At the risk of redundancy, I want to once again emphasize the dangers of attempting to pigeon-hole life into neat, verbal concepts, categories, classification systems, and theories...
This includes the danger of over-using -- to the point of abusing -- Aristotelean Logic. Now what exactly 'Aristotelean Logic' means is in need of some discussion. We will get back to this point very shortly.
Hegel was the first philosopher to strongly emphasize the dangers of Aristotelean Logic. From a slightly different standpoint, Alfred Korzybski would do the same thing about 125 years later in the latter's classic book, Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelean Systems, 1933. You can read this book in its entirety now on line for free although it is not entirely an easy read...http://esgs.free.fr/uk/art/sands.htm).
In Hegel's Hotel, I wish -- because of the extreme importance of this message -- to repeat, emphasize, modify, update, and extrapolate on the same messages that were passed on to me, and those others who have read either Hegel and/or Korzybski, and/or interpretations of their work -- in particular here, relative to the dangers of Aristotelean logic.
What is Aristotelean Logic?
Well, there are two aspects of Aristotelean logic that we need to look at: 1. the syllogism; and 2. the law of identity and non-identy. I do not profess to be an expert in formal logic but, from what I can see, the syllogism is not reallya problem as long as it is used properly. However, the law of identity and non-identity is a problem. Let's take a look at both these aspects of Aristolean logic and how they inter-relate.
A/ The Syllogism
Major Premise: All men are mortal.
Minor Premise: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
There is nothing wrong with this logic. If both the major and minor premise are right, and connected in such a way that the major premise represents an assertion or proposition about a certain class of things having a particular characteristic that is universal to that class of things; and the minor premise represents an assertion or proposition about a particular member of the class of things asserted in the major premise as having the particular universal characteristic asserted in the major premise -- then the conclusion should be 'logically right'.
Here is another example:
Major Premise: All snakes have no legs and slither when they move.
Minor Premise: This animal I am looking at has legs and is not slithering
Conclusion: Therefore this animal I am looking at is not a snake.
This type of Aristotelean logic can be otherwise stated like this:
If all members of a particular class of things have a particular universal characteristic.
Then a particular member of that same class of things is also going to have that universal characteristic.
B/ The Law of Identity and Non-Identity (Aristotelean Either/Or Logic)
So far so good. But here is where we get into trouble in a couple of different ways -- one emphasized by Hegel; the other emphasized by Korzybski.
A is A and B is B. A cannot be B. And B cannot be A.
This can be referred to as 'Aristotelean Either/Or Logic'.
Quite simply, this 'Law of Either/Or Logic' may be good for mathematics but it is not good for biology, physics, chemistry, medicine, psychology, politics, philosophy, religion, art, engineering, architecture, fashion, or any of a hundred other things that make up either 'evolution' or 'human culture'.
Worded otherwise, evolution does not work according to the principle of 'either/or' -- or at least not entirely. It works to the point where we can say that this bull seal won the battle against that bull seal in order to win 'mating rights' relative to a particular female seal.
However, it does not work to the extent that 'bi-polarizing' life only works to the extent that you allow for the possibility of a 'middle, interactive-integrative dialectic zone'.
It is in this sense here that what Aristotle did was he left out the excluded 'middle zone' in his multitude of 'bi-polar classification systems'. He excluded the 'gray zone', where 'gray' is both 'black' and 'white' as well as neither completely 'black' nor 'white'. 'Gray' borrows the partial characteristics of both black and white. Aristotle's 'either/or' logic does not reflect the 'gray zones' in life, in nature, in evolution, in human culture...
In this sense, evolution is often 'dialectically integrative evolution'.
'A' breeds with 'B' and the offspring become members of a new set which is partly both 'A' and 'B' but at the same time neither completely 'A' nor 'B'. In this regard, the offspring represents a new class of 'AB'. This is dialectic evolution which depends on the principle of 'biodiversity' based on the almost infinite potential of 'intermixing' different genes from different males and females, or for that matter, even different viruses, bacteria, molecules, and atoms.
Every modification in life creates a new life form.
A coyote is a coyote and cannot be a wolf.
A wolf is a wolf and cannot be a coyote.
Wrong! A wolf breeds with a coyote and now we have a 'new species of animal' -- we have a 'colf'.
A colf is both a wolf and a coyote but not entirely either a wolf or a coyote. It reflects particular characteristics of both a wolf and a coyote which takes life into a middle gray zone of dialectic evolution.
Aristotelean logic did not reflect this aspect of life.
Hegelian dialectic logic moved into to compensate for that 'gray area of life' that Aristotle did not account for.
Thesis intermingled with anti-thesis becomes a 'dialectic synthesis'. Hegel compensated for what Aristotle ignored or missed.
The problem is that many, many people today still use Aristotelean 'either/or' logic in context situatons where they should be using Hegelian Dialectic Logic instead. Not all the time. But in many, many cases which in turn causes many, many problems.
People try to 'pigeon-hole' life into two Aristotelean opposing categories -- A and B -- where they should not be leaving out the very viable and often superior Hegelian 'middle dialectic zone' of AB. That is why DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...uses a ton of 'hyphenated words' such as:
1. 'Liberal-Conservative' or 'Conservative-Liberal';
2. 'Republican-Democrat' or 'Democrat-Republican';
3. 'Apollonian-Dionysian' or 'Dionysian-Apollonian';
4. GAP Psychology (a mixture of Gestalt Therapy, Adlerian Psychology, and Psychoanalysis);
5. DGB Philosophy (Dialectic-Gap-Bridging Philosophy-Psychology-Politics-Science...)
A/ Is 'Bi-Polar Disorder' an 'illness' or an 'excuse'? (Aristotelean Either/Or Logic0
B/ Can 'Bi-Polar Disorder' be both or either an 'illness' and/or an 'excuse'? (Hegelian Dialectic Logic)
A/ Is 'sczhizophrenia' a 'biochemical disorder ' or a 'transference neurosis'? (Aristotelean Either/Or Logic)
B/ Can 'sczhizophrenia' be both a 'biochemical disorder' and a 'transference neurosis'? (Hegelian Dialectic Logic)
A/ Is orthodox prescription medicine superior to natural health medicine or visa versa? (Aristotelean Either/Or Logic)
B/ Can both orthodox prescription medicine and natural health medicine learn from each other and become 'Integrative Wholistic Medicine'?
We will talk about Korzybski on another day. That is enough for today.
-- dgb, Nov. 17th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still In Process...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I was interested to see your mention of the problems inherent to Aristotelean logic. I am wondering if you have had much dealing with the disciples of Ayn Rand. In my interactions with them I have noted a marked proclivity for great emphasis on such logic. But I am uncertain how it is possible to persuade them to consider alternative views of the matter. Do you have any ideas?
Parmenides and Plato were probably the two worst epistemologists in the history of Western philosophy -- and Fichte and Hegel fit in close behind to the extent that Fichte developed a 'subjective fetish' and Hegel was too epistemologically infatuated with Plato.
Aristole was at least empirically grounded by his senses and by his sense of emphasizing observation before starting the 'abstractive' and 'generalizing' process of 'classifying' different plants and animals into similar and different types...
However, Aristotle fell victim to the 'either/or' syndrome. A is A, and B is B, and A can't be B, nor can B be A. Well that 'either/or' assumption just doe not fit 'evolutionary logic' and what we see everywhere around us in life. Because life is full of 'genetic combinations' and 'mutations'. This is where Hegelian Dialectic Logic is vastly superior to Aristotelean Logic. Because Hegel introduced a theory of 'dialectic evolution' before Darwin did. The formula of 1. thesis; 2. anti-thesis; and 3. synthesis for the most part is more 'structurally similar' to both Natural Evolution and Human Evolution than Aristotle's 'either/or logic'. Indeed, we have to be very wary of any form of 'classifying' because life will always 'break the boundaries' of any human classification system. Once this happens -- if man is using Aristotelean Logic and/or any other form of 'Classification Logic' including any 'theory' or any 'model' of whatever it is that he or she is investigating in nature -- mistakes (and sometimes serious mistakes) are going to be made unless we are all well aware and well educated in the most famous Alfred Korzybski/General Semantic statement: THE MAP IS NOT THE TERRITORY.
In attempting to properly understand 'matter' and 'energy', man first created the 'particle' theory (thesis). Then some inherent weaknesses showed up in this theory which were addressed by the newer 'wave' theory (anti-thesis). This too showed some inherent weaknesses until some scientist (Plank?) developed the dialectic model of the 'particle-wave' theory (synthesis) which became the basis for 'quantum physics' and numerous offshoots of quantum physics/mechanics none of which I pretend to understand. But I do understand the Hegelian and the Korzysbki basis of what happened here. Specifically, the 'best model' that scientists have come up with so far relative to explaining the characteristics of matter and energy (light and sound) seem to come from the 'dialectically integrative model' of particle-wave theory.
In this way, dialectical integrative logic has shown itself to be superior to Aristotelean either/or logic. And I could give you a hundred other examples. I will just give you one: Is 'bi-polar disorder' ('manic-depression' by its old name) an illness or an excuse? Most people would probably say it is an 'illness'. However, the notion of 'dialectic logic' allows for the fact that it may be both. We do not need to stretch our imagination very far to realized that 'illness' can often be used as an 'excuse' in order to avoid responsibility, accountability, and blame. And be paid for being 'sick'. How about the 'depressed' woman just recently who was taken off her long term sick benefits because of pictures on Facebook partying up a storm...
Regarding the disciples of Ayn Rand, I am not familiar with their work. But the biggest danger of using -- and potentially abusing -- Aristotelean Logic is the habit of 'neatly filtering life processes and structures into distinctly separate categories or classification systems' and then getting more and more frustrated as you find out that 15, 20, or 2000 different classification systems can be tried out -- and if you are astute enough, you will sooner or later realize that life is not 'co-operative' and/or 'submissive' when it comes to fitting nicely into man-made conceptual categories and won't ever entirely fit into any of them perfectly. Even Hegel can 'howl to the moon' about his 'dialectic epistemology' eventually ending up in 'Absolute Knowledge' -- and this is where Hegel suffers from 'Parmenides and Plato's Epistemolgical Disease' -- i.e., confusing the ideal with the real.
If you want to talk ethics, then Plato has something to say. But if you want to talk epistemology, quickly throw Plato into the garbage. Not enough philosophers did. Kant was okay. He understood the difference between the 'physical' vs. the 'metaphysical' and the 'phenomenal' (subjective) vs. the 'noumenal' (objective). Unfortunately, Fichte, Hegel, and Schopenhauer all went into 'Platonic Overcompensation' to try to deny what Kant was saying was true. On matters of epistemology, Kant's 'epistemological and metaphysical skepticism' was much closer to the truth than anything 'idealistically' written by either Fichte or Hegel.
Hegel's 'dialectic epistemology' has to be 're-grounded' -- reconnected with the epistemology of philosophers like Aristotle, Bacon, Newton, Galileo, Locke, Russell, Wittgenstein, Einstein, Korzybski -- even Ayn Rand -- these were some of the best epistemologists in Western Philosophical history.
But even Ayn Rand didn't -- to my awareness -- understand some of the limitations of Aristotelean Logic. Hegel and Korzybski both did. But Korzybski was a far greater epistemologist than Hegel. Korzybski was in my opinion the greatest epistemologist in the history of Western Philosophy. And the irony of this is that Korzybski isn't even taught in most philosophy programs, undergraduate or graduate. That I will do my best to change.
Nick,
Just to let you know, I do most of my writing on my 'Most Recent Essays' blogsite, some of which get transferred over here, and many that don't. Please join me there and I will give you a warm welcome and link my readers to your blog and/or website.
dave
Ah, thanks. I think I see what you mean. See you there.
Post a Comment