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

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#61

Post by mbivert »

optimalsolver wrote: post #24
ChocMontePy wrote: post #10

I think Aristotle had the greatest mind of any human who ever lived. The older I get the more I realize that there are a thousand true and intelligent things you can say about any topic. Magazines, journals, and libraries are full to the brim of intelligent people writing intelligent things. But an extremely minuscule portion of that huge mass is made of writing that gets right to the heart of the matter. And Aristot…

Great mind? I don't think so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_slavery

Most contemporary people can't freely dispose of their time. Their ability to move in space is restricted likewise. Aren't they essentially [part-time] slaves? That is, by comparison with people who can dispose of themselves freely.

Note that I'm assuming an objective/neutral definition of "slavery", and not the usual "slavery=bad thing".

Now, we could argue that it's a matter of education, circumstances, etc. But surely you must have met people who would obstinately refuse to listen to reason, entertaining their own misery. At least IME, it's sadly a common trait.

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#63

Post by optimalsolver »

aspenmayer wrote: post #55
optimalsolver wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great mind? I don't think so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_slavery

By that metric, Jesus didn’t free the slaves, either, and he said slaves should obey their masters.

That would suck if Jesus wasn't some random cult leader.

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#64

Post by optimalsolver »

mbivert wrote: post #61
optimalsolver wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great mind? I don't think so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_slavery

Most contemporary people can't freely dispose of their time. Their ability to move in space is restricted likewise. Aren't they essentially [part-time] slaves? That is, by comparison with people who can dispose of themselves freely. Note that I'm assuming an objective/neutral definition of "slavery", and not the usual "slavery=bad thing". Now, we could argue that it's a matter of education, circumstances, etc. But su…

So, just to be clear, you believe slavery and employment are just a difference in degree, not a difference in kind?

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#65

Post by optimalsolver »

geye1234 wrote: post #60
optimalsolver wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Whether I'm right, or am an absolute drooling nutcase, for thinking interest-taking (on a full-recourse loan) is immoral is beside the point No it most definitely is not. Could you just confirm the following statement is accurate: It is your belief that interest taking on loans and legalized slavery are a difference of degree, not a difference in kind.

> It is your belief that interest taking on loans and legalized slavery are a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. No. They are comparable, and both moral evils, but are different species of action. But suppose I said yes, then what? It would not affect the argument. Whether I'm right or wrong about interest-taking per se , I would be wrong to believe that people who defended it were wicked or stupid (rath…

>They are comparable

They are not comparable in any way, shape, or form.

>you are wrong to believe that Aristotle was wicked and stupid

He was unquestionably wicked and stupid compared to his contemporaries who were able to see past the miasma that was the culture they were steeped in.

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#66

Post by geye1234 »

optimalsolver wrote: post #65
geye1234 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is your belief that interest taking on loans and legalized slavery are a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. No. They are comparable, and both moral evils, but are different species of action. But suppose I said yes, then what? It would not affect the argument. Whether I'm right or wrong about interest-taking per se , I would be wrong to believe that people who defended it were wicked or stupid (rath…

>They are comparable They are not comparable in any way, shape, or form. >you are wrong to believe that Aristotle was wicked and stupid He was unquestionably wicked and stupid compared to his contemporaries who were able to see past the miasma that was the culture they were steeped in.

As a thought experiment:

- Is it possible that you are mistaken about some -- any -- moral issue which is almost universally held by the culture at large?

- If so, would it be reasonable to conclude from this that you're wicked and stupid?

You agree that the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively, right?

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#67

Post by mbivert »

optimalsolver wrote: post #64
mbivert wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most contemporary people can't freely dispose of their time. Their ability to move in space is restricted likewise. Aren't they essentially [part-time] slaves? That is, by comparison with people who can dispose of themselves freely. Note that I'm assuming an objective/neutral definition of "slavery", and not the usual "slavery=bad thing". Now, we could argue that it's a matter of education, circumstances, etc. But su…

So, just to be clear, you believe slavery and employment are just a difference in degree, not a difference in kind?

At least when defining "slavery" as "restricting people to dispose freely of their time, space (or goods…)", and when considering the way most people on Earth are employed today, yes.

Of course, if we define "slavery" as "harsh, senseless, cruel, violent, selfish abuse of other humans", then (I hope in the vast majority of cases), no, contemporary employment and slavery are different in kind.

But I do think there are reasons to doubt this second definition to have been systematically accurate.

For example, it makes no sense, from a cost-effectiveness point of view, for a slave owner to mistreat his slaves that much: it's in his best interest to make sure they live decently. Or, in a society where slavery is culturally acceptable, hence widespread, many slave owners must not have been this inhumane.

I'm not saying it never occurred, merely that there are good reasons to think that it wasn't as systematic as we tend to believe.

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#68

Post by optimalsolver »

mbivert wrote: post #67
optimalsolver wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, just to be clear, you believe slavery and employment are just a difference in degree, not a difference in kind?

At least when defining "slavery" as "restricting people to dispose freely of their time, space (or goods…)", and when considering the way most people on Earth are employed today, yes. Of course, if we define "slavery" as "harsh, senseless, cruel, violent, selfish abuse of other humans", then (I hope in the vast majority of cases), no, contemporary employment and slavery are different in kind. But I do think there are…

> from a cost-effectiveness point of view

What's the cost-effectiveness of a master selling one of his female slave's children away from her, which was a regular occurrence?

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#69

Post by optimalsolver »

geye1234 wrote: post #66
optimalsolver wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are comparable They are not comparable in any way, shape, or form. >you are wrong to believe that Aristotle was wicked and stupid He was unquestionably wicked and stupid compared to his contemporaries who were able to see past the miasma that was the culture they were steeped in.

As a thought experiment: - Is it possible that you are mistaken about some -- any -- moral issue which is almost universally held by the culture at large? - If so, would it be reasonable to conclude from this that you're wicked and stupid? You agree that the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively, right?

Not as it pertains to the harming of other sentient beings, which is the only moral issue that matters. And in such cases I am often in conflict with my own culture.

Re: Who can claim Aristotle?

#70

Post by mbivert »

optimalsolver wrote: post #68
mbivert wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least when defining "slavery" as "restricting people to dispose freely of their time, space (or goods…)", and when considering the way most people on Earth are employed today, yes. Of course, if we define "slavery" as "harsh, senseless, cruel, violent, selfish abuse of other humans", then (I hope in the vast majority of cases), no, contemporary employment and slavery are different in kind. But I do think there are…

> from a cost-effectiveness point of view What's the cost-effectiveness of a master selling one of his female slave's children away from her, which was a regular occurrence?

I meant in general: I'd expect moderately happy slaves to perform better, and the cost of keeping them moderately happy lower than acquiring new slaves over and over; creating slaves has a cost.

Accurately answering your question requires writing a thesis: one needs extensive access to accurate data spanning thousands of years, a solid grasp of history, psychology, ancient customs, etc. Those situations are full of subtle nuances; what historians currently understand might not even be that accurate.

OTOH, casting reasonable doubts by assuming a fair amount of people weren't too stupid is less bold of a position than "slave owners were living devil", but at least it's honest.

(Which doesn't imply that "slave owners were living devil" isn't true, merely that it's dishonest to say that it's true, because it's too difficult to know for sure).

Post reply on HN