As some readers will recall, we’ve been holding a reading group of the Prior Analytics in Groningen over the last academic year, which then prompted me to write (too?) many posts inspired by this venerable work (here and here, for example). We are nearly finished, only three more chapters to go (so just one more session). But interestingly, towards the end things are getting increasingly strange. Up to chapter 18 of book B (which traditionally receives much less attention than its more famous sibling, book A), things were still following the usual Aristotelian pattern of extreme systematicity and strenuous examination of cases. But as we got to chapter B19, there was a sudden change of gears: B19 and B20 are explicit applications of the theory of syllogistic to dialectical situations (needless to say, these made me very happy), and B21 is really about epistemology and quite out of place in the context of the Prior Analytics (though also very interesting). (Some scholars think that these are older layers of the text, which then somehow ended up being placed at the very end.)
At B22 it looked like we were back on track with the usual analysis of cases in the figures, but there was still a surprise in store. Towards the end of the chapter, Aristotle presents a puzzling discussion of ‘opposites’, one of which is preferable over the other. He writes (Smith translation):
When A and B are two opposites, of which A is preferable to B, and D is preferable in the same way to its opposite C, then if <the combination of> A and C is preferable to <the combination of> B and D, then A is preferable to D. (68a25-28)
He then presents a reductio argument on why this is so. The example we used to try to understand what Aristotle is saying here was to let A be ‘warm lunch’, B be ‘cold lunch’, D be ‘wine’ and C be ‘water’. The conclusion is then that ‘warm lunch’ is preferable over ‘wine’ because the combination ‘warm lunch’ and ‘water’ is preferable over the combination ‘cold lunch’ and ‘wine’ (also a hypothesis in the reasoning). We thought this example was strange enough, but then Aristotle’s own example surpassed ours with a very comfortable margin:
Now, if every lover would choose, when it comes to his love, for <his beloved> to be of a mind to grant favors (A) and not to grant them (which C stands for) rather than to grant favors (which D stands for) and not to be of a mind to grant them (which B stands for), then it is clear that A, being of such a mind, is preferable to granting favors. To receive affection, therefore, is preferable to intercourse, when it comes to his love. Therefore, love is more of affection than of intercourse. But if is chiefly of this, then this is also its goal. Therefore, intercourse is either not the goal at all or is so for the sake of receiving affection. (The other appetites and arts are also like this.) (68a39-68b7)
I beg your pardon? (And no, the problem is not with the translation, which according to the knowledgeable Hellenists members of the group is perfectly fine.) Notice that it is unusual to see a sexual reference in one of Aristotle’s logical texts (the only one I am aware of), in contrast with the numerous such references in Plato’s writings. It is also a rather convoluted illustration of the theoretical point being made, so I really do not know what to make of it. Be that as it may, I think that (at the very least) it makes for good entertainment, which I hope readers will appreciate.
(Incidentally, this connects nicely with the issue of the kinds of examples used in logic textbooks. Lewis Carroll’s classic logic textbook is notorious for its extensive use not only of sexist but also racist examples (see here for examples and discussion). There is growing awareness among philosophers and logicians that these apparently ‘innocent’ examples, also widely present in recent, fresh-from-the-oven textbooks, may have the deeper effect of shutting off students who are represented in a less-than-flattering way in such examples, such as women, non-whites and other minorities. Audrey Yap and Shari Clough, among others, have been looking into some such recent books and collecting problematic examples.)
Recent Comments