The philosophy of logic and reason developed by Aristotle (384-322 BC) is different from computer logic, religious logic, and other types of logic that have existed in history. There are three distinct features that render Aristotelian logic unique. I’m going to present those three features, one by one.
First, Aristotelian logic is linked to language. In would even specify that it is linked to human language. Humans have ways of thinking that are very different from those of computers. We can place statements in a psychological or ethical context, and draw extremely accurate conclusions from sketchy evidence.
The fact that Aristotelian logic is based on human language should be regarded as a strength, not as a weakness. I certainly do not share the views of Ramon Llull (1232–1315) who wrote a complete treatise (“Ars Magna”) favouring a non-ambiguous system of logic based on quasi-mathematical formulae.
Aristotle’s logic employs natural language
Llull was attacking the imprecision of Aristotelian logic; his argument is that human language is often imprecise and cannot be trusted. Llull proposed to replace language with an array of symbols similar to today’s commands in computer programs.
If we follow Llull’s proposal, we would reduce the areas in which logic can be used. Llull’s proposal would cut down by ninety per cent the fields where logic is currently applied. Why on earth would anybody want to do that?
Even if the remaining ten per cent of conclusions becomes perfectly exact, the loss is huge. How are we supposed to make decisions in everyday life without logic? Llull was naïve in his belief that, by eliminating natural language, he would improve the situation.
Aristotle’s logic can work with imprecise inputs
Second, human logic can deal with imprecisions. Aristotle’s method of drawing conclusions is nothing but a mirror of how the human mind works. It is the way we formulate conclusions hundred times a day. We automatically compare, combine, and re-combine facts to guide our actions in all circumstances.
In most cases, we don’t need precise facts or conclusions. A cook can vary the recipe and still prepare a tasty dish. Lawyers can draw up contracts by using different wordings to the same effect. Chess players can invert the order of their moves, but still arrive at the same position.
Unless you are working in fields like micro-electronics, you might not need high precision in your decisions and actions. If life requires high precision only occasionally, it does not make sense to worry when you don’t know the perfect answer.
Llull was wrong in criticising Aristotle’s logic for its lack of precision because that’s how human beings operate. It wouldn’t make sense to deploy massive efforts to cook a perfect dish or draw a perfect contract.
Aristotle’s logic does not need mathematical transcriptions
In real life, an obsession with perfection is anti-economical, irrational and counterproductive more often than not. Llull was demanding perfect precision in every conclusion, twenty-four hours a day. Nobody can do that and nobody cares to do that. It is just a pointless intellectual game.
Unfortunately, Rene Descartes (1586 -1650) reproduced all the mistakes made by Ramon Llull; he disliked the Aristotelian tradition because of its lack of rigour and proposed instead that logic should be based on mathematics.
Unsurprisingly, Descartes’ mathematical logic has failed to attract supporters amongst the general public. Can you imagine if you had to transcribe mathematically every fact or statement before reaching a conclusion? That would be unworkable.
Aristotle’s logic is contextual
Third, human logic is contextual. It is designed to arrive fast at conclusions and solutions without having to understand each element of the universe. The context will determine how much effort and care you should devote to a problem.
Llull never understood this aspect of Aristotelian logic. His view is that every conclusion should build on prior conclusions and generate general principles that can be reused in the future.
This type of criticism shows that Llull had good intentions, but lacked experience in agricultural, industry or commerce. He wanted a perfect logic that produces perfect principles, but overlooked the cost considerations.
Business managers know the importance of containing costs and that every decision is the result of a trade-off. If you offer only top-quality products, you will miss the mass market. Your company may be fine selling only to high-end customers, but it is a strategy that most enterprises cannot afford.
Similarly, the criticism made by Llull against Aristotle does not make sense in a real world. Llull was happy to devote time and energies building general principles, but most people don’t care to do that. They just use logic to solve problems and move on with their lives.
Aristotle’s logic relies on deduction and induction
The fact that Aristotelian logic is contextual means that it is able to employ deduction and induction indistinctly. It’s natural for humans to shift instantly between conclusions drawn from general statements (what Aristotle called “Prior Analytics”) to making generalisations based on specific facts (what Aristotle called “Posterior Analytics”).
We shift dozens of times per day without realizing how hard it is. Our rationality helps us focus on relevant facts and ideas, and ignore the rest. We think and act in the context of our lives and goals (“eudaimonia” or happiness, according to Aristotle).
Descartes’ preference for a deductive method based on deep meditation has no place in real life. It doesn’t correspond to the way humans think and act. We require contextual logic twenty-four hours a day. We have no use for Descartes’ abstractions.
The best of all is that Aristotle’s logic bring its own rewards and will keep rewarding you every time you use it. It will help you arrive at workable conclusions fast and with limited effort.
If you are interested in applying Aristotelian principles to everyday life, I recommend you my book titled “Rationality is the way to happiness.”
Related articles
Aristotle’s theory of the prime mover
Morality in Aristotle’s teachings on logic and reasoning
The superiority of Aristotle’s teachings on logic and reasoning
Aristotle’s teachings on logic and reasoning