If your logic is slightly wrong, even one per cent wrong, you will end up completely lost fairly soon. Over time, your errors will compound and the consequences will eventually wipe you out. No one can escape the deleterious effects of a faulty logic.
There are three aspects that render Aristotelian logic vastly superior to other logical systems. For attaining success in your private and professional life, Aristotle’s logic is indispensable. Let us pass review at the three aspects that make it so effective.
First, Aristotelian logic relies on human perception. It does not need extrasensory inputs or religious insights to draw valid conclusions. It only needs facts or statements based on sensory data normally available to humans. That’s all it takes.
Syllogisms, the logical method devised by Aristotle, operate on two premises that share a middle term, which enables us to reach a conclusion; the premises might be perfectly accurate or rather imprecise. Yet, even in the worst cases, we can still draw a conclusion provided that the premises share a middle term.
The role of perception in Aristotle’s logic
The fact that Aristotelian logic works on human perception is crucial. Its importance should not be underestimated. In fact, catastrophic decisions are often the result of people discarding their own senses and invoking insights from a higher realm.
Ramon Llull (1232–1315) is to blame for having attacked and undermined this aspect of Aristotelian logic. Llull found it wrong that Aristotelian logic didn’t include mystical insights. It is a pity that his ideas gained traction in the early Renaissance and managed to confuse other philosophers.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) made things worse by inventing requirements that he wanted to add to everyday logic; his invented claims only created confusion and degraded the logical method devised by Aristotle.
According to Leibniz, there is a divine, pre-established link amongst all entities in the world. He claimed that such a link is mean to ensure harmonious relationships, synchronisation or at least coordination.
Leibniz never proved his assertion. All he did was to quote a few anecdotes from history. His claim that we live in the best possible world is obviously false and his mystical “harmonious relationships” is just fantasy. His delusions have nothing to do with logic.
Aristotelian logic suffered further attacks from the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who questioned the human capacity to draw valid conclusions.
According to Kant, it is impossible to attain certainty in any areas that aren’t directly related to human experience. Kant was of course speaking about religion; he wanted to leave Christian doctrine outside the realm of philosophical debate.
In contrast to Kant, Leibniz and Llull, Aristotle didn’t accept any limits to syllogisms. As long as something can be grasped or perceived, conclusions can be drawn. In the total absence of perception, we should conclude that something does not exist.
Problem solving by means of Aristotle’s logic
Second, Aristotelian logic focuses on workable solutions. It is not a pass-time for idle philosophers, but a method we need every single day. We need it to solve problems, make choices, and prevent disasters. Our conclusions don’t need to be perfect, only workable.
Rene Descartes (1586 -1650) showed a complete disregard for workable solutions by attacking Aristotle’s logic. He argued that Aristotle’s logic will lead to wrong conclusions if premises have not been previously proven true beyond any doubt.
With his criticism of Aristotelian logic, Descartes aimed at establishing true principles that would lead to true conclusions in every case. His goal was laudable, but his solution is worse, far worse than Aristotelian logic.
According to Descartes, one should meditate to find innate ideas that are absolutely true, uncorrupted by experience, so to speak. He claimed that self-perception is a primary truth upon which all further conclusions should rest.
I must say that Descartes is as absurd as it’s impractical; you can reach workable conclusions by using Aristotelian logic and make hundred decisions a day. Descartes’ proposal of building all conclusions on meditation insights doesn’t make any sense.
Aristotle’s logic and reasoning lead to consistency
The third superior aspect of Aristotle’s logic is that it leads to integrated views. Your conclusions in different fields can be combined and recombined, building knowledge and removing contradictions. The outcome will be automatically integrated.
Integration means a total absence of contradictions. It is the mark of truth in physics, mathematics, and ethics. Aristotelian logic is the tool enabling us to acquire integrated views.
In contrast, Descartes had attacked Aristotle’s logic because it does not rest on a mind-body dualism. Descartes demanded a logical method that took notice that “the mind and the body are distinct substances.”
Of course, such a logic doesn’t exist. Descartes was mixing religion and mysticism with everyday logic. Such combination is unworkable and would put us back in the Dark Ages. Who is interested in considering the mystical aspects of every decision when we need to make a hundred decisions each day?
Aristotle’s logic and reasoning are highly effective
John Locke (1632-1704) also undermined Aristotelian logic by asking to separate the primary from the secondary qualities of objects. According to Locke, only primary qualities, such as shape, are objective; he considered secondary qualities, such as colour, subjective.
Locke’s distinction is not only false, but misleading. What’s the point of his definition of secondary qualities. Does he mean that we cannot draw conclusions about colours, taste or beauty because every person is going to perceive those differently?
Aristotle must have turned in his grave upon hearing all the inane criticisms from Locke. Even if each person can perceive beauty differently, this doesn’t prevent us from using logic and arriving at workable conclusions.
The cosmetics and fashion industries prove Locke wrong on every count. Their success rests on the fact that individuals can figure out fairly well what others find beautiful, also including the colours and designs.
We need integrated views to conduct our lives effectively. It is unworkable to use logical methods that call for hair-splitting divisions. Aristotelian logic is superior to other logical systems because of it integrates knowledge fast and automatically.
If you are interested in how to apply Aristotle’s ideas day by day in all circumstances, I recommend you my book “Rational living, rational working”
Related articles
Critique of Aristotle’s theory of the prime mover
Aristotle’s theory of the prime mover
Morality in Aristotle’s teachings on logic and reasoning
Key ideas in Aristotle’s teachings on logic and reasoning