The problem of binaries in Aristotle

Maybe it’s because I did so poorly in high school science, but I tend to gravitate toward Plato’s notion of truth over Aristotle’s more empirical view. While Aristotle’s invention of logic has served science well and gives rise to reason when making an argument or coming to a scientific proof, I can’t help but think of the barriers that were also constructed (and, as noted, remained unchallenged for some time because of his Aristotle’s own ethos). The systemization that logic provides, creates a hierarchy that allows rhetors to more easily navigate arguments and go about setting up and proving their claims. The Rhetoric flow chart on page 174 does a nice job summarizing Aristotle’s method. The system facilitates clear reasoning, but also promotes agonistic argument. Several times in Rhetoric, Aristotle sets up this hierarchy of logic by presenting binaries. (And, if examining the chart you’ll note that every choice is an either-or with the exception of “Artistic Proofs”—which allows Maxim to fall under enthymeme...) For example, at the onset of Book I, Chapter IX, Aristotle considers “Virtue and Vice, the Noble and the Base” where he defines them as “objects of praise and blame” (197). By starting with the duality of Virtue and Vice, Aristotle is able to define certain traits are virtuous based on their value in society (which includes productiveness). The definition of all things base takes less imagination since Aristotle simply defines the negative traits as opposite of those deserving praise. I choose this passage simply because of the sheer number of binaries in such a small space; however, it is not an anomaly. Aristotle frames most of his topics with binaries: Accusation and Defence (200), Pleasure and Pain (202), law and universal law, supporting and opposing political measures (213), virtue and vice (217), Possible and Impossible (220), genuine and non-genuine syllogisms (232). The list goes on.

            Given the profound effect Aristotle had on Western culture it should be little surprise to me that so many first year students cannot break out of the dichotomous either-or type of reasoning. Yes, it’s a great way to organize thoughts and argument, but is it constructive for generating new thought? If I were to set up a binary of my own between Plato and Aristotle, I’d have to choose Plato—he seems like he asks questions to expand thinking, not channel it. As history has shown, changing this sort of thinking is difficult. (This is not to say that Plato and Socrates did not partake in this binary building. Swearingen notes that Plato is often interpreted as dualist (31).

            In Burke’s piece for this week, he realizes more latent forms of rhetoric whereby we “spontaneously, intuitively, even unconsciously persuade ourselves” (301). The conscious choice to differentiate between this or that is simply not present—the decision is something more mystical, more in the Platonic view.  Burke breaks down the binary between Rhetoric and Poetics, acknowledging areas of overlap—areas that can further our understanding of each subject on its own. This way of understanding really isn’t a departure from the dialectic set out by Socrates and perpetuated by Plato—really it’s a different way of hearing the dialogue. Instead of two opposing sides bantering back and forth at each other (like the more agonistic moments of the Gorgias), the two sides are made to converse, to come to some sort of common ground. (I know I’m jumping ahead of classical rhetoric a bit here.) Once the dialogue opens up to a wider, and more participatory, audience, the hierarchy Aristotle sets up becomes less applicable. As Burke notes we have to look toward forms of rhetoric that combine these dualities to arrive at new truths.