A critique of Aristotle

Easily the most relevant philosopher in regards to ethics, logic, and science. Aristotle asked people to examine their thoughts and actions and determine an answer to the questions “why did I do that?” “why should I do that?” “why do I think that?” “why should I think that?” The core of Aristotle’s philosophy is about logic, ethics, and self examination, I will critique this rather than the surrounding philosophy is science based and that deserves it’s own critique.

Aristotle Believed in regards to ethics that too much of a good thing was a bad thing but so was too little of a good thing. Aristotle held that a median existed between two extremes of character, the coward and the fool who believes he has no fear. The median in this instance is having fear but having the ability to act in spite of it. If you see a woman being mugged the coward does nothing and runs away to save himself, the mugger is quite large and hard to take down, the fool will rush him blindly and will most likely die, the wise man knows better than to take someone he can’t handle and instead summons the police.

This principle can be applied to any and all virtues you can think of and reeks of truth as pretty much everyone acknowledges that excess of a thing or lack of a thing is inherently bad.

Aristotle’s second point on ethics is the idea that one can become more virtuous by the simple development of virtuous habits. While this principle of habit is true to an extent, there is something to be said for conscientiousness and judging what constitutes virtue as apposed to a generalized societal “rule book”. Forming virtuous habits is a fine idea and should be pursued but also take time to understand material consequence and consider outcomes based upon what you know of any given situation and consider, this should in my opinion be what fuels you’re virtuous habits, i.e. consider the victim and the perpetrator.

Aristotle on logic. A syllogism is a statement of thought similar in form to algebra, example if item a is the same as item b and item b is the same as item c than item a is also item c, (A) all Greeks are humans (B) and all humans are mortal (C) therefore all Greeks are mortal. These certify the consistency with a belief or idea and therefore the idea or belief is logically sound. You should use Syllogism to test yourself for internal consistency, if a idea or belief you hold is illogical by syllogism than it is emotionally driven and therefore as emotions can be manipulated where logic can not, the idea or belief is on shaky ground. Internal consistency is vital as are using facts facts and logic are what determine truth and Aristotle provides many tool such as syllogism toward this end. Facts do require the investigative process and to my knowledge Aristotle never specified a specific investigative method to make use of, merely ways in which the gathered data can be evaluated for logic and truthfulness.

As it stands when it comes to logic Aristotle is on the money however he gives habit too much credit where ethics are concerned and conscientiousness , being thoughtful should be the judge that chooses habits for us.