During the last four or five decades, the question of the role and presence of dialectics in Aristotle's philosophical conception has occupied a central place in scholarly research (Vigo, 2016). Although the debate has continued to this day, the vast amount of literature on the subject has made it almost overwhelming (Vigo, 2016). In fact, Gourinat (2002) highlights that since the 1st century BC, Cicero conceived Aristotle's Topics as a treatise focused on argumentation, omitting any reference to dialogue.
However, the more radical variants of the dialectical approach did not have as significant an impact on further research as their prominent presence in the debate would suggest, as they have often been strongly criticized (Vigo, 2016). On the contrary, Vigo (2016) asserts that what led to the emergence and development of the dialectical approach was a growing diffusion of the general idea that dialectics played an important, even decisive, role in Aristotle's philosophical method.
The repeated reference to the dialectical nature of the Aristotelian method often became an obvious statement, lacking content as it relied on a concept that was too broad and imprecise, and on a vague understanding of the contribution dialectics should make to genuine knowledge (Vigo, 2016). However, according to Zanatta (2008), Aristotle reveals the fields in which dialectics is important and asserts that its utility is not limited to intellectual work or being a notable aid in speaking at political meetings and in courts. Instead, this art is beneficial even for philosophical sciences.
Pilars of Thought
Dialectics stands out as one of the most prominent methods of discussion, based on the exchange of questions and answers (Gourinat, 2002). Contrary to what some may think, this approach is not designed for use by ill-intentioned individuals nor does it present itself as a tool for resolving emotional disputes (Montague, 2019). Instead, dialectics is configured as a space for dialogue between two individuals with the shared goal of understanding the logical way of thinking. In short, in correspondence with Montague (2019), the fundamental purpose of dialectics lies in confirming or invalidating the definitions presented in an argument, making it a valuable tool for the exploration and validation of ideas.
In the context of laying the groundwork for any process of definition, it begins with something elementary and clear, such as the assertion that "this is the same as that" and "this is different from that" (Montague, 2019). An illustrative example of this principle is presented when comparing the similarity and difference between humans and bonobos. According to Montague (2019), this comparison is made because the concepts of "same" and "different" constitute the foundations of definition, thus serving as the fundamental pillars of cognition and categorization. These pillars are essential for the process of recognition and definition of various entities.
Dialectics Without Borders
In the philosophical realm, it can be unequivocally asserted that both Plato and Aristotle are influenced by the transcendental presence of Socrates and his maieutic method (Cañas, 2010). However, Aristotle's dialectics do not serve the same functions, purposes, or hold the same status as in Plato's dialogues (Campos, 2018). Interestingly, Campos (2018) suggests that Aristotle seems to harbor a certain disdain for writing, which could be interpreted as a disconnection or even a rejection of Plato's dialectic.
Unlike Plato, who establishes a connection between dialectics and science or knowledge, Aristotle takes a different perspective by considering it as a fundamental part of an analysis preceding science (Cañas, 2010). Furthermore, this philosopher conceptualized dialectics as verbal argumentation aimed not only at presenting ideas but also at contradicting and objecting to the opponent. In line with Cañas (2010), this Aristotelian conception of dialectics finds its roots in various sources, including Zeno, sophistry, and eristics.
However, dissatisfied with these previous proposals, Aristotle decided to dedicate a complete essay to this topic, "The Topics" (Cañas, 2010). At the outset, he mentions that the goal is to find a method for discussing any problem arising from merely probable propositions and to teach not to contradict one's own assertions during a discussion. Here, he argues that dialectical reasoning is the art of argumentation, not based on necessary premises that are obvious in themselves but on the plausible (Cañas, 2010). In other words, according to López (2017), dialectics is that part of logic that allows reasoning about any problem with plausible arguments, i.e., probable but not proven.
Therefore, dialectics does not seek the truth of premises but their coherence with a generally accepted opinion, supported by a criterion of authority (Cañas, 2010). In other words, Aristotle's intention regarding dialectics could not be the truth but the acceptance of truth. This is because dialectics is protreptic or exhortative, not strictly philosophical. In short, according to Cañas (2010), dialectics is an instrument that guides toward the truth, providing the basis for the subsequent acquisition of philosophical science.
For this reason, Aristotle establishes a clear distinction between scientific or philosophical reasoning, oriented towards the search for truth and based on syllogistic demonstration, and dialectical reasoning, whose main purpose is to overcome the opponent during debate (Cañas, 2010). Dialectical reasoning is one of the forms of dialogical reasoning but is not exclusively defined as a form of dialogue (Gourinat, 2002). Consequently, dialectical reasoning is not dialectics itself but something dialectical. Although the term "dialectical" is a substantiated use of the adjective that presupposes the term "dialectical method." In short, in correspondence with Gourinat (2002), if dialectical reasoning is a form of dialogical reasoning, then dialectics itself must be the method that allows thinking in a dialogue in a certain way.
In this way, dialectics, like politics and ethics, is not an exact science; nevertheless, it can be grounded in general principles common to science or art, although it is not supported by any scientific knowledge or specialty (Cañas, 2010). These belong to the realm of art or technique, focusing on practical thought within the variability of human life (Cañas, 2010). In short, in correspondence with Montague (2019), for Aristotle, dialectics is a process of discovery and pedagogy that takes place between two individuals using logical arguments.
Woven Essences
The fundamental concept underlying the understanding of any entity lies in its distinctive properties, which not only define it but also place it in a specific genre, thus marking its unique identity in relation to other elements of that genre (Montague, 2019). This process of classification, operating in both directions, emerges as the key to achieving a profound understanding of the inherent essence of anything. Therefore, in correspondence with Montague (2019), the quest for this essence becomes a task of paramount importance as it provides the key to unraveling the fundamental and distinctive aspects of entities as a whole.
For example, the human species, a member of the primate genre, stands out notably due to its innate ability to use highly complex language (Montague, 2019). Thus, through a dual process involving the identification of the genre to which they belong and the prominent differentiation based on species-specific characteristics, a fundamental definition of human can be elaborated: a primate with language. According to Montague (2019), this definition encapsulates the very essence of what it means to be human.
The process of defining something through its genre and species is derived, though not limited, to the practice of biology (Montague, 2019). Likewise, this same process can be applied to define concepts, such as "true" and "false." Although these terms seem to be opposites, both are concerned with the validity of what they describe, as they belong to the genre of statements about validity. Therefore, according to Montague (2019), the definition of true is, consequently, a positive assertion about validity.
References
Campos, V. (2018). Peligroso Suplemento: Dialéctica y Retórica en Aristóteles. Scielo.Recuperado 1 June 2021, a partir de https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-84712018000100027
Cañas, R. (2010). La Dialéctica en la Filosofía Griega. Redalyc.org. Recuperado 31 May2021, a partir de https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/666/66620589003.pdf
Gourinat, J. (2002). Diálogo y Dialéctica en Los Tópicos y las Refutaciones Sofísticas de Aristóteles. Dadun.unav.edu. Recuperado 1 June 2021, a partir de https://dadun.unav.edu/bitstream/10171/816/5/2.%20DI%C3%81LOGO%20Y%20DIAL%C3%89CTICA%20EN%20LOS%20T%C3%93PICOS%20Y%20LAS%20REFUTACIONES%20...%2C%20JEANB.%20G0UR1NAT.pdf
López, L. (2017). Dialéctica 101: Aristóteles. Luis Felip. Recuperado 31 May 2021, apartir de https://luisfelip.net/2017/11/28/dialectica-101-aristoteles/
Montague, B. (2019). On Aristotle's Dialectical Method. The Ecologist. Recuperado 1June 2021, a partir de https://theecologist.org/2019/oct/07/aristotles-dialectical-method#:~:text=Dialectic%20is%20a%20process%20of,logical%20argument%2C%20according%20to%20Aristotle.&text=It%20differs%20from%20rhetoric%20in,a%20group%2C%20or%20a%20crowd.
Vigo, A. (2016). Filosofía y Dialéctica en Aristóteles. Un Enfoque Sinóptico.Archivos.juridicas.unam.mx. Recuperado 31 May 2021, a partir dehttps://archivos.juridicas.unam.mx/www/bjv/libros/9/4281/29.pdf
Zanatta, M. (2008). Diálectica y Ciencia en Aristóteles. Dadun.unav.edu. Recuperado 1June 2021, a partir dehttps://dadun.unav.edu/bitstream/10171/799/5/1.%20DIAL%C3%89CTICA%20Y%20CIENCIA%20EN%20ARIST%C3%93TELES%2C%20MARCELLO%20ZANATTA.pdf
Comments