‘The Dialectic of Aristotelian Behavioral Ethics,
circa 335 B.C.E.--
‘Dialectogram’:
‘A Systematic-Dialectic Method of Presentation for the Domain of the Aristotelian
Philosophy of Ethical Behavior’, Single Triad’.
Dear
Reader,
The case
of the [Philosophical
sub-]Domain of Aristotelian Behavioral Ethics, a [sub-] Domain of Ancient Greek Philosophy, and of a theory propounded,
circa 335 B.C.E., within
that [sub-]Domain, one which, of course, still has relevance to us and to today, may also count as yet another case of possibly inadvertent
dialectical ‘content-structure’
in the work
of a philosopher -- in this case, in the work of one of Earth’s most prominent philosophers of all time.
This hypothesis of inadvertence must, however, confront ad hominem facts of this philosopher’s individual life which may cast doubt upon it.
To whit, Aristotle entered Plato’s Academy in his eighteenth
year, and
studied there for nearly twenty years.
He was immersed in Plato’s doctrine of the transcendental «Eide», and in a Platonian dialectic which was originally a theory of the statical/eternal interrelations of
the «Eide», and/or a method for how the human mind might best navigate their realm.
Aristotle later
rejected Plato’s doctrine of the «Eide».
However,
he still reserved a crucial role for his version of dialectic, as the art of locating the premises/postulates/axioms -- the «archai» -- of each special science; «archai» from which all else within each such science must be derived syllogistically-deductively. Therefore such «archai»
cannot themselves be arrived at by formal-logical
deduction, as they, at least, lack premises of their own, from which they might be deduced.
Leaving aside any controversy
regarding advertence
versus inadvertence, our view of this doctrine as dialectical also comes, for us, together with some noticings of its
unusual features as such.
First
of all, it does not
exhibit the ‘‘‘horizontal’’’ «aufheben» ‘meta-unit-ization’
relation that
we so often encounter in dialectical ‘content-structure’,
although, it does, of course, exhibit the
‘‘‘Platonian’’’, ‘‘‘vertical’’’
«aufheben» ‘meta-unit-ization’
relation of its three
«species» categories, taken as units in their own right, ‘meta-unit-izing’ into their one «genos» category, also taken
as a unit in its own right.
Secondly,
the ‘uni-category’ here represents a ‘‘‘combination’’’, or ‘‘‘complex unity’’’, of the «arche»-category and/with the ‘contra-category’,
by way of
taking a position between, and ‘media[na]ting’ between, the former
two. Aristotle presents that ‘uni-category’ as a ‘‘‘qualitative mean’’’, of the qualitatively
opposite extremes represented by those former two.
The ancient
Greek meaning
of «to meson»
is “the [qualitative] mean that is [qualitatively] equidistant from the [qualitative] extremes”, within the qualitative spectrum
of the ethical/human-Behavioral dimension in
question.
This
point brings us to our third noticing about this dialectic: it is not
the exact
mean that
Aristotle identifies
as the human-Behavioral, ethical optimum. Rather, it is a biased “mean” -- biased toward that extreme which belongs in
the ‘super-category’
of “excess”, as opposed to that of “deficiency”.
FYI: Much of the work
of Karl Seldon, and of his collaborators, including work by “yours truly”, is
available for your
free-of-charge download via --
Regards,
Miguel Detonacciones,
Member, Foundation Encyclopedia Dialectica
[F.E.D.],
Officer, F.E.D.
Office of Public Liaison
No comments:
Post a Comment