Middle term – Musings & Metaphysics

I spent two weeks on this chapter. I think it was the most difficult I’ve encountered thus far, but my perseverance, and struggle has yielded some very illuminating fruits from the labor. First of all, I was not expecting Aristotle to switch the middle from B to A in the first part of this chapter. That caught me completely off guard, and I could not understand what in the world was going on, what we were talking about, why we were talking about it, and the purpose of these demonstrations.

Nothing made any sense at all. My mind, having become accustomed to B being the automatic middle, struggled to disassociate it from being anything else other than the middle term. This caused many problems in my comprehension and tracking of necessity with the 2nd figure. My mind incorrectly assumed that: B was still the middle, the examples given were still in first figure, C A was the original conclusion now being temporarily tested as the minor premise, and somehow that was supposed to tell me whether this reconfigured 2nd figure syllogism could be necessary or not. Only after much wrangling with the tutor did I then realize that A was the new middle, and everything suddenly become clear and simple. The only thing I could ask is: “Why would he not tell me when the middle was about to change?”. Whatever the reason, as I go into this next chapter, I’m going to be far more sensitive to term positions, and ontological nuance. It’s as if every word in the syllogism is now significant to me and drastically affects the meaning of what is being asserted.

EAR

Aristotle, Prior Analytics. Book 1, Chapter 10.

I think just getting past the switching of naming conventions was a huge breakthrough for me. My confusion on the actual positioning, or rather the assumed signification of M, was a mess from the beginning. My assumption of its inherent alphabetic sequencing, as if it were univocal to the function of A, and then – with that flawed assumption – tracking the conversion of the major premise as if M is now posterior to N because it was originally prior pre-conversion. All these things were distorting my perception of the premises, their relationships, and their implications to the conclusive propositions. Nothing made any sense, and it only got worse during the subsequent reductions of invalid demonstrations.

Towards the end of my intense first line-by-line study on Chapter 5, all my notes were corrupted because of this error; but after getting into another dialectical tennis match with the tutor for clarification, and wrestling past my ignorant equivocation of M as if it were the subject, instead of the predicate, finally my error revealed itself, and then the light began to shine on everything I had previously stumbled through. There was an immense clarity as I re-wrote the notes, and with the proper terms defined for ‘NMO’, viz. M being properly understood as the middle term, I could then properly understand each line from Aristotle in a way that was not apparent before. I was able to ask the tutor more intelligent, and nuanced, questions and give more logical interpretations on sentences that were difficult to understand at first glance.

EAR

Aristotle, Prior Analytics. Book I, Chapter 5.

Tag: Middle term

Substitution.

M.