Aristotle and his influence on society.
Does anyone else think that being influenced by Plato is fine; but, Aristotle's influence on the dark ages, clergy, and religious folks, along with modern day Radians, in a manner of speaking, disturbs you?
Bertrand Russell spells this out in his History of Western Philosophy, which I'm skimming...
Why do you think Aristotle made humanity too dependent on magnanimous men from-which one would derive some privileged status over your brothers and sisters, as seen in the form of master-slave relations or slavery to state it explicitly (according to Russell)?
If what Russell says is prejudiced, which I don't think is necessarily true, please let me know.
Bertrand Russell spells this out in his History of Western Philosophy, which I'm skimming...
Why do you think Aristotle made humanity too dependent on magnanimous men from-which one would derive some privileged status over your brothers and sisters, as seen in the form of master-slave relations or slavery to state it explicitly (according to Russell)?
If what Russell says is prejudiced, which I don't think is necessarily true, please let me know.
Comments (48)
I don't know why but I always had a better feeling about Aristotle than about Plato and I don't know why. Somehow I blame Plato maybe for the view that we can't make contact with reality. Aristotle was down to Earth.
Not really. Plato had an influence on the middle ages as well, through his major influence on Christianity.
Both men are in a league of their own, and their influence on literally everything in the Western world (and, now, the entire world) is really beyond comprehension. This is almost a cliche now, but it remains true.
Quoting Shawn
Could you re-phrase this question? I think I'm understanding you but I want to be sure.
:up:
I don't know much about the Middle Ages or the Dark Ages, but I'm guessing that given the socio-economic dimensions, the church would want some way to expand theology in some manner, and it just so happened that Aristotle was around to be interpreted or abused however way the church authorities wanted.
Perhaps one could make a case that Aristotle actually dampened down some of the more irrational aspects of theological dogma, but someone with knowledge about this could say either way.
Not that Plato being chosen instead of Aristotle would've necessarily been better, he can be abused too.
But placed in proper context, these two figures are among the most important people in all human history, it's truly remarkable.
Look first to the society they lived in. Greece was not egalitarian. Privileged men played leading roles at the top of the heap with not too many in the middle, and a lot at the broad base. Not only did they practice slavery, but anyone unfortunate to be bankrupted or captured in battle could become a slave.
Were Plato and Aristotle abolitionists? Who was their Lincoln? Slave was then and would remain for centuries, the status of many, many people--between 5 and 10 million.
Also, there was a LOT of water under the bridge between Plato & Aristotle and the Medieval period, like the Roman Empire, Jesus, Paul, and Holy Mother Church. (BTW, Dark Ages is not considered a proper term any more--not out of political correctness, but because the medieval period just wasn't a "dark age". As scholars study it more, they find that there was quite a bit of good stuff going on.)
(I recall in my very first philosophy lecture, introduction to Philosophy of Science Alan Chalmers told an anecdote of a group of monks debating how many teeth horses had. They all scuttled off to the library to consult Aristotle, and found, lo, it wasn't recorded in his writings. So they surmised that this was something that couldn't be known. And when one of their number suggested going and looking at an actual horse, he was scorned by the rest of the monks for his impudence!)
On the other hand, perusing the writings of Aristotle, say the Nichomachean Ethics, and some of the metaphysics, there is also a great deal that can be rightly regarded as timeless in its appeal. There are some elements in Aristotle that were distillations of the whole tradition of Greek philosophy, and in discarding it, the metaphysical baby was often thrown out with the dogmatic bathwater. And Aristotle is making a comeback in biology, because of his ideas such as entelechy and final cause, which biologists are finding it hard to do without. Virtue ethics and the Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia are also enjoying a revival.
I don't think there's enough emphasis on Aristotle in modern curricula, although it's a subject that has to be taught with an eye to the historical and interpretive matters. And of course for a section of the populace, Aristotelianism will be forever associated with the Catholic Church and condemned on that basis.
In the summary of the Nicomachean Ethics that I'm reading from Bertrand Russell's perspective it's said that Aristotle maintained a view in accordance of the magnanimous man standing in higher regard than other men for being virtuous, as defined by Aristotle. The question to rephrase, would be that why does it seem so important that someone who is in higher standing with regards to ethics, should be treated any differently.
Maybe, I'll just base this off my proclivities of egalitarianism, which Aristotle isn't very accommodating towards with his conception of what most modern day women might call male 'jingoism'.
How true that this happened so much towards Plato when assimilating his views of the soul into Christianity! And, sadly, the philosopher king was never attempted or taken seriously.
Quoting 180 Proof
Yet, why was it so appealing to men to take parts of his Nicomachean Ethics and use it to justify forms or what many women call chauvinism on parts of males?
Yes, well. Plato wrote about Spartan society mainly, which the Greeks looked in very high regard.
However, Aristotle wrote about a way of personifying ethics through virtue, which was equivalent to happiness, and a end desirable inofitself. What speaks strangely to me is how people looked at his characterization of men and turned it into something profane by modern egalitarian like-minded people. Why is that?
Not only the Catholic Church; but also think about how his conception of man was so influential towards Randians. Why is that?
I see. I don't know if Aristotle really argues that the virtuous man should be treated differently, like some kind of master. From what I've read of the Ethics, he's simply laying out an analysis about the function of a human being, and how to live in accordance with that function (reason), towards the ultimate end of happiness.
In the ancient world there was considerably more social stratification, and the hoi polloi were held in low regard. (I wonder if you see echoes of that in Heidegger's conception of 'das man'? Is that the element in Heidegger that is said to be proto-fascist?)
In any case, there's a real tension between the Aristotelian hierarchical ontology and modern liberalism which deliberately rejects the vertical dimension that is implied by that.
I believe that is something he advocates openly in the Ethics. It's been a while since I've read Aristotle and I'm quoting from Russell's - History of Western Philosophy.
I'm not sure. You may want to ask @Ciceronianus, he would know. :smile:
Sparta had a higher percentage of slaves per master than Athens. Does that speak well for Plato? (This is just getting back to the issue of master/slave, stratification, etc.)
Quoting Wayfarer
Wayfarer is correct. The classical cultures were stratified, but did not have many layers in the strata. There was the top, a small middle, a big base. Being in the base didn't necessarily mean immiseration. Being a slave, depending on one's role, didn't mean immiseration either. Some slaves were "white collar" workers, so to speak (Nobody wore collars back then). They were also managers, scholars, teachers, etc. Keep in mind, though, that a scholar slave was once a free scholar. What would you prefer being? Most slaves just had to work. Sounds like. total drag to me. Still, Rome was more heterogeneous than Athens.
Ancient societies, in general, were not 'free and open', Shawn. Whenever people start waxing enthusiastic about Rome, I wish I could go back in time with them to see what it was actually like.
Well, the worldview of Aristotle, when it comes to political order, boils down to a question that in modern society is virtually overasked - are you left or right?
Because these are the defining characteristics of these political world views, are they not? The Right firmly believing that an authoritive body of government is necessary and a rule of the people would result in chaos. The Left firmly believing that the people should be the ones ruling and that an authoritive body of government will only be abused.
Both of these worldviews have merit in their own right if you ask me. Both raise points that are very valid. But at least in recorded history, I don't think there ever was a culture that was organized in a complete leftist fashion. I think we can consider all the actual democracies were not inclusive enough to count as being without central authoritive body. In all of modern democracy, the requirements seem inclusive at glance but realistically the only way to run a succesful government campaign is to either have a rich political party behind you or being rich yourself.
Ruling class only ever changed in form, not function. And it has been with us for a long time. Long before the Greeks, probably long before written history. When has humanity ever been without a king? Aristotle can hardly be blamed. There seems to be something inherently enticing in inequality from the stance of power. A sensation that likely has been accompanying humanity since the age of monkey.
This is like asking why should a law respecting man be treated differently than a criminal. Isn't it obvious to you why a person who adheres to a code of ethics ought to be treated differently than one who simply acts in random ways? The former is more dependable, trustworthy, and reliable than the latter.
A better question might be to ask why we ought to follow this ethics (Aristotle's) rather than some other ethics. Aristotle would say that ethics must be 'intuitive' as intuition is the highest guide to practical knowledge. If you agree with this, then you are already inclined toward following his intuition based ethics. If you disagree, then you need to propose another principle to base a code of ethics in, or else you become the unprincipled, undependable, untrustworthy, unreliable person, acting in random ways.
Misogyny?
Aristotle?
"chauvanism"?
Please expound if you would? Not because I doubt you.
I am just beginning to doubt myself. I've never won an argument with Aristotle, but I am interested in what you think.
Don't blame the messenger, Tiff :zip:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle%27s_views_on_women :eyes:
Jesus! F*$%^ are you kidding me?
Of all the Philosophers in the Universe and I thought the shift from Friedrich Nietzsche to Aristotle was a move out from under the control of a man.
Now, I realize that it doesn't matter if it is in Philosophy, love of 30 years, characters in a movie...
I seem to be able to pick them out of a crowd, living or dead.
How do I change this, now that I recognize an obvious pattern, that might be attractive but also unhealthy for who I am trying to uncover deep within me, my true self?
I've been an Epicurean since I'd begun reading philosophy for my own sake in high school (which may have hastened my apostasy). Then during my years obsessed with Freddy, despite his 'philosophical misogyny', I became even more devoted to Epicureanism.
http://wiki.epicurism.info/Women/
In the main, I find among Western (Euro-asiatic) 'classical philosophies' that those of the Hellenic era such as Epicureans, Kynics & (early) Stoics seem much less patriarchial / misogynistic than mainstream the Academician, (Neo)Platonist and Peripatetic schools.
http://www.cynicalreflections.net/2012/08/women-cynics-and-dinner-conversation.html?m=1
https://dailystoic.com/stoic-women/
As i'm sure you know, Tiff, only you can learn for yourself – dance through the labyrinth of – "how to become who you are". :smirk:
There are no saints here. I've read that perhaps Spinoza was an extremely ethical person, but surely he must have shared a few of his societies quite appalling views.
I think Hume should be mentioned in this conversation. It's quite clear that almost everybody who knew him, really liked him, he was optimistic, witty, sharp, honest, etc. Just reading him, one gets the sense that he was a unique personality and a good person.
Yet he was also a racist.
But, if we are going to have the standards we have today, apply to the important figures of the past, we won't read anything.
Quoting Manuel
Quoting Manuel
Quoting Manuel
You are quite right about wrongly applying contemporary values to the past. Our contemporary values aren't so settled that they can be called universal. We probably should not say "his society's quite appalling views" unless the people of the time thought the views were appalling. Hume died in 1776. According to Google Ngram, the noun "race" appeared in print before 1700, and had little in common with our use of the term. "Race" could apply to the ancestors of Angus, a Scottish family, for example. The adjectives "racist", "racism", and "racial" scarcely appear in print until the middle of the 20th century. Our categories were not the categories of Hume's time.
The founders of the Imperial College of London, Thomas Henry Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) and Alfred Beit, a German Jew who richly endowed the Imperial College, are being scrutinized for rejection because they fail the test of purity--the same test that most people prior to the 21st Century (if then) would fail--the test of having the proper progressive anti-racist views of the present moment. Read all about here: Quillette.
In 2222, the participants of The Philosophy Forum may look back to our time and say, "The people of 2022 had appalling views about artificial intelligence and mechanized beings." (In their time, "humanist", "humane", and "humanism" -- never mind David Hume -- had come to mean something much different, much more negative and socially destructive, than those words mean to us.) Are the superiority pricks of 2222 better than the superiority pricks of 2022? No.
I didn't know that. Thanks for informing me.
He thought some groups of people were superior to others in certain respects, thus speaks of the lack of creativity in black people and things of that nature.
On the other hand, had he been born in the middle of the 20th century, I doubt he would believe the same things. He'd likely have other questionable views as do we, if we are honest.
We can't know what biases we have which will be considered objectionable.
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is sad. It's an inaccurate portrayal of history, which not only should be remembered for its great moments and figures, which existed no doubt, but also to see how much we've progressed in some areas of social life, not others. Erasing the past for such things is Disneyfication.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Absolutely.
Or the way we treat many animals and plants. Still lots to improve with feminism, racism, classism and things we can't even see are wrong.
Like @Wayfarer said, this current trend of hyper PC-ism, while in some cases good in intent, is misunderstanding human nature.
We tend to have this tendency to want to look for Saints - people who are morally perfect - might as well look for a pet ghost while we're at it.
Last week I was at a church discussion group for which the the topic was racial discrimination. Someone asked the question, "Why do people practice discrimination in housing--discouraging blacks from becoming their neighbors?"
People like to group themselves by similarity of race, class, culture, politics, sexual preference... The church at which the discussion took place exemplifies this grouping--Northern European, "middle class", well educated, Lutheran. Likely we evolved this tendency to 'stick to our own kind'. Is that a bug or is it a feature? I think the latter.
Urban dwellers tend to prefer the variety of the city--racial, class, politics, foodways, etc--but they also tend to maintain boundaries of race, class, culture, and so on. Hence, different kinds of neighborhoods. Some people prefer suburban environments where demographics are homogeneous.
I've always preferred the city (because I grew up in a very small town), but I think the suburban are wrongly criticized for being monotonous, boring, all-the-same, racist enclaves, and so on. 25% of the US population lives in suburbs. 40% of blacks live in suburbs. They like where they live. Are 80,000,000 Americans wrong? I don't think so. (There was a musical, "Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong). 31% of Americans live in large cities. They aren't wrong either. Different strokes for different folks.
Concentrations of similar people, be they blacks, whites, asians, gays, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, singles, and so forth provide the necessary demographic density to build up particular cultures. Similar people who are too widely scattered have difficulty doing that.
Aristotle became the authority! Bummer!
Quoting Bitter Crank
In a cosmopolitan milieu, I suspect it's more of a bug than not (an ever-present, atavistic anxiety in spite of the cultural and material benefits). Still, the insights expressed are spot-on. :up:
:up:
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Don't forget Socrates...he is part of this cult of personalities!
Enjoy your stay! :flower:
Good question. And aptly phrased.
However, before we ask why someone did something, I think we should first try to establish that they actually did what they are being accused of.
The funny thing is that the people who demonize Plato and Aristotle are often the very same people who glorify real dictators like Lenin and Stalin. In his The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, Russell writes:
Moreover, what self-styled modern “progressives” conveniently forget is that Ancient Greece was arguably far more democratic than the despotic systems of other cultures of the time like Egypt, Persia, and India.
And, of course, without Plato and Aristotle, there wouldn’t be philosophers like Bertrand Russell to criticize them .... :smile:
Correct. Not every preference of association is an "act of discrimination". Otherwise, every time people associate with others of the same race, class, culture, religion, etc., they could be accused of committing a "crime".
By that logic, your church group would have to either (a) invite equal numbers of atheists, Muslims, Hare Krishnas, etc., or (b) disband and disperse ....
Officially, we desire diversity. Just about every church does--officially. But not really, and that's OK. The benefit of diversity for diversity's sake is slight. Neighborhoods that operate like concentration camps (the ghettos) are bad too. But just moving people out of the ghetto to dilute the demographics of both the ghetto and the suburb probably doesn't accomplish much. It is thought (by some reformers) that poor children perform in school better IF they and their families live amongst people who value and perform education, have regular jobs, mow their lawn, and so forth.
I've read some of the research, and it sounds plausible--which isn't the same thing as likely. Whether it works or not clearly would depend on a cluster of disparate factors. It all gets very complicated very fast, at best. At worst, the project blows up.
Russell wrote that in 1920, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution.
I've been Reading Richard Overy's The Twilight Years: The Paradox of Britain between the Wars. At that time, between WWI and WWII, there was a lot of doubt in various circles about the future of capitalism. A lot of people, following Marx and others, thought that Capitalism was bad, and on its last legs. If it was doomed, it still wasn't clear when, exactly, it would collapse. Many of these people thought that socialism was the natural and humane successor to capitalism. It was difficult for intellectuals (including economists) to decide what, exactly was going on. Clearly, what was happening was not good -- especially after 1929.
Some feared that the conclusion of capitalism would not be socialism, but barbarism. Especially in the 1930s, that must have seems increasingly likely.
A lot of British progressives were at least pro-socialist and some were pro-Bolshevik, or pro-communist. This was still early in the future USSR's revolutionary history. On the other hand, the state of capitalism which was in front of their eyes was not good. Rising unemployment, underemployment, and poverty were ruining many lives. it didn't seem like the ruling class (where the wealth was) were competent to deal with the problems at hand. Indeed, many economic advisors were not sure what should/could be done.
Faulkner's aphorism that "The past is never dead. It's not even past" seems truer as I get older. No, I don't think our situation is like the 1920s or 1930s. But in the face of global warming and rampant viral infections, one has to wonder whether the existing establishment is up to the task of governing effectively. It's clearer in 2022 than it was in 1932 what we should be doing -- but we don't seem to be able to do it (cut CO2 emissions significantly now--something we should have done 30 years ago).
I think the term "ghetto" can be misleading as it evokes the image of people being forced by the state to live exclusively in a designated area.
"Ghettos" do not always emerge under state pressure. In most cases, they seem to develop naturally, as a result of people of the same ethnic or religious background tending to live in areas inhabited by people from the same background, especially where there are places of worship, schools, stores, restaurants, etc. that facilitate cultural and ethnic continuation.
Diversity can also give rise to tensions and these tensions can be exploited by political groups and foreign powers for their own divisive agendas.
In fact, it is not unheard-of for minorities living in a particular area to demand a degree of autonomy or even independence from the host society.
If diversity causes or contributes to the fragmentation of society, it cannot be claimed that there are only positive aspects to it.
The hoi polloi dealt with and were bound by, and a part of, the immutable, changing, practical word. Therefore, the unchanging, perfect truth, good, etc., was inaccessible to them. Plato and Aristotle were convinced the world in which we live is imperfect, and there must be something underlying it or transcending it which was perfect. Only the perfect was truly significant; only its contemplation was worthy.
As for Heidegger, I thought his concept of das man derived from the fact he'd constantly yell "You da man!" whenever he saw Hitler or some higher-ranking Nazi. But I could be wrong.
And another thing. Why didn't Euclid invent calculus?
That's a good one! "Jude Man!" How come he is considered by some one of the greatest philosophers? Sure, the works and politics should not be convoluted. Considering Heidegger I can't separate them though. Heidrich, Heinz, Heil, Heidegger... They all belong to the same nazi bunch, as far as I'm concerned, no matter their degree of "philosophical intelligence".
I'm well known in this forum as being inclined to mock and disparage Heidegger at every opportunity, and this inclination has, I fear, made some angry. The general approach of his admirers has been to distinguish the man from the philosopher, something I find difficult to do. I think him a loathsome person, and that may make me disposed to reject his work. So, I'm probably not his most impartial critic.
But what I've been able to read, and (I think) understand, of his work seems to me unremarkable, and Romantic, mystic and peculiarly nationalistic. Deutschland seem to him uber alles indeed--Germans if they aren't the Master Race are destined to save humanity. It has to do with their "Being" I think. This may account for his seemingly worshipful attitude towards Hitler.
:up:
I agree 100% and stand on your side! I have read some stuff of him. About "Dasein"... And he discovered: "The human body is essentially something other than an animal organism"... Damned! How long did he take to find that out? When he saw a naked woman for the first time at age 30?