperity is to create rational style that holds logic in high esteem, but maintains balance and social mobility.