Aristotle Philo Law

8/10/2019 Aristotle Philo Law

1/4

E. Aristotle

I. Short Biography

Aristotle was born in 384 BCE at Stagirus, a now extinct Greek colony and seaport on the coast ofThrace. His father Nichomachus was court physician to King Amyntas of Macedonia, and from this beganAristotles long association with the Macedonian Court, which considerably influenced his life. While hewas still a boy his father died. At age 17 his guardian, Proxenus, sent him to Athens, the intellectualcenter of the world, to complete his education. He joined the Academy and studied under Plato, attendinghis lectures for a period of twenty years. In the later years of his association with Plato and the Academyhe began to lecture on his own account, especially on the subject of rhetoric. At the death of Plato in 347,the pre-eminent ability of Aristotle would seem to have designated him to succeed to the leadership of theAcademy. But his divergence from Platos teaching was too great to make this possible, and Platosnephew Speusippus was chosen instead. At the invitation of his friend Hermeas, ruler of Atarneus andAssos in Mysia, Aristotle left for his court. He stayed three year and, while there, married Pythias, theniece of the King. In later life he was married a second time to a woman named Herpyllis, who bore him ason, Nichomachus. At the end of three years Hermeas was overtaken by the Persians, and Aristotle wentto Mytilene. At the invitation of Philip of Macedonia he became the tutor of his 13 year old son Alexander(later world conqueror); he did this for the next five years. Both Philip and Alexander appear to have paidAristotle high honor, and there were stories that Aristotle was supplied by the Macedonian court, not only

with funds for teaching, but also with thousands of slaves to collect specimens for his studies in naturalscience. These stories are probably false and certainly exaggerated.

Upon the death of Philip, Alexander succeeded to the kingship and prepared for his subsequentconquests. Aristotles work being finished, he returned to Athens, which he had not visited since the deathof Plato. He found the Platonic school flourishing under Xenocrates, and Platonism the dominantphilosophy of Athens. He thus set up his own school at a place called the Lyceum. When teaching at theLyceum, Aristotle had a habit of walking about as he discoursed. It was in connection with this that hisfollowers became known in later years as the peripatetics, meaning to walk about. For the next thirteenyears he devoted his energies to his teaching and composing his philosophical treatises. He is said tohave given two kinds of lectures: the more detailed discussions in the morning for an inner circle ofadvanced students, and the popular discourses in the evening for the general body of lovers ofknowledge. At the sudden death of Alexander in 323 BCE., the pro-Macedonian government in Athens

was overthrown, and a general reaction occurred against anything Macedonian. A charge of impiety wastrumped up against him. To escape prosecution he fled to Chalcis in Euboea so that (Aristotle says) TheAthenians might not have another opportunity of sinning against philosophy as they had already done inthe person of Socrates. In the first year of his residence at Chalci s he complained of a stomach illnessand died in 322 BCE.

II. Philosophical Moral Reasoning

- What theory or doctrine is he advocating?

A. Theory of Syllogism

-A syllogism is a deduction consisting of three sentences: two premises and a conclusion. Syllogisticsentences are categorical sentences involving a subject and a predicate connected by a copula (verb).These are in turn divided into four different classes: universal affirmative (A), particular affirmative (I),universal negative (E) and particular negative (O), written by Aristotle as follows:

A A belongs to all B (AaB)I A belongs to some B (AiB)E A does not belong to any B (AeB)O A does not belong to some B (AoB)

The subject and predicate in the categorical sentences used in a syllogism are called terms (horoi) byAristotle. There are three terms in a syllogism: a major, a minor, and a middle term. The major and theminor are called the extremes (akra), i.e., the major extreme (meizon akron) and the minor extreme(elatton akron), and they form the predicate and the subject of the conclusion. The middle (meson) term iswhat joins the two premises. These three terms can be combined in different ways to form three figures(skhemata), which Aristotle presents in the Prior Analytics (A is the major, B the middle, and C the minorterm):

I. II. III.AB BA ABBC BC CBAC AC AC

B. Aristotelian Ethics

-Aristotle first used the term "ethics" to name a field of study developed by his predecessors Socrates andPlato.


2/4

-Aristotle emphasized the importance of developing excellence (virtue) of character (Greek "ethikaret"), as the way to achieve what is finally more important, excellent activity (Greek energeia). AsAristotle argues in Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, the man who possesses character excellence doesthe right thing, at the right time, and in the right way. Bravery, and the correct regulation of one's bodilyappetites, are examples of character excellence or virtue. So acting bravely and acting temperately areexamples of excellent activities. The highest aims are living well and eudaimonia a Greek word oftentranslated as well-being, happiness or "human flourishing". Like many ethicists, Aristotle regards excellentactivity as pleasurable for the man of virtue.

-Aristotle emphasized that virtue is practical, and that the purpose of ethics is to become good, notmerely to know. Aristotle also claims that the right course of action depends upon the details of aparticular situation, rather than being generated merely by applying a law. The type of wisdom which isrequired for this is called "prudence" or "practical wisdom" (Greek phronesis), as opposed to the wisdomof a theoretical philosopher (Greek sophia). But despite the importance of practical decision making, inthe final analysis the original Aristotelian and Socratic answer to the question of how best to live, at leastfor the best types of human, was to live the life of philosophy.

- What are the bases of his way of thinking?

A. Theory of Syllogism

Aristotle himself, however, uses the term logic as equivalent to verbal reasoning. He is a synopticthinker with an over-arching theory that ties together all aspects and fields of philosophy. He does notview logic as a separate, self-sufficient subject-matter, to be considered in isolation from other aspects ofdisciplined inquiry. Aristotle does not believe that the purpose of logic is to prove that human beings canhave knowledge. (He dismisses excessive scepticism.) The aim of logic is the elaboration of a coherentsystem that allows us to investigate, classify, and evaluate good and bad forms of reasoning. Aristotledoes not believe that all reasoning deals with words. (Moral decision-making is, for Aristotle, a form ofreasoning that can occur without words.)


Aristotle does not focus on moral law but views morality through the lens of character. An ethical persondevelops a capacity for habitual decision-making that aims at good, reliable traits such as honesty,generosity, high-mindedness, and courage

He believed that ethical knowledge is not only a theoretical knowledge, but rather that a person musthave "experience of the actions in life" and have been "brought up in fine habits" to become good. For aperson to become virtuous, he can't simply study what virtue is, but must actually do virtuous things.

- What are the objections to the said theory or doctrine?

A.Theory of Syllogism

Criticisms of Aristotles logic often assume that what Aristotle was trying to do coincide with the basicproject of modern logic. Begin with the usual criticism brought against the traditional square ofopposition. For reasons we will not explore, modern logicians assume that universal claims about non-existent objects (or empty sets) are true but that particular claims about them are false. On this reading,the claim that all fairy-god mothers are beautiful is true, whereas the claim that some fairy-god mothersare beautiful is false. Clearly, this clashes with the traditional square of opposition. By simplesubalternation, the truth of the proposition all fairy-god mothers are beautiful requires the truth of theproposition some fairy-god mothers are beautiful. If the first claim is true, the second claim must also betrue. For this and similar reasons, some modern logicians dismiss the traditional square as inadequate,claiming that Aristotle made a mistake or overlooked relevant issues


1) Self-CenterednessMorality is supposed to be about other people. It deals with our actions to the extent that they affect otherpeople. Moral praise and blame is attributed on the grounds of an evaluation of our behavior towardsothers and the ways in that we exhibit, or fail to exhibit, a concern for the well-being of others. Virtueethics, according to this objection, is self-centered because its primary concern is with the agents owncharacter. Virtue ethics seems to be essentially interested in the acquisition of the virtues as part of theagents own well-being and flourishing. Morality requires us to consider others for their own sake and notbecause they may benefit us. There seems to be something wrong with aiming to behavecompassionately, kindly, and honestly merely because this will make oneself happier

Related to this objection is a more general objection against the idea that well-being is a master valueand that all other things are valuable only to the extent that they contribute to it. This line of attack,exemplified in the writings of Tim Scanlon, objects to the understanding of well-being as a moral notionand sees it more like self-interest. Furthermore, well-being does not admit to comparisons with other

individuals. Thus, well-being cannot play the role that eudaimonists would have it play.


3/4

2) Action-GuidingMoral philosophy is concerned with practical issues. Fundamentally it is about how we should act. Virtueethics has criticized consequentialist and deontological theories for being too rigid and inflexible becausethey rely on one rule or principle. One reply to this is that these theories are action guiding. The existenceof rigid rules is a strength, not a weakness because they offer clear direction on what to do. As long aswe know the principles, we can apply them to practical situations and be guided by them. Virtue ethics, itis objected, with its emphasis on the imprecise nature of ethics, fails to give us any help with thepracticalities of how we should behave. A theory that fails to be action-guiding is no good as a moraltheory.

3) Moral LuckFinally, there is a concern that virtue ethics leaves us hostage to luck. Morality is about responsibility andthe appropriateness of praise and blame. However, we only praise and blame agents for actions takenunder conscious choice. The road to virtue is arduous and many things outside our control can go wrong.Just as the right education, habits, influences, examples, etc. can promote the development of virtue, thewrong influencing factors can promote vice. Some people will be lucky and receive the help andencouragement they need to attain moral maturity, but others will not. If the development of virtue (andvice) is subject to luck, is it fair to praise the virtuous (and blame the vicious) for something that wasoutside of their control? Further, some accounts of virtue are dependent on the availability of external

goods. Friendship with other virtuous agents is so central to Aristotelian virtue that a life devoid of virtuousfriendship will be lacking in eudaimonia. However, we have no control over the availability of the rightfriends. How can we then praise the virtuous and blame the vicious if their development and respectivevirtue and vice were not under their control?

Some moral theories try to eliminate the influence of luck on morality (primarily deontology). Virtue ethics,however, answers this objection by embracing moral luck. Rather than try to make morality immune tomatters that are outside of our control, virtue ethics recognizes the fragility of the good life and makes it afeature of morality. It is only because the good life is so vulnerable and fragile that it is so precious. Manythings can go wrong on the road to virtue, such that the possibility that virtue is lost, but this vulnerabilityis an essential feature of the human condition, which makes the attainment of the good life all the morevaluable.

- How did he respond to such objections?

B.Theory of Syllogism

Aristotle, however, is involved in a specialized project. He elaborates an alternative logic, specificallyadapted to the problems he is trying to solve. Aristotle devises a companion-logic for science. Herelegates fictions like fairy godmothers and mermaids and unicorns to the realms of poetry and literature.In his mind, they exist outside the ambit of science. This is why he leaves no room for such non-existententities in his logic. This is a thoughtful choice, not an inadvertent omission. Technically, Aristotelianscience is a search for definitions, where a definition is a phrase signifying a things essence. Topossess an essence is literally to possess a what-it-is-to-be something (to ti n einai). Because non-existent entities cannot be anything, they do not, in Aristotles mind, possess an essence. They cannot

be defined. Aristotle makes this point explicitly in the Posterior Analytics. He points out that a definitionof a goat-stag, a cross between a goat and a deer (the ancient equivalent of a unicorn), is impossible. Hewrites, no one knows the nature of what does not exist[we] can know the meaning of the phrase orname goat-stag but not what the essential nature of a goat-stag is. Because we cannot know what theessential nature of a goat-stag is, indeed, it has no essential nature we cannot provide a proper definitionof a goat-stag. So the study of goat-stags (or unicorns) is not open to scientific investigation. Aristotlesets about designing a logic that is intended to display relations between scientific propositions, wherescience is understood as a search for essential definitions. This is why he leaves no place for fictionalentities like goat-stags (or unicorns). Hence, the assumed validity of a logical maneuver likesubalternation.


1) Aristotle recognizes that actions are not pointless because they have an aim. Every action aims atsome good.

2) Aristotle argues that only human beingsthat is, rational animalsare able to tell the differencebetween right and wrong. He widens his account of rationality to include a notion of practical wisdom(phronesis), which he defines as a true and reasoned state of capacity to act with regard to the thingsthat are good or bad for man. (Nicomachean Ethics, VI.5.1140b4-5, Ross, Urmson).

3) Aristotle claims that all the things that are ends in themselves also contribute to a wider end, an endthat is the greatest good of all. That good is eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is happiness, contentment, andfulfillment; its the name of the best kind of life, which is an end in itself and a means to live and fare well.

4) Aristotle then observes that where a thing has a function the good of the thing is when it performs itsfunction well. Aristotle claims that a human's highest functioning must include reasoning, being good at

what sets humans apart from everything else. Or, as Aristotle explains it, "The function of man is activityof soul in accordance with reason, or at least not without reason." He identifies two different ways in


4/4

which the soul can engage: reasoning (both practical and theoretical) and following reasoning. A personthat does this is the happiest because they are fulfilling their purpose or nature as found in the rationalsoul.

III. Insights

IV. Sources/Bibliographyhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/aristotl/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogismhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-syllogism/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/#H4
http://www.iep.utm.edu/aristotl/http://www.iep.utm.edu/aristotl/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_logichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_logichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogismhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-syllogism/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-syllogism/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethicshttp://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/#H4http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/#H4http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/#H4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethicshttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-syllogism/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_logichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotlehttp://www.iep.utm.edu/aristotl/

Aristotle Philo Law

Documents

Transcript of Aristotle Philo Law