Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Aristotelian Justice - A Study By Artur Victoria

Aristotle calls himself the "friend of truth." He founded the philosophical logic and method, constructed from which several thoughts. The logic is rational and deductive demonstration of two or more premises, with the aim of reaching a conclusion. We also know that Aristotelian logic and the principle of excluded middle: if X and Z = Z = T, so that X = T.75

He promoted a revolution since the advent of Socratic thought, especially since the apodictic reasoning or analytic philosophy (also used the nomenclature), to be completed through a local mental functioning indisputable intuition, infected also support the influence the above arguments is defined as the Platonic and Socratic dialectic maieutics. Thus, Aristotle, now on a new basis, the philosophy jumped. The argument became more direct and therefore more objective, for probable scenarios that do not produce a host of further questions (as the above methods) to ensure the safety of the logical conclusion. Clearly, however, that the success of Aristotelian logic is much more visible in the exact sciences, especially in math (which portrays eternal truths and unchanging). Become feasible in natural science itself, the endless and lengthy speeches that fought a tough battle to prevail as "acceptable", and finally, what was the tantrum seems designed to achieve persuasion over all (kind of reasonable, but more vague concept, with content conditioned by history, by tradition, culture of a community). The logic was presented at that time as a break with previous philosophers. He became the pure logic, no longer depending on the strong emotional appeal (the tantrum), often in the heat of debate, dialectics and maieutics present. The new thinking of Aristotle, in the words of Umberto Eco, marks the beginning of the indisputable logic of deduction, instead of the rhetoric that is proposed, therefore, as a technique designed to drag the listener.

Despite the criticism, saying that the art of persuasion has not changed at all, would only logical that with the increase of technical innovation of the deduction, to be named as subtle fraud. Aristotle was the first philosopher to deduct their political assumptions, the logic base search centered on justice, bringing the essence complete systemic concepts, for example, in a speech calling for justice. In politics, influenced by logical reasoning, characteristic of his speech, ethics, and might only be a logical formula for Justice and portrayed by Kelsen, to translate into more universal language:

(...) If a right is conferred to an individual a, b, a right to B, the requirement of distributive justice is satisfied if the relationship between the value of A and the value b is equal to the proportion of the value of a value B. If persons A and B are equal, the rights to be given to each is the same as well.

This formula is based on the metaphysics of natural law is called by Aristotle, distributive justice. She wanted to explain why some people deserve more than another principle which requires the allocation of merit. This test is defined as impartial, sustained by the logic of the derivation of the principle of equality, directly involves the decisions of the government of the city-state. It's content, so it is uncertain and is related to defense or rejection of democracy. Furthermore, the law does not pursue this course and justice in their speeches referred to the other conditions for the existence of Justice. The content of the law is important to have a logical way to work, unlike the works of Plato. Aristotle, says that legitimacy, reason and equity, are in a different plane of material law. That is, the citizen is one who is simply following the law, the maximum the law of the State, as Kelsen: For Aristotle, the legitimacy, of course, including compliance with the law. Clearly there was an attempt to give fair treatment to the concept of Justice. However, it ignores the fundamental values of the law, left his axiological replace logic of justice, because only in the guidelines of the principle of equality. Moreover, he questioned the Justice for not believing in the certainty of laws, when the values of the community away, but came close to this State policy that: while he agrees that life as the moral is the most convenient.

The vision of a substantive law subject to certain fundamental principles of the rule, not here to be an error of Aristotle, but probably an exaggerated concern with the historical tradition of balancing private and public power, and maintain order in cities -Greek state, it is true that the support of slave labor and, furthermore, expressed its interest in wars and other violations of self-determination, which may have been the main causes of its decline.

Later, due to the clear separation between law and politics, Aristotle was forced to admit duality "distributive justice" and "corrective justice" are two sides of the same coin. The consecration of the merits of each individual according to accepted legal norms as legitimate, no doubt, the material is the idea of distributive justice, which may be related both to the segment with the public and private, and both cases an expression of political activity Government City-State. In turn, the repair of a situation caused by an individual who violated the law or establishing a relationship of parity between litigants are the ideas of corrective justice, in close liaison with the judicial function of the city-state, not However, it may exceptionally be delegated to private individuals when exercising their rights. In particular, Aristotle's thought has a different perception of cultural property called trial. The Nicomachean Ethics, described the trial as a global understanding of man, which was formed from the perception of what is fair. Equity, in turn is based on truth. According to the philosopher, rightly, to judge is to judge according to truth.

For better assimilation of matter, which represents the thinking of the philosopher about his theory of corrective justice, through the following scheme:

The line-as the reason) (corrective justice MORAL EXCELLENCE

Different-scientific knowledge LOW-philosophical wisdom

Therefore, it is a special kind of discernment credit converges to a natural one, the judge bowed wide, as an older person who has acquired through the proper understanding of intelligence, of course, brought by experiential learning. The philosophy that has no such natural origin.

Aristotle says no one is a philosopher by nature. What then is the discernment? When he answered the wisdom of the soul is the provision related to what is fair.

As additional analysis, Perelman's victory, the latter informs us that Plato shows a clear preference for a concept of justice that is grounded in otherness, unlike Aristotle, who prefers to indicate the corrective justice as an expression of the Under competition, such as equity (here), and the mercy and generosity.

Clearly, defending the positions of Aristotelian corrective justice rather than platonic, saying:

"In the debate between Plato and Aristotle, do not hesitate to get in the side of Aristotle. Because if there are thirty-five, I had the courage to write that philosophy is the systematic study of the confusing concepts, the concept of justice is that seems better illustrate this argument. "

PERELMAN justifies the foundation of justice as "consensus" by two assumptions: The implicit consensus and collective consensus and indirectly, by the authority. As a practical way to solve them must resort to dialectical reasoning (although the influence of logic), for Aristotle, as opposed to analytical reasoning (which applies to the pure rational sciences). In Perelman's words, dialectical reasoning: to rule out certain decisions as unreasonable, but almost never get to show in a dispute that the desired solution is the only reasonable one.

There conclusion drawn from the differences, the dialectical method is influenced by Aristotelian logic, to allow the deduction of hypotheses about the Justice for best picture or not HUMBERTO ECO PERELMAN, however, I believe there early Similar justice mathematical principles that, if implemented, would result in solutions always fair. Even reality shows. In an attempt to explain what happens, emphasizes rhetoric as a way of deposit of argumentative techniques, already proven and assimilated by the body social (code solutions), another method would be the rhetorical technique gate, would A final way to study the general conditions persuasive speech. While the new name of rhetoric, says its relativity, since what you would reasonably expect in a society at a particular time cannot be another company or in another era.

Artur Victoria
http://sites.google.com/site/arturvictoria/ and http://sites.google.com/site/cliparturvictoria/

No comments:

Post a Comment

I thank for the comment!