A Malebranche Quote for Consideration

[zippy2006]

Consider the bad-faith argumentation that PH has evidenced just in this thread:

But there's no way to go back to some naive realism. We know things aren't always as they appear. Better, we know that on some level things are not as they appear. More generally, we know there is so much we don't know. The cat's out the bag, and maybe that's a good thing.

We now live in a world where we have to make assumptions and we know it. You know it.

I think the intellectually honest position is to admit that...

I sense from the replies this is an uncomfortable place for some. I get it, and if holding on to one position instead of another makes things better, good.

This is all subtle or not-so-subtle sneering, and you will hardly find a single one of his posts which lacks this sort of nonsense. It is the rhetorical sophistry that Plato so opposed. (The comment about Aquinas being a naive realist was also, of course, meant to goad.)

Now, to be fair, PH has offered arguments too, and more than usual, even if much if it is just recycled propaganda. I credit Templar's candor, and I almost regret intervening. For example, he provides a definition of direct realism:

What makes it direct realism is that the forms guarantee unmediated knowledge of reality.

Do the forms guarantee unmediated knowledge of reality for Aristotle or Aquinas? No, of course not, but at least PH gave a definition.

 

[zippy2006]

Well, I definitely WASN'T psychologizing. You should give me more credit than that.

I was only illustrating the genre of second-order relativization.

I'm pretty sure that Philosophical Hermeneuticists don't rely on Descartes; in fact, there is some small flavor of existentialism within a confluence of other epistemic nuances ........

"[hermeneutics] has a Cartesian flavor, insofar as it implies that one must achieve an optimal hermeneutical stance before one can move forward and come to knowledge..."

The point is that, on a prima facie reading of Descartes, you've gotta have all your skeptical ducks in a row before you are qualified to engage in knowledge claims. The way you talk about hermeneutics, I am led to believe that you've gotta have all your hermeneutical ducks in a row before you are qualified to engage in knowledge claims. So whereas the Cartesian would have recourse to skepticism and doubt in response to any knowledge claim, the hermeneuticist would have recourse to hermeneutical qualifications in response to any knowledge claim, and this is in fact what you seem to do. It is the first thing you always reach for in response to any argument.

My point--and this dovetails with some of what I said about Foundationalism--is that I think "less preparation is required, especially when talking with those who come from different traditions." If we choose to conceive of argument or dialogue on a military analogy, then it's not true that each side needs to muster up all of the possible forces at their disposal, and then proceed to fight an all-out war. We don't have to provide a bibliography of all of our various sources and hermeneutical paradigms before we can have a chat on the internet. Indeed, this whole notion is misplaced insofar as the "mustering" begs the question of what must be mustered. The Cartesian thinks we must muster skepticism and you think we must muster hermeneutics, and "never the twain shall meet." Interminable debates of foundational principles is one of the basic problems of postmodernism.

"Less preparation is required." As Aristotle says, we start with what is better known to us, not what is better known in some "objective" sense. If any progress is to be made then we cannot fuss all day about marshaling all of our epistemological horses and sources, nor devolve into interminable debates about the proper foundational key. This is misguided even at a professional level, but especially at the level of a low-level theology forum. Instead we just launch into a skirmish and let the "hermeneutical" and "skeptical" and "foundational" pieces fall where they may. We abandon undue self-consciousness, pick a line of argument, and pursue it. We find something in our interlocutor's post to develop or critique, and then we develop or critique it. Undue preoccupation with any foundational principle, whether it be skepticism or hermeneutics or metaphysics, ends up assuming that there is a divine mountain to be climbed with a "God's-eye view" that can be achieved, from which we survey the landscape with perfect objectivity. Scrap such a notion, at least in the short term. As Aristotle was well aware, even if such a thing can be achieved, it can only be achieved step by step, switchback by switchback, skirmish by skirmish, all the while engaging with people who do and do not share one's own presuppositions and conception of the proper foundation.

(And, thinking of a different poster, excising 2,000 years of philosophy as "naive" and gaslighting anyone who disagrees as "intellectually dishonest" and "emotionally uncomfortable" is a particularly pernicious form of gatekeeping and failing to engage diverse points of view.)

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, the "naive" in "naive realism" is either 1) a pejorative epithet, or 2) a synonym for "pre-critical." The realism of pre-moderns is obviously not pre-critical, for as @FireDragon76 noted, critiques of realism are age-old. PH was clearly using it in sense (1), as in, "We can't go back to naive realism..."

PH was engaged in name-calling, which, again, is not an argument. Just as no one calls themselves naive, so no one calls themselves a naive realist. To call someone or something naive is a disparaging comment, not an argument, and certainly not philosophy. Now we can spend all day trying to walk back PH's silly comments and claims, like we did at the beginning of this thread, or we can just move on and engage with more serious interlocutors. I suggest the latter.

I don't see anything in Aquinas' to suggest he wasn't a naive realist, or seriously engaged with those that were not (how could he, most of the philosophers that were non-realists would have been unknown to him, or weren't part of the Neo-Platonic/Aristotilian orbit). Dressing it up in scholasticism doesn't change that. He assumes that because God exists, he can directly know the essence of things. An assumption that thinkers like Occam and Kant were right to challenge.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, the underlying problem here is the dogmatism of the person who starts out conversations with sly accusations of naivete, and this is reflective of the dogmatism represented by modern forms of thought (which have hounded Christianity from the beginning). This is in large part what postmodernism is reacting against.

Yes, I know all of that all too well. But, on some points, Modernists do have some qualified points. Not as many as I think they think they have, but they do have some points. Some of their points, even those of the atheists, are mine as well, but what happens usually is that I get roundly ignored, dismissed, face-palmed and/or placed into the proverbial ghetto of "those who OBVIOUSLY don't know."

The real problem is that whether "I" KNOW or not the functional, logical structures of some argument, what's really going on when folks get frustrated with me is that they're bashing their foreheads against much that exudes from my own degrees and a LEGION of scholars whom many if not most folks on CF apparently have never heard of. So, it's not me you're getting frustrated with. It's my sources. I mean, there is a reason I listed a few dozen of my formative sources on my CF page. That's part of my "set of presuppositions," if someone wants to call it that.

I'm just tired of bad-faith interlocutors who start out a conversation in such a way, and then immediately go on to play the victim. This thread is the first time I have engaged Templar in any real way. I disagreed with him, we had a discussion, and it came to a resolution. Neither of us fell into ad hominem or system-bashing, and we certainly didn't begin on such a note. What passes for rational thought these days is often little more than ego jockeying. It's smug and dumb.

OR maybe, like you------and like me-------------, PH has been going through a difficult time in his life these past few years in having lost his dad whom he dearly loves, has things in his life to work through, and he generally loves people. But the difference is that, at the moment, PH considers Universalism to be his "answer." It just so happens that it's not your answer. And then you guys run into to me and don't know what to do with what I offer since I consider Ultra-Disambiguation to be my answer----exclusivism or universalism both barely register with me as live issues until all the other conceptual work has been done.

Maybe if you stop berating PH, you guys could get along? OR is your---and Simon Templar's----Roman Catholic dogmatism just too staunch for that? I mean, you guys should be glad that PH is here and even still holding the line for Christ.

As for me, you should be on your knees thanking God that I'm even a Christian at all, because if I wasn't, I'd be worse than the typical atheists ....

So, when I ask a legitimate question, one that springs from a different praxis than your own, I expect a answer, one without all of the smug B.S. that so often goes with it!!!! Otherwise, I suspect unjustified dogmatism to be lying beneath it all. And if there's one thing I can't stand, from anyone, whether Christians or Atheist, is dogmatism and cheap deductive assumptions at the titular head of their own praxis. I'm here to burn those with things with fire. Yes, I am. I'm going to melt them. And if it falls, then it falls.....

And yeah, as for Aristotle, he should have thought harder on the "what is a slave?" question. I guess he got too tied down by his love for the Law of Non-Contradiction to figure it out. And while we're at it, I'm wondering just what it was about "slaves" that he taught Alexander the Great and that the Antebellum American "South" thought was so great in his thinking that it helped to perpetuate slavery in America?

And no, my avatar isn't currently "Luther."

 

[zippy2006]

OR maybe, like you------and like me-------------, PH has been going through a difficult time in his life these past few years in having lost his dad whom he dearly loves, has things in his life to work through

I'm sorry to hear that, and perhaps it is a legitimate excuse for the bad-faith argumentation that comes out. I will go easier on him, but I still don't think it fully excuses such things.

But the difference is that, at the moment, PH considers Universalism to be his "answer." It just so happens that it's not your answer.

This has nothing to do with Universalism. I don't know why you always revert to that. It is about this.

And if there's one thing I can't stand, from anyone, whether Christians or Atheist, is dogmatism and cheap deductive assumptions at the titular head of their own praxis. I'm here to burn those with things with fire. Yes, I am. I'm going to melt them. And if it falls, then it falls.....

Philo, you have abundant dogmatism. Abundant. You call it "hermeneutics," and anyone who does not recognize it is not recognized. See #122.

And yeah, as for Aristotle, he should have thought harder on the "what is a slave?" question. I guess he got too tied down by his love for the Law of Non-Contradiction to figure it out.

Give me a break, man. You've never read Aristotle. You're parroting canards. You're adverting to dogmatism. Go read Aristotle's arguments on slavery. Actually read them. I dare you. I will even defend them if you think they are beyond the pale. No one who has read the arguments entertains the silly canards.

 

[zippy2006]

I don't see anything in Aquinas' to suggest he wasn't a naive realist

Well I suppose we could have a short discussion on this, but first you would need to define what you mean by naive realism. Before doing that, I would suggest reading post #88 and the source linked there.

He assumes that because God exists, he can directly know the essence of things. An assumption that thinkers like Occam and Kant were right to challenge.

Claims like these strike me about the same way as claims that the ancients thought the Earth was flat. I want to ask for a source, but I know that request probably won't be fulfilled. Still, I am legitimately curious to know how ideas such as these end up in people's heads.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm sorry to hear that, and perhaps it is a legitimate excuse for the bad-faith argumentation that comes out. I will go easier on him, but I still don't think it fully excuses such things.

You don't get to define a "bad-faith" argument.

This has nothing to do with Universalism. I don't know why you always revert to that. It is about this.

The rhetoric employed by PH isn't caustic at all as far as I'm concerned. He's barely even critical and you seem to take offense at the slightest thing if there's even a HINT that it is a rhetorical flourish seemingly aimed at Roman Catholic doctrine.

Maybe lighten up a little. (?) Because if you can't, I definitely won't.

Philo, you have abundant dogmatism. Abundant. You call it "hermeneutics," and anyone who does not recognize it is not recognized. See #122.

We're obviously having some perlocution problems here, Zippy. ... let's play pin the tail on the donkey as to WHICH denotation of "dogmatic" you think I was referring to.

Give me a break, man. You've never read Aristotle. You're parroting canards. You're adverting to dogmatism. Go read Aristotle's arguments on slavery. Actually read them. I dare you. I will even defend them if you think they are beyond the pale. No one who has read the arguments entertains the silly canards.

You're absolutely right. I haven't read a complete work of Aristotle, just selected "bits" from The Politics.

And likewise, I'm sure you haven't read a lot of what I've read. So, it is what it is. You have your [SET] of books and learning, and I have my [SET] of books and learning ..............................

The way some of you Roman Catholics and Protestants argue, it's no wonder there was a 30 years war ............................................ and you can take that any way you want. I've about had enough of trying to align with every other Christian Tom, Dick and Scary. I'm done trying to accommodate "fellow Trinitarian Christians." Fortunately, I don't have to worry about the repercussions like Copernicus or Galileo did, (or that Servetu did, for that matter, showing the sort of instance where Protestants can be blamed too).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well I suppose we could have a short discussion on this, but first you would need to define what you mean by naive realism. Before doing that, I would suggest reading post #88 and the source linked there.


Claims like these strike me about the same way as claims that the ancients thought the Earth was flat. I want to ask for a source, but I know that request probably won't be fulfilled. Still, I am legitimately curious to know how ideas such as these end up in people's heads.

Most people today are referencing "naive realism" along these lines:

Naïve realism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Naïve Realism

"Naïve Realism" published on by null.

www.oxfordbibliographies.com

​

The Problem of Perception (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Summer 2020 Edition)

plato.stanford.edu

My own copy of The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy doesn't indicate anything different that these sources.

 

[zippy2006]

You don't get to define a "bad-faith" argument.

I don't need to. The comments speak for themselves.

Consider: "We can't go back to the outdated Philosophical Hermeneutics. We now live in a world where that position is wrong, and we know it. You know it. I think the intellectually honest position is to admit that we have to let it go. The cat's out of the bag, and maybe that's a good thing. I sense from the replies this is an uncomfortable place for some. I get it, and if holding on to one position instead of another makes things better and easier for the person who still holds to Philosophical Hermeneutics, then maybe that's what they should do."

You're absolutely right. I haven't read a complete work of Aristotle, just selected "bits" from The Politics.

And likewise, I'm sure you haven't read a lot of what I've read. So, it is what it is. You have your [SET] of books and learning, and I have my [SET] of books and learning ..............................

And the difference is that I don't criticize and mock things I have no knowledge of, especially when my interlocutor holds it to be worthwhile. That's a big difference. I don't go out of my way to take a crap on the equivalent of Aristotle, or Aquinas, or Roman Catholicism, or whatever else my interlocutor finds to be worthwhile. I'm not even sure what a person takes themselves to be doing when they engage in that sort of thing.

The real problem is that whether "I" KNOW or not the functional, logical structures of some argument, what's really going on when folks get frustrated with me is that they're bashing their foreheads against much that exudes from my own degrees and a LEGION of scholars whom many if not most folks on CF apparently have never heard of. So, it's not me you're getting frustrated with. It's my sources. I mean, there is a reason I listed a few dozen of my formative sources on my CF page. That's part of my "set of presuppositions," if someone wants to call it that.

Everyone has lots of sources. No one is going to read everyone else's sources. See #122.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't need to. The comments speak for themselves.

Nothing really or fully "speaks for itself." That rhetorical maneuver is a cop-out.

And the difference is that I don't criticize and mock things I have no knowledge of, especially when my interlocutor holds it to be worthwhile. That's a big difference. I don't go out of my way to take a crap on the equivalent of Aristotle, or Aquinas, or Roman Catholicism, or whatever else my interlocutor finds to be worthwhile. I'm not even sure what a person takes themselves to be doing when they engage in that sort of thing.

Sometimes, the Genetic Fallacy isn't wholly a fallacy. It's not my fault if the Antebellum South referenced the ancient Greeks as a source for "why" to continue to promote their views on slavery. Aristotle just happened to be one of them. And anyone who reads his The Politics can see "why."

Everyone has lots of sources. No one is going to read everyone else's sources. See #122.

Then you're not in a good spot to pontificate that another person's critiques of your own view are completely wrong-headed, are you? You see, that's why I keep harping on the limits of my own knowledge. I take it as axiomatic that I don't know everything. And this comes glong with my view that where the Christian Faith is concerned, it's all fragmentary and no one denomination holds all of the epistemic cards where connection to God in Christ is of central value.

 

[FireDragon76]

Most people today are referencing "naive realism" along these lines:

Naïve realism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Naïve Realism

"Naïve Realism" published on by null.

www.oxfordbibliographies.com

​

The Problem of Perception (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Summer 2020 Edition)

plato.stanford.edu

My own copy of The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy doesn't indicate anything different that these sources.

Aquinas's explanation of the Eucharist seems contingent on that sort of metaphysics.

I myself am more inclined towards subjective idealism or dual-aspect monism (C.S. Lewis was also a subjective idealist, to give an example... a great many of the Inklings were also).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Aquinas's explanation of the Eucharist seems contingent on that sort of metaphysics.

I myself am more inclined towards subjective idealism or dual-aspect monism (C.S. Lewis was also a subjective idealist, to give an example... a great many of the Inklings were also).

Well, you likely know more than I do since, honestly, I've read little of Aquinas.

 

[zippy2006]

Nothing really or fully "speaks for itself." That rhetorical maneuver is a cop-out.

Consider: "We can't go back to the outdated Philosophical Hermeneutics. We now live in a world where that position is wrong, and we know it. You know it. I think the intellectually honest position is to admit that we have to let it go. The cat's out of the bag, and maybe that's a good thing. I sense from the replies this is an uncomfortable place for some. I get it, and if holding on to one position instead of another makes things better and easier for the person who still holds to Philosophical Hermeneutics, then maybe that's what they should do."

Sometimes, the Genetic Fallacy isn't wholly a fallacy. It's not my fault if the Antebellum South referenced the ancient Greeks as a source for "why" to continue to promote their views on slavery. Aristotle just happened to be one of them. And anyone who reads his The Politics can see "why."

"That rhetorical maneuver is a cop-out." You're not engaging in argument here. You're trying to justify fallacious reasoning and guilt by association. I already invited you to read Aristotle and argue your points, so to continue with this sort of propaganda is increasingly problematic. Do you want to do some philosophy or are you just going to continue taking fallacious craps on Aristotle?

Then you're not in a good spot to pontificate that another person's critiques of your own view are completely wrong-headed, are you?

As Templar pointed out, there are no critiques in sight. For example, a genetic fallacy is not a critique. Guilt by association is not a critique. "Old, therefore wrong," is not a critique. Lewis' "Chronological snobbery" is still the start and end of the responses.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Consider: "We can't go back to the outdated Philosophical Hermeneutics. We now live in a world where that position is wrong, and we know it. You know it. I think the intellectually honest position is to admit that we have to let it go. The cat's out of the bag, and maybe that's a good thing. I sense from the replies this is an uncomfortable place for some. I get it, and if holding on to one position instead of another makes things better and easier for the person who still holds to Philosophical Hermeneutics, then maybe that's what they should do."

Do you even know the "first thing" about Philosophical Hermeneutics? What 'bits' of it have you read, at the very least?

"That rhetorical maneuver is a cop-out." You're not engaging in argument here. You're trying to justify fallacious reasoning and guilt by association. I already invited you to read Aristotle and argue your points, so to continue with this sort of propaganda is increasingly problematic. Do you want to do some philosophy or are you just going to continue taking fallacious craps on Aristotle?

Yes, I am engaging in argument, it's just not the form or style you prefer.

Aristotle was wrong on one point, that of the nature of slaves. It doesn't imply that I'm somehow insisting he was wrong about everything he talked about. Just like how Pascal was weak on his Wager, it doesn't mean every other point he made was weak (or the one that I think is most relevant in his point of view----even his Jansenist view, which I don't adhere to in the least).

So, stop the crocodile tears if someone like myself comes along and shines a light on a chink in the armor of Aristotle, or that of anyone else. It should be expected that we ALL have chinks in our epistemic armor, which is, as I've already mentioned, my only real axiom.

As Templar pointed out, there are no critiques in sight. For example, a genetic fallacy is not a critique. Guilt by association is not a critique. "Old, therefore wrong," is not a critique.

You're missing the point. It's almost like you don't think in connotations, but only in directly stated inferences. Surely, you're not like that. We don't want to be circumscribed by a purely Deductive approach to the Christian Faith. There's a lot of Induction and Abduction to bring into it all as well.

 

[zippy2006]

Do you even know the "first thing" about Philosophical Hermeneutics? What 'bits' of it have you read, at the very least?

Was the quoted a good-faith argument? Is that how I should engage you on the topic? If you complain when someone speaks to you that way, is the problem that, "You don't think in connotations?"

Yes, I am engaging in argument, it's just not the form or style you prefer.

Aristotle was wrong on one point, that of the nature of slaves.

I invited you to engage in some real argument, which would require reading Aristotle on slavery. Dismissing something you haven't read is prejudice, not argument. That was an open invitation, by the way. You are always welcome to read Aristotle on slavery and see what he actually said.

So, stop the crocodile tears if someone like myself comes along and shines and light on a chink in the armor of Aristotle, or that of anyone else.

You bashed Aristotle, I claimed that you haven't read him, and then you admitted that you haven't read him (except for small parts of the Politics). That's not "shining a light on a chink in the armor of Aristotle." In order to do that you would have to actually engage him.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Was the quoted a good-faith argument? Is that how I should engage you on the topic? If you complain when someone speaks to you that way, is the problem that, "You don't think in connotations?"

It depends on what the semantic incursion implies. Sometimes I'll react to those who seem over-confident of their position; and there are some times when I won't react and rather entreat because I sense that a person really just doesn't know what they're talking about.

And yes, I'm purposefully inconsisent like that.

I invited you to engage in some real argument, which would require reading Aristotle on slavery. Dismissing something you haven't read is prejudice, not argument. That was an open invitation, by the way. You are always welcome to read Aristotle on slavery and see what he actually said.

And I told you I have read a portion of The Politics. You apparently don't believe. Do you want to now talk about what Aristotle said about slavery in Book I ???? Do you also want to talk about how Antebellum Southerners of a certain sort saw all too clearly what Plato and Aristotle were saying and added that into their own slavery apologetics?

You bashed Aristotle, I claimed that you haven't read him, and then you admitted that you haven't read him (except for small parts of the Politics). That's not "shining a light on a chink in the armor of Aristotle." In order to do that you would have to actually engage him.

Sometimes, one doesn't have to read a whole treatise when a professor points out a chink in that author's armor. So, you can thank one of my atheistic professors who had us read Books 1 and 3 of The Politics and held that as a discussion in our Social Philosophy class.

So yes, I've read that .... small..... bit. And I've also read historical bits about Aristotle.

 

[zippy2006]

And I told you I have read a portion of The Politics. You apparently don't believe. Do you want to now talk about what Aristotle said about slavery in Book I ????

I want you to offer an argument for why Aristotle was wrong about slavery, which would require engaging his actual work.

...Or if you don't want to do that, then fine, whatever. My point is that broad-brushing or dismissing things without giving them a hearing is not an act of integrity. I think Aristotle's slavery provides a ready example, an opportunity for you to recognize some erroneous personal prejudice. But if you don't want to do that, then again, so be it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I want you to offer an argument for why Aristotle was wrong about slavery, which would require engaging his actual work.

...Or if you don't want to do that, then fine, whatever. My point is that broad-brushing or dismissing things without giving them a hearing is not an act of integrity. I think Aristotle's slavery provides a ready example, an opportunity for you to recognize some erroneous personal prejudice. But if you don't want to do that, then again, so be it.

Shall we begin with his analytic method, where he says in Book 1,

"But all this is a mistake; for governments differ in kind, as will be evident to any one who considers the matter according to the method which has hitherto guided us. As in other departments of science, so in politics, the compound should always be resolved into the simple elements or least parts of the whole. We must therefore look at the elements of which the state is composed, in order that we may se in what they differ from one another, and whether any scientific distinction can be drawn between the different kinds of rule."​

Ok. So, Aristotle, sought to use his science to analyze and bring out what he thought were discernibly constituent parts or aspects of society and government in order to delineate differences between forms of government. At this point in his thought, he seems to be working up toward a taxonomy of the government forms of his time in relation to what he though was "the Good." For the moment, his goal is neither here nor there where the nature of slaves is concerned. I'm simply pointing out that he thinks he can use his 'science' to delineate clearly and objectively the nature of roles within the "natural state." As if slavery is "natural."

At this point, what sort of science is Aristotle prepared to use in order to delineate this? Is it one of induction or one of deduction? He seems to think that political science is akin to the structures of natural science. I'd beg to differ on that point alone before moving on to the substance of what he argued about the nature and place of slaves in society.

So, Zippy, since you're the expert on Aristotle, do you want to chime in and offer me some helpful insight as to the form of logic and science Aristotle was using? I keep coming across sources that say, or even insist, that Aristotle was stuck on 'deductive reasoning' only rather than the focus on Induction that came after Francis Bacon. Is this true? If it is, I have to wonder about exactly 'how' Aristotle knew what the nature of a slave was and/or could ONLY be in distinction to those persons who are, by nature, "masters."

 

[zippy2006]

I keep coming across sources that say, or even insist, that Aristotle was stuck on 'deductive reasoning' only rather than the focus on Induction that came after Francis Bacon. Is this true?

I will come back to this, but in a word, no. There is a large body of literature on Aristotle's approach to inductive reasoning (epagoge). For something of a primer, you could skim "The Nature and Origin of Ideas," or else have a look at the SEP or IEP articles on Aristotle's logic, which include parts on induction.

Else, here is an interesting review of a book by a recent scholar who thinks Aristotle's theory of induction is better than anything out of the modern period: An Aristotelian Account of Induction.

 

[zippy2006]

Ok. So, Aristotle, sought to use his science to analyze and bring out what he thought were discernibly constituent parts or aspects of society and government in order to delineate differences between forms of government. At this point in his thought, he seems to be working up toward a taxonomy of the government forms of his time in relation to what he though was "the Good." For the moment, his goal is neither here nor there where the nature of slaves is concerned.

Yes, that seems right to me. Good analysis.

At this point, what sort of science is Aristotle prepared to use in order to delineate this? Is it one of induction or one of deduction?

I assume you are asking about delineating "differences between forms of government." Generally speaking Aristotle will move between induction and deduction. We know that he studied and analyzed actual regimes that existed in his own day as well as prior to him. He inevitably brought his biological science into the social sphere, studying human relations in a similar way that he studied animal relations. He obviously goes on to begin chapter 2 by arguing about the natural way that a society grows or develops, beginning with relationships of dependence.

I keep coming across sources that say, or even insist, that Aristotle was stuck on 'deductive reasoning' only rather than the focus on Induction that came after Francis Bacon. Is this true? If it is, I have to wonder about exactly 'how' Aristotle knew what the nature of a slave was and/or could ONLY be in distinction to those persons who are, by nature, "masters."

This is interesting to me. I think it is well known that Aristotle spoke and wrote about induction. The IEP article seems to give a good overview of Aristotle's inductive reasoning, including the way that Aristotle's deductive/inductive distinction is different from the current deductive/inductive distinction. Regarding induction, I generally hold to the view of the school to which Groarke belongs (see the book review from my previous post). Note that Groarke specifically says that we must go back behind the modern tradition, which is exactly what PH denies. This is not an uncommon opinion, and many prominent recent philosophers have been Aristotelians or else strongly indebted to Aristotle (Fine, Anscombe, Foot, Nussbaum, Adler, Whitehead, Hare, Austine, MacIntyre, to name just a few).

If you like I can literally send you a long thesis on the study of "experience," the prerequisite of induction, as analyzed in Aristotle and the Thomistic appropriation of Aristotle.