Aristotle, I believe, perceived many shortcomings contained in previous arguments and their methods. His approach to handling the inherent problems with the notion of absolutes, such as proof, required a means by which all such methods can be synthesised, measured or provided as some sort of compass. To do so required that Man be placed fixed and firmly in the Cosmos. A position which can be seen as reacting against the circularity of arguments which set out to prove that there are in fact such things as absolutes. For they seldom seem to bring us any closer to the answers that we seek. In a sense Aristotle’s dialogues provided him with the key(s) (dialectics) with which seek out and obtain knowledge.
In the arts, like the sciences, there must first exist at least one question which co-exists harmoniously with a corresponding answer or response. It can be either a refutation or affirmation. All of which presupposes that the question can be thought of or formulated through the use of human thought; and it is through this dynamic of critical examination that dialogue evolves, asserts the premises which then elicit either affirmative or negative, affirmation or refutation, true or false values in response. It is from these that we then proceed along the path to Truth, Wisdom, Knowledge, Justice.
This, however, does not quite explain how first principles themselves come into being. These are important because first principles are the linchpins of dialectics and the dialectical method. They are pivotal points upon which dialecticism sits.
First principles, defined as being prior to everything else makes it necessary to discuss them as perceived through the common beliefs about each subject under review. This requires the application of objectivism and subjectivism that is equally balanced and totally free of any biases. Complete neutrality. The observer or examiner can only be either objective or subjective, never both simultaneously.
Thus, in my opinion, dialecticism provides a means with which we can examine pathways by which first principles, in all disciplines, may be adduced or deduced. Obviously, there exists a difference between a dialectical argument and the dialectical method or art.
That such arguments existed before Aristotle articulated the notion of dialecticism is obvious. He credits Meno with its development ( I think? )
What Aristotle does is present the basis whereby it is to be recognised or agreed upon (once more becoming ‘common belief’) that dialectics provide and meet the definition’s requirement: –
“…. To find a line of inquiry whereby we shall be able to reason from opinions that are generally accepted about every problem propounded to us, and also shall ourselves, when standing up to an argument, avoid saying anything that will obstruct us. First, then, we must say what reasoning is, and what its varieties are, in order to grasp dialectical reasoning: for this is the object of our search. 3
In so doing, he reveals the core principle of dialecticism which can be brought to bear on all arguments – in the same manner as rhetoric brings up a multitude of possibilities for exploration during an oration. In my view, Aristotle (with the aid and teachings of men such as Socrates, Plato, Etc ) clearly demonstrates that he’s reacting against any and all other forms of arguments to arrive at the first principles which were to become imperative and vital to the scientific method of enquiry; just as the naturalists had reacted to the cosmological view of the universe and the meaning of man’s place in it.
Aristotle, while not necessarily providing absolute answers to questions about absolutes, managed to elevate and emphasise that it is the methodology or methods that are weak. In other words, men, as in the common man, already have or know the answers (common knowledge). The problem that all faced was that no one person or group held all the pieces to the puzzle; and so, to each – each piece was a puzzle in and of itself. All of humanity, great or small, was looking for verifiable methods of proof; and Aristotle offered it to them. And from it were see the scientific and technological revolutions as proof of the dialectical method.
Method
In the Topics, Aristotle defines dialectical deduction as one with premises derived from and existing in common beliefs – as opposed to premises characteristic of and dependent on demonstrations.
Reasoning is an argument in which, certain things being laid down, something other than these necessarily comes about through them. (a) It is a ‘demonstration’, when the premises from which the reasoning starts are true and primary, or are such that our knowledge of them has originally come through premises which are primary and true: (b) reasoning, on the other hand, is ‘dialectical’, if it reasons from opinions that are generally accepted. Things are ‘true’ and ‘primary’ which are believed on the strength not of anything else but of themselves: for in regard to the first principles of science it is improper to ask any further for the why and wherefore of them; each of the first principles should command belief in and by itself. 4
One of the differences between the dialectical arguments and a demonstrations is that there are two parties to the argument – one of whom presents the premises to the other as a series of questions held out for acceptance or rejection. Demonstrations, on the other hand, choose premises perceived as being true. These are them made into primary propositions which serve to support all further truths about the subject being discussed or examined.
In a dialectical argument, the questioner can only develop an argument on the basis of the answerer’s responses. Consequently, the questioner must take into account the opinions of the answerer before he can determine whether the premises needed are acceptable to the answerer. In this sense, it becomes the basis upon which refutation or affirmation is measured to give a premise validity.
Aristotle’s purpose appears to be: develop a method that can be used in any or all discernible situations; and he pays particular attention (Bk VIII) to a form of debate that was apparently practiced at the Academy. This becomes important as it does not lose sight of the wider applicability of his method since embraces and incorporates the dialecticism of the dialogues to solidify his own argument for the efficiency of the dialectical method to arrive or achieve knowledge.
31/01/2022 15:52:09 -0500