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

61–70 of 183 posts

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#61

Post by marginalia_nu »

bluetomcat wrote: post #58
marginalia_nu wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that invalidates their conclusions. There's also Epictetus. That man can hardly be accused of being a spoiled aristocrat.

It discredits them. Imagine the modern version – a privileged upper-middle class person with an expensive upbringing and education talking about stoicism ala Ryan Holiday and hard work. Their version of stoicism is most likely about not worrying of the fluctuations of stock values. An economically disenfranchised man's stoicism is about seeing their health degrade.

I don't think this is a useful mindset. We judge ideas based on their merits, not who came up with them. You can throw these accusations at modern figures like Marx and Engels as well. They were very much coddled and wealthy, far removed from the workaday concerns of everyday life.

Interesting ideas are disproportionately likely to come from people who have a lot of leisure time, as that is a prerequisite for having the time to think about anything.

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#63

Post by Almondsetat »

The very beginning of this post contains a critical passage.

What makes a good knife? Of course, a good knife is a knife that cuts well.

But what does it mean to cut well? Just the sharpness of the blade? What about grip comfort? And balancing? And stickiness? And weight? And what about the thing being cut? Can a knife cut everything well?

As you can see, we are already dead in our tracks, as asking what makes a knife good is basically on the same level of complexity of asking the same thing about a human, and this is why ancient philosophers, many of whom didn't really explore nuance, should be critically studied, without falling for simplistic "this is my hero" behavior

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#64

Post by simonmysun »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #59
simonmysun wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but it affects how other people comprehense it. Imagine making laws based on the idea of virtue from Aristotle.

I'm imagining. Then what would happen?

You will need a percise definition of virtue and end up using the muddled complex intellectual frameworks. You may have no problem understanding the virtue concept with simple words because you grew up with it, but people with different environments may understand a different thing.

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#65

Post by graemep »

autonomousErwin wrote: post #36
somenameforme wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguing is enjoyable and helps build the foundation of your beliefs IMO. Where people go wrong is expecting the other person to be converted to your beliefs or swayed by your argument. Even given the exact same data, evidence, and information, people can naturally and logically come to different conclusions. And ultimately, people will choose to believe (or not) what they want.

There's really something quite magical when you're having a debate with someone with vastly different views but they're reasonable and you both find common ground. Probably a good indication of partner compatibility - I don't think it's healthy if you and your partner have exactly the same views.

It certainly reflects my experience. A lot of my friends I people I will have arguments, frequently on topics that make people emotional and on which we have very different views: politics (including Brexit!), religion, gender identity, and so on.

On the other hand that was not true of my EX-wife.

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#67

Post by yimmothathird »

cynicalsecurity wrote: post #66
z3t4 wrote: post #2

My empirical study of happy people comes down to these three points: * Have low expectations * Enjoy simple things * Don't care too much

This is a horrible way to live a life.

Im sure ifbits perfectly fine if you pair it with a nice lead based diet.

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#68

Post by z3t4 »

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.

not caring as in, not caring if you get rejected. Not caring what others think when you peruse what makes you happy.

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#69

Post by cannonpr »

Almondsetat wrote: post #63

The very beginning of this post contains a critical passage. What makes a good knife? Of course, a good knife is a knife that cuts well. But what does it mean to cut well? Just the sharpness of the blade? What about grip comfort? And balancing? And stickiness? And weight? And what about the thing being cut? Can a knife cut everything well? As you can see, we are already dead in our tracks, as asking what makes a knif…

While I can largely accept this criticism, I’d also like to point out that it might be missing the spirit of a lot of ancient philosophers historical context. For starters a lot of their books and texts have been lost so we aren’t sure for several what nuance has been lost. Secondarily a lot of that nuance you describe was meant to be explored via shared dialogue (the Socratic method) between pupil and teacher, until a common and nuanced understanding of the topic was achieved, not just studied out of a book, which was enormously expensive and not at all available to most people in the first place. I’d largely view their teachings as a starting point upon which to build a dialogue and nuanced understanding with a long since dead teacher.

Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life

#70

Post by _xiaz »

AntoniusBlock wrote: post #40
somenameforme wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguing is enjoyable and helps build the foundation of your beliefs IMO. Where people go wrong is expecting the other person to be converted to your beliefs or swayed by your argument. Even given the exact same data, evidence, and information, people can naturally and logically come to different conclusions. And ultimately, people will choose to believe (or not) what they want.

You're right, but sometimes you gotta realise you're being trolled or the person you're arguing with is not arguing in good faith. Maybe that's what he meant.

Still. At a minimum the troll will have fun, and when you notice it you can troll in return
Post reply on HN