Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Aristotle – How to live a good life

ralphammer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 183 posts

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#41

Post by marginalia_nu »

vasco wrote: post #15
marginalia_nu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dogs think. This is certainly an assertion, given it's hard, bordering on impossible to to demonstrate that other humans think.

If your definition of "think" doesn't directly describe the cognitive processes that happen when humans process and react from the inputs they get, then what does the word mean to you? If you don't agree that humans think, then I think we just need another word. But that other word, applies to both humans and dogs and many other living things.

In this context I'm trying to capture something like reasoning, λόγος.

Philosophy is also not about what we think is true, but what statements we can defend. Solipsism is a notoriously difficult position to attack, even if we do not subscribe to it.

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#42

Post by bluetomcat »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #27
simonmysun wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are forced to make our life complex. You can't deny the fact that the society we are living in has evolved. Of course one still has the oppurtunity to get rid of it and live in a cave, but how many people are doing this?

In what sense is it more complex?

You are born into a society with certain expectations and customs. Choosing the slow and simple path turns you into a social recluse with little opportunities for contacts and further development. You may be reading Plato and Aristotle and have no idea what's currently happening in your neighbourhood because of lack of social contacts.

The path to transformation should be the collective consensus towards new visions of society, not some individual acts of virtue signalling.

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#43

Post by ben_w »

autonomousErwin wrote: post #39
incognito124 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not caring much is such a slippery slope, because it's so easy to turn it to a default.

Apathy is the opposite of love, not hate. A life of apathy, is a life without love.

Apathy is the opposite of both love and hate (and several other things), because both of the latter require caring about a thing.

A geometric simplex, not a simple linear scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#44

Post by marginalia_nu »

ben_w wrote: post #43
autonomousErwin wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apathy is the opposite of love, not hate. A life of apathy, is a life without love.

Apathy is the opposite of both love and hate (and several other things), because both of the latter require caring about a thing. A geometric simplex, not a simple linear scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplex

Indeed, if apathy is the absence of caring, and caring is part of both love and hate, then I don't think any of these are opposites of each other, they are merely things that can not co-exist.

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#45

Post by [deleted] »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #14
simonmysun wrote: post #11

Aristotle lives in the old versions of the Earth. The outdated concepts may not stand up to modern thinking, but are sufficient for dealing with a simple life. Unfortunately, most people's lives are not simple.

I think in many parts most people's lives are not simple because they engage with them through muddled and complex intellectual frameworks using 16 letter words to explain 3-5 letter word concepts. You'd be surprised how much modern life begins to make sense viewed through the framework of antique philosophy.

[deleted]

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#46

Post by guerrilla »

BoingBoomTschak wrote: post #34
fasteo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> The outdated concepts may not stand up to modern thinking Can you elaborate ? From a quick read, the concept of good ("A good thing fulfils its unique function") and how to be a good human ("to have an excellent soul. And this excellence reveals itself in a clear intellect and a noble character.") seems timeless to me

Being noble, wise and virtuous didn't mean that much alienation from the general population in his era, methinks. Of course, some will try to argue by twisting these concepts into some modern hedonistic feelsgood version not even fit as a parody.

> Being noble, wise and virtuous didn't mean that much alienation from the general population in his era, methinks.

Ever heard of how Socrates died? haha

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#47

Post by simonmysun »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #27
simonmysun wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are forced to make our life complex. You can't deny the fact that the society we are living in has evolved. Of course one still has the oppurtunity to get rid of it and live in a cave, but how many people are doing this?

In what sense is it more complex?

> In what sense is it more complex?

The life is more complex because of the muddled and complex intellectual frameworks. This is because the 3-5 letter word concepts need to be defined to make sure everybody is talking about the same thing when people have to interact with more people.

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#49

Post by simonmysun »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #37
simonmysun wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are forced to make our life complex. You can't deny the fact that the society we are living in has evolved. Of course one still has the oppurtunity to get rid of it and live in a cave, but how many people are doing this?

> We are forced to make our life complex. No we aren't. People choose (or not) to make their lives complex, it isn't forced upon them.

I'm glad you have a choice. I might also be able to choose not to, but there are more people who can't.

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#50

Post by marginalia_nu »

bluetomcat wrote: post #42
marginalia_nu wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense is it more complex?

You are born into a society with certain expectations and customs. Choosing the slow and simple path turns you into a social recluse with little opportunities for contacts and further development. You may be reading Plato and Aristotle and have no idea what's currently happening in your neighbourhood because of lack of social contacts. The path to transformation should be the collective consensus towards new visions…

> You are born into a society with certain expectations and customs. Choosing the slow and simple path turns you into a social recluse with little opportunities for contacts and further development. You may be reading Plato and Aristotle and have no idea what's currently happening in your neighbourhood because of lack of social contacts.

Why do you think engaging with Plato and Aristotle will make you a recluse?

> The path to transformation should be the collective consensus towards new visions of society,

You use a should statement. Why should it be this way? Who has decided this is the way it should be? Also why does there need to be transformation?

> not some individual acts of virtue signalling.

Virtue ethics is also not the same as virtue signalling. Virtues in virtue ethics are for your own benefit. It's even a common point to do good things and not tell other people in e.g. stoic and early christian thought, as doing things to raise your esteem in the eyes of others is prideful and not virtuous.

Post reply on HN