Tag: Organon

While I understood the basic meaning of what Aristotle asserts, “But I say, that the enunciation of the same thing is opposed synonymously, and not homonymously, or such other particulars of this kind, as we have concluded against the annoyances of the sophists.”, I could not immediately generate examples in my mind to demonstrate this principle to myself. “What does it mean to oppose one enunciation homonymously?” I would ask myself. Perhaps, because sophists do this, with the regular intention to deceive, I would reason that they must be quite proficient in their ability to switch the meaning of a term, mid-discourse, and run with that new meaning, while leaving the other poor soul completely behind, confused, and wondering what in the world just happened. With this in mind, I attempted to pretend to be a sophist, as absurd as it was to actively think in this way:

I could assert that, ‘the night is dark’, to which a sophist would oppose, ‘the knight is not dark’.

Or, perhaps I could assert, ‘all is well (meaning good)’, to which a sophist would oppose, ‘there is no well (meaning for water)’.

Or, perhaps I could assert, ‘it is to the right of here’, to which a sophist would oppose, ‘I have nowhere to write‘, etc.

I find it most amusing, that fools pretending to be wise, were what led to the rise of Aristotle, and his Organon; which seems to be scientifically, totally, and absolutely, concerned with destroying their deceptions, while simultaneously helping man, being a rational animal, to live according to how he was designed by God: by his reasoning.

EAR

Aristotle, On Interpretation, Chapter 6.

An invitation to ponder entered my mind when I read what Aristotle first asserts in the beginning of the chapter, “First affirmation, then negation, is one enunciative speech.” I asked myself, “Why is affirmation first?” It seemed to me, that the Philosopher was implying, that if we begin with a negative assertion about something, or someone, we cannot know the truth, or the falsity of the premise at all to begin with.

I wondered to the tutor that if this is because, “… negation, being relative to affirmation, cannot stand alone without being at risk, and subject to an indefinite metaphysical reality, and contradictions.” The tutor affirmed my assertion as being logically sound and then opened up my mind to something I was not seeing before. That affirmation, and negation, once made from an enunciation, can each then be respectively examined for truth, or falsity. This was a profound moment for me, because I was treating affirmation with truth, and negation with falsehood, as synonymous terms, or perhaps far too generally in my mind; therefore, my command over their distinctions in application was getting very muddied while attempting to employ their use with my own reasoning.

I can’t help but now wonder at the implications of this with other topics I hear all around me in my own personal life, at work, at home, in public, on the news, in the Church, etc. It seems as if I hear a lot of negative enunciations ad nauseum: e.g. “this team is not pulling their weight”, “this man is not good”, “this President is not my President”, “the Pope is not the successor to Peter”, “the Eucharist is not Jesus”, etc. Ecclesiastes 1:15, and 10:20 come to mind, and I am certainly guilty of falling into both categories, especially prior to my studies with Aristotle.

EAR

Aristotle, On Interpretation, Chapter 5.