[flagged]
I prefer these over the 1000th blog post about how SQLite is awesome (it is)
Aristotle – How to live a good life
91–100 of 183 posts
Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think you two are looking for the word consciousness. Or sense of self. For both it's debatable if dogs have it
Consciousness for me is a more sophisticated process than "simpler" thinking.
When I say thinking I mean things like planning to get a snack by pushing a chair in front of a counter to then jump up and open a cabinet and then even being ingenious enough to pretend not to have done it, even putting the chair back and hiding the snack if spotted. This is obviously not just "see snack get snack" reactive operation. What I think is debatable dogs may have are things like metacognition which I'd put under the consciousness umbrella. Even that I've seen examples, but I agree its much rarer.
Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're splitting hairs and attacking choices of words that were not made by Aristotle, but the author in trying to summarize Aristotle. You need to put away this sort of sophistry if you want to engage with philosophy. Like > > what is unique about humans: We have a soul that thinks and feels > Have you ever interacted with a dog for more than 30 seconds? You're engaging with half a sentence. The important part is th…
Dogs think. Someone not having this basic knowledge of the world is surprising. And I've read plenty of philosophy and engage with it just fine. I think it's perfectly fine to break apart the basic premises of something because you avoid wasting the time reading the conclusions. And in fact my criticism is to the author, not to Aristotle or Plato, although I don't agree with all that I've read that they wrote they we…
> Dogs think.
The fashion in which they do it is recognized by Aristotle in Historia Animalium, as well as in Metaphysics and De Anima.
He also mentions it in passing in Nicomachean Ethics (III.ii)
> Choice, then, seems to be voluntary, but not the same thing as the voluntary; the latter extends more widely. For both children and the lower animals share in voluntary action, but not in choice, and acts done on the spur of the moment we describe as voluntary, but not as chosen.
* https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.3.iii.html
> It seems that choosing is willing, but that the two terms are not identical, willing being the wider. For children and other animals have will, but not choice or purpose; and acts done upon the spur of the moment are said to be voluntary, but not to be done with deliberate purpose.
* https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/aristotle/nicomachean-ethi...
Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life
#94> First of all, what makes a thing a good thing? A good thing fulfils its unique function. Like a nuclear weapon?
>> First of all, what makes a thing a good thing? A good thing fulfils its unique function.
> Like a nuclear weapon?
If the device in question sets off uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction, then yes, it is good for its purpose as a nuclear weapon.
You are asking/implying: is the nuclear weapon's purpose good (in the first place)?
Something can be good for its purpose (e.g., electric chair [0]), but the good/badness of that purpose is a separate question.
Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
While solipsism itself is a difficult (and arguably pointless) position to attack, it has been my experience that arguments invoking it are often vulnerable to the charge of doing so inconsistently.
Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life
#96> We cannot study rules for proper behaviour. Instead, we must train our character through habituation to find the right mean appropriate to the circumstances. > Are we born with those virtues? > No. Well, Aristotle also speaks about "starting points" and claims there's a great weight for "habituation" as much as those "starting points" (your genetics, your talents, your environment growing up). So that's important a…
Maybe the first category needs some explanation. I have a realtive that relies on his own understanding... Way too much, to the point that he assumes to be right too often and so is mostly unable to listen to advice. Does he fall in the first or in the last category? I would put him in the last, but note that the heart of the problem is relying to one own understanding without considering the possibility of being wrong sometimes.
Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life
#97I just really liked this. There’s a lot of wisdom in Aristotle even if you don’t accept his entire system. For example, in his politics he says mechanics are not capable of practicing virtue. An interesting claim!
> For example, in his politics he says mechanics are not capable of practicing virtue. An interesting claim!
Well, people often find it very difficult to separate explanations from justifications.
Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
They may, but the wonderful thing about discourse is that in most cases you don't need to rebuild everything from raw signals processing on up. You just need to find the first common layer of agreement and build from there.
Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life
#99The 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…
> 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?
But what does it mean to cut? What is sharpness? How does one define it? What is a blade? What does it mean for something to be "comfortable"? How does one define weight: how does one define if something is "heavy" or "light"? What does it mean that something "is"?
Seriously: at some point the drilling down into definitions and saying the other person's argument does not answer everything can get ridiculous.
In this case the knife is an analogy: don't take it literally and move on with the actual argument/discussion being made.
Re: Aristotle – How to live a good life
#100The 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…
> 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? But what does it mean to cut? What is sharpness? How does one define it? What is a blade? What does it mean for something to be "comfortable"? How does one define weight: how does one define if something is "heavy…
That is also a bit of what philosophy is and in the exercise of fractally dissecting everything sometimes we uncover some new way of looking at things or deepen our understanding a bit more.