Wednesday, August 08, 2018

‘The Dialectic of Aristotle's 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'.




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 Earths most prominent philosophers of all time.

This hypothesis of inadvertence must, however, confront ad hominem facts of this philosophers 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