Aristotle's Realism

Whenever we hear the word Aristotle, we instantly know that this name is not foreign but so familiar. How can one does not know him, he is the greatest philosopher of all time. From his philosophy, the foundational Western civilization is formulated (Along with Plato and Socrates beyond doubt). Yet, As Mortimer J Adler mentioned that even the great Plato was his teacher, Aristotle was also a giant for he learned the lesson from Plato well and applied it in its fullest implication and with a more realistic injunction. In fact, Many thoughts that comes from Plato were criticized by Aristotle and after Plato died, he open his own school. 

When we describe Plato mode of thinking as idealist (abstract thinking) we can say that in contrary, Aristotle bring Plato's philosophy down to earth. Aristotle begins his thinking with common sense, the starting point of him is realism not idealism. His realism can be says as scientific realism which mean, all unobservable scientific concepts are real. From his realistic philosophy we find a method called induction (observation-Theory) and not deduction (Theory-Conclusion).  Supposedly we follow Plato full set, we will be kind of "mystical" in our thinking. If we subscribe to Aristotle, we will be logician. Here, let me give an example of Aristotle realism in practice (at the same time, I would like to clear a common misconception about Sherlock Holmes). 

Now, let me use Holmes as example. Most people know Holmes as deductive thinker, well it is true but at the same time he is not only deductive thinker. Holmes is Aristotelian in his approach especially when he observes lot of facts to derive his conclusion. In the Study of Scarlet he reach the conclusion of army doctor from Afghanistan base on inductive and realistic observation of the peole (Holmes observe: Skin, face, wrist, arm, etc).After this example, let us go to the heart of matter,

Up to this point I will argue that when we do an act thinking by starting it from the realistic point of view as Aristotle himself practiced, we will be a better and efficient thinker. Why and what's the reason? Well, by doing that we can start our thought not base on false-assumption that is far different from the empirical data. This approach direct us to think base on facts available and to think coherently and thus, we are not just randomly pick and choose anything to formulate our conclusion that which seems has no connection and web of relation whatsoever. Moreover, Aristotle's Realism can help us to predict and not just merely "hoping" for some miracles to be happening and then as the result, we waste so many times for waiting with unnecessary wishful thinking. 

Like for instance, there is never be an Chinese born Indonesia  that becoming president of Indonesia and hence, it is reasonable to conclude that in the next coming presidential election, certainly there will be no CBI candidates or even any chance that CBI can becoming the president (Unless there is an unexpected miracle suddenly happening).This is one of the example of inductive thinking that can help us to be more strategic in our thinking, a realistic thinker in market-place, home, and elsewhere (Sadly, many people missed the point and confusing this that realistic thinking is equal to pessimistic thinking. No realistic thinking is to present the fact or form a way of thinking as it is. Although we can say that most reality is tragedy, as philosophers, artists, and theologians had always pointed out). 

The other legacy that Aristotle bring is how to organize those realistic founding, that is to say, to systemize it. Classifying things are Aristotle's strength. We can see this influence in Theologian such as the great Thomas Aquinas. One of the famous classification of him is about the three dimensions of man. First, man as spatial/physical being. This dimension is a dimension whereby we have our locality in the universe and does our activities. Second, human as moral and social being. Human can distinguished between good and bad. And lastly, human is a learner and thinker in its very mode of existence. That is why we found that many people hunger for knowledge, they try to know lot of things for the sake of knowing and for some, its really a fulfilling experiences (we can add more like human is deeply aesthetical).

Nevertheless, having said that, it does not mean that whilst classifying one is separating. In one of Introduction to Theology Course that I taught, one of my Student raised this issue of classification. He says, "why we need to separate Special Revelation and Natural Revelation? Why cannot we say that both are God's revelation?" of course, to answer this first, to classify is not to separate. It is wrong to say whilst separating means classifying and also classifying mean separating. I can say my laptop that I have been used for typing are consists of hardware and software. By articulating those parts, It does not mean that I try to separate them, otherwise my laptop is not a laptop then but only of various accessories, disjointed machines, or airy complex systems. True, classifying is really important task of a thinker. Without it, our though will remain unclear and prone to confusion. As case for General Revelation and Special Revelation, at the bottom, both are need to be classified for they are different albeit they both shared some dimensions of truth that is to say, both General and Special Revelation are derived from the act of divine disclosure. 

In history we can say that Scientific Realism of Aristotle is vital to the development of science and Western Logic as we all know today. It also latter on ground the Scholastic movement that was dominated in Europe from around 11 century to about 18 century. Common-sense and Realism movement of Thomas Reid also influenced much by Aristotle realistic trajectory.  Speaking on application, when we start from realistic point of view then logically, the conclusion must be realistic as well. It correspondence to what human commonly perceived as "real" (Real here is also from my understanding Including God, as "The Real"). In other word, If the conclusion of our thought and inductive process are far away from the "reality as it is" then our conclusion is purely absurd!