Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
HISTORY
Aristotle's Life and Logic
The once student of Plato, but founder of the separate Peripatetic school of philosophy, Aristotle was one of the foremost philosophers of ancient Athenian civilisation.
By Will Street
Jul. 25, 2019, 11:30 AM
The Life of Aristotle
Aristotle was born in 384 BC, in the small town of Stagira in northern Greece. He was the son of Nicomachus, who was a doctor, friend and physician to King Amyntas of Macedon, and Phaestis, who was a rich woman in her own right. In 367 BC, he moved to Athens and there became a member of the intellectual circle centred around Plato. Although it is unknown whether Aristotle moved from Stagira to Athens specifically to study with Plato, it is, at least, established that he stayed there for the next twenty years, studying among Plato's Academy. Plato's Academy was in a sense an intellectual circle, that held lectures, meetings and dinners, in which we can assume academics debated the matters which Plato discusses in his dialogues and also promoted scholarly enquiry.
​
Plato died in 347 BC, at which point Aristotle left Athens. This was due, it has been hypothesised, to political reasons. The anti-Macedonian party in Athens, led by the orator Demosthenes, was in the ascendancy, which would have meant that Aristotle's position, not being an Athenian citizen, would have been fragile.
​
Next, Aristotle went with Xenocrates, a fellow Academic, to Atarneus, on the coast of Asia Minor. There, there seems to have been a small academic community and they were welcomed in by the King, Hermias, and, according to the later Epicurean Philodemus' history of philosophy, supported in their study of philosophy. Aristotle wrote a moving poem in memory of Hermias when in 341 BC Atarneus was captured by the Persians and Hermias tortured to death.
​
Following his time at Atarneus, Aristotle moved to the city of Mytilene on the island of Lesbos. There he met Theophrastus, a native of the island, who was to become his most famous pupil, and there is also circumstantial evidence in his work to suggest he devoted part of his time in the eastern Aegean to the study of marine biology.
​
In 343 BC, Aristotle returned home briefly to Stagira, before King Philip II of Macedon invited him to the court of Mieza, and to the tutorship of his son, Alexander, which started the relationship between who was considered the greatest mind of the age, and the most powerful man, Alexander the Great. In 335 BC, Aristotle returned to Athens, where Plato's Academy was flourishing, however he decided to set up an establishment of his own, founding the Lyceum.
In 323 BC, Alexander the Great died and in the following year, Aristotle left Athens. He retired to Chalcis, on the island of Euboea, where his mother's family had estates. Within a year, at the age of 62 or 63, he passed away.
The Nature of Aristotle's Texts
Aristotle's texts that have come down to the modern era are not works that were published by Aristotle himself during his lifetime. Three of the ancient Lives contain catalogues of Aristotle's writings, the most famous and merit-able being that of Diogenes. Although its authorship itself is disputed, it amounts to 550 books totalling about six thousand modern pages. That is far more material than has ever been discovered and the catalogue itself omits some of Aristotle's most celebrated works by modern scholars.
​
The modern corpus of Aristotle's works is not derived from his contemporary published works but were mostly probably compiled by the Peripatetic scholar, Andronicus, two centuries later. The account of what happened to the material, which was also prominent in antiquity, was that, after Aristotle's death, his library was handed down to his student, Theophrastus, and then to Theophrastus's nephew, Neleus. Neleus took Aristotle's writings to a city called Scepsis in Asia Minor, where he hid them in a cave. Two centuries later they were found and taken to Athens and then Rome, where the Peripatetic philosopher, Andronicus, eventually prepared an edition. After the death of Theophrastus, the Peripatetic school of philosophy declined, however it is likely that books of Aristotle's still existed to a certain degree. Nonetheless, although it is not justifiable to state that Aristotle's acclaim was immediately rejuvenated after the Andronicus edition, the story of the cave is likely true and it is the corpus which Bekker's Aristotle was directly derived from and that which has come down to the modern era.
​
Aristotle's style is distinctively lacking literary polish. The 18th Century poet, Thomas Gray, described reading Aristotle "like eating dried hay." This is most probably because Aristotle's modern corpus is his esoteric works rather than his exoteric writings. These were technical writings, intended for use in lectures and teachings within his school. Specifically, modern scholars have suggested they were mostly lecture notes, since the works are abrupt and unliterary, they are lacking jokes, which would presumably have been added during the lecture, and there are doublets in the texts, suggesting Aristotle would have written down sentences and then added later revisions. Although not conclusive, the writings are, at least, most probably working drafts or lecture notes.
Aristotle's System of Thought
Aristotle's system of thought is best described as a blend of "aporetic" and "systematic". A "systematic" philosopher would construct elaborate edifices expressing their "system" of things, whereas an "aporetic" philosopher would continuously lay down theoretical puzzles. In the case of the Prior Analytics and de Caelo the discussion is less puzzle-centred and tentative, instead relating straightforward passages of doctrine, whereas most notably in the Metaphysics he is "aporetic" in the sense he predominately sets forth theoretical problems. Throughout his corpus, Aristotle is in between "aporetic" and "systematic" and there is a sense that the theoretical problems Aristotle sets forth could be illuminated and explained in a system, which Jonathon Barnes has argued in his book "The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle."
​
However, Aristotle did not believe in a single unified science, but rather believed that it was divided into different independent sciences. These were the productive sciences, which included poetics and rhetoric, practical sciences such as ethics and politics and theoretical sciences, which was subdivided into the theological, mathematical, and the natural. In this sense, Aristotle was self-consciously pluralistic and anti-Platonic, although the two philosophers have things in common regarding the theoretical sciences, which a major part of Aristotle's corpus relates to.
​
The Aristotelian Corpus
Organon
Categories (Cat.)
De Interpretatione (DI) [On Interpretation]
Prior Analytics (APr)
Posterior Analytics (APo)
Topics (Top.)
Sophistical Refutations (SE)
Theoretical Sciences
Physics (Phys.)
Generation and Corruption (Gen. et Corr.)
De Caelo (DC) [On the Heavens]
Metaphysics (Met.)
De Anima (DA) [On the Soul]
Parva Naturalia (PN) [Brief Natural Treatises]
History of Animals (HA)
Parts of Animals (PA)
Movement of Animals (MA)
Meteorology (Meteor.)
Progression of Animals (IA)
Generation of Animals (GA)
Practical Sciences
Nicomachean Ethics (EN)
Eudemian Ethics (EE)
Magna Moralia (MM) [Great Ethics]
Politics (Pol.)
Productive Science
Rhetoric (Rhet.)
Poetics (Poet.)
​
​
Phainomena and the Endoxic Method
Aristotle's "aporetic" approach to philosophy leads to an endoxic method. Aristotle used the term endoxa in his work to mean "commonplace" or "everyday" in the sense of a group or population's beliefs that have previously withstood debate and argument.
Aristotle's philosophical approach is devoid of strong methodological doubt, rather he holds that our perceptual and cognitive faculties are basically dependable and that they put us in direct contact with the features and issues of our world, rather than there being a need to engage in sceptical postures. This is most notably contrasted with Descartes who subjects all knowledge claims to a searing methodological doubt. Aristotle tackles a problem as he sees it, in a form which we can term "phainomena and the Endoxic method."
​
Aristotle's aporetic approach is best expressed in the Metaphysics. He stated: "Humans began to do philosophy, even as they do now, because of wonder, at first because they wondered about the strange things right in front of them, and then later, advancing little by little, because they came to find greater things puzzling." (Met. 982b12)
​
Aristotle holds that one should begin philosophising by first laying down the phainomena and then also collecting the endoxa, the credible opinions regarding the matters we find puzzling. He expresses this in the Nichomachean Ethics. He stated: "As in other cases, we must set out the appearances (phainomena) and run through all the puzzles regarding them. In this way we must prove the credible opinions (endoxa) about these sorts of experiences - ideally, all the credible opinions, but if not all, then most of them, those which are the most important. For if the objections are answered and the credible opinions remain, we shall have adequate proof." (EN 1145b2-7)
​
However, Aristotle is not completely restrained to the "credible opinions." Sometimes the endoxa are conflicting and it is not possible to respect them all completely, such as in Met. 1073b36, 1074b6, PA 644b5 and EN 1145b2–30. However he seeks to preserve as much as the phainomena as possible, holding that our organs and powers of mind are so structured that they put us in contact with the world and derive data regarding its divisions and constituents, and while not infallible they are neither systematically deceptive or misdirecting.
​
Endoxa comes from the ordinary Greek word, endoxos, meaning "credible man". It is important to appreciate that endoxon is a fairly technical term for him, and it is entrenched in the label that these are "credible views". He also takes recourse to previous scholarship as endoxa, if it helps elucidating the problem.
​
​
​
Logic
Aristotle created his own system of logic, completely independent of his predecessors, being the first to create a systematic treatment of the principles of correct reasoning. He not only developed a theory of deduction, now called syllogistic, but also connected to that a modal syllogistic and made some advances in proving some meta-theorems relevant to these systems. He was the first also to develop a systematic treatment of principles governing correct inference and the first to codify the formal and syntactic principles regarding such inference.
​
Aristotle uses terms of inclusion and exclusion as the basic ingredients of reasoning, for example: As, Bs and Cs. Aristotle begins with the notion a patently valid argument, which, owing to its unassailable acceptability, he refers to as "perfect deduction." Generally, Aristotle holds that a deduction is a valid or acceptable argument, but exactly that is "an argument in which when certain things are laid down something else follows of necessity in virtue of their being so’ (APr. 24b18–20). He contends that a deduction is a kind of argument whose structure guarantees its validity, irrespective of the truth or falsity of its premises. This is expressed in the example below:
​
1. All As are Bs.
2. All Bs are Cs.
3. Hence, all As are Cs.
​
This deduction is considered perfect because its validity needs no proof, and any proof there relies ultimately upon the intuitive validity. It is an example of universal affirmation. Aristotle argued that he could vary the quantity of the the subjects (Some As) and the quality or kind of predication (positive or negative) and arrive at all the possible combinations of the most basic kind of arguments. However he realised that that not all of these arguments were valid syllogisms.
He saw that if every argument could be reduced to intuitively valid sorts, then the validity of all can be guaranteed.
​
Aristotle therefore devised a series of meta-theorems, which he states no argument can ignore and qualify as a genuine deduction. These meta-theorems included:
​
(i) No deduction contains two negative premises.
(ii) A deduction with a negative conclusion must have a negative premise.
(iii) A deduction with a universal conclusion requires two universal premises.
(iv) A deduction with a negative conclusion requires exactly one negative premise.
​
In offering meta-theorems for his logic, Aristotle charted territory unexplored before him and not improved for many centuries after his death.
​
​
​
Natural Philosophy
Aristotle argued that humans can and do have knowledge, in such a way that, in our sensory perception, we generate an understanding of the necessary and invariant features of the world. He uses the word demonstration to mean a deduction with premises revealing the causal structures of the world. He argues in the Prior Analytics that in a demonstration the first premises are indemonstrable, but that does not discredit our ability take the knowledge gained from the demonstration. He stated: "if it is not possible to know the primary things, then neither can we know without qualification or in any proper way the things derived from them." (APo. 72b5–21) Apuleius explored a wide range of natural science, including physics, biology, geology and psychology.
Category Theory
Aristotle first established that all beings depended upon substance for their existence. He argued that any feeling we have is first predicated on our being. He could then study all beings in so far as they related to the core substance of being, and, further, the core substance that predicated being in relation to being.
​
He related this analysis to his theory of categories. This was a theorem that appeared in his early writings and remained stable throughout his corpus. In the work, Categories, he lists the ten categories (Cat. 1b25–27). These were:
​
(i) A substance.
(ii) A quantity.
(iii) A quality.
(iv) A relative.
(v) Where.
(vi) When.
(vii) Being in a position.
(viii) Having.
(ix) Acting upon.
(x) Being affected.
​
Aristotle offered no explicit derivative of his categories, however, although not overtly stating it, he evidently believes that these categories are both complete and irreducible. They offer a form of signification of entities that constitute the truth of a statement, although no explanation is given for them in Aristotle's writings. Aristotle's Category Theory occasioned criticism from the later philosopher Emmanuel Kant, however he justifies it in practice when dealing with the question of time in the Physics. It is also important in dealing with questions of existence. In Aristotle's theory all entities in categories outside substance are dependent on another entity. However, dependent entities will also make an asymmetrical reference to substance. He stated in Categories:
​
"All other things are either said-of primary substances, which are their subjects, or in them as subjects. Hence if there were no primary substances, it would be impossible for anything else to exist." (Cat. 2b5-6)
​
In this way, in the question of existence, being qualified as a substance through homonymy. Aristotle's Category Theory underscores much of his thinking on other topics, including metaphysics and psychology.
The Four Causal Account of Explanatory Adequacy
Hylomorphism
One of the most central systems in Aristotle's philosophy is his four causal account of explanatory adequacy. He outlines this in Physics ii. 3, where he cites the example of a bronze statue and argues that one would seek to ask a series of questions about it and that it possesses different dimensions of explanation. He divides these dimensions of explanation into four labels. These are:
(i) Material: That from which the object is made. For example, the bronze of the statue.
(ii) Formal: The structure which the material creates. For example, the shape of the statue.
(iii) Efficient: The agent responsible for the creation of the object. For example, the sculptor the bronze statue.
(iv) Final: The purpose of the object. For example, the bronze statue was created for the purpose of honouring someone.
​
Aristotle argues that all four causes are necessary for adequacy in explanation. This theory of adequacy of explanation underpins his scientific enquiries and he criticised his predecessors in their failing to reach this standard.
In Aristotle’s philosophy, one of the core features of the world are matter and form. The term Hylomorphism used to describe the notion that ordinary objects are composites of matter and form. Matter and form are important when discussing the idea of change, which he does in the Physics. When a change takes place, something is gained or lost, either as the substantial matter or accidental form. In each case, one of the two persists.
To form and matter, Aristotle attached two further important philosophical distinctions, potentiality and actuality. He came to the definition that “form” is that which makes some matter potentially X actually X, and “matter” is that which persists and which is, for some ranges of X, potentially X.
Aristotle’s argument in the Physics regarding matter and form was essentially:
(1) A necessary condition of there being change is the existence of matter and form.
(2) There is change.
Hence there is matter and form.
In questioning the first premise that are necessary condition of there being change is the existence of matter and form, it is evident that when a substance is gained or lost, a substantial form is gained and lost as well, whereas in accidental change, the form gained or lost is in itself accidental. Therefore, this division of matter and form exhausts the kinds of changes there are, proving that in all changes there are two factors, matter and form.
Aristotolian Teleology
Aristotle holds that nothing potential can brings itself into actuality without the agency of an actually operative efficient cause, and he criticised Plato’s Theory of Forms for its inability to account for change and generation.
In terms of teleology, Aristotle believed that nature exhibited teleology without design, that is, natural phenomena have final causes but not by the design of an agent. In Physics ii 8, he stated:
For these [viz. teeth and all other parts of natural beings] and all other natural things come about as they do either always or for the most part, whereas nothing which comes about due to chance or spontaneity comes about always or for the most part. … If, then, these are either the result of coincidence or for the sake of something, and they cannot be the result of coincidence or spontaneity, it follows that they must be for the sake of something. Moreover, even those making these sorts of claims [viz. that everything comes to be by necessity] will agree that such things are natural. Therefore, that for the sake of which is present among things which come to be and exist by nature. (Phys. 198b32–199a8)
Aristotle thought that nature couldn't be the result of coincidence, and therefore argued that it must be for the sake of something, effectively possessing a final cause in his schema, however he ignored the efficient cause.
Substance
Aristotle relied upon his category theorem, however, with the arrival of his hylomorphism principle, newfound metaphysical problems arise surrounding the question of primary substance. Is matter the primary substance? Is form, or is both matter and form?
​
In the Metaphysics, Aristotle answers this as form. (Met. vii 17). However, this then leaves the problem of substance, considering he deems substance as something tangible. To settle this, Aristotle argues that form is both knowable and particular. He argues that it holds the identity of the matter, and is therefore more important.
Living Beings
In Aristotle’s philosophical schema, the soul and body are like the form and matter respectively, and also the actuality and potentiality respectively. He stated in the de Anima:
The soul is the cause and source of the living body. But cause and source are meant in many ways [or are homonymous]. Similarly, the soul is a cause in accordance with the ways delineated, which are three: it is (i) the cause as the source of motion, (ii) that for the sake of which, and (iii) as the substance of ensouled bodies. That it is a cause as substance is clear, for substance is the cause of being for all things, and for living things, being is life, and the soul is also the cause and source of life. (DA 415b8–14; cf. PN 467b12–25, Phys. 255a56–10)
The soul is the form of living being as it is the cause of being for all living things and thus acts as the being for life, and also the actuality as the cause and source of life. In his application of the four causal account of explanatory adequacy and hylomorphism to the question of body and soul, Aristotle rejected pre-socratic ideas of materialism and opposed Platonic dualism. In this respect, he believed that it was important to attend to both matter and form to account for living organisms.
Aristotle's Optimal Way of Life
Aristotle incorporated his teleological approach into analysing the best way of living a life by analysing for what purpose a life should be lived and how that should be done. Aristotle stated in the Nicomachean ethics that happiness is the highest good, and that one can lead a life of happiness by following reason. He stated: "What remains therefore, is a life of reason belonging to the kind of soul that has reason." (EN 1098a4)
​
In assessing in what society eudaimonia, or happiness, exists in, he assessed the human function and thus asserts his teleological approach onto the question.
​
First, Aristotle states that a good life is a life of activity, and that no state is enough but rather we should be praised and commended for our actions alone. (EN 1105b20–1106a13) Aristotle argues judgement over our whether our actions are virtuous falls to the ethical theorist and consequently much of his ethical writings are consumed by the investigation of virtue, both in practical and theoretical forms.
​
Aristotle concludes his discussion of happiness in the Nicomachean ethics by transferring the question from ethics to the political as a continuation and completion.
​
Aristotle sets forth the basic political unit of the polis, which is both the state and civil society. He regards all citizens as all actively part of the polis. The polis is to to be judged on whether it promotes happiness. Aristotle analyses the possible kinds of political organisation and concludes with six forms of possible government, three correct and three deviant, which was a division between the ideal and the effectual. These were:
​
Correct:
(i) Kingship (One ruler)
(ii) Aristocracy (Few Rulers)
(iii) Polity (Many Rulers)
​
Deviant
​
(i) Tyranny (One Ruler)
(ii) Oligarchy (Few Rulers)
(iii) Democracy (Many Rulers)
​
An important factor for Aristotle in his considerations is distributive justice, that is the notion that a democrat expects equal justice for all whereas an oligarch expects better justice for the few rulers than others. He disparages both oligarchs and democrats arguing that oligarchs seek justice for their purposes alone and in the case of democrats individual liberty is inferior to human flourishing. However, his answer is a mixed constitution in which democracy, albeit inferior to polity and particularly aristocracy, is the best a state can realistically hope to achieve.
​
​
Rhetoric
In the realm of Aristotle’s productive sciences was his study of rhetoric and the arts.
Aristotle stated that rhetoric is the “power to see, in each case, the possible ways to persuade.” (Rhet. 1355b26) However he argued different contexts require different techniques. He lists three contexts where persuasion is important. These were:
(i) Deliberative (Rhet. i 4–8)
(ii) Epideictic (Rhet. i 9)
(iii) Judicial (Rhet. i 10–14)
In these three contexts, Aristotle states speakers will have three main avenues of persuasion in relation to their persuasive aims. These were (Rhet. i 3):
(i) The character of the speaker
(ii) The emotional constitution of the audience
(iii) The general argument (logos) of the speech itself.
He claimed, therefore, that it was the job of rhetoric to examine the techniques pursuant to each of these avenues of persuasion.
​
A successfully persuasive speech is able to touch a chord with human emotions, and consequently Aristotle’s analysis of rhetoric in the Rhetoric contains some specific and nuanced treatment of human emotions.
He also claims that rhetoric is like the dialectic, in the sense that people find virtuous arguments persuasive, and a rhetorician should outline the credible opinions, endoxa, and through a cogent pattern of inference reach a reasoned conclusion.
Poetics
In the Poetics, Aristotle describes tragedy. He stated:
​
"Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious and complete, and which has some greatness about it. It imitates in words with pleasant accompaniments, each type belonging separately to the different parts of the work. It imitates people performing actions and does not rely on narration. It achieves, through pity and fear, the catharsis of these sorts of feelings." (Poet. 1449b21–29)
​
Aristotle therefore views tragedy as bringing about a release of the emotions it recreates,
​
Also in the Poetics, he outlines the distinctions between poetry and history. He stated:
​
"The poet and the historian differ not in that one writes in meter and the other not; for one could put the writings of Herodotus into verse and they would be none the less history, with or without meter. The difference resides in this: the one speaks of what has happened, and the other of what might be. Accordingly, poetry is more philosophical and more momentous than history. The poet speaks more of the universal, while the historian speaks of particulars. It is universal that when certain things turn out a certain way someone will in all likelihood or of necessity act or speak in a certain way—which is what the poet, though attaching particular names to the situation, strives for." (Poet. 1451a38–1451b10)
​
Aristotle, therefore, thought that irrespective of prose or verse, a history speaks of what has happened whereas as poem speaks of anything that can happen.
​
Legacy
Aristotle's writings played a significant part in the Neoplatonic philosophy of Porphyry and Plotinus in the 3rd Century AD Roman Empire. Thereafter, from the sixth to the twelfth centuries AD, his works were lost to western civilisation, however they were still studied in Byzantine and Arabic philosophy. There were commentaries from the scholars, Avicenna and Averroes, which would later become influential in the earliest reception of Aristotle's writings within the Latin West in the 12th century AD.
​
Albertus Magnus and his student Thomas Aquinas most notably sought to reconcile Aristotle's philosophy with Christian thought in the 13th century AD.
The study of Aristotle continued into the Renaissance in the form of Renaissance Aristotelianism, which overlapped with the last of Medieval Aristotelian Scholasticism.
​
Following the Renaissance, from the 14th to the 17th centuries, interest in Aristotle continued through varying periods of increased or diminished study up to the present day. Today, Aristotle's corpus is influential in a variety of fields, including philosophy of mind and virtue ethics.
​
​
