21–30 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many writers are terrible by accident, but Kant elevated it to an artform.
Now I want to really read his writings
I read HN because it's the only place on the Internet where a link to a Wikipedia page on Nicomachean Ethics could hit the #1 position.
I read this book during law school. The conclusions are nice, but the book writing is obtuse.
Or maybe you were too young ;) And maybe such complex problems don't come with very clear solutions. Re-read it :D
Sometimes shit is shit but people will defend it because everyone else does. Emperor's new clothes style. One way of slapping someone down is that they're too young (because kid -> stupid) or they don't have the background, or they're just too dumb.
Also the presumption that complex problems can't have simple solutions[0] annoys me. Ethics can be complex but sometimes that is just sophistry. I get wary of such responses (again [0])
I'm not disagreeing with you in any way - yet - because I've not read it, but I have grown long antennae for such comebacks.
[0] which is not what you said
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aristotle is notoriously a terrible writer. A lot of these books are thought to just be lecture notes and things like that pieced together. Compare that to something like Plato's and it's a big difference. I imagine nobody will ever beat Kant in the terrible writing department though.
> Aristotle is notoriously a terrible writer. Is this really uncontroversial? I can't say I've heard that said before, or found Aristotle more difficult than other texts of that time. Obviously there are stylistic differences between this and Plator's dialogues, but I imagine a large part of your impression could be due to the particular translations you read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aristotle is notoriously a terrible writer. A lot of these books are thought to just be lecture notes and things like that pieced together. Compare that to something like Plato's and it's a big difference. I imagine nobody will ever beat Kant in the terrible writing department though.
Derrida and Foucault are far worse than Kant. At least Kant has substance ;)
As an aside, I strongly recommend reading Thucydides. Once you know the story of the Peloponnesian War, everything that Socrates and Aristotle talked about will have a much deeper meaning.
I took a “History of Philosophy” class as a GE my freshman year of college. It’s pretty astounding, when you start tracing it back, how much of our law, literature, politics, ethics, and aesthetics come from, like, four or five Greek guys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you also read Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue" from 1981? As I understand it basically revived Aristotelian virtue ethics as a viable philosophical theory, indeed by thoroughly criticizing modern (post-Enlightenment) justifications of morality. It's probably my favorite book of modern philosophy.
I have not, but that sounds awesome. Recommending in turn "natural goodness" by Philippa Foot, also a revival of virtue ethics.
Anyone rememer how that New Yorker piece describes HN as a place full of performative erudition?