Aristotle on logic - being a man and not being a man

[OnWednesdaysWeWearMink]

I’m reading about logic (Law of the Excluded Middle) and thought the below example would be interesting to people on here.

It made me smile because of how controversial this statement could be considered now.

But I think it gets to the heart of why the meaning of words is important.

^Aristotle wrote that ambiguity can arise from the use of ambiguous names, but cannot exist in the facts themselves:

It is impossible, then, that "being a man" should mean precisely "not being a man", if "man" not only signifies something about one subject but also has one significance. ... And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call "man", and others were to call "not-man"; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can be in fact. (Metaphysics 4.4, W.D. Ross (trans.), GBWW 8, 525–526).^

He makes it clear that for either/or logic to work there must be no ambiguity in words.

I think this makes an interesting philosophical point on language, which is relevant to feminist discussions at the moment.

Sorry to drag you down after Aristotle, but did you catch Arty working through the core logic of non-binary, as expressed by Sam Smith via the medium of his new tattoo?

Watch the if you can, otherwise:

This is like a man who's got an inner child who just can't figure out this gender stuff.

It's just the most confusing thing in the world!

Like, oh my God! I'm wearing heels, but I'm a boy!

Nobody can figure this out. This is the craziest thing! This is like, you know, the world's biggest paradox. Obviously biological sex doesn't exist, women are evil, you know, yeah this all just follows from looking in a mirror wearing high heels.

So I think that counters Aristotle. Like to hear him argue his way out of that one.

But back to the original point, yes. The more ambiguous your words are the more boring you are.

You only get to the good and interesting stuff when you can get deep with precision.

Ambiguity just leads you into a mush of ignorance. You're flapping your mouth without saying anything.

The words just become a sort of power play - the audio equivalent of throwing rocks at someone, rather than transmitting information.

Usually in philosophy this is rendered as the Law of Non-Contradiction: A think cannot be both one thing and it's opposite, and the same time and in the same sense."

There is a reason the study of logic, traditionally at least, usually begins with Aristotle.

That should say, thing, obviously. Embarrassing given the topic.

All genderideology can do is change the meanings of words. 'Transwomen are women' does nothing to alter the facts - that they are men. All that has happened is it has taken the word 'woman' and applied it to men. Nothing else has changed. This is shown by the describing of women in other ways eg as 'cervix havers'. The fact that 'woman' was a necessary word, that this group still exists and still has distinct needs that a transwoman will never have is shown by these clumsy offensive descriptors. Even within the ideology itself the need is there hence the word 'cis'.

Of course by taking the word 'woman' they have taken or tried to take all that has been set aside for women in law and society. And that has been their true target.

Yeeesssss

But....

'Aristotle's views on women influenced later Western thinkers, who quoted him as an authority until the end of the Middle Ages, influencing women's history.

In his Politics, Aristotle saw women as subject to men, but as higher than slaves, and lacking authority; he believed the husband should exert political rule over the wife. Among women's differences from men were that they were, in his view, more impulsive, more compassionate, more complaining, and more deceptive'

'While Aristotle reduced women's roles in society, and promoted the idea that women should receive less food and nourishment than males, he also criticised the results: a woman, he thought, was then more compassionate, more opinionated, more apt to scold and to strike. He stated that women are more prone to despondency, more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, and of having a better memory.[7]'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle%27s_views_on_women

Reading his views- which I looked up when I saw the OP as I had a pretty strong feeling he was not great on women...

The first bit there...

'Aristotle's views on women influenced later Western thinkers, who quoted him as an authority until the end of the Middle Ages, influencing women's history.'

He saw women as like men but lesser.

Maternal and passive by nature.

Prone to deception and v emotional etc...

I see in the wiki as a whole, a summary of the views of misogynists, MRAs, rape apologists. I note the idea women are naturally maternal compassionate etc.

Are these not the ideas that we have been fighting for centuries? And still are deeply embedded in society now?

This is a diversion obviously, sorry.

The man to read on propaganda etc is Orwell. Get the essays. A slim volume packed with insight into the use and abuse of words, and the media etc.

Man was a proper genius.

Anyway sorry. As you were

Yeeesssss

But....

Yes, but the OP is focussing Aristotle’s approach to logic, not Aristotle’s approach to women.

Yes I got that

Which is why I apologised for the diversion.

It was a bit of an 'oh!' moment for me that his ideas about women are essentially the basis of a lot of shit we still get.

I'm sure some dictators have said interesting stuff over the years. If my reading is correct, then we're all to sit and ponder the meaningful words of the man whose ideas about women still resonate in society today with rape myths etc.

Just thinking out loud here tbh. Not looking for a row :)

I'm not sure you can really say that the source of MRA's ideas are from Aristotle, even indirectly. It's not uncommon for similar ideas to come from different sources.

I didn't say it.

It said it on wiki which I looked at while googling, as I knew his views on women were dodgy.

It's not an idea I'd seen before and I thought it was food for thought. Reading his words, it kind of was a penny drop moment for me.

I would need to read more before concluding- wiki is not the be all and end all!

No point dismissing it out of hand though.

And not just MRAs. The views that are entrenched across society.

Maternal, passive, duplicitous etc.

It's interesting.

I've long found it fascinating that Penny 'TWAW' Mordaunt supposedly has an honours degree in philosophy.

I sat down to read Aristotle's Politics at 17 years of age. Put it aside as I encountered the slavery bit and the women are like children bit.

Moving along to university and a political philosophy class. A wonderful teacher who said to disregard the conception (as the trappings of time and place) and look at the value of the concept - Democracy. In other words, don't throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. This has been one of the most liberating thing I have learned from a teacher.

The value of a good teacher! I am grateful to this day.

You have to bear in mind that it was participative democracy where men were able to participate. They had time on their hands as the poor slaves and presumably women had to do all the donkey and caring work. But it was the birth of the idea of a democratic republic where people (granted free men in this case) were equal. This idea was mind-blowing.

You just have to squint and bring it along to all people being equal.

I'm not a philosopher, I'm a mathematician, so I don't know much about Aristotle.

Looking at the Law of the excluded middle page on Wikipedia, I'm more comfortable in the second half when we get to the formal notation.

Fascinating to see the arguments continue into the 20th century, and it only really becomes possible to settle it once you have the formal notation, which lets you move ahead faster.

Obviously you use words while doing so, but the notation condenses all that discussion into something you can see at a glance, rearrange, then unpack into words again, to help understand what it is you just derived with the symbols.

In case anyone is interested in reading more, I came across this in “How the world thinks” by Julian Baggini. It’s in a chapter where he discusses how it’s commonly assumed that Western thought is binary and Eastern thought is more accepting that things can be two things at the same time.

He argues this isn’t necessarily the case and both schools of thought have similarities.

I don’t care if Aristotle had some views that aren’t acceptable today. They don’t make his other ideas less brilliant. He’s a philosopher not a god.

However, it’s interesting to hear a feminist reading of his work.

Interesting to also hear about the mathematical side of logic. I just saw the notation and my mind went... “nah too difficult” haha.

One thing I've noted is that some of the best people in the anti-Woke debate are mathematicians and philosophers. Both of them hit this area of logic, which makes them (or at least the non-agreeable subset) basically immune to the nonsense word-play.

Names I can immediately think of: Kathleen Stock (phil), Jane Clare Jones (phil), Helen Joyce (maths), Magdalen Berns (physics = applied maths), James Lindsay (maths).

I'm sure there were more mathematicians, but my mind's gone blank. I know I keep going, "oh, yes, another mathmo!".

Oh, yes, Miranda Yardley! I thought so, but couldn't find what I was thinking of on his site. But on YouTube:

It's easy to get lost in words, divorced from their meanings. That idea that 'we construct reality' - which is to do with perception and consciousness - has become really twisted out of all recognition into 'words are magical things that mean whatever I want and I willl change reality by saying something over and over'

I do wish they would teach basic logic and critical thinking at primary school.
It would help make children resistant to nonsense concepts like gender ideology. They would automatically subject it to logical appraisal- which it would fail.

I do wish they would teach basic logic and critical thinking at primary school.

Ah yes, Andrew Doyle. Another name. He taught critical thinking at school.