There was a moment in this chapter when Aristotle appeared to contradict himself concerning the conversion of contingent propositions. He says positively: “If the contingent proposition, however, is converted, there will be a syllogism, in which it may be collected, that B happens to be present with no C, as in the former syllogisms for again, there will be the first figure”. Now, we had just spent the past chapter learning precisely the contrary idea, that it was not possible to convert contingent propositions. This time around, I sincerely tried not to accuse the Philosopher of contradicting himself, for every time that I think that he does, he has proven me otherwise. I focused on the term ‘if’ at the beginning of the assertion, for that seemed to be a contingent term, giving the implication that this proposition, which just so happened to be contingent, had not actually come to pass yet. Then I continued to assume what he had already taught that a contingency could not be converted.
So, then I began to ask myself: “Assuming all of these premises to be true: when could a contingent proposition be converted, if it cannot be converted once it has been asserted?” Then, the answer seemed to come to me: “Because it has not been asserted, this is the point. Therefore, the proposition can still be converted in the mind after further investigation and reasoning, again prior to it actually being asserted.” I hadn’t thought of that before, that the reasoning of an idea is subject to refutation, or demonstration, only after it has been asserted. But before this, as if by the operation of the intellect, a premise can be fluidly changed until the actual assertion is resolved or stood on as it were by the rational soul. I brought this to the tutor, who confirmed my interpretation of this passage from Aristotle.
Thus, I have learned that to assume Aristotle is contradicting himself is foolish; and, in order to find the true meaning of what he is teaching, it appears that I must be willing to think outside the box, whilst holding firmly on to his prior assumptions, and further investigating any new idea from him with perseverance, patience, trust, and an interior resolve, in order to see how it is all coherent and tied together to the same logical method.
EAR