Prior Analytics: Rhetoric, Dialectic, Logic

I've been trying to listen to Prior Analytics while running this week. (Octavius Owen translation.) Overall I find the book almost impossible to follow in audio format. Aristotle focuses so much on the structure of syllogisms that I can't follow his outline without the text in front of me. It's algebra class all over again. I did find the introduction, where Aristotle distinguishes between dialectic and syllogism, particularly this brief statement: "the dialectic proposition is to him who inquires an interrogation of contradiction, but to him who syllogizes, an assumption of what is seen and probable."

There are several interesting distinctions in this statement:

First, dialectic is a different genre of discourse from syllogism; in other words, dialectic and logic were not not synonymous for Aristotle, as they are often seen today.

Second, dialectic is a negative discourse, whereas syllogism is positive. One "interrogates contradiction." The other makes a statement that might then be interrogated. (Note that this is a different concept from Peirce's, who argues that logic cannot create new knowledge but only test knowledge.)

Third, syllogisms deal with the "probable," something that is seen in On Rhetoric as the province of rhetoric, not logic.

Overall, the introduction to Prior Analytics provides interesting insight into what Aristotle might have meant when he wrote that rhetoric was the "antistrophos" of dialectic. In much of the writing concerning the relationship between rhetoric and philosophy, this passage is seen as a defense of rhetoric as the counterpart of logic, that the two are intertwined. If that is the case, however, how do we account for this passage, where dialectic is seen as distinct from logic, or indeed, the title of this work, where logic is discussed as though syllogisms are the building blocks for effective rhetoric?

Laguna Atascosa NWR

This sign was at the trailhead at Laguna Atascosa this morning. As per the fine print, I picked up a mesquite branch, but it felt awkward while running. 

 

The grass along most of the trail was knee and even thigh high. I wondered how close a cougar could get before I saw him in that grass.

Democracy and Oligarchy

The "warrant," to use Toulmin's terminology, that underpins democracy and oligarchy, and places them at odds with one another.

"Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal."

"Oligarchy is based on the notion that those who are unequal in one respect are in all respects unequal; being unequal, that is, in property, they suppose themselves to be unequal absolutely."

Aristotle. Politics. Book 9, Part 1

Aristotle on the Gun Debate

The Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Aristotle: "Without discipline, infantry are useless" (Politics 4.VIII)

Question: Will we be safer if we have more guns or more discipline?

Aristotle's Politics on a Hot Day

Listening to Aristotle's Politics while running the canal roads I'm struck, not for the first time, with how often his ideas are condensed, simplified, turned into sound bites that make him sound naive, if not simplistic. I've been guilty of doing the same myself. In the past I have been known to say that Aristotle divided political systems into two types,* oligarchy and democracy, and that, like Plato, he was critical of democracy. By the time I got to Fourth Book of Politics (only halfway through) I discovered that I was the one being simplistic.

What he actually writes is that most people think there are only two forms of government because these are the two forms they see the most often. He insists that "There are so many different kinds of democracies and of oligarchies" (VI). He then subdivides each into so many categories that I couldn't follow him while running. (It was 92 degrees; felt like 96 with the humidity figured in; I have an excuse.)

After mentioning that "an ideal state which is an aspiration only," he writes that governments must adjust to the situation, (a subtle dig at Plato?). Then he writes about  a "polity or constitutional government" (IV) which he sees as the most effective government. This is a government that combines elements of an oligarchy and a democracy, trying, if incompletely so, to get the best of both. I won't go into details.  This chapter is worth reading by anyone interested in politics. And, if Aristotle is right, we are political animals.

Just one factoid to illustrate how different our ideas of democracy are from those in 4th Century BC: According to Aristotle, oligarchies elect officials by vote; democracies elect officials by lot. (Why? Election by lots keeps the rich from being able to buy elections. Are you listening Koch brothers?)



*He also dealt with dictatorship and monarchy, but felt those required less attention. An assessment I agree with.