The choice of a method in logic determines all other choices in your life. It determines the scope and depth of your thinking, your concept of happiness, your drive and your steadfastness.
In contrast to other systems of logic, the one delineated by Aristotle (384-322 BC) understands the importance of purpose and gives a central role in how conclusions are drawn.
When looking at entities and events, Aristotelian logic is not only asking how or why. It looks beyond the obvious and aims at clarifying the context.
In his work “Metaphysics,” Aristotle recommended to study entities and events by looking at their constituent ingredients (“material cause”), at their shape (“formal cause”), at the force that moves them (“efficient cause”) and especially at their goal (“final cause”).
The middle term in Aristotle’s logic
The latter element constitutes a unique characteristic of the Aristotelian method of logic. When you draw conclusions from premises, you employ a middle term. You employ an element that is shared by both premises, a key element that stands “in the middle,” so to speak.
However, the middle term is not always easy to find. This is where Aristotle’s theory of causality comes to help. By looking at the material, formal, efficient, and final cause, you will stand much better chances of finding the middle term.
In ethical or moral questions, Aristotle gave heavier weight to the final cause, that is, to the purpose. It’s wise to investigate someone’s motivation and intentions before passing judgement on his actions.
The final cause in Aristotle’s logic and reasoning
Humans don’t function like machines. We are not robots that carry out a program without asking themselves any questions. I regard Aristotelian logic as vastly superior to all others because it places so much emphasis on understanding the purpose.
Unfortunately, after Aristotle’s death, most logicians lost all interest in investigating the final cause; logic became ritualistic and formulaic. It was all about connecting A to B as quickly as possible, without having grasped the underlying motivation.
Rene Descartes (1586 -1650) favoured mechanistic views in the study of natural phenomena. Things just happened and it is useless to ask oneself what for, he claimed; there is no purpose involve, only an interaction of forces and chemical elements.
Due to his narrow perspective, it’s no wonder that Descartes failed to connect logic and ethics. He didn’t see any connection between weather, agriculture, politics and economics. His view on human motivation are as delusional as his philosophy.
Aristotle’s logic and Leibniz’ principle of sufficient reason
Five decades later, the German thinker Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) went to the other extreme, and arbitrarily asserted that every entity and event have a reason for existing.
In his book “Theodicy” published in 1710, Leibniz baptised his theory “the principle of sufficient reason.” It called for each of us to accept without question everything that happens in the world because all events are driven by higher designs.
There is a sufficient reason for every event, claimed Leibniz in his book. Even if the event is a disaster of major proportions that harms many people, we should accept it without passing judgement.
Leibniz’ doctrine is patently absurd and aims at invalidating the ethical aspects in Aristotelian logic. Instead of using logic to find the path to happiness (as Aristotle advised), Leibniz is telling us that the search for happiness is pointless, that there is no path, and that you should just shut up and take no action.
Aristotle’s logic and Frege’s quantification
It is important to note that you cannot recover the moral link in Aristotelian logic once you remove it. If you discard ethics and reduce logic to mathematics, you will decouple logic from reality.
Logicians such as Gottlob Frege (1848-1925) committed the error of turning syllogisms into mathematical formulae. Their call for adding quantifiers, variables and derivatives looks very scientific, but deprives Aristotelian logic of its original speed, purpose, and practicality.
While Aristotle emphasised purpose (“final cause”) in major decisions, Frege emphasised quantification. Intend of focusing on happiness (as Aristotle did), Frege focused on precision. His mathematical formulae fill volumes, but render logic useless in real life.
“The purpose of wisdom is to difference between good and evil,” wrote Aristotle in his “Nicomachean Ethics.” We should keep this purpose in mind when studying logic, and steer away from mathematical delusions that are only suitable for robots.
If you are interested in applying Aristotelian principles to overcoming obstacles, I recommend you my book “Thriving in difficult times.”
Related articles
Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature
Critique of Aristotle’s theory of the prime mover
Aristotle’s theory of the prime mover
The superiority of Aristotle’s teachings on logic and reasoning