INTERPRETRATION BY ARISTOTLE

On Interpretation: An Introduction

Have you ever had difficulty explaining how you feel or what you mean in conversation or writing? Have you ever been confronted about an email or text that someone took the wrong way? If so, you were misinterpreted. In so many ways, every day, we try to make ourselves clear and understood on social media, in emails and texts, on the phone, and even face to face.

This is where On Interpretation by Aristotle derives its power. Aristotle, as many other philosophers before and after him, knew how important it was to be perfectly clear. This was especially important to him because he knew that if his thoughts were misunderstood or misused, they could be hurtful and dangerous. Thus, Aristotle embarked on the journey to ensure his words and the words of others would be interpreted as clearly and perfectly as possible.

In this lesson, a summary of this great Aristotelian work will be given, based on the primary components of the work itself. Where commentaries are helpful, they will be used as well. Specifically, we will look at a summary of On Interpretation, some of the most important aspects of the work, and finally some thoughts by Thomas Aquinas about the work.

Ancient bust of Aristotle. He was and still is revered by many great thinkers.

On Interpretation: Summary

Aristotle's On Interpretation is a logically organized and written work of fourteen parts. The organization of the text is iterative, building from the most basic, fundamental components and building up to the most complex.

Aristotle begins the work by explaining how he will proceed by first defining some terms: noun, verb, denial, affirmation, proposition, and sentence. He does this in parts two through six, ensuring that the reader understands these basic components completely before moving on to the next level of complexity which uses these terms as a scaffold.

Beginning in part seven, Aristotle begins to branch out into the understanding of the meanings of universal and individual. This is a pivotal part of understanding interpretation since it is vitally important to understanding how the more basic terms are applied (e.g., Humanity is universal, John is individual).

In parts eight through ten, Aristotle expands on affirmationsand denials and propositions. He explains that affirmations and denials speak for or against an idea however simple or complex. Propositions are discussed as positive or negativeand must be true or false. For example, a proposition might be worded in the following manner: A dog is (positive) a living thing (true).

Parts eleven through fourteen of On Interpretation continue to delve into the complexity of affirmations, denials, and propositions with some attention given to the sentence. The sentence is the end product of a proper concatenation of the basic parts. Therefore, to properly state something in terms of a clear sentence, you would need to ensure that you use a noun, verb, denial or affirmation, and state a proposition. Ultimately, you are looking for the clearest and best sentence possible- one that can only be interpreted the way the writer or speaker intended.

An Arabic translation copy of the Organon by Aristotle which contains, among other works, On Interpretation.

Significant Aspects of On Interpretation

The true significance of On Interpretation comes to light in the latter half of the document when Aristotle explains the reasoning behind and advantages of precise language and analysis. He sums up the major concerns in two terms: clarity and contradiction. Clarity is, of course, all about being clear and precise in your language so as to not be misunderstood. Contradiction is a bit trickier because Aristotle admits that there may be some logical statements that appear contradictory, but are still valid.

Clarity is at the forefront of On Interpretation. As implied in its name, On Interpretation is concerned with how information is transmitted by the sender and interpreted by the receiver. As a result, Aristotle took great pains to relay to his own readers the best practices for this process.

One of the practices Aristotle insisted upon in the transmission of information was that a single subject either affirm or deny a single predicate. Take the proposition from earlier in the lesson: A dog is a living thing. This is a very direct and simple sentence with one subject (A dog) and one predicate (is a living thing). It is this clarity of language Aristotle sought to imbue in his students and other readers.

Aristotle also suggested that contradiction played a large role in understanding and interpreting language. Aristotle asserts that for every affirmation, there is a denial and that both cannot be true. This binary way of analysis in Greek is called antiphasisor contradiction. This tool is used in situations where a question is raised concerning the nature of a person, place, or thing and might be stated like this: ''A dog is a living thing'' or ''A dog is not a living thing''. In this example, the affirmative (is) and denial (is not) are mutually exclusive; they cannot both be true.