Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
Geoffrey Hamilton
November 25, 2002
Aristotle
said, "The more I find myself by myself and alone the more I have
become a lover of myth." With this unpromising confession upfront let's see what else he thought.
He wanted us to find the universal in
the particulars (the truth - "form") with careful observation. By
doing this he thought we make a world we can reason with. His universe develops
and grows into its intended nature. Nature and
art are not distinct and the final form is what matters.
He was the inventor of syllogisms, which was a horrorible mistake. No linguistic
structure can ever force agreement or prove a single fact. It is garbage.
After his
death, his ethics caused his legacy to be played out in directions he never
imagined - which increased the power (haphazardly) of his writings. His actual
methods were misunderstood and forgotten and eventually the writings petrified
into an icon for a new cult which hindered future scientific inquires. He
became myth.
Aristotle says nature is where we find truth. Then he says he
wants to use this truth to guide his ethics. But how can one be truely
guided by nature if nature is in every contradictory thing that happens - good and bad?
Why is it Aristotle, the myth, can get away with murder for millienia by saying
that only the best goals are aimed at - as though he is
simply passing on a scientific observation? How can the
best goal be seen? Even when a sentence's goal is constructed
(through the playing of games,) you cannot know in advance the outcome,
or whether it is best or worst.
His stated goal all along was to seek the truth found in
nature. Yet this best goal of his is never attempted. He refuses to allow his many scientific observations to
interfere with his various theories. He goes as far as
pointinq out his bias against some truths by calling them bad truths.
While 'best' is now defined as anything one desires or
thinks of, all that is left of Aristotle's claim is that any kind of goals
are aimed at, not just 'the best'.
The golden mean is the most obvious problem area for Aristotle's
theories. What can he mean by not too much or too little of anything?
We know instinctively what that is when we see it, but, funny enough,
we can't all agree what that is. Aristotle doesn't know either because
he can't offer us any idea. The answer is games of course.
Games are all about not too much or too little. That is why
games must be played, not planned.
Playing is about finding your way from moment to moment,
hence you almost know what is the mean because you are
still playing and testing the boundries. Aristotle cannot
say what the mean is because he knows he cannot know until
he is in the moment (of what he didn't realize was a game).
As Hamlet says of the players 'what is he to Hecuba that he
conforms to his conciet..' . The point being it amazes Hamlet
that fictional people and events can mean as much as real people and events.
Aristotle wonders in a similiar way. If he just gave up his tragic theories he might see that
imitation is rarely the goal of art, and the artist is never right.
Each viewer has own game going on whether it's about real, fictional, or
imagined people. How well the game plays out in the mind that makes all
the difference.
GRH
back
Artistole Overview
Cool Aristotlian texts
