Aristotle's Metaphysics Irony

Aristotle's Metaphysics Irony

the flow of logic

The goal of logic is to draw conclusions from two true arguments through their implications. However, Aristotle is generally considered a bottom-up philosopher, rejecting grandiose arguments about the Forms. This might seem paradoxical: Aristotle understands knowledge in a pattern that is bottom-up, building on arguments, but the actual logic is implicature. 

Aristotle's argument about truth and contradiction

In section Γ, Aristotle argues about proper arguments either being true or false--not both. This is an argument against contradictory truths, however if Aristotle were incorrect about this argument, then the argument could potentially be both true and false. This would be a paradoxical irony, and would also undermine the whole of his philosophical corpus. The claim is more ironic because it is for all intents and purposes unverifiable. Many post-modern philosophies depend on this irony: that Aristotle's view of truth/falsity is itself not provable as true (unless you find Aristotle's argument convincing, in which case it might be considered true in a subjective sense, which adds to the irony). 

Because these concepts are so integral and complex, it's easy to see why philosophy has been looked upon as a frustrating and absurd endeavor. But Aristotle is by every account one of the very best. 

Update this section!

You can help us out by revising, improving and updating this section.

Update this section

After you claim a section you’ll have 24 hours to send in a draft. An editor will review the submission and either publish your submission or provide feedback.