Logic
Aristotles greatest achievements were in the field of logic. They represented a considerable advance on his predecessors, including Plato, but on their own they represent a dead end. Even so they are still adhered to tenaciously by modern Catholic teachers.
Aristotle created a framework of deductive logic and believed that all deductive inference could be expressed as syllogisms, thereby avoiding the risk of fallacies. This is Aristotle’s only true doctrine, but is incomplete and unimportant in the totality of modern logic. Nevertheless, it was a beginning, and for 2,000 years was taken as the be all and end all of formal logic.
A syllogism is the combination of a major premiss and a minor premiss to result in a conclusion. Aristotle recognised 4 different types, which have been given names as follows:
Barbara – All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, hence Socrates is immortal??
Celarent – No fishes are rational, All sharks are fishes (!), hence no sharks are rational
Darii – All men are rational, Some animals are men, hence some animals are rational
Ferio – No Greeks are black, Some men are Greek, hence some men are not black.
Inferences can also be made from a single premises:
All ( or some) men are mortal, hence some mortals must be men.
No gods are mortal, hence no mortals can be gods.
But – Some men are not Greeks does not infer Some Greeks are not men
There are 3 problems with Aristotles system:
1. Formal defects
Aristotle did not distinguish the following form of syllogism:
All men are mortal, All Greeks are men, hence all Greeks are mortal.
This is only valid if there are such things as Greeks. Hence “All Greeks” cannot be the subject. Empirically one can never be sure that all a’s are b, unless it is a truism by virtue of the definitions of the words. This can result in false conclusions if one does not spot the false premis by analysing it as:
There are Greeks, and if anything is a Greek it is a man.
Aristotle’s logic did not encompass uncertainty and levels of probability.
Aristotle also made errors regarding predicates. He believed that a predicate of a predicate can be a predicate of the original subject. Eg
Socrates is Greek – Greek is a predicate of Socrates,
Similarly Human is a predicate of Socrates
Aristotle believed that human is thus a predicate of Greek, but it need not be. The distinction between particulars and universals is blurred ands results in false logic, which plagued the metaphysics of unity for 2,000 years.
2. Over estimation of importance of syllogism
Syllogism is only one kind of deductive argument. Maths is based on deductive argument, but hardly ever uses syllogism. This led to philosophers having a false view of mathematics for 2,000 years.
3. Over estimation of importance of deduction
The problem with deduction is where does the original premiss come from? It is OK in law or religion, where the premiss is provided by an unquestionable text, but in real life deduction can never produce new knowledge.
Induction may be based on probability, and not certainty, but it does produce new knowledge. Most other areas therefore use induction.
Politics
Aristotle’s politics needs to be taken in context. Philosophers generally develop ideas which favour their paymasters. Aristotles’ politics is based on the view of his clients – the landowners and aristocracy – eg The state is the highest form of community. Wealth from trade and commerce is unnatural. Any lending of money for interest is usury – the landowners were generally debtors, at times needing to borrow money from mainly Jewish moneylenders. Not surprisingly Aristotle disapproved of interest, and regarded the charging of any interest, not just excessive interest, as usury. When philosophers began to be employed by commercial interests, after the Reformation, the views on interest had to change dramatically to reflect the commercial view.
Aristotle criticised Plato’s views on the state as giving it too much unity, as if it had an individual identity, and Plato’s proposals for the abolition of the family unit on the basis that it would not work in practice – the generic sons would be neglected by the generic fathers, and the generic household would be neglected by the communal women.
Aristotle did not believe in equality – each individual had his pre-ordained place. He believed that the conquest of natural slaves was right and just, but that no Greeks were natural slaves.
Good government cares for the community, not itself. Of the different kinds of government the best, in order, are Monarchy, Aristocracy and Constitutional Government. The worst, in order, are Tyranny, Oligarchy ( rule by the powerful and wealthy) and Democracy. But as most governments turn out to be bad, and Democracy is the least bad of the bad governments, then this is the one to be favoured. Moderate competence is more likely to be associated with virtue than genius, so unexceptional men make the best leaders.
For example, a Tyrant desires riches, and to protect their position they prevent the rise of any person of merit, and impoverish their subjects and keep them occupied in great works. They also need to make war to establish the overriding need for a strong leader.
The prime objective of the ideal state is the avoidance of revolution. The problem with Democracy is that when the power is in the hands of the poor, they disregard the interests of the rich, which creates conflict and could lead to revolution. In Greek Courts, the citizens chosen by lot have complete freedom to choose the outcome – they were above any law and could decide each case independently. Aristotle believed that there must be respect for the law by all, and justice in the law and administration.
The ideal size for a state is small enough to be surveyed from a hilltop, so that the citizens all know each other’s true character. It should be large enough to be self sufficient, but should also have trade with other states. It should be large enough to defend itself without great difficulty in times of war. This, of course, changes with the nature of war, and in Ancient Greece the City State eventually became too small. Today, even a single nation is too small.
The purpose of the State is to produce cultured citizens. Their education should included art and music, literacy, sports etc to achieve virtue, not usefulness. Citizenship is a privileged position – men who work for a living should not be admitted. Slaves and the population at large would be taught trades – ie to be useful. It was also necessary to use propaganda in education to achieve the desired stability.
Aristotle’s ideas mirrored Athens in the days of Pericles. Later, power and culture usually became separated – eg as in Rome, remaining so until the Renaissance when cultured gentlemen began to acquire power again, reaching a peak in the 18th century. Since then the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution and popular education, giving rise to a new kind of propaganda, has ended the day of the cultured gentleman.
It is interesting to follow the actual development of governmental authority through the ages in the light of Aristotle’s analysis.
Other
In other fields Aristotle adopted Plato’s idea of “Universals”, but his resultant philosophy was unclear, leading to much controversy in medieval times.
Similarly Aristotles version of Plato’s metaphysics plus common sense was confusing. He distinguished form and matter, suggesting that form exists independently of matter.
His ethics were merely a statement of the views of respectable middle aged citizens of his time. Happiness is good, and should be the objective of “virtues”. Acts should seek to increase happiness. Leisure is essential to happiness – the ultimate level of which is achieved by the exercise of reason. Virtue arises from talent and skill. The highest virtue is thus only for the privileged few, and not open to all. ( This is the opposite of Christian teaching, where virtue is open to all by avoidance of sin, or Stoicism where virtue is also open to all )