Where does Aristotle go wrong?

[Areopagite]

A few people (e.g. Touchstone, R Daneel) have accused Aristotle of pulling metaphysical bunnies out of too small a hat. I’m wondering where exactly he goes wrong. How far does he get it right … and at what distinction does he perform some kind of philosophical prestidigitation?

I know that’s kind of a broad question, so broad answers are welcome.

 

[Magnanimity]

A few people (e.g. Touchstone, R Daneel) have accused Aristotle of pulling metaphysical bunnies out of too small a hat. I’m wondering where exactly he goes wrong. How far does he get it right … and at what distinction does he perform some kind of philosophical prestidigitation?

I know that’s kind of a broad question, so broad answers are welcome.

It’s easy to smell a rotten egg, but it’s hard to lay a better one…

Yes, please, let’s have at it. Most criticism of Aristotle that I’ve seen here on CAF has come out of too little familiarity with Aristotelian traditions (of which Thomism is a type-incidentally, Thomism itself is critical of Aristotle in at least two important ways, but that’s probably not what you’re after here).

Or, criticism of Aristotle’s metaphysics comes from some odd argument to the effect of saying that if Aristotle gets it wrong in physics, which he unsurprisingly does in many respects, this somehow entails sweeping falsity for his metaphysics. To say nothing of the fact that these criticisms rarely offer improvements on, or viable alternatives to, Aristotle. (You tear down Aristotelian metaphysics only to replace it with…?)

I know several here at CAF are more familiar with Aristotle than I am, and I’m not an apologist for “the Philosopher,” but at the same time I do grow weary of misguided criticism of him.

 

[Touchstone]

A few people (e.g. Touchstone, R Daneel) have accused Aristotle of pulling metaphysical bunnies out of too small a hat. I’m wondering where exactly he goes wrong. How far does he get it right … and at what distinction does he perform some kind of philosophical prestidigitation?

I know that’s kind of a broad question, so broad answers are welcome.

Hey, Thanks for starting the thread. Won’t have time to respond until this evening most likely, but will think about a “broad answer”.

-TS

 

[Nan_S]

A few people (e.g. Touchstone, R Daneel) have accused Aristotle of pulling metaphysical bunnies out of too small a hat. I’m wondering where exactly he goes wrong. How far does he get it right … and at what distinction does he perform some kind of philosophical prestidigitation?

I know that’s kind of a broad question, so broad answers are welcome.

The Early Church Fathers went to great length to prove the flaws in Aristotle’s god-reasoning. Christian religious belief says God is greater than everything, and is not dependent upon pre-existent matter. Ancient Greek religious belief, which was held by Aristotle, puts the existence of matter above the existence of the gods. That’s why Aristotle’s hat - and his god - is too small.

In Greek thought:
First there was Chaos, an eternally-existing universe in a completely disorganized, unformed state.
From Chaos sprang its opposite, a perfect all-powerful god. Don’t ask me how. Not even the Greeks could answer that one.
This god then started the process of organizing the pre-existent matter, spawning other gods, and eventually creating men.

 

[Areopagite]

The Early Church Fathers went to great length to prove the flaws in Aristotle’s god-reasoning. Christian religious belief says God is greater than everything, and is not dependent upon pre-existent matter. Ancient Greek religious belief, which was held by Aristotle, puts the existence of matter above the existence of the gods. That’s why Aristotle’s hat - and his god - is too small.

In Greek thought:
First there was Chaos, an eternally-existing universe in a completely disorganized, unformed state.
From Chaos sprang its opposite, a perfect all-powerful god. Don’t ask me how. Not even the Greeks could answer that one.
This god then started the process of organizing the pre-existent matter, spawning other gods, and eventually creating men.

I’m pretty sure you’re talking about Plato, not Aristotle. Plato believed in the Demiurge who crafted the world out of pre-existing matter based on the eternal Forms. Ironically, even though Christians rejected this idea (an idea that was NOT rejected by the heretical Gnostics), Plato was quickly Christianized in many aspects, largely thanks to Augustine.

Now, perhaps Aristotle said the same thing, but if he did, I am completely and shamefully ignorant on the matter … which is entirely and most likely possible.

 

[Magnanimity]

Nan,

Areo is probably right. The early Church fathers frequently addressed Platonic philosophy. (Recall that the writings of Aristotle were all but lost until re-encountered through the Arabic philosophers in the Middle Ages.)

Now, it is true that Aristotle conceived of unmoved movers, and the later scholastics incorporated that into their natural theology of the one unmoved mover (God). But since St Thomas Aquinas agrees with Aristotle in the argument from “motion,” as the first and most manifest argument for the existence of God, do you think Aquinas makes a mistake here?

 

[geekborj]

He was wrong in his notion of how the Absolute is related to Reality.

 

[Oreoracle]

A few people (e.g. Touchstone, R Daneel) have accused Aristotle of pulling metaphysical bunnies out of too small a hat. I’m wondering where exactly he goes wrong. How far does he get it right … and at what distinction does he perform some kind of philosophical prestidigitation?

I know that’s kind of a broad question, so broad answers are welcome.

You might have heard me bash him for dabbling in modal logic, and I do so for all philosophers because I don’t think modal logic is useful for anything other than organizing our thoughts.

Using modal terms, the only description of the observable world we can give is that events which have occurred are possible. That’s really all we know. We can’t prove that any event is “necessary” or demonstrate that any event which hasn’t yet occurred is possible. I don’t even know how we’d go about collecting evidence to suggest such things.

Also, when Aristotelians quibble over different types of “being” I have to roll my eyes. “To be X” simply means “to exist as X,” and no non-circular definition of “existence” has been offered thus far. This is because the purpose of a definition is to distinguish between the defined item, X, and those that are not X. Quite simply, “existence” applies to all items; there is no “not X” to distinguish X from. Rather than philosophers asking for definitions of “existence,” I would have them ask themselves whether a definition is really required.

Aristotle’s ethics were based almost entirely on the traditions of the time, so he didn’t offer anything new morality-wise. And as you know, he’s made laughable claims about physics (though I concede that he might have rejected a different kind of atom than we imagine today).

Generally, I consider him an irresponsible fellow. He knew that he was influential, but he never went very far out of his way to substantiate his claims. Because of him, we have people who are still trying to understand the world as he did, but we’ve obviously made progress since then. Excuse me for saying so, but the world doesn’t need scientific, astronomical, or metaphysical advice from an ancient Greek.

 

[Betterave]

You might have heard me bash him for dabbling in modal logic, and I do so for all philosophers because I don’t think modal logic is useful for anything other than organizing our thoughts.

Using modal terms, the only description of the observable world we can give is that events which have occurred are possible. That’s really all we know. We can’t prove that any event is “necessary” or demonstrate that any event which hasn’t yet occurred is possible. I don’t even know how we’d go about collecting evidence to suggest such things.

Also, when Aristotelians quibble over different types of “being” I have to roll my eyes. “To be X” simply means “to exist as X,” and no non-circular definition of “existence” has been offered thus far. This is because the purpose of a definition is to distinguish between the defined item, X, and those that are not X. Quite simply, “existence” applies to all items; there is no “not X” to distinguish X from. Rather than philosophers asking for definitions of “existence,” I would have them ask themselves whether a definition is really required.

Aristotle’s ethics were based almost entirely on the traditions of the time, so he didn’t offer anything new morality-wise. And as you know, he’s made laughable claims about physics (though I concede that he might have rejected a different kind of atom than we imagine today).

Generally, I consider him an irresponsible fellow. He knew that he was influential, but he never went very far out of his way to substantiate his claims. Because of him, we have people who are still trying to understand the world as he did, but we’ve obviously made progress since then. Excuse me for saying so, but the world doesn’t need scientific, astronomical, or metaphysical advice from an ancient Greek.

Hey Oreo,

This would be much more interesting if you would tie it to something that Aristotle wrote, present his argument, then tell us why his argument is wrong. As it is you just present yourself as someone who is lazy and opinionated.

 

[Oreoracle]

Hey Oreo,

This would be much more interesting if you would tie it to something that Aristotle wrote, present his argument, then tell us why his argument is wrong. As it is you just present yourself as someone who is lazy and opinionated.

You’re missing the point. It’s not so much that I take issue with what he wrote, but with what he didn’t write. He didn’t back up any of his claims about the universe. For example, while he did dissect some animals, he always had a peculiar habit of attributing “souls” to every sort of thing. He would then create a hierarchy wherein plant souls are “lower” than animal souls, and animal souls are lower than human souls. (Since we now know that humans are animals, it would have been useful to read his definition of “animal” so that we might know why he didn’t consider humans to be animals. I’ve read no such definition, however.)

Nowadays, kids are typically shown in classrooms that objects fall at the same speeds regardless of mass. Demonstrating that fact is probably one of the most simplistic and easily repeated experiments imaginable: you take two objects of differing masses, hold them at the same height, and drop them at the same time. If the kids are unconvinced, set the objects on higher ground and release them. But who claimed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects? Aristotle. (It’s sort of like catching somebody with their pants down, no? )

Also, he was really in no position to make the claims he did about astronomy for obvious reasons: he had no reliable means of researching stars.

So let’s see, he’s botched his biology, his physics, and his astronomy so far. Notice that these errors have nothing to do with the restraints of his time, but rather his unwillingness to concede that some things were unknown to him. He wasn’t happy with saying, “I don’t know” and proceeded to make numerous errors because of it. In other words, he clearly took to guessing.

Shall I also show you how basic (and nebulous) his ethical system is? A quick Wikipedia search shows us some of his valued “means” pertaining to character:

Courage
Temperance
Generosity
Friendliness
Truthfulness

Are any of those “virtues” unknown to five-year old children? You see, every civilization in recorded history has shared those values, and the reasons are obvious. There wasn’t much to his ethical system at all, and he needn’t introduce things such as the “rational” and “irrational” souls to explain these values. (Besides, a reference to the supernatural is a non-explanation.)

As for the bit about modal logic: Let’s say I flip a coin and it lands on heads. How might a modal logician demonstrate that it was ever possible for the coin to have landed on tails under identical circumstances? Most metaphysicians would say that the result of the coin flip was contingent, but I don’t buy it. How do you demonstrate the possibility of the coin landing on tails? (Hint: You cannot.)

 

[tonyrey]

Excuse me for saying so, but the world doesn’t need scientific, astronomical, or metaphysical advice from an ancient Greek.

If you let us have a few of your metaphysical ideas we’ll be able to judge whether your contempt is justified…

 

[Betterave]

You’re missing the point. It’s not so much that I take issue with what he wrote, but with what he didn’t write.

First, that’s not true (it’s not even false; it doesn’t make sense…) …unless you can explain to me which of Aristotle’s unwritten works you are taking issue with?

Second, my original point stands. You’ve just given it added confirmation.

 

[Oreoracle]

First, that’s not true (it’s not even false; it doesn’t make sense…) …unless you can explain to me which of Aristotle’s unwritten works you are taking issue with?

Second, my original point stands. You’ve just given it added confirmation.

Golly… :banghead:

Let me try to make this as simple as possible: A person can make a controversial (or outright dubious) statement, such as, say, “Plants have souls.” I don’t have a problem with that. But whenever the same person who writes that doesn’t propose any substantiating evidence, yet still touts it about as though it is fact, that upsets me. This is especially the case when the person in question is an influential figure amidst gullible people.

To put that into the context of this thread: Aristotle could voice his opinion (or guesswork) all he wanted, but that didn’t grant him the right to parade it around as a fact with absolutely no substantiating evidence supporting it.

 

[Areopagite]

He was wrong in his notion of how the Absolute is related to Reality.

I’m not familiar with what you are talking about. Would you mind elaborating just a bit?

You might have heard me bash him for dabbling in modal logic, and I do so for all philosophers because I don’t think modal logic is useful for anything other than organizing our thoughts.

Interesting. Isn’t this true for any kind of logic … not just modal logic?

Also, when Aristotelians quibble over different types of “being” I have to roll my eyes. “To be X” simply means “to exist as X,” and no non-circular definition of “existence” has been offered thus far. This is because the purpose of a definition is to distinguish between the defined item, X, and those that are not X. Quite simply, “existence” applies to all items; there is no “not X” to distinguish X from. Rather than philosophers asking for definitions of “existence,” I would have them ask themselves whether a definition is really required.

Most Aristotelians agree that “existence” is technically undefinable (because it’s so basic). Nonetheless, there does seem to be different kinds of existence that can be distinguished from each other (and thus, in some way, defined).

When you say, for example, “existence applies to all items” … what do you mean by “item”? Is a unicorn an item? And, thus, does a unicorn exist? We can say things like, “A unicorn is a mythical horse with a horn” (which would be true) … and since we said “A unicorn IS something” does that imply that it exists in some way? What about a square circle? Is that an item? Does that exist in some way? Or does it not exist at all … or does it not exist in a different way that a unicorn does not exist? Lastly, what about “nothing” … does “nothing” exist?

Personally, these questions have plagued me since the age of rational thinking. In almost all arguments of any philosophical bent whatsoever that I’ve had, it always seemed to boil down to how we define whether a certain something existed in a certain way. Before I was able to delineate the different kinds of alleged being, I ultimately felt that philosophical dialogue was ultimately unproductive, unhelpful, subjective, and at the whim and fancy of unassailable equivocation. Aristotle was the first and only philosopher who made sense of the different ways we use the word “existence” and it was then when I believed rational discourse was finally possible.

Having a clear and consistent metaphysic is the essence of clear thinking, I say. It is more important and fundamental than any other branch of philosophy, including epistemology (for that presupposes existence). You don’t have to be a theist to believe this … there are plenty of atheists who are fans of Aristotle (even on this issue, if I’m not mistaken).

Here’s a brief outline of some of the distinctions Aristotle made with regard to being/existence (from a previous post):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6013684&postcount=38

Aristotle’s ethics were based almost entirely on the traditions of the time, so he didn’t offer anything new morality-wise.

The things that come to mind when I think about Aristotle’s ethics are things that I never heard any other Greek philosopher say before or during his time. Perhaps you can show me where Aristotle ripped people off on these matters:

1) The concept of the Golden Mean (possibly the central concept of his ethic): that virtue lies between two different extremes … except the virtue of Justice, which has no extreme
2) Distinction between voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary acts and how morality applies to each
3) The three kinds of friendship (i.e. friendship of pleasure, of utility, of excellence)
4) Ethics as the science of acquiring happiness, fulfillment of human nature, what is good for human nature … which is attaining contemplation of truth.

Now, there are some similarities with Plato, but most philosophers would agree they diverged pretty drastically on a number of issues (esp. with regard to the emotions). Now, I don’t know of any Greek philosophers who had anything that resembled Aristotle’s ethics in the least. The Pre-Socratic philosophers either didn’t talk about ethics at all or (for the few that did) had some kind of proto-Epicurean or proto-Skeptic and/or even proto-Stoic idea of ethics … which was carried on by the Sophists (during Socrates) and then to the incomplete Socratic schools (which came right after Socrates) and then to the Hellenistic Schools (which came right after Aristotle) and then to Eclectic schools (during Roman times) and then going into hiding during the Middle Ages (thank God) and then finally re-emerging in various forms in the modern age (and, really, all modern ethical systems are old, recycled versions of these guys, against which Aristotle spoke). So, quite contrary, Aristotle’s ethics were extremely unique compared to what contemporary philosophy was saying. Perhaps, however, you can correct me on this.

 

[Areopagite]

And as you know, he’s made laughable claims about physics.

Yes, he had a few silly mistakes. But I would argue they are very few and completely irrelevant regarding the validity of the rest of his philosophy. Nonetheless, it is clear that he made quantum leaps closer to development of the scientific method (many atheists have said this as well). In fact, when I was reading his stuff on nature, I was totally blown away at how detailed and systematic and how … scientific it was. I was expecting a laugh … but instead it was awe.

Generally, I consider him an irresponsible fellow.

What? Irresponsible in what?

He knew that he was influential, but he never went very far out of his way to substantiate his claims.

Are you joking? Aristotle’s works consist of multiple volumes (and there were much more that tragically didn’t survive). What more do you want?! Have you actually read all his works? What’s your basis for saying he didn’t substantiate his claims?

Because of him, we have people who are still trying to understand the world as he did, but we’ve obviously made progress since then.

When you say “progressed” do you mean “invalidated what Aristotle said?” Because if not, then Aristotle is still relevant. We’ve advanced in knowledge of physical details of the universe, but in philosophy? I would say that in realm of philosophy we have greatly regressed (and one such reason is that no one seems to have any kind of clear idea of metaphysics at all … and hence they don’t have a clear idea of anything at all, at least in a detailed and systematic way).

Excuse me for saying so, but the world doesn’t need scientific, astronomical, or metaphysical advice from an ancient Greek.

Unless of course that ancient Greek was right on many issues. You have not proven he was wrong in any important way. It doesn’t matter if he was an ancient Greek. It matters whether what he said is true or not. I’m surprised that this needs pointing out.

Now, Oreoracle, you’ve made your broad answer (which I welcomed), and now I would ask you to get into specifics. Otherwise, I’m still going to be at a loss where exactly people think Aristotle goes wrong.

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by Oreoracle
…he never went very far out of his way to substantiate his claims.

This is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black - supposing the pot was black and the kettle brand new and shiny.

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by Oreoracle
He knew that he was influential, but he never went very far out of his way to substantiate his claims.

This is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black - supposing the pot was black and the kettle brand new and shiny.Let me try to make this as simple as possible: A person can make a controversial (or outright dubious) statement, such as, say, “Plants have souls.” I don’t have a problem with that. But whenever the same person who writes that doesn’t propose any substantiating evidence, yet still touts it about as though it is fact, that upsets me. This is especially the case when the person in question is an influential figure amidst gullible people.

 

[Betterave]

Let me try to make this as simple as possible: A person can make a controversial (or outright dubious) statement, such as, say, “Plants have souls.” I don’t have a problem with that. But whenever the same person who writes that doesn’t propose any substantiating evidence, yet still touts it about as though it is fact, that upsets me. This is especially the case when the person in question is an influential figure amidst gullible people.

To put that into the context of this thread: Aristotle could voice his opinion (or guesswork) all he wanted, but that didn’t grant him the right to parade it around as a fact with absolutely no substantiating evidence supporting it.

…More confirmation of my original point.

So where did Aristotle talk about vegetative soul, what was his position on the issue, and why do you want to say that his position was ‘unsubstantiated parading’? Please explain.

 

[Areopagite]

You’re missing the point. It’s not so much that I take issue with what he wrote, but with what he didn’t write.

So, we are to assume you’ve read all Aristotle’s works.

He didn’t back up any of his claims about the universe. For example, while he did dissect some animals, he always had a peculiar habit of attributing “souls” to every sort of thing. He would then create a hierarchy wherein plant souls are “lower” than animal souls, and animal souls are lower than human souls. (Since we now know that humans are animals, it would have been useful to read his definition of “animal” so that we might know why he didn’t consider humans to be animals. I’ve read no such definition, however.)

Oh, Oreoracle, this is very incriminating. Aristotle is famous for defining human as a “rational animal” (he never said that humans were not animals). Also he defined animal as “a living being with senses.” He defined “living being” as a being that has reproductive, nutritive, and augmentative (i.e. pertaining to growth) powers.

Nowadays, kids are typically shown in classrooms that objects fall at the same speeds regardless of mass. Demonstrating that fact is probably one of the most simplistic and easily repeated experiments imaginable: you take two objects of differing masses, hold them at the same height, and drop them at the same time. If the kids are unconvinced, set the objects on higher ground and release them. But who claimed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects? Aristotle. (It’s sort of like catching somebody with their pants down, no? )

Personally, I dropped a lot of objects at the same time and one often falls faster than the other. That’s because some things experience air resistance (usually lighter things too). This may be the thing that screwed up Aristotle’s experiments. Just saying.

Also, he was really in no position to make the claims he did about astronomy for obvious reasons: he had no reliable means of researching stars.

Perhaps, what exactly are you talking about? What astronomical errors did he make? (I’m not denying he made some)

So let’s see, he’s botched his biology, his physics, and his astronomy so far.

Are you saying that EVERYTHING he said about these were wrong? Quite a claim. Even modern scientists still make mistakes in these fields … should we throw all their claims away therefore?

He wasn’t happy with saying, “I don’t know” and proceeded to make numerous errors because of it. In other words, he clearly took to guessing.

So, what were all these numerous errors? Are you even referring to his metaphysics (which, I remind you, is the topic of this thread)? If you think his errors regarding nature caused errors in his metaphysics, please prove.

Shall I also show you how basic (and nebulous) his ethical system is? A quick Wikipedia search shows us some of his valued “means” pertaining to character:

Courage
Temperance
Generosity
Friendliness
Truthfulness

Are any of those “virtues” unknown to five-year old children? You see, every civilization in recorded history has shared those values, and the reasons are obvious. There wasn’t much to his ethical system at all, and he needn’t introduce things such as the “rational” and “irrational” souls to explain these values. (Besides, a reference to the supernatural is a non-explanation.)

So, are you saying these virtues are wrong? Have you read what Aristotle had to say about these virtues? Are you saying he didn’t talk about any other virtues? Have you even read the Nicomachean ethics? Is this a joke?

As for the bit about modal logic: Let’s say I flip a coin and it lands on heads. How might a modal logician demonstrate that it was ever possible for the coin to have landed on tails under identical circumstances? Most metaphysicians would say that the result of the coin flip was contingent, but I don’t buy it. How do you demonstrate the possibility of the coin landing on tails? (Hint: You cannot.)

Well, you said that if something happened in the past, then it means that event is possible in the future. I have seen coins flip heads sometimes and tails other times … hence, by your own logic, it is possible for coins to flip heads or tails … hence contingency exists.

 

[Magnanimity]

“So, we are to assume you’ve read all Aristotle’s works”

Very unsafe assumption, given all the replies that Oreo has made here and elsewhere about Aristotle. In fact, in another thread I began on the cosmological argument, Oreo admitted to me that he has read somewhere in the neighborhood of 0% of Aristotle’s writings.

I’m proud of you guys for the patience you exhibit with Oreoracle though. But maybe we’ll get some substantive objections to the metaphysics of Aristotle, as the OP requested…