The Role Of Muthos In Aristotle's Miracle Argument

422 Words2 Pages
Aristotelian logic, as it is commonly referred to in more modern times, is descriptive of the manner by which Aristotle equated premise to logic and reason; or muthos and logos. (XXXX – use Bobzein here) Muthos, or myth, and logos, or logic, were two central theories of ‘being’ (if you will). As was stated previously, Aristotle and the other Greek philosophers previously mentioned, lived within a polytheistic society—one where subscription to demi-Gods was expected…with a corresponding reasoning associated. (XXXX) For example, Zeus was the king of the Greek gods. To appease Zeus was thus to maintain favor, fortune and prominence: To oppose him or otherwise displease him was, essentially, unthinkable…or illogical. Therefore, an appeasement of the gods was as necessary as the air to breath. However, Aristotle would present logical arguments which would demonstrate a need for those within Greece (and the ancient world) to rely more upon logic than myth, as logos was the more prominent ‘trait’ to abide by when all the layers were stripped away. One such argument, modus…show more content…
However, the true test (or measure) rests when Aristotle’s theory of argumentum absurdum is applied. This principle is not unlike the theory of modus tollens, with a noted exception; argumentum absurdum poses simplified questions to be reasoned, and, at face value, stand to be readily solved by demonstrating an absurd or beyond comprehension result. For example, if we were to say the Earth is flat, then, if you walked in any direction, eventually you would fall off the face of the Earth, and because you would fall off the face of the planet, you would die. The assertion is thus proven untrue; in this case, the Earth cannot be flat as anyone can walk in any direction and not fall off the face of the planet, therefore, they would not die from falling off the face of the

More about The Role Of Muthos In Aristotle's Miracle Argument

Open Document