? A Plato - Aristotle Post ? (REPLY)

[Frank T. De Angelis]

Peter Schuttevaar wrote:

> Is there something within the person or writings of Aristotle that make it receptive for authority-followers? If so, could you elaborate?
>
>i don't think that Plato's philosophy can be that closely linked to the one of Aristotle, let alone that the combined philosophy of both would represent the "Greek model" for metaphysics. (Plato was outside of this time)
>
> >The overall metaphysical view of reality was fixity. If a fixed nature
> >was given to everything, from man to the heavens - which it was under
> >the two classical giants mentioned, then reason --under those preset
> >conditions-- dictated the sense made of the cosmos.

Even today, our
> >pragmatic use and, hence, ordinary language of everyday events is
> >relative to us - on earth, so a geocentric model of the *universe*
> >(solar system) makes better *practical* sense for the layperson than the heliocentric view. After all, our reality values everything within the context of what is both pragmatic and relative to our
interests...regardless of the presentday truth(s) of science, no?
>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Peter:

Well, what I am saying is that the authority of Plato and Aristotle won
out over those emphasizing ontological and logical change and
contradiction (e.g., Heraclitus). Authoritative, popular, etc.? You
betcha.

The overwhelmingly basic metaphysics and logic viewed change as some
sort of an illusion. Plato not only synthesized the views of fixity in
Parmenides, Pythagoras, Zeno, etc., but institutionalized them in a way
similar to Paul (as he was to Jesus). Plato brought us the first major
university, The Academy, and the medium and format for successfully
building and disseminating philosophy (as opposed to the prior vague
anecdotal information on Socrates, Pericles, etc. - throughout the Near
East and elswhere). This process enabled and spread popular fragments of
Plato's Socrates all throughout the Greco-Roman world, as evidenced in
the works of Aristotle, Epictetus (esp. towards the end of *The
Enchiridion*), and so on, ad infinitum.

This teleological aspect of a fixed nature can be found in many ways.
Firstly, the metaphysical groundwork set the tone for almost everything
else. The entire Platonic worldview was one of stability and Being, with
Nothing and Becoming (change) as nothing more than mere fleeting moments
of opinion, beliefs, and falsity (doxia). Specifically, Plato's
tripartite psyche (in *The Republic*) reflected fixed human categories
of existence, with the essence/nature of humanity being composed of
three elements, but WITH ONLY ONE predominating, which also reflected
the perfect, ideal, and unchanging functions of individuals within
society; that is to say, the three classes in Athenian society. Later,
we find this tripartite psyche revamped in Freud, and -- after Aristotle
(and his political critique of Plato's ideal Republic and critique of
the Platonic Forms) -- once again, the notion of an *ideal* republic
requiring a critique in Machiavelli's Renaissance political masterpiece,
*The Prince.* The view of permanence permeated every aspect of Plato,
from the theory of Forms, the Parable of the Divided Line, the Allegory
of the Cave, the tripartite psyche, to the theory of Death,
Transmigration of a Souls(psyches), etc.

Secondly, this metaphysical view of the stiff and stable world played
itself out with the prevailing Greek mythology of the Delphonic temple
of Apollo, another institution of Athenian society, long before Plato's
Academy. What did all of this point to, along with the Sophoclean
trilogies (along with Aeschylus, Eurypides, etc.) and Herodotean
Histories? FATE, DESTINY. Ahah! A very,very fixed world(view), indeed!
What were the vehicles for fascilitating this permanence? The
institutions, including the Academy. Were they authoritative? You
betcha!

Thirdly, we see this worldview as inseparable from the logic. It was
Plato's Socrates who reasoned logically in accordance with principles of
non-contradiction, in contradistinction to Heraclitus - for example.
This too may have been viewed by Aristophanes and most others (including
the Plato of the *Gorgias*) as nothing more than a language game of
semantics and sophistic rhetoric, but was highly prized as debate
technique within political-poetical-legal circles. Enter Aristotle.

Fourthly, along came Aristotle, who also erected the *Lyceum,* repeating
his former master-teacher's monumental skill for public dissemination of
Platonic ideas. But wait, you say! *Aristotle criticized Plato's Forms
and Ideal republic. Besides, he was more of an empiricist, inductionist,
and scientist compared to his idealist master, no?* Answer: yes and no.

In logic, Aristotle formal-ized it way beyond the tricky
non-contradictive dialogues of Socrates. This stuck with almost all
societies in the West and Middle-East up until the most modern of times.
traditional formal categorical logic ---> Logical atomism.

In his theory of essence, Aristotle furthered the idea of humans having
fixed natures. His *Politics* demonstrated his attempts at showing how
and why man were categorically superior to women, and how slaves and
mechanics were inferior to their free masters. If we combine the theory
of essence in the *Nicomachean Ethics* with the *Politics,* we get the
essence of everything being teleologically natural, according to how
well it conforms to its function (excellence-virtue *arete*). A good
knife is one that cuts well. If it doesn't even cut, it isn't even a
knife. A woman is good, performing her natural function, if she conforms
to womanhood - according to Aristotle, not trying to be like a man and
think logically, but to remain faithful, giddy, and fickled. For the
slave? The mechanic? Well, now comes the rub to Aristotle, with a
seemingly contradictive idea of virtue/excellence. Although, he says, we
are all capable of it - in the Ethics, he says in the Politics that they
are not capable of arete because they lack the leisure time, education,
and culture of an involved citizen of the Athenian state. And all of
this points to the fixed natures of humanity, the fixed *categories of
existence* that influenced Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church and
entire feudal social-economic-political-legal-ecclesiastical order of
teleology.

In the final analysis, even if the more scientifically accepted
Ptolemaic astronomical view of the cosmos upstaged the Aristotelian view
of the heavens, the general and specific views of a very stable and
fixed world prevailed throughout most of the Greco-Roman world (and far
beyond). Were Plato and Aristotle received with open arms by their
respective public audiences as authorities? These writings were received
as if they were water from the Holy Grail - as demonstrated in all of
their post-literature! This can be demonstrated through the philosophy,
literature and other arts. If this cannot be translated and be made
equivalent to the general populace, well... then what could count for
evidence of public acceptance? (Your turn.)

F.T. De Angelis
(P.S. You might want to add this baggage to my Aristotelian rhetoric -
for consideration (on a rainy day in The Hague, Netherlands):

Subject:
<no subject>
Date:
Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:02:54 +0200
From:
"Frank T. De Angelis" <spar...@fda.net>
Reply-To:
spar...@fda.net
Organization:
spartacus-tribune publications
Newsgroups:
alt.philosophy.debate, alt.philosophy

*Everything in moderation* - Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics

Is this reminiscent of Buddha's Middle Path? Sounds like it (...if it
sounds like it, it is- is it?)? Contrary to all of the Aristotelian
(based upon traditional, formal logic) vs. Asian (i.e., e.g., Buddhist
and *paradoxical* logic) contrasts, here is one where we cannot help but
see where the occidental meets the oriental...or is this, perhaps - an
*accidental*?

If we look to -- admittedly -- just one of the many authoritative
interpretations and analyses of Aristotle's mean/moderation
thesis/theory, there is an interesting take on the topic from my former
Greek Philosophy Seminar: Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics professor,
Georgios Anagnostopoulos. I recall the interpretation he advanced; that
one ought to -- or can -- view Aristotelian moderation in terms of the
Aristotelian logical *Square of Opposition.*

Where the traditional--> modern Square of Opposition places the Quality
of the universal and the Quantity of the affirmative -- i.e., the *A-
Form* of categorical logic, Prof. A. suggests placing the + extreme of
fear, a vice, cowardice (a state of character) here. For the *E-Form*
slot in the Square of Opposition, he suggested placing the - deficiency,
a lack of confidence. (Likewise, in the logical Square, this position
would also be negative). In place of the traditional *I-Form,* a
positive, would also be + for excess of confidence. Lastly, the *O-Form*
would be negative - for no fear, foolheartiness. This appears to be
somewhat analagous and amazing, with contraries and contradictions
analagously in place. The mean, which is a virtue, a state of character,
is courage; it is placed in dead center of the Square. This may very
well fit, and be the perfectly accurate tool for accessing Aristotle's
meaning, but it is also why Aristotle and Buddha may be at logical odds
- even (or, especially) here, since the law of non-contradiction vs. the
law of contradiction are at loggerheads once more. Capece?

(One more, further probe:
If the ethics are rightfully held to the logical consistency of
Aristotle's view, then how are we to view the seemingly contradictive
position of *function* as *arete:virtue, excellence* - which everone can
supposedly attain, with the fact that Aristotle eliminates people in
certain classes/catagories from this *arete*?)

[Rex Bennett]

Frank T. De Angelis wrote in message <358506...@fda.net>...

>Peter Schuttevaar wrote:
>
>> Is there something within the person or writings of Aristotle that make
it receptive for authority-followers? If so, could you elaborate?

>

>Hi Peter:
>
>Well, what I am saying is that the authority of Plato and Aristotle won
>out over those emphasizing ontological and logical change and
>contradiction (e.g., Heraclitus). Authoritative, popular, etc.? You
>betcha.
>
>The overwhelmingly basic metaphysics and logic viewed change as some
>sort of an illusion. Plato not only synthesized the views of fixity in
>Parmenides, Pythagoras, Zeno, etc., but institutionalized them in a way
>similar to Paul (as he was to Jesus). Plato brought us the first major
>university, The Academy, and the medium and format for successfully
>building and disseminating philosophy (as opposed to the prior vague
>anecdotal information on Socrates, Pericles, etc. - throughout the Near
>East and elswhere). This process enabled and spread popular fragments of
>Plato's Socrates all throughout the Greco-Roman world, as evidenced in
>the works of Aristotle, Epictetus (esp. towards the end of *The
>Enchiridion*), and so on, ad infinitum.

. . .

>beyond). Were Plato and Aristotle received with open arms by their
>respective public audiences as authorities? These writings were received
>as if they were water from the Holy Grail - as demonstrated in all of
>their post-literature! This can be demonstrated through the philosophy,
>literature and other arts. If this cannot be translated and be made
>equivalent to the general populace, well... then what could count for
>evidence of public acceptance? (Your turn.)
>
>F.T. De Angelis

Excellent reading! I couldn't have said it better myself! (Big Grin)
I love it when you show off your scholarship!

Rex

[Frank T. De Angelis]

(Hi Rex, Peter: Somehow, I am having trouble posting - I don't see them.
Perhaps I have pre-eliminated the threads, unknowingly?) This is PT II,
which Peter already received in e-mail:

(Since all has been lost, I will re-thread through this; okay Peter?)

A. THE ONE, BEING, PERMANENCE, THE DIALECTIC, IRONY, AND THE PLATONIC
SOCRATES (LET'S SAVE ARISTOTLE FOR LATER):

If anyone thinks that Plato's Socrates was a dialectical thinker in the
Hegelian internal and triadic sense, well... The Socratic method was
just that; i.e., a METHOD of analysis, not reality. It involved thought
only! It involved synthesis of ideas, not any internal dialectical
unfolding evolution of opposites contained within, like two sides of the
same coin in development. It was a schein (show of appearance) of sorts
- being *maieutic*; a paradoxical (i.e., a SEEMINGLY contradictive)
PROCESS of getting to the Truth, The Absolute... the non-contradictive
reality (that of the unseen, Being). This is why the so-called Socratic
IRONY is inseparable from this social discourse called the dialectic -
of pro and con; in the end, it is a process eliminating all
contradictions. A synthesis is an external bringing together of two
separate entities and/or notions, combining them; while, on the
contrary, an internal process of development, itself, contains the one
side in and through the other. The one is the other and develops --
i.e., changes -- in and through the other. This is not a *lets weed out
the bad and save the good* (as Marx criticized Proudhon for doing in his
*Poverty of Philosophy*) idea, but a true Aufhebung. This is why --
according to Hegelian standards -- everything from Socrates to Kant is
equivalent to an EXTERNAL dialectic, i.e., one of merely synthesizing a
pro and con, as with the more complex Kantian *antinomies of reason.*

The essentialism and immortality of the Soul (psyche) corroborates the
Platonic ideal, Idea, Form(s), etc. of unseen, unchanging Being, as
opposed to Nothing and Becoming (change), essentially an illusion of
sorts within this world. Does not Plato's Socrates champion a dialectic
of difference in identity, Plurality/Diversity within the One, for
example, in the *Parmenides*? Yes, but that early experiment of Plato's
Socrates, in his pre-philosopher phase, is not typical. It is not as
typical as, for example, the logical proofs via *identity in difference*
(found, for examplke, in the *Euthyphro,* where the identity wins over
the difference(s) in the gods).

But does not this, in itself, prove the *tactical* Platonic-Socratic
approach of switching sides in the external dialectic of thought, all in
order to win by either demonstrating identity in difference or
difference in identity? Hmmm!

For Plato, the essential remains the *fixed* essential (the Essence and
Nature), the Being over any deceptively temporary appearance,
empirically experienced... Becoming (Change). This is reiterated
throughout the *Republic* and the *Phaedo.* Essentialism, tied to Being,
is as Cartesian *clear and distinct* as possible, for example, in Books
IV-VII of the *Republic*:

Nothing comes into existence except by participation in its own essence.

Permanence, fixity, and stability, in complete and contradictive
opposition to change, permeates almost ever corner and cornerstone of
Platonic thought. This is the same permanence and universality of the
soul -- and its immortality -- and of Being, both in the *Phaedo* and
Book X of the *Republic.*

Likewise, it is the one-ness, the unity, the identity which emerges in
Justice - in Essence and Universality (not the appearance and temporary
existence of one individual or actual state), allowing it to be split
into 3 parts - all in harmony; it is the one-ness, the unity, and
identity which allows the just state to be a mirror of the just
individual.

Finally, the ideal and universal forms of the state and their
constitutions do not emerge dialectically; they are merely cyclical
entities without a tails end to the dog (bringing Aristotle into looking
closer at the reality of change and the causes of revolution from one
into the other). This Platonic cyclical and eternal development of state
forms in the *Republic* could hardly be considered change or dialectical
(neither in the method nor in the historical result). Ergo: no real
theory of change or (internal, natural) dialectic; only the universal
Absolute (Knowledge [of -], Beauty, Justice, The Good), that the
material and changing reality of particulars can never touch (nor can
the gods), according to Plato.

B. BOTH PLATO AND ARISTOTLE - AND THE CHURCH:

Plato (through Plotinus and others, as neo-Platonism) was the original
and singular philosophical influence on the early Christian Church
Fathers and Doctors of the Church (with few exceptions, such as
Boethius) before Thomas Aquinas. Augustine was the very first and prime
example of this, even taking the Eternal, Perfect, and Unchanging
Platonic Idea/Form/Ideal of math into the first arguments for the proof
of God's existence. From the Fourth century CE to the Eleventh, little
had changed in the Church's eyes, continuing the ontological argument
into the first refined form in Anselm (to be even more refined, later,
in Descartes). Aquinas, of course, in the Thirteenth century CE put an
end to the Ideal-Idea aspect of the Platonic strand of thought,
emphasizing the cause-effect, mover-moved, potential-actual, etc.
experiential-type arguments, with much more teleological arguments
(paving the way for arguments from Design - influential up to Wm. Paley,
etc.).

(Sorry, but I need to cut this short - for now. I probably need to
hesitate for a reply anyway. I'm getting very sloppy and lazy.)

Your Humble Servant,

F.T. De Angelis
http://home.fda.net/~spartacus

[Peter Paul Schuttevaar]

Frank T. De Angelis wrote in <358747...@fda.net>...

>(Hi Rex, Peter: Somehow, I am having trouble posting - I don't see them.
>Perhaps I have pre-eliminated the threads, unknowingly?) This is PT II,
>which Peter already received in e-mail:
>
>(Since all has been lost, I will re-thread through this; okay Peter?)

This was my reply, that apparently didn't show up:
_____________________________________________

Frank, only a view comments here beneath,

>A. THE ONE, BEING, PERMANENCE, THE DIALECTIC, IRONY, AND THE PLATONIC
>SOCRATES (LET'S SAVE ARISTOTLE FOR LATER):
>
>If anyone thinks that Plato's Socrates was a dialectical thinker in the
>Hegelian internal and triadic sense, well... The Socratic method was
>just that; i.e., a METHOD of analysis, not reality. It involved thought
>only! It involved synthesis of ideas, not any internal dialectical
>unfolding evolution of opposites contained within, like two sides of the
>same coin in development. It was a schein (show of appearance) of sorts
>- being *maieutic*; a paradoxical (i.e., a SEEMINGLY contradictive)
>PROCESS of getting to the Truth, The Absolute... the non-contradictive
>reality (that of the unseen, Being). This is why the so-called Socratic
>IRONY is inseparable from this social discourse called the dialectic -
>of pro and con; in the end, it is a process eliminating all
>contradictions. A synthesis is an external bringing together of two
>separate entities and/or notions, combining them; while, on the
>contrary, an internal process of development, itself, contains the one
>side in and through the other. The one is the other and develops --
>i.e., changes -- in and through the other. This is not a *lets weed out
>the bad and save the good* (as Marx criticized Proudhon for doing in his
>*Poverty of Philosophy*) idea, but a true Aufhebung. This is why --
>according to Hegelian standards -- everything from Socrates to Kant is
>equivalent to an EXTERNAL dialectic, i.e., one of merely synthesizing a
>pro and con, as with the more complex Kantian *antinomies of reason.*

Socrates and Plato were talk-babies. They didn't like writing, only Plato
did (if he did it himself). Plato's writings however are known to us. His
"real" philosophy was the done by active talking. Many of the
things Plato communicates are therefore not explicetely stated, but come
from the structure of the text. (Such as the example i gave for the
sceptics having to shut up). The behavour of the key-player Socrates's
behaviour within the dialogues is not a truth seeking process. Socrates is
simply the figure that takes care of the human part of the whole story.
There are numerous occasions where it becomes evident that this role of
Socrates is only the form of his message. And that dialogue realy means
"human mind in the centre, but only to extend that same mind".

>The essentialism and immortality of the Soul (psyche) corroborates the
>Platonic ideal, Idea, Form(s), etc. of unseen, unchanging Being, as
>opposed to Nothing and Becoming (change), essentially an illusion of
>sorts within this world. Does not Plato's Socrates champion a dialectic
>of difference in identity, Plurality/Diversity within the One, for
>example, in the *Parmenides*? Yes, but that early experiment of Plato's
>Socrates, in his pre-philosopher phase, is not typical. It is not as
>typical as, for example, the logical proofs via *identity in difference*

>(found, for examplke, in the *Euthyphro,* where the identity wins over
>the difference(s) in the gods).

This is true dialectic in every sense. Of course the identity wins. Its
the positive principle. I don't want to become simple on this, but i
believe it is as easy as that.

>But does not this, in itself, prove the *tactical* Platonic-Socratic
>approach of switching sides in the external dialectic of thought, all in
>order to win by either demonstrating identity in difference or
>difference in identity? Hmmm!

Don't think so, it is only a way out of the infinite regression that would
show up in case differences were made to be seperate things within the
oneness. (Something like: if there is "much" within the "one", then one is
consructed on many. The many is constructed of ones. Ones are constructed
of many etc..... In order to say something meaningfull about anything at
all, it is wise to assume that one does not need to go all the way down to
infinity . This the identity is also in the differences !!)

>For Plato, the essential remains the *fixed* essential (the Essence and
>Nature), the Being over any deceptively temporary appearance,
>empirically experienced... Becoming (Change). This is reiterated
>throughout the *Republic* and the *Phaedo.* Essentialism, tied to Being,
>is as Cartesian *clear and distinct* as possible, for example, in Books
>IV-VII of the *Republic*:

Plato as an essentialist? Don't believe so. Of course it is all searching
for what is worth thinking about. But i do not think that Plato was in
search for the basic set of essences. He was in search of the basic
structure of reality and the human place in it. Looks to me that your
position of Plato as a fixer can not be supported adequately. That
appearances deceive is not surprising. We have to look behind them towards
logic. (Logic is what is the "unmoven mover" for Aristotle).

>Nothing comes into existence except by participation in its own essence.
>
>Permanence, fixity, and stability, in complete and contradictive
>opposition to change, permeates almost ever corner and cornerstone of
>Platonic thought. This is the same permanence and universality of the
>soul -- and its immortality -- and of Being, both in the *Phaedo* and
>Book X of the *Republic.*

Well, i am not convinced. There are many other things that permeat from the
cornestones of Plato's thoughts also.

>Likewise, it is the one-ness, the unity, the identity which emerges in
>Justice - in Essence and Universality (not the appearance and temporary
>existence of one individual or actual state), allowing it to be split
>into 3 parts - all in harmony; it is the one-ness, the unity, and
>identity which allows the just state to be a mirror of the just
>individual.

>Finally, the ideal and universal forms of the state and their
>constitutions do not emerge dialectically; they are merely cyclical
>entities without a tails end to the dog (bringing Aristotle into looking
>closer at the reality of change and the causes of revolution from one
>into the other). This Platonic cyclical and eternal development of state
>forms in the *Republic* could hardly be considered change or dialectical
>(neither in the method nor in the historical result). Ergo: no real
>theory of change or (internal, natural) dialectic; only the universal
>Absolute (Knowledge [of -], Beauty, Justice, The Good), that the
>material and changing reality of particulars can never touch (nor can
>the gods), according to Plato.

Well, dialectic as the driving force behind history is quite a different
thing. Plato's one is not a cyclic dialectical movement where the thesis
(as a real thing) is allreay developing an antithesis. It is just this one
movement from what is God-like to what is imperfect and pluriform and then
back again towards the human mind. This magnificent scheme is a continuing
streaming utterence of logic into our world..

>B. BOTH PLATO AND ARISTOTLE - AND THE CHURCH:
>
>Plato (through Plotinus and others, as neo-Platonism) was the original
>and singular philosophical influence on the early Christian Church
>Fathers and Doctors of the Church (with few exceptions, such as
>Boethius) before Thomas Aquinas. Augustine was the very first and prime
>example of this, even taking the Eternal, Perfect, and Unchanging
>Platonic Idea/Form/Ideal of math into the first arguments for the proof
>of God's existence. From the Fourth century CE to the Eleventh, little
>had changed in the Church's eyes, continuing the ontological argument
>into the first refined form in Anselm (to be even more refined, later,
>in Descartes). Aquinas, of course, in the Thirteenth century CE put an
>end to the Ideal-Idea aspect of the Platonic strand of thought,
>emphasizing the cause-effect, mover-moved, potential-actual, etc.
>experiential-type arguments, with much more teleological arguments
>(paving the way for arguments from Design - influential up to Wm. Paley,
>etc.).

Could you repeat this paragraph in plain English please?

Greetings,

Peter Paul Schuttevaar,
The Hague
pp...@xs4all.nl