Aristotle Lesson 4

Learning Intention:

To critically analyse the propositions put forward in The Nicomachean Ethics and the supporting arguments provided.

Reading:

Re-read your chapter summaries (and mine) and the dot-point or raw notes you took before writing the summaries.

In many cases, but not all, the dot point notes will be the first step in determining what propositions you’ve identified in Aristotle’s work. For instance see my notes from Book 2, Chapter 1 (I’ve numbered them here for easy reference):

1. Excellence is either Intellectual or Moral
2. Teaching leads to intellectual development
3. Morality developed by custom
4. Moral virtues not derived ‘merely’ from nature
5. Example of the stone being thrown in the air
6. Builders by building, harpists by harping, etc…
7. Not just doing it but doing it well (builders)
8. Being accustomed from childhood makes all the difference

The first statement seems to be a proposition. It is making a statement of how Aristotle believes the world (or the moral world) to be. It is disputable (I might believe that there are different forms of excellence and that some excellences are neither intellectual or moral). It has a truth value (in that I can make an assessment that it is either true or false – I may not yet know what that truth value is, but I can accept that it has one).

This is true of the first four dot-points. In each instance Aristotle is putting forward a claim which is disputable and has a truth value. If you find in your own notes that there is a claim which is disputable and has a truth value then this can be used to identify Aristotle’s propositions.

It’s important to note only that the statements have a truth value. You do not need to know what that value is. I might make a statement “There is a planet in the universe with 44 moons in orbit around it.” This statement is either true or false. I don’t know for sure if it’s true, as I have no knowledge of such a planet existing. Nor do I know it’s false, because it’s possible that the planet exists and has not been observed from Earth. The statement has a truth value though and could be used as a proposition in a valid (not necessarily sound) argument.

Likewise it must be disputable, but you may not choose to dispute it. I may make the statement “chocolate ice-cream tastes better than strawberry”, and you might all be inclined to agree, but the statement is still disputable. I might imagine someone making the counter statement (that strawberry is better than chocolate) and it wouldn’t inherently contradict itself. If on the other hand I say “the sun rises in the east and sets in the west” my statement is not disputable (or at least a lot less disputable). I cannot imagine someone making the claim “the sun does not rise in the east…” without contradicting an overwhelming mass of evidence. Though someone might be able to make this a dispute (by arguing for instance that the sun doesn’t truly rise, but is instead revealed by the rotation of the Earth – a semantic dispute) these ‘undisputable’ statements are usually observable ‘facts’.

Points 5 and 6 are not propositions but examples used to illustrate or clarify Aristotle’s point. Where you find these in your notes they will give a good indication of how Aristotle mounts his argument, but they are unlikely to be, in themselves, propositions. They are not disputable statements with truth-value.

Points 7 and 8 may be propositions, but Aristotle seems in these to be less sure of himself and the statements he’s making. This is an indication that these statements are derived from, or a result of, earlier statements. They are a part of how Aristotle progresses from his basis of assumption and observation through logic and rationalism, to a conclusion. For this reason I would be more likely to look for the supporting arguments and treat these as conclusions, or later premises in an argument.

From the list above then I may formulate an argument something like this:

P1: Moral virtues do not derive from nature

P2: Moral excellence is developed through custom

P3 (unstated): Customs are best developed in childhood

C: Being accustomed to virtue from childhood will lead to moral virtue

 

I think there are several issues with this argument, and I would like to develop it further, but as a starting point I think it sets out Aristotle’s first chapter of Book 2. He concludes that childhood is an important stage in developing the customs that will lead to moral virtue, and he supports this conclusion by delineating between the derivation from custom or nature. He makes the assumption that childhood is the best time to develop good customs fro practice and while I think that is an assumption I wouldn’t choose to dispute it (though I could imagine if another person wanted to they could).

 

Through this process I have analysed Aristotle’s argumentation and I have also started to critique. I am looking for his assumptions. I’m examining the propositions for the possible disputations and though for the sake of analysis I’m allowing Aristotle to make his arguments without dispute I will have, as a result of this examination, some ideas about which propositions are stronger and which weaker.

 

Independently:

For most (not all) chapters Aristotle argues toward a certain point that he wants that chapter to make. Try to find this in your chapter summaries and make this the conclusion of the argument in that chapter. Work backward from there to find the supporting arguments and determine that they are propositions (ie: disputable, and have a truth value). Set out an argument for each chapter where you find this pattern.

For each book you can undertake the same process on a larger scale. Generally Aristotle’s chapters are all working toward a conclusion which he draws in each book. Try to find this conclusion for book 1 and book 2 and work back through the supporting arguments. Remember that conclusions of previous arguments can be propositions in other, further arguments.

Reminder:

Remember that our focus in Term 1 is on reading, remembering and understanding. This work will help you understand Aristotle’s main points better by having you focus on his conclusions, arguments and propositions, but we will be spending the time we have together in Term 2 on analysis, comparison and critique so don’t be discouraged if this doesn’t fall immediately into place. B patient and be prepared to revisit this.

Over the weekend begin reading the prescribed sections of Neitzsche. The first lesson (50 mins or so) of next week will be contextualing Neitzsche before we begin our close reading of his work. There is a leap of several centuries between the works of Ancient Greece we’ve studied so far and Neitzsche and he’s not an easy philosopher to read. Preparation will be the key to success!