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

Who can claim Aristotle?

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 99 posts

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#41

Post by Boogie_Man »

optimalsolver wrote: post #40
Boogie_Man wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the unstated central thrust of your statement that someone who philosophically supported slavery at a time when it was a widespread practice must necessarily be of average or below average intelligence? If so, I'd argue that you're committing two common missteps I see frequently: 1. Conflating intellectual greatness with moral goodness. These are separate categories. 2. Applying current moral standards to a previo…

>must necessarily be of average or below average intelligence Literally yes. A mind too dense to see he was drafting his arguments in support of whatever happened to be personally convenient. Considering he had to pen this screed in the first place, we can tell his view wasn't the exclusive one.

Do you feel that Caesar must necessarily have been militarily and politically dense because of the war crimes he committed?

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#42

Post by optimalsolver »

Boogie_Man wrote: post #41
optimalsolver wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>must necessarily be of average or below average intelligence Literally yes. A mind too dense to see he was drafting his arguments in support of whatever happened to be personally convenient. Considering he had to pen this screed in the first place, we can tell his view wasn't the exclusive one.

Do you feel that Caesar must necessarily have been militarily and politically dense because of the war crimes he committed?

Well I'm sure his final thoughts were along the lines that he wasn't the brilliant mastermind he thought he was.

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#43

Post by motohagiography »

chambers wrote: post #36
motohagiography wrote: post #12

His ideas provide a useful filter with words personal qualities, and the moderation of virtues in Nichomchean Ethics pretty much describes what it means when we say someone is 'honest.' it's a foundational read, along with the stoics. the provocative aspect of Aristotle today is that for people who see themselves as not on the level of citizens and who reject being compared by the virtues he (and later, aquinas) arti…

Another fascinating comment by motohagiography. I wager the movement is less a rebellion of the few, and more the unbelief of the many. That is, people just don't believe there's a personal benefit to being virtuous. It's a completely rational calculation when there's no deep spiritual or religious belief in far-off rewards or punishments. Unfortunately, our age's contempt for belief in the "deep down" turns people t…

what a clever trick it would be to persuade so many people it is actually more virtuous, to choose-rationally, to act un-virtuously, than it is to actually work at becoming virtuous. super-human cleverness at play there, one might say.

this phenomenon we're apprehending together isn't new either. history is full of guys who just spell it all out and try to warn us. you could take courses in religion and philosophy to find out who to read, but really, I just recommend starting with the ones murdered by their governments. the rest are flatterers anyway.

compliment appreciated and i hope this handle doesn't become a thing, but thank you!

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#44

Post by throw0101d »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #39
throw0101d wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A decent argument can be made that most of modern life is based of Aristotle's metaphysics: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43277412-aristotle-s-rev... And that most 'Western values' are basically Christian in origin (with an undercurrent of Aristotle): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(Holland_book) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_Wor... MacIntyre argues that when it comes to…

Plato had a lot more influence on the early church than Aristotle did. I'm not sure if that's true in the African churches, though. I for some reason associate Aristotle with the alexandrian church and with gnosticism (& with islam), at least until Aquinus.

> Plato had a lot more influence on the early church than Aristotle did.

Yes, certainly in Augustine of Hippo. But I don't think the metaphysics (or ethics) has made it into modern era as much as Aristotle filtered through Aquinas.

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#45

Post by jumpoddly »

optimalsolver wrote: post #40
Boogie_Man wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the unstated central thrust of your statement that someone who philosophically supported slavery at a time when it was a widespread practice must necessarily be of average or below average intelligence? If so, I'd argue that you're committing two common missteps I see frequently: 1. Conflating intellectual greatness with moral goodness. These are separate categories. 2. Applying current moral standards to a previo…

>must necessarily be of average or below average intelligence Literally yes. A mind too dense to see he was drafting his arguments in support of whatever happened to be personally convenient. Considering he had to pen this screed in the first place, we can tell his view wasn't the exclusive one.

For the sake of recognizing a hill I too would be proud to die on, and so you know there are others who feel the same: I agree with you.

I like to think the negative feedback you are receiving is due to the ambiguity, and so, the multitude of definitions for “intelligence” that each of us has.

I know I have met people who others have touted as “intelligent” that I thought were too deplorable to be given such an accolade.

I am with you, one of my measures of intelligence is how one recognizes the collective fate of all life.

Debating such a subject leaves me with too much ire to articulate sufficiently so I will lean on the eloquence of Martin Luther King Jr:

> Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#46

Post by squirrelChrist »

analog31 wrote: post #14
motohagiography wrote: post #12

His ideas provide a useful filter with words personal qualities, and the moderation of virtues in Nichomchean Ethics pretty much describes what it means when we say someone is 'honest.' it's a foundational read, along with the stoics. the provocative aspect of Aristotle today is that for people who see themselves as not on the level of citizens and who reject being compared by the virtues he (and later, aquinas) arti…

Ask HN: What's a favored translation these days?

Unless you know enough Greek to get into serious depth, Oxford's Complete Works of Aristotle, edited by Barnes, is the standard thing scholars use.

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#47

Post by openrisk »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #38
openrisk wrote: post #22

Its quite difficult to rationalize and demystify the depth of Ancient Greek thought and Aristotle is probably the best embodiment of that conundrum. It would be quite an educational breakthrough if we could actually feel how and why there was this peak moment in intellectual inquiry, why it did not persist, why it emerged again but only millennia afterwards and whether it may again vanish as we drift into digitally i…

It's at least partially linked to the spread of economic writing and leisure time. Socrates famously wouldn't (couldn't?) write; most of what he said we know through plato; much of the writing predating this was orally preserved and propagated. I find it hard to believe that logic hasn't been independently invented many times and places, though. The daodejing certainly implies an understanding of logic, even as it su…

Yes, Aristotle most certainly climbed on the shoulders of countless "giants" before him. The last rung of the ladder, his own teachers at Plato's Academy are even known. So, inate talent combined with a ready pool of prior knowledge, basic enabling information technology and favorable economic conditions certainly make all his polymathy and conceptual breakthroughs plausible.

But the mystery thickens again if you consider the multiple centuries of the Hellenistic and Roman eras that did not continue the pattern, even though economic conditions and the number of educated individuals kept growing. Let alone the subsequent extremely long "dark ages" where economic conditions did deteriorate but pressumably there were enough courts and monasteries to feed a few pioneering scientists.

Today we take the scientific outlook and methodology as sort of de-facto winner, but there seems to be an element of cultural choice and possibly other factors that modulate the mindshare that ends up cultivating it.

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#48

Post by optimalsolver »

jumpoddly wrote: post #45
optimalsolver wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>must necessarily be of average or below average intelligence Literally yes. A mind too dense to see he was drafting his arguments in support of whatever happened to be personally convenient. Considering he had to pen this screed in the first place, we can tell his view wasn't the exclusive one.

For the sake of recognizing a hill I too would be proud to die on, and so you know there are others who feel the same: I agree with you. I like to think the negative feedback you are receiving is due to the ambiguity, and so, the multitude of definitions for “intelligence” that each of us has. I know I have met people who others have touted as “intelligent” that I thought were too deplorable to be given such an accol…

Thanks. It really restores a bit of faith in humanity to know I'm not the only one who views things this way.

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#49

Post by geye1234 »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #35
geye1234 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not (really) true. Well there's an element of truth in it, but only an element. European philosophy was not really Aristotelian until the re-arrival of his work in the 12C, so it's hardly fair to 'blame' him for the lack of scientific development that period. When it did arrive, it was extremely controversial, and it took the genius of Aquinas (and even then, only just) for Aristotle to be accepted in Christi…

I think Avicenna also deserves a mention as another way educated people would naturally interact with Aristotelian thought.

Oh yeah definitely, and Averroes and the other medieval Islamic scholars as well. Absolute intellectual giants.

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#50

Post by geye1234 »

optimalsolver wrote: post #40
Boogie_Man wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the unstated central thrust of your statement that someone who philosophically supported slavery at a time when it was a widespread practice must necessarily be of average or below average intelligence? If so, I'd argue that you're committing two common missteps I see frequently: 1. Conflating intellectual greatness with moral goodness. These are separate categories. 2. Applying current moral standards to a previo…

>must necessarily be of average or below average intelligence Literally yes. A mind too dense to see he was drafting his arguments in support of whatever happened to be personally convenient. Considering he had to pen this screed in the first place, we can tell his view wasn't the exclusive one.

Couple of points:

- I think taking interest on a (full-recourse) loan is a form of fraud. Or rather, it is to fraud what robbery is to larceny. I also think it produces, in practice, ownership in a share of a person, such that it can be usefully compared with slavery. I think I can make good arguments in support of this. But I don't think people who argue otherwise are dumb, or arguing from self-interest; I just think they haven't fully thought through it. You might extend the same leeway to someone widely acknowledge as one of the greatest minds in history.

- Please let me know of any anti-slavery arguments from that period you're aware of.

- Whether acknowledged or not, all anti-slavery arguments use Aristotelian concepts (as will any attempt at rational discourse, or any attempt at discussion of morals).

Post reply on HN