Aristotle, author of the Nicomachean Ethics and a plethora of other philosophical and scientific works, is widely considered to be the forefather of modern logical techniques (Smith 1). As a result of his logical and scientific prowess his philosophical works often take on a logical form; as this paper will show, Aristotle uses the format of a formal inductive logic proof in Book III, Section 10 of Nicomachean Ethics to conclude, with varying levels of success, that humans who are excessively self-indulgent are no better than animals.
Aristotle begins his discussion of moderation by creating his definitions, much like how a logician would define the parameters of their proof. Alluding to his previous definitions of excellence earlier in Book …show more content…
These definitions are essential because, much like a mathematical or formal proof, one must create assumptions and definitions before an argument can be pursued. Aristotle, being the progenitor of formal logic, understands this, and takes care to fully explain his definitions. He also makes sure to clarify cases where the difference between pleasures of the soul and pleasures of the body is not so distinct:
“It will be to the pleasures of the body that moderation relates - but not all of these, either; for those who enjoy what comes to us through sight; e.g. colours, shapes or painting, are not said to be either moderate or self-indulgent; yet it would seem possible in these cases too to take pleasure as one should, or excessively or deficiently” (Aristotle 138).
It is critical that he makes this distinction as it is just as important to specify the cases to which your argument does not apply as it is to specify those to which it does. This notion is especially relevant in a mathematical context as readers of a proof should know whether or not a particular argument will be applicable to their field of …show more content…
Aristotle begins this step by stating that “what people, or at least the self-indulgent sort, really get pleasure from is not [differentiating between tastes] but rather the consumption involved, which comes about wholly by means of touch” (Aristotle 139). Aristotle uses this case to deepen his definition of self-indulgence by connecting the sensation of taste with the physicality of touch: the self-indulgent not only want to enjoy the taste of their food, but relish the sensation of consumption itself. He provides another parallel, in the form of a simile, between self-indulgent behavior and animal characteristics: “[the enjoyment of consumption] is why a certain individual, a gourmandizer, actually prayed for a throat longer than a crane’s - so showing that it was the sense of touch that he enjoyed” (Aristotle 139). The gormandizer’s desire for an animalistic trait in order to augment his experience of consumption further strengthens Aristotle’s argument. With these inductive cases made, he can finally state his
Aristotle begins his discussion of moderation by creating his definitions, much like how a logician would define the parameters of their proof. Alluding to his previous definitions of excellence earlier in Book …show more content…
These definitions are essential because, much like a mathematical or formal proof, one must create assumptions and definitions before an argument can be pursued. Aristotle, being the progenitor of formal logic, understands this, and takes care to fully explain his definitions. He also makes sure to clarify cases where the difference between pleasures of the soul and pleasures of the body is not so distinct:
“It will be to the pleasures of the body that moderation relates - but not all of these, either; for those who enjoy what comes to us through sight; e.g. colours, shapes or painting, are not said to be either moderate or self-indulgent; yet it would seem possible in these cases too to take pleasure as one should, or excessively or deficiently” (Aristotle 138).
It is critical that he makes this distinction as it is just as important to specify the cases to which your argument does not apply as it is to specify those to which it does. This notion is especially relevant in a mathematical context as readers of a proof should know whether or not a particular argument will be applicable to their field of …show more content…
Aristotle begins this step by stating that “what people, or at least the self-indulgent sort, really get pleasure from is not [differentiating between tastes] but rather the consumption involved, which comes about wholly by means of touch” (Aristotle 139). Aristotle uses this case to deepen his definition of self-indulgence by connecting the sensation of taste with the physicality of touch: the self-indulgent not only want to enjoy the taste of their food, but relish the sensation of consumption itself. He provides another parallel, in the form of a simile, between self-indulgent behavior and animal characteristics: “[the enjoyment of consumption] is why a certain individual, a gourmandizer, actually prayed for a throat longer than a crane’s - so showing that it was the sense of touch that he enjoyed” (Aristotle 139). The gormandizer’s desire for an animalistic trait in order to augment his experience of consumption further strengthens Aristotle’s argument. With these inductive cases made, he can finally state his