ARISTOTLE WITH A GRAIN OF SALT

Before we move on with discussing the different aspects of Aristotle, the present entry somewhat continues the conversation of the previous one, also quasi-humorous, and a balancing act to my Aristotelian apology. A great man hardly needs an apologia, and, by the same token, he is expected to have many detractors, who criticize him not so much out of fairness, as of a desire to appear substantive, for praise alone must be taken as shallow and truistic, and apparently the only way to have some of the great man’s glory rub off on you is by criticizing him, that is, by climbing up onto his pedestal to do it.

There is an assortment of opinions of Aristotle, now to follow, all with grains of salt of different sizes. It is not necessary to take this entry seriously, but still, its overall content ought not to be entirely neglected.

We begin with St. Augustine’s assessment of Aristotle, as presented in his City of God, viii:

“He was a man of excellent genius, though inferior in eloquence to Plato.” Here, in St. Augustine, we see a Platonist par excellence, and it takes just this single quote to prove that. He is not anti-Aristotelian, he says, but merely pro-Plato, and apparently, the difference between the two is not so much philosophical as that of style, or eloquence, as St. Augustine puts it. An admirable case of non-violence, rhetorically speaking…

Next comes Francis Bacon with his scathing report in Novum Organum, I. This opinion is mostly important in understanding where Bacon stands on the question of Aristotle:

“…He did not consult experience, as he should have done, in the framing of his decisions and axioms, but, having first determined the question according to his will, he then resorted to experience, and, bending her into conformity with his placets, led her about like a captive in a procession.” No one will ever say, having read this, that Bacon was a friend of Aristotle, but the particularly vicious level of his animosity can only be realized through a quote like the one above.

An unusual and delightfully interesting comparison of (Plato’s!) Socrates and Aristotle we are getting from Joseph Addison: The Spectator, December 4, 1711:

“Socrates introduced a catechetical method of arguing. Aristotle changed this method of attack and invented a great variety of little weapons called syllogisms. Socrates conquers you by strategy; Aristotle by force. The one takes the town by sap; the other sword in hand.” Another Platonist, extolling Plato/Socrates contra Aristotle. (Indeed, post-Aristotelian philosophy has been a never-ending battle of these two camps!)

Now, take a look at this Aristotle entry from G. H. Lewes’s 1845 A Biographical Dictionary of Philosophy. It starts with a prayer for the living, and concludes with a requiem for the dead:

“His intellect was piercing and comprehensive and his attainments surpassed those of every known philosopher; his influence has only been exceeded by the great founders of religions; nevertheless, if we now estimate the product of his labors in the discovery of positive truths, it appears insignificant, when not erroneous. None of the great germinal discoveries in science are due to him, or to his disciples.” (…Not a very standard fare for a dictionary of philosophy, but then this dictionary is almost two hundred years old, when the level of sophistication in drawing up “standard” mush was not as refined as in more modern times.)

And finally, albeit taken out of chronological order, a short comment on Hobbes’s use of the term “Aristotelity” of his own invention, as a topnotch profanity against his learned targets. I am sure that this vitriolic expression is not really addressed to the old Greek forefather of the future Christian scholasticism, but it is mainly directed against the dark-age schoolmen, professing their love for Aristotle, and even declaring him  a precursor-prophet of Jesus Christ, while probably at a loss to formulate the non-declarative philosophical differences between Aristotle and Plato.

…Well, after the mountain of rock salt thrown at Aristotle in the course of this entry, we should not feel too guilty praising him to excess, as we would still end up “fair and balanced.” Yet rest assured that our impartial treatment of Aristotle (actually he does not belong among those who particularly excite partiality) is not affected this way or the other by any praises or scorn poured on him by his fans or detractors.