The philosophical innovations brought forth by Aristotle (384-322 BC) are momentous, truly revolutionary, specially in the field of logic. His identification of a precise method (which he called syllogism) to reach accurate conclusions allowed, for the first time in history, to conduct rational debates.
Modern civilization is built on the pillars of Aristotle’s logic and the enemies of civilization know that it can be undermined by severing those pillars. Without well-defined rules of logic, a rational discussion becomes impossible and anything goes.
Unfortunately, history has generated many crusaders against Aristotelian logic. The damage they’ve inflicted on civilization is proportional to the extent of their popularity. The confusion they have created is proportional to how far they’ve twisted the works of Aristotle.
Descartes against Aristotle’s philosophy of logic
The French philosopher Rene Descartes (1596–1650) made vast efforts to undermine Aristotelian logic. In his book titled “Meditations on First Philosophy” from 1841, Descartes gives long arguments in favour of subjective introspection; he speaks in favour of finding the truth in pure abstractions.
Descartes’ proposal, if taken seriously, would lead to a chain of deductions (without any empirical data) from essential ideas that philosophers have identified through introspection.
Thankfully, Descartes devoted the following decades of his life to mathematics, geometry and astronomy, instead of trying to spread his philosophical delusions. His logic makes no sense and does not refute Aristotle’s in any way.
John Locke against Aristotle’s philosophy of logic
A second crusader against Aristotelian logic is John Locke (1632–1704). His “Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” published ion 1690, summarizes his views on logic.
Locke did not directly attack Aristotle, but emphasised the use of experiments to reach accurate conclusions. Observation, trial and error are supposed to open our eyes to the truth.
However, Locked fails the explain how to determine which experiments to conduct, how to define a control group and how to assess the outcome of those experiments.
The answer is obvious and Locked should have seen it right away. Without Aristotelian logic, there is no way to conduct or assess experience; there is not way to determine which array of experiments is relevant and to which extent.
Without syllogisms, rational debate becomes impossible. If you perform experiment after experiment, you are not going to arrive at the truth by trial and error. You’ll need to analyse data rationally and, for that, you require Aristotelian logic.
Kant against Aristotle’s philosophy of logic
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is by far the most virulent crusader against Aristotle’s logic. Kantian logic undermines the basic principle of Aristotle’s philosophy, namely, that human beings are defined by their rationality and that this is their natural method for identifying truth.
In his “Critique of Pure Reason,” published in 1781, Kant is stating that human reason revolves around a limited number of categories (time, space, causality, etc.) and that any knowledge accumulation must built on those categories.
Kant is thereby undermining Aristotle’s reliance on general human reason. If you limit human reason to a narrow, closed, predefined list of categories, you are also limiting creativity, ambition, and innovation.
Aristotle regarded syllogisms as general tools for gathering knowledge. Their field of application was unlimited, and there are no restrictions for combining syllogisms and build complex chains of arguments.
Kantian logic is reducing human reason to a small fraction of its capabilities. It is circumscribing the role of philosophy to a narrow parcel devoid of practical interest.
By reducing debates to games of basic categories, Kant was also decoupling logic from ethics.
Categorical imperatives against Aristotle’s philosophy of logic
Aristotle had constructed an ethical system that was tightly integrated with syllogistic logic. His ethical goal was happiness and virtues constituted logically devised habits leading to happiness.
In contrast, Kant made a mess of ethics in his “Critique of Practical Reason,” published in 1788; even the title of the book is misleading because Kant’s proposals are totally impractical.
Instead of proposing an ethical system based on happiness, as Aristotle had done, Kant argues that ethics should consist of “categorical imperatives” identified by philosophers. Those are supposed to be applicable to everybody in all circumstances. In no way did Kant explain why on earth should everybody obey those imperatives if they do not lead to happiness.
In view of the vast confusion created by those crusaders, it’s highly important to restate the validity of Aristotelian logic. Do not be fooled by copious essays about introspection, wisdom, empiricism, and categorical imperatives.
If you are interested in how to apply Aristotelian ideas to all kind of situations, I recommend you my book “Asymmetry: The shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”
Related articles
The superiority of Aristotle’s teachings on logic and reasoning
Key ideas in Aristotle’s teachings on logic and reasoning
Aristotle’s teachings on logic and reasoning
Cultural impact of Aristotle’s philosophy of logic