Aristotle

[4God]

Are there any fans of Aristotle and his republic?

I'm a fan and have some theories and would like to talk about them. I'm new to the site and am hoping that I can learn. Or if there is already a thread talking about this, can you please direct me there?

thanks,

4God

[lifegazer]

I think you mean Plato.

[Kenneth]

Aristotle was a chauvinist, an elitist and a defender of slavery. He was a great human being.

Aristotle wrote that women were inferior to men. That they can never learn; but, it was he who tirelessly taught his wife to read and write.

Aristotle wrote that slavery is not inherently evil. That some men are born for slavery and can never be free; but it was he who gave all his slaves their freedom when he was already in his death bed.

He was an elitist. No man can be happy if he is not handsome, intelligent or rich.

Nobody has all three: wealth, looks and intelligence. Who among us can really say that he is happy?

[Jade]

Originally posted by Kenneth
Aristotle was a chauvinist, an elitist and a defender of slavery. He was a great human being.

Aristotle wrote that women were inferior to men. That they can never learn; but, it was he who tirelessly taught his wife to read and write.

Aristotle wrote that slavery is not inherently evil. That some men are born for slavery and can never be free; but it was he who gave all his slaves their freedom when he was already in his death bed.

He was an elitist. No man can be happy if he is not handsome, intelligent or rich.

Nobody has all three: wealth, looks and intelligence. Who among us can really say that he is happy?
I am not sure if you were being subtly sarcastic or whatever, but I would contest the idea that Aristotle defended slavery. Indeed, I would argue that his critique of slavery in "the Politics" actually presented a very strong anti-slavery case, though in a rather subtle manner (so subtle that many who do not read closely think it is pro-slavery).

As for the "no man can be happy [who is not] handsome, intelligent or rich", I am not as well versed in the Nicomachean Ethics, but your analysis doesn't sound quite right (from what I remember of the book). Would you care to defend it with textual references?

[iamitis]

Aristotle also lived thousands of years ago.

Women weren't known to do much independant learning, Aristotle's claim of inferiority seems only to makes sense when viewed as an observation and not an opinion based on ignorance. If you spent your life teaching someone to read and write, you might, understandably come to the conclusion that they simply cannot learn.

Second. If you take your average union member, who trades in his perceived "enslavement" to his employer in order to be enslaved by the union, and pay for it rather than be paid, one can make the assumption that some men are born into slavery.

For the politically correct I have this to say. Aristotle, does not make blind assertions. It is easy for you to confuse the methods of classical thinkers with those of your own. Classical philosophers use facts to define a conclusion, PC'ers use conclusions to define facts. One method is correct, the other is ass backwards.

4God,

The only Aristotle I've read backwards and forwards is the Poetics. I've leafed through the Ethics and Meta-Physics, still getting my head around them. It's like reading Shakespeare though, it takes a while to read it fluently.

It's interesting don't you think, that a man can be stripped of his contributions to humanity simply because his life isn't within the accords of the new Elite?

Iamitis

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Kenneth
Aristotle was a chauvinist, an elitist and a defender of slavery. He was a great human being.

Aristotle wrote that women were inferior to men. That they can never learn; but, it was he who tirelessly taught his wife to read and write.

Aristotle wrote that slavery is not inherently evil. That some men are born for slavery and can never be free; but it was he who gave all his slaves their freedom when he was already in his death bed.

He was an elitist. No man can be happy if he is not handsome, intelligent or rich.

Nobody has all three: wealth, looks and intelligence. Who among us can really say that he is happy?

Although much* of what you say is true, it ignores the positive contributions he made furthering human knowledge. Additionally, he believed that wealth was necessary for happiness in the ancient world, but given the technological advances that have been made in the past 2,000 years, if he were aware of this, he may regard anything beyond middle-class wealth to be unnecessary, as middle-class people today can have many luxuries the richest person could not have in Aristotle's day.

Furthermore, he never required extreme wealth or extreme beauty for happiness, but only "some" of each. Someone with nothing or who is the ugliest person on earth could not, according to Aristotle, be happy. But one need not be extremely wealthy or beautiful.

______________

*I am not claiming that any of it is false; I am only claiming that some of it is true. I had not heard about him freeing his slaves, for example, so I have no comment on whether that is true or false.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by iamitis
...

Second. If you take your average union member, who trades in his perceived "enslavement" to his employer in order to be enslaved by the union, and pay for it rather than be paid, one can make the assumption that some men are born into slavery.

...

I think it would be useful for you to study the history of unions. Just to give a couple of examples, if you like working an 8-hour day instead of a 12-hour day, and if you like working 5 days a week instead of 7, you should be grateful for what unions have accomplished.

[iamitis]

Why should I be grateful to unions? I've never been a member of a union, nor should I like to be. In the free world my friend, you'll find that most employees don't work a strict eight-hour day.

I'm not required to know the history of unions to observe that they are an enslavement. Second, a union member is not paid because he produces a superior product, he extorts money so that production may continue unabated, thus enslaving the owner.

I owe nothing to unions.

Iamitis

[Adora]

What Kenneth said. Aristotle was a product of his time. Very elitist, and that's probably why I have a serious problem with his stuff.

[iamitis]

So what? He's an elitist, what does that have to do with anything? One could say something derogetory about every thinker, nobody's perfect, but that isn't going to change Aristotle's contributions to science, ethics, physics, dramatics etc...

iamitis

[meritocrat]

I have a problem with his political views.

In essence, didn't he advocate oligarchy?? Who are the few? Are they chosen from 'the many'?? Do the 'few' have 'more rights' than the many??

[dantonac]

In essence, didn't he advocate oligarchy?? Who are the few? Are they chosen from 'the many'?? Do the 'few' have 'more rights' than the many??

Plato, in "The Republic" advocated this as an ideal form of government. Actually the form of government would be an "Aristocracy". Aristotle/Aristocracy... get it?

The way Plato explained it there would be 3 classes based upon ability. Ideally society would recognize the value in having those with strength, but lower intellect fulfilling the labor oriented jobs and those with the keenest intellect being the administrators and fulfilling the 'brain jobs'. In this ideal form nobody would be forced to belong to a particular class, they would naturally, and gladly simply fall into the right class and appreciate the other classes for doing what they couldn't or didn't want to do.

As an example if you have a low, but functional IQ you probably don't have any desire to be the head of NASA and if you do have a sharp intellect you probably aren't going to be satisfied as a part time floor sweeper. There was a middle class as well.

Anyway the point is Plato's ideal form of government is idealistic. It does make sense and interestingly in real life republics like the US we do have a lower, middle and upper class, but where the idealism meets reality is that not everyone is happy with the class they are in.

The upper class doesn't hold the lower class in the esteem for the service they provide that Plato's idealism would have them do and the lower classes don't appreciate the leadership and direction of the other classes as the idealism requires.

In other words it's a "wouldn't it be nice if everyone recognized their strengths and weaknesses and voluntarily positioned themselves accordingly in society and got along with everyone else" type philosophy of government.

Another interesting Platonic tid bit is the belief that doing wrong was caused by not knowing what the right thing to do was. The belief was that the 'evil that men do' could be corrected by knowledge. While certainly it is true that not knowing what the right thing to do is makes it difficult to avoid doing the wrong thing, nobody today agrees that simply knowing right from wrong always results in choosing what it right. More idealism.

Combine this view with Plato's ideal form of government and you can see that he was a very idealistic (and intelligent) individual who may not have had a very solid grasp on the reality surrounding him.

[nerv111]

The way Plato explained it there would be 3 classes based upon ability. Ideally society would recognize the value in having those with strength, but lower intellect fulfilling the labor oriented jobs and those with the keenest intellect being the administrators and fulfilling the 'brain jobs'. In this ideal form nobody would be forced to belong to a particular class, they would naturally, and gladly simply fall into the right class and appreciate the other classes for doing what they couldn't or didn't want to do.Plato did not speak of intellect; he believed that certain individuals were best suited for certain kinds of tasks, and the rulers were not to be determined by their intellect alone but by many other rigorous character traits which would make them good rulers of a community. Plato advocated that ‘philosophers’ be rulers if his ideal community were to come into being, he defined these individuals very clearly as to distinguish them from others. Intellect by no means solely determined an individual’s status or ability to rule, Plato admitted that many with keen minds would be unsuitable for the position of leadership since they would abuse their power for their own advantage. The defining characteristic of the Platonic ruler would have been knowledge of goodness, as you later pointed out to Plato knowledge of goodness equaled acting good.

As an example if you have a low, but functional IQ you probably don't have any desire to be the head of NASA and if you do have a sharp intellect you probably aren't going to be satisfied as a part time floor sweeper. There was a middle class as well.The worker or laborer class would be the only ones allowed to have wealth; materially they would be best off. The head of NASA would just as much be a member of this class as would a janitor. The ‘middle’ class was those of auxiliaries, the military in essence who would defend the state.

Anyway the point is Plato's ideal form of government is idealistic. It does make sense and interestingly in real life republics like the US we do have a lower, middle and upper class, but where the idealism meets reality is that not everyone is happy with the class they are in.Correct, Plato himself admitted that his system would most likely never come into being; it was possible, but improbable. The class system we have in our world is characterized by wealth, Plato’s would not have been.

The upper class doesn't hold the lower class in the esteem for the service they provide that Plato's idealism would have them do and the lower classes don't appreciate the leadership and direction of the other classes as the idealism requires.This would be because the upper classes are composed of plutocrats who exercise power for their own advantage and not for the whole. Furthermore they have no knowledge of goodness; they in effect are incapable of ruling in Plato’s mind. The middle class in this society by no means parallels Plato’s middle class; this once again would be because our class system seems to be determined by wealth.

In other words it's a "wouldn't it be nice if everyone recognized their strengths and weaknesses and voluntarily positioned themselves accordingly in society and got along with everyone else" type philosophy of government.Plato had no such delusions about his system; he held it almost impossible to come into being as has been stated. He held that if his ideal city were to exist a philosopher would have to find himself in a position of power in a community which was willing to obey him. The reordering of society would require quite drastic measures, nothing could be left untouched. Plato even calls for the banishment of all adults into the countryside and letting the philosophers said the children so that they may be untouched by the corruption of the previous generation.

Another interesting Platonic tid bit is the belief that doing wrong was caused by not knowing what the right thing to do was. The belief was that the 'evil that men do' could be corrected by knowledge. While certainly it is true that not knowing what the right thing to do is makes it difficult to avoid doing the wrong thing, nobody today agrees that simply knowing right from wrong always results in choosing what it right. More idealism.Correct, you refer to the Socratic Paradoxes. The first (prudential) of which states: “No one desires evil things and that all who pursue evil things do so involuntarily.” The second (moral) paradox states: “Virtue is knowledge and that all who do injustice or wrong do so involuntarily.” These indeed have been dismissed by many modern scholars on the ground of idealism, but there seems some merit to these arguments.

Combine this view with Plato's ideal form of government and you can see that he was a very idealistic (and intelligent) individual who may not have had a very solid grasp on the reality surrounding him.We would do well to recall that Plato uses the city near the beginning of the Republic as an analogy for the mind, only later when pressed he discusses its probability and implementation. He wad by no means idealistic IMO, he recognized the limits of his own propositions, and in the Laws he goes on to create a practical states which may foster goodness.

[Adora]

Originally posted by iamitis
So what? He's an elitist, what does that have to do with anything? One could say something derogetory about every thinker, nobody's perfect, but that isn't going to change Aristotle's contributions to science, ethics, physics, dramatics etc...

Yes, contributions yes. But just because he has made certain contributions does it mean I agree with his theories or am a fan of him and his work? No. Never. As I said, I understand he is a product of his time, but I still cannot be a fan of something like that as I am a product of *my* time. The same goes for Plato. Brilliant writer, wonderful thinker, but he was also a product of his times. His works, to me, always remind me of Marx's theories of power and government: tragically flawed, but brilliant starting points for some of the most powerful and beneficial movements in history. Without Aristotle and these people we would not be where we are today, but the same goes for all history, and whilst I say, appreciate that my white ancestors were colonial invaders of Australia, I do not agree with their policies, values and I am not a fan of what they did.

[dantonac]

nerv111,

I welcome your corrections and elucidations to my post, thank you.

[ex-xian]

[mod hat]Please keep posts relevent to discussion; irrelevent posting moved here, http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73262.[/mod hat]

[iamitis]

<edited by ex-xian>

Discussions concerning moderation action are not appropriate outside of the Bugs and Complaints forum, http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=16, and will be deleted. Please direct any further queries concerning moderation in this thread to the aforementioned forum.

[abe smith]

I do not pretend to be an authority on Aristotle. I DO admire him very much that he was probably the First Biologist, and essentially an empiricist investigator "who wasn't afraid to get his hands & feet muddy" (= the primary criterion of believability for any Biologist). I acknowledge "& bewail" the absolute fact that Aristotle's notions about Where Babies Come From are hilarious.

To be sure, at his time, he and anybody else hadn't the means (research instruments & processes) to find out facts wh/ we now take for granted (e.g. the fact of the human unfertilized ovum, and of the zygote). Give the guy credit! He was One Of Us.

I am not competent to evaluate his metaphysical ideas.

[Bill Snedden]

From the title of the thread and the subsequent discussion, it would seem that there's some question as to who is being discussed, Aristotle or Plato...

Personally, I'm a big fan of Aristotle. The Physics, Metaphysics, and the Nichomachean Ethics are some of the greatest works of philosophy ever written, bar none. The ideas in them are still being debated and discussed centuries later. Talk about withstanding the test of time!

[Heurismus]

I concur Bill, and Hellenistic philosophy also lay the foundations, via Islam for some other interesting developments too, like lifting the veil that Christianity tried for so long to keep pulled over 'heretics' senses.:notworthy

[harsh]

Aristotle's form of government was a combination of what he called as "polity" and and "aristrocracy". He thought that the main goal of a human being was to flourish. He, as someone as stated above, supported slavery. Let me first describe the form of government he proposed, and then tell you my objections about it.

Since the main goal of the government was to let the citizens "flourish", he argued that those with time on their hands can only be citizens. Therefore, the farmers, tradesman, etc. weren't allowed to be citizens. He thought that only the warriors, counselors and the priests should be allowed to flourish because they have a lot of time on their hands. Therefore, the idea of aristocracy, or the best among society came in. Then, he also argued that the citizens would vote on who is going to be the ruler, and the ruler governs through the consent of the citizens (his idea of polity). Aristotle's government, as he claims it, is self sufficient. That is the basic jist of his form of government.

There are a few things I find wrong with his government:
First, if his government is self-sufficient, then that implies that the citizens depend heavily on the farmers and tradesman, who dont have any rights whatsoever and therefore they dont have any incentive to work or stay in the city. Second, among the citizens, if some citizens dont agree with the consensus, then they will just totally disregard the rules and the laws and create chaos, if they wish.

If anyone can improve upon my description, then it would be easier to talk about the wrongs of his form of government.

[Malachi151]

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc were all idealsits, and thus were all mostly rubbish. These people are favored by modern thinkers because their views support modern religion and idealism. These thinkers, while better than Christians, should be seen as the poor philosopers of Greece, unlike the materialists and rationalists, such as Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Epicurus (all supporters of the atomic theory and in infinite universe in an infinate void)... the guys that you never hear about because we live in an idealistic, pro-supernatural, anti-atheistic society, which tries to cover up and denounce all the progressive ideology of atheists and materialists from the dawn of time.

[DiogenesofSinoppe]

Originally posted by Kenneth
Aristotle was a chauvinist, an elitist and a defender of slavery. He was a great human being.

Aristotle wrote that women were inferior to men. That they can never learn; but, it was he who tirelessly taught his wife to read and write.

Aristotle wrote that slavery is not inherently evil. That some men are born for slavery and can never be free; but it was he who gave all his slaves their freedom when he was already in his death bed.

He was an elitist. No man can be happy if he is not handsome, intelligent or rich.

Nobody has all three: wealth, looks and intelligence. Who among us can really say that he is happy?

Ever hear of the word--Anachronism?

Your castigation of Aristotle is an example of this kind of thinking!

[DiogenesofSinoppe]

Originally posted by Adora
What Kenneth said. Aristotle was a product of his time. Very elitist, and that's probably why I have a serious problem with his stuff.

George Washington--elitist.

Thomas Jefferson--elitist.

Hobbes--elitist.

Are historical figures allowed to be human?

[DiogenesofSinoppe]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc were all idealsits, and thus were all mostly rubbish. These people are favored by modern thinkers because their views support modern religion and idealism. These thinkers, while better than Christians, should be seen as the poor philosopers of Greece, unlike the materialists and rationalists, such as Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Epicurus (all supporters of the atomic theory and in infinite universe in an infinate void)... the guys that you never hear about because we live in an idealistic, pro-supernatural, anti-atheistic society, which tries to cover up and denounce all the progressive ideology of atheists and materialists from the dawn of time.

See other thread, Malachi, for my rebuttal to this "re-run."