Have you ever been involved in an argument, one where the other person couldn’t be swayed? I’m sure we’ve all experienced that at some point in our lives. But it can feel like an uphill battle to persuade the other person to see things your way. If you’re still struggling with convincing someone of your point of view. Then you might want to incorporate Aristotelian arguments into your repertoire. Read on to learn more about what Aristotelian arguments are and how you can use them to your advantage during an argument.
Who was Aristotle?
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher and scientist who lived from 384 BC to 322 BC. He wrote many works on logic, natural sciences, poetry, theater, music, rhetoric, and politics. Aristotle is considered one of the most important thinkers in history. Much of what we know about ancient philosophy comes from his writing. Aristotle was also an influential academic. He worked at Plato’s Academy and started his own school in Athens named Lyceum (from which we get today’s term liberal arts). He also tutored Alexander The Great before his death in 322 BC.
Aristotelian arguments:
One type of fallacy that Aristotle identified was called an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance, according to Aristotle, was an argument where someone tried to prove a claim was true simply because it had not been proven false. For example, if you tried to argue that there are fairies in your backyard using logic. For example, The people who lived here before us said they saw fairies. They were all really honest and trustworthy people and they would never lie! The new people who moved in across town claimed they had seen them too! So obviously we have fairies living in our backyard. This type of reasoning is fallacious. Because it tries to support a claim that is probably false just because no one has been able to prove it false.
Aristotle’s four virtues:
He believed that people should seek happiness from virtuous living. Aristotle argued that happiness is a soul activity in accordance with virtue. This means that when we act with virtue, we make ourselves happy. And when we act without virtue, we are unhappy. His four virtues were:
- Prudence (the ability to make good decisions)
- Justice (being fair to others)
- Courage (the ability to fight for what’s right even if it makes you feel afraid)
- Temperance (being able to control your impulses)
Aristotle lived his life as a way of teaching others how to lead good lives through his speeches and teachings.
What are the five steps in Aristotelian arguments?
The Five Steps in Aristotelian Arguments are as follows:
- Tautology: A statement is a tautology if it is true under all possible circumstances. In logic, Tautology refers to the argument that is fallacious because its conclusion follows necessarily from its premises.
- Amphiboly: An amphiboly occurs when some of the words in a sentence are ambiguous or vague. It makes it possible to construe more than one meaning from them.
- Accent: An accent fallacy involves stating conclusions in such a way that contrary positions seem similar or minimize differences between positions.
What are the elements of an Aristotelian classical argument?
Aristotle outlines three components of a classical argument, although there is room for disagreement as to what he meant by each. The most basic components are premises (i.e., facts about reality) and conclusions (i.e., things we want to prove); there also needs to be a rule that links those premises to their conclusions. In other words, an argument isn’t just a list of facts; it’s an orderly presentation of reasons leading from known truths to unknown truths or hypotheses—the conclusions—that are put forth as plausible or necessary given those first known truths.
What is the most important idea about Aristotelian arguments?
Aristotle argued that an argument with a false premise is not logically valid. This means that even if you accept all of its premises, it can still have a false conclusion. For example, an argument with a false premise would be one like All sharks live in water; Jonas is a shark; therefore, Jonas lives in water. Even if we accept that there are no exceptions to our claim that all sharks live in water (premise). If Jonas isn’t actually a shark (false premise). Then he could still live somewhere other than in water (false conclusion). As such, Aristotelian arguments are based on both logic and evidence for why we can believe something and work to help us build strong arguments with no fallacies or flaws.
Why is it called an argument?
An argument is a group of statements that are related to one or more premises. A premise is a statement that you assume to be true in order to provide evidence for your conclusion, or main point. The fact that an argument has more than one premise means that it can actually have multiple conclusions. It depends on how you set up your premises and which ones you choose to accept as true (or reject). For example, if I argue, It is raining because clouds are out, then my conclusion might be it will rain. This argument only works if we choose to accept all three premises:
1) Clouds mean rain,
2) There are clouds outside now, and
3) It’s raining.
This sort of chain of reasoning is called a deductive argument since it follows deductive logic.
Structure – how do you see structure in an Aristotelian argument?
The method of Aristotle can be found in any argument that uses a combination of syllogisms to get to a definitive conclusion. In general, syllogisms are comprised of three statements: two premises and a conclusion. Each premise should be an independent statement and therefore not include the conclusions or other premises within them. For example, All men are mortal is an acceptable premise because it does not include anything about men being mortal (because they are men) or whether they are mortal (as would be found in Some men are mortal). To identify if your statement is properly structured, eliminate all information that doesn’t contribute directly to proving or disproving your conclusion.
Aristotelian vs non-Aristotelian argument
There are two types of arguments. One is known as an Aristotelian argument, and the other is referred to as a non-Aristotelian argument. The defining feature of an Aristotelian argument is that it typically appeals to common sense or experiences shared by many people. In contrast, non-Aristotelian arguments often appeal to controversial assumptions or theories that conflict with common sense. Due to their subjective nature, non-Aristotelian arguments are more likely to be controversial and harder for others to understand. As such, they are less effective than more traditional types of reasoning in terms of persuading someone else about your position.
Final verdict:
Aristotle, who was one of Plato’s students, was a philosopher. He devoted his life to looking for knowledge in every field. It is said that he spent most of his time in his house at Stagira (in Macedonia) surrounded by the dialogues and books left to him by Plato. One of Aristotle’s many contributions to philosophy was Aristotelian arguments. All discussions get to some answer that is not as clear-cut as we would like it to be. The particular thing you have to prove here refers back to what you are trying to prove as a whole; whether it be one argument or several.
