introducinga priorireasonings when they were quite out
of place. Thus he does not scruple to argue that the stars
must move in circles because the circle is the perfect figure.
And numerous similar instances could be quoted. But it
was inevitable that, with science in its swaddling clothes,
without the aid of any instruments, or of any body of pre-
viously ascertained truths, Aristotle should fall into these
snares. He well understood the fundamental necessity of all
natural sciences for a laborious investigation of facts, but,
when this was impossible, he used the only means in his
power, his reason.
Secondly, in spite of Plato’s rationalism, he had allowed
to myths and poetry a large share in the development of
his thoughts, and had even exhibited a distinct tendency
towards mysticism. Here again what Aristotle wanted was
definite knowledge. It pained him to see poetic metaphors
substituted for rational explanation. And this accounts for
the third main difference between Plato and Aristotle, the
marked contrast in their prose styles. Plato was a master-
artist in words. Aristotle cared nothing for the ornaments
and beauties of style. {259} He harshly excludes them from
his work. What alone he is intent upon is the meaning, the
truth that the words express. He is too much in earnest
with philosophy to lose himself in a haze of beautiful words,
or to be put off with metaphors instead of reasons. His
style is even harsh, abrupt, and ugly. But what it loses
in beauty it gains in clearness of conception. For every
thought or shade of thought which it is desired to express
there is an accurate term. If no term in common use will
express the thought, Aristotle coins one. Hence he is one
of the greatest terminologists that ever lived. He adapted
or invented an enormous number of terms. He may be not
unjustly regarded as the founder of philosophical language,
as the inventor of a vocabulary of technical terms. Many of
the terms used to this day to express man’s most abstract
thoughts, were invented or introduced by Aristotle. It must
not be supposed that Aristotle wrote in a rigidly scientific
style because he had no aesthetic sense. The very contrary
is the case. His treatise on art shows him by far the best
critic of the ancient world, and in his appreciation and es-
timation of the beautiful he far excels Plato. But he saw
that art and science have each their own sphere, and that
it is fatal to confuse the two. Nothing is so damaging to
art as to be made the mere vehicle of reasoning. Nothing is
so damaging to philosophy as to allow itself to be governed
by poetry. If we want beauty, we must follow the path of
art. But if we desire truth, we must stick close to reason.Aristotle’s system falls most easily into the fivefold division
of logic, metaphysics, physics, ethics, and aesthetics.{260}- Logic.
Not much need be said under this head, because whoever
knows the common logic of the text-books knows the logic
of Aristotle. Of the two branches of reasoning, deductive
and inductive, Aristotle clearly recognizes the latter. And
many of his observations upon induction are acute and pen-
etrating. But he has not reduced induction to a science.
He has not laid bare the fundamental canons of inductive
thought. This was a work not performed until compar-