The Aristotle Adventure

[AisA]

I have just finished Burgess Laughlin’s excellent book, “The Aristotle Adventure”. I highly recommend it to anyone that wants to better understand the history of Aristotelian thought and the Latin, Greek and Arabic scholars that transmitted it around the civilized world.

I don’t know as much history as I should, especially of the ancient world, and this book filled in many of the blanks without overwhelming me with detail. (Anyone wanting more detail need only consult the copious footnotes, which number at least 1,100 taken from 140 different sources.) An easy, entertaining read, this book is a testament to the staying power of a good idea – and the determination of scholars that faced threats ranging from ostracism to death for daring to promote the idea than man’s mind can be the source of knowledge.

Two recurring themes struck me: one was the endless attempts to reconcile reason and faith, an effort that stretched across hundreds of years and numerous cultures. It seems that logic, once grasped, is so appealing that only the most corrupt religious minds (such as the various popes) sought to deny it outright. Many religious figures seemed to sense the need to permit reason and logic some role in man’s existence – while, naturally, uttering the requisite dogma about the superiority of faith.

While I can understand the motivation behind religion’s attempt to co-opt reason, I do not understand the cause of the second theme: the equally endless attempts to reconcile Aristotle’s positions with Plato’s. Why was it so difficult for the intellectuals of the past to accept that the two are (mostly) opposites, at least in terms of fundamentals? Perhaps some of you can explain this for me.

Finally, I can’t resist quoting one passage from the book, but please do not assume that it is the best or most memorable part. In discussing the decline of the Roman Empire circa 350 AD, Mr. Laughlin writes on page 67:

Throughout the empire, the economy resumed its long decline. The emperors noticed that decay was a kind of change.  The way to stop the decay, the believed, was to stop change, through economic and social controls.

And then, after raising taxes, imposing controls and inflating the currency:

Finally the government attempted to lock people into hereditary classes by registering farmers and guild members and by preventing them from leaving their homes to escape their taxes.

Directive 10-289 anyone? Who says the events of “Atlas Shrugged” are an exaggeration?

[punk]

I don't think Aristotle and Plato should be described as opposites.

The reason they seem to be opposites is that what they have in common (which is quite a bit) are the things that have been so taken up by Western culture as to seem "obvious". So since one is tended to ignore the "obvious", one is left with the areas where they differ.

A good study of Hindu, Buddhist, and Chinese philosophy gets one to see that many of these things taken as "obvious" aren't so obvious, and that Aristotle and Plato have much more in common than they do with much of Hindu, Buddhist or Chinese thought.

[JRoberts]

Punk, I don't intend to sound harsh-but I've noticed in a few of you posts that you make these assertions without backing up any of them-even without offering an examples. You lay out a claim and seemingly beg for it to be refuted. Would you please explain why you don't think Aristotle and Plato are opposites?

(To Mod: This should be in a new topic-both punk's and my posts)

[punk]

Aristotle and Plato both are at the beginning of what is to become the scientific method in the west.

They both believe that the world exists, items in it exist, and that people can come to correct rational conclusions about items in the world. That is that a person can understand the what the world is composed of, how it is composed. Essentially that science is possible.

In his dialogs Plato gets somewhat concerned with the question "How can I be sure that when I use a word to refer to two different things, that those things have much in common." That is, how is it that words can be said to have meanings. Now it is nice when we use the scientific method to reach conclusions that we are using words clearly and correctly. Plato does this be creating a "heaven" that we can look into where words have fixed eternal meanings.

In a modern sense Plato was more of a theorist. He emphasized mathematics as a study to produce disciplined minds, and mathematics was discussed at the academy.

Now Aristotle learned his philosophy from Plato and always considered himself of the school of Plato. that is to say he believed the world exists, items in it exist and that people can come to have rational conclusions about items in the world. that is (in modern terms) Aristotle believed science is possible, and because of this he considered himself a student of Plato.

Aristotle though wasn't terribly concerned with how we can be so sure that our words mean clear things, and just pragmatically assumed that language works fine. He went on to do science (or rather biology mainly).

Plato just spent more time on the issue of whether science was well-founded. He did this by looking at the eternal meaning of words. Aristotle instead of that looked into logical connections and deductions and making them more explicitly structured. Plato is using logic and deduction, just not writing about it and making it explicit. Aristotle would probably have said he learned logic from Plato, and just put it into an explicit form.

Plato too often gets read as a neo-Platonist, which he is not.

[Free Capitalist]

Punk, um, have you read any of Aristotle at all? And if yes, what?

[JRoberts]

Or-

Punk-have you read any Plato at all? And if so, what?

[amanda526]

hmm. sounds interesting, i will have to pick that up for summer reading.