Welcome to ON TRUTH A ministry of Dr. Cky J. Carrigan devoted to Apologetic Evangelism which seeks to equip the saints for the work of evangelism through a rigorous pursuit of TRUTH motivated by LOVE. HOME BACK TO INDEX
HOW TO BECOME A CHRISTIAN? GOT JESUS?
THE ORIGIN OF ARISTOTLE'S LOGIC1
By Cky J. Carrigan, Ph.D. (Oct 1996)
It is generally agreed that no mortal should rightly claim absolutely original thinking, but occasionally a great mind forms a great original thought. In Aristotle's case a great mind has formed a great original system of thinking. Aristotle (384-322 B. C.) did not form his system of logic in a vacuum of information, but he was clearly the sole originator of the system of logic ascribed to him.
Aristotle's Logic Defined
Norman Geisler identified the four laws of Aristotelian logic: the law of non-contradiction (A is not non-A), the law of identity (A is A), the law of excluded middle (either A or non-A), and the law of rational inference from what is known to what is unknown.2 Colin Brown wrote, "Aristotle regarded it [logic] as a preliminary study to all branches of knowledge calling it an instrument (organon) of study."3 And the Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy suggested that Aristotle's logic was "not a substantive part of philosophy but ancillary to all parts."4
Aristotle did not generally use the term "logic." He preferred the term "analytics." Prior Analytics is the title of his major work on deductive logic and Posterior Analytics is the title of his major work on induction. At the heart of Aristotle's logic was the syllogism. His syllogism was a logical deduction defined in Prior Analytics as:
[A] discourse in which, certain things being stated, something other than what is stated follows of necessity from their being so. I mean by the last phrase that it follows because of them, and by this, that no further term is required from without in order to make the consequence necessary.5
Aristotle saw his logical deduction as a tool, a first kind of wisdom, that guided all kinds of investigations of truth. He wrote,
Natural science also is a kind of wisdom, but it is not the first kind.--And the attempts of some who discuss the terms on which truth should be accepted, are due to a want of training in logic. . . Evidently then the philosopher, who is studying the nature of all substance, must inquire also into the principles of deduction.6
Aristotle also saw his first kind of wisdom, as unacquired7 and therefore innate in humans and other animals. Those animals with memories were able then to do induction. For Aristotle, universals were self-evident. Increased empirical knowledge did not produce basic perceptions (logic). The universal principle is known actually (deduction) and the particular case (induction or demonstration) is known potentially. He wrote,
And this [deduction] evidently belongs to all animals; for they have a connate discriminatory capacity, which is called perception. . . in some animals retention of the percept comes about. . . And from experience, or from the whole universal that has come to rest in the soul. . . there comes a principle of skill and of understanding [induction, demonstration]. . .8
Original or Derived Logic?
Aristotle's biographers and philosophers generally agreed that Aristotle was the father of logic. But they stopped short of ascribing to him absolute originality as well.9 Unfortunately, the consulted authorities did not produce any highly developed arguments to support their caution. Observe the following guarded propositions: Will Durant wrote, "Almost without predecessors, almost entirely by his own hard thinking, he created a new science--Logic." About Aristotle's new science Durant wrote, "Before Aristotle, science was embryo; with him it was born."10 Marjorie Grene asserted, "In logic. . . he may fairly claim to have had no predecessor."11 Norman Geisler offered this statement about the origins and nature of logic, "Aristotle didn't invent logic; he only helped to discover it."12 And G. E. Lloyd suggested that Aristotle's logic was "very largely original."13
Alfred Weber, like others, granted both originality and dependance to Aristotle but his treatment of Aristotle's dependance was more thorough than the rest. He called Aristotle "the real founder of logic," but he added that Aristotle "was not the first to conceive all the principles of logic." Weber, wrote:
[T]he discussions of the Eleatics, the Sophists,and the Socratics [pp. 9-53], have shown us how reason gradually became conscious of the processes which it originally employed instinctively; thus the elementary axioms. . . and without doubt also the more special rules of the syllogism came to be formulated. But it required the genius of an Aristotle to co-ordinate these elements, to complete them, and to formulate them into the system of deductive logic, which constitutes his chief claim to fame.14
Aristotle clearly saw himself as the originator of systematic logic, or at least the originator of deductive logic. For logic, he abandoned his usual pattern of inquiry which set forth the views of his predecessors before working out his own solution.15 Evidence of Aristotle's self-understanding as a pioneer in logic may be found in the Sophistical Refutations of The Organon. In it he wrote,
Of the present inquiry [the formalistic structure of syllogistic reasoning], on the other hand, it was not the case that part of the work had been thoroughly done before, while part had not. Nothing existed at all. . . . [W]hereas on the subject of deduction we had absolutely nothing else of an earlier date to mention, but were kept at work for a long time in experimental researches.16
Aristotle did not derive his logic from Plato though Plato's influence on Aristotle was considerable.17 Lloyd wrote, "It is certain that Plato was by far the most important formative influence on Aristotle's thought."18 David Ross suggested that "there is no page [of Aristotle's philosophy] which does not bear the impress of Platonism."19 Weber represented the general understanding of Aristotle's biographers when he made the following assertion: While Aristotle did not learn his logic from Plato, traces of Plato's abstractions and generalities may be found in Aristotle's "original doctrine of the syllogism."20
Aristotle disagreed with Plato's common manner of reasoning for all disciplines.21 Interacting with Plato's method he wrote, "One cannot therefore prove anything by crossing from another genus. . ."22 Aristotle was referring to Plato's divisions of logic when he wrote, "It is easy to see that division by genera is a small part of the method we have described; for division is, so to speak, a weak deduction; for what it ought to prove, it begs. . ."23
Modern Evaluation
While most modern critics concede Aristotle's brilliance for systemization and his abiding influence on western civilization, they generally question some of his assumptions about thought.24 Durant wrote, "He [Aristotle] thinks the syllogism is [a] description of man's way of reasoning, whereas it merely describes man's way of dressing up his reasoning for the persuasion of another mind. . . thought begins with hypothetical conclusions and seeks their justifying premises."25 Even some who emphatically affirm the four Aristotelian laws of logic question something about the syllogism. Geisler asserted, "since there are very few premises that even most thinking men agree are universally true, the effectiveness of Aristotle's method for discovering truth is seriously reduced."26 The most striking criticism of Aristotle's logic comes from Postmodern philosophers. Jacque Derrida is an extreme example of this stream of thinking. His main concern was to undermine structuralism based on an anti-metaphysical world view.27
Conclusion
Aristotle was clearly the sole originator of the system of logic ascribed to him, though he did not derive his system from thin air. Aristotle did not form his logic on Plato's logic, but Platonic universals and abstracts may have indirectly contributed to the syllogism. Aristotle's modal syllogism may not have been the first or last word on logic, but his systemization of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle were based upon brilliant observations of what is self-evident and undeniable.
__________________
1For background reading on Aristotle's life, work, and overall philosophy, see the following standard works: A. E. Taylor, Aristotle (New York: Dover, 1955). John Randall Jr., Aristotle (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960). John Leofric Stocks, Aristotelianism (New York: Cooper Square Publishers, 1963).
2Norman Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come Let Us Reason (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 16.
3Colin Brown, Christianity and Western Thought (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 40.
4Urmson, J. O. and Jonathan Ree, eds., The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy and Philosophers (London: Routledge, 1991), 26.
5Aristotle, Prior Analytics, 1.24b.19-22, The Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. 1, the revised Oxford translation, edited by Jonathan Barnes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 40.
6Aristotle, Metaphysics Book IV, 1005b.1-7, CW, vol. 2, 1587.
7Cf., the first words in Posterior Analytics are "All teaching and all intellectual learning come about from already existing knowledge." Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, 1.71a.1, CW, vol.1, 114.
8Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, 2.99b.35f, CW, vol. 1,
165-166.
9For a fine treatment of the development of Greek philosophy from Thales to Aristotle, see Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Riverside Press, 1957), 3-144.
10Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1926), 67, 72.
11Marjorie Grene, A Portrait of Aristotle (Chicago: University Press, 1963), 6.
12Geisler and Brooks, Come Let Us Reason, 14. Cf. Charles Van Doren who wrote, "[Aristotle] invented the science of logic, which is the rules of thinking" in a History of Knowledge (New York: Ballantine Books, 1991), 44.
13G. E. R. Lloyd, Aristotle: The Growth and Structure of His Thought (London: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 111.
14Alfred Weber, History of Philosophy, translated by Frank Thilly (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1925), 78. About Sophisticism's influence on logic Weber wrote, "[Sophisticism] makes the mind conscious of its laws and causes it to analyze them, and so becomes the forerunner of the science of logic," 43.
15Lloyd, Growth, 284-85. See Aristotle's Metaphysics A, Physics 1, Ethics, Politics, On Soul, in CW, vols. 1-2, for examples of his interaction with predecessors.
16Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations, 183b.34f, CW, vol. 1, 314.
17For the classic theory of Aristotle's development from Platonist to empiricist see Werner Jaeger, Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development, translated by Richard Robinson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948). Compare also Lloyd, Growth.
18Lloyd, Growth, 4.
19W. David Ross, Aristotle (London: Methuen, 1964), 2.
20Weber, History, 70.
21Plato's comments regarding kinds of arguments may be found in Phaedo 92cd, in B. Jowett, The Dialogues of Plato, vol. 1, 420-421. See also, Theaeletus 162e, in Jowett, Dialogues, vol. 3, 363-364. For a work devoted to Plato's method, see Kenneth M. Sayer, Plato's Analytic Method (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.
22Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, 1.75a.38, CW, 122.
23Aristotle, Prior Analytics, 1.46a.33, CW, 74.
24For a thorough treatment of the content and historical criticism of Aristotle's syllogism, see Storrs McCall, Aristotle's Modal Syllogisms (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, 1963).
25Durant, History, 101.
26Norman Geisler and Paul Feinberg, Introduction to Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 42.
27See Jacque Derrida, "Writing Before the Letter," in Of Grammatology, 1967, translated by Gayatri Chakavorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), 8.