Aristotle

384 BC – 322 BC

Aristotle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbgHbzrL3d0

Background- Who Was Aristotle?

• Greek Philosopher • Studied under Plato at The Academy (thus, was

ultimately influenced by Socrates as well)• Wrote about a wide range of subjects that include but

are not limited to:

- Politics

- Ethics

- Logic

-Theatre/ poetry

-Rhetoric

Aristotle on Logic

• One of Aristotle’s central disagreements with Plato was with Plato’s Theory of Forms

• Aristotle argued, if it can be seen and observed, logically, it must be real (remember, Plato argued, everything we see and observe is a carbon copy the “true” form)

Syllogisms

• Aristotle's logic revolves around one principle: the deduction (sullogismos).

• A deduction is speech (logos) in which, certain things are supposed. Each of the “things supposed” is a premise (protasis) of the argument, and what “results of necessity” is the conclusion (sumperasma).

• The core of this definition is the notion of “resulting of necessity” (ex anankês sumbainein). This corresponds to a modern notion of logical consequence: “If this occurs… then this must be the result”

You can often find this type of

"If...then" statement in

mathematical proofs, and that is

due to the far-reaching influence

of Aristotelian methods. They

changed the face of scientific

thought in their time, and for

almost 2000 years after, allowed

deductions of new truths to be

made from established facts or

principles.

Example

Moral Virtue

• Actions that are made voluntarily ; no one forcing you to “do the right thing”

• Taught morality from the society in which you were brought up (i.e., relative)

• Finding a balance in between pleasure and pain so as not to deny yourself, but also not overindulge

• Choosing to do the “wrong” thing or make what society would define as an immoral decision, would be considered vicious against others

• Some people act on the basis of emotions, even though it is not what they choose. This is not vice according to Aristotle's definition, but "akrasia", sometimes called weakness of will (inability to “master yourself”) In English, the person who would choose the virtuous option but does not, is sometimes translated as "incontinent" in opposition to having vice or being "vicious"

Does this sound anything like Plato’s theory that divides the soul into three parts?

How does all this apply to Justice?

• Justice can mean either lawfulness or fairness• The laws encourage people to behave

virtuously, so the just person, who by definition is lawful, will necessarily be virtuous

• Virtue differs from justice because it deals with one’s moral state, while justice deals with one’s relations with others (practical application for your morality!)