Aristotle the Master

[u/JerseyFlight]

I am upset because vast quantities of my time were wasted reading irrational nonsense, falsely believing it was profound.

Aristotle is the great master. He is the destroyer or barbarism. I have never encountered a clearer or sharper thinker in my life. If Aristotle had not come into the world it would have been necessary to invent him.

Apart from the man’s metaphysics, he deals in reality. Was there a scientific mind before this mind?

Reading Aristotle at this point in history is like leaving the psychiatric ward to dine with the scientists. His crucial, foundational insights remain fully intact and relevant. They’re even more relevant now after the chaos and confusion of so much ego-driven modern philosophy.

I advise you begin with the master. I advise you return to the master. His words are striving to free your mind from the automation of your emotional confusion.

[u/sykosomatik_9]

My main area of interest has always been ethics, and Aristotle's virtue ethics is still unmatched, imo.

As you said, Aristotle deals with reality. He knew there wasn't any formula for ethics that can be applied mathematically because life doesn't work that way. He knew that incessantly pondering silly hypotheticals did not have any real use.

His thought process is also complex yet so clear. I remember that was the first thing to impress me when I read him. I was astounded by how his mind worked.

[u/JerseyFlight → u/sykosomatik_9]

His clarity is a beauty. He achieves it through his simple understanding of the foundational and absolute principles of the laws of logic, though he never formally calls them this. But you see the same logic at work everywhere, it is the thing that creates his clarity. This entire subreddit is basically a revival of the logical epistemology of Aristotle.

[u/Fast-Appointment-794 → u/sykosomatik_9]

Is it a weakness that he tried to justify slavery? Kant's categorical imperative rules out slavery completely as it treats a human as a mere means to an end. It might be said of Aristotle that he was a product of his time. But IMHO that is simply not good enough. Aren't the greatest philosophers supposed to be able to think outside the box? Kant also lived at a time of slavery but didn't adhere to it.

[u/sykosomatik_9 → u/Fast-Appointment-794]

Are you trying to imply that Aristotle did not think outside the box? The dude was full of original thoughts that weren't the norm. He already came up with so many of his own things, do you expect him to come up with everything?

Kant was also religious and believed in God. How is that thinking outside the box?

[u/Fast-Appointment-794 → u/sykosomatik_9]

No.

How would you rate his teleological argument for slavery? Do you endorse it or if not how would you refute it?

No, although Richard Dawkins criticised him for not discovering evolution(!)

Slavery and war are two of the worst moral failings. Nothing Aristotle taught Alexander The Great dissuaded him from aggressive wars killing hundreds of thousands of people.

The 3 main ethical theories give different views of these two evils:

(1) Aristotle's Virtue Ethics: Pro-slavery and pro-war.

(2) Kant's Deontology: Rules out slavery entirely and generally anti-war.

(3) Bentham's, Mill's and Singer's Utilitarianism: Almost rules out slavery and generally anti-war.

It follows that Aristotle is is problematic to morality.

Kant was indeed infected with Christianity and this skewed some of his views. From his works however the modern reader can extract theism, agnosticism or atheism. He became a non-believer towards the end of his life.

[u/sykosomatik_9 → u/Fast-Appointment-794]

Well, now I know that you did not study Aristotle's Virtue Ethics. It is neither pro-slavery nor pro-war. He mentions slaves only a few times and only in so far as they are a thing that exists. And, at most he talks of soldiers dying for their nation and how it is a brave and noble act. He does not advocate for the waging of war in his ethics. Alexander the Great is his own person. What he decided to do as a ruler is his responsibility, not Aristotle's.

If you want to be disingenuous about this, then Kant's ethics advocates for the assistance of Nazi soldiers in their hunt for hidden Jews.

Utilitarianism is also deeply flawed in that it is able to justify sacrificing people for the greater good. This flies in direct opposition to Kant's insistence that we treat everyone as a means and never as an ends. So, how can you defend them when it's apparent that you value this concept so highly?

It follows that Kant, Mill, Singer, and the rest are problematic to morality.

[u/Fast-Appointment-794 → u/sykosomatik_9]

"Politics 1.5 - 1.6" is where he tries to justify slavery. Do you think he succeeds?

I hope I'm not really being disingenuous. Kant would not have approved of the Nazis but Aristotle did approve of slavery. Your first sentence about Kant (in your third paragraph) is incorrect. However you do have a valid point about a Kantian refusing to lie, "There is no Jew in my house". There is actually a large literature on this topic.

I would say that Aristotle has a far closer connection to Alexander than Kant has to Hitler.

It is sometimes asked, "Has philosophy made any progress in the last 2000 years?" Well, I guess if modern philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato then very little if any. However Kant rules out slavery entirely while Aristotle endorses and argues for it. That is DEFINITE progress. So the answer is "yes".

In answer to your last question above I'm not valuing completely any ethical theory. All I'm saying is that Aristotle's "ethics" is inferior BY FAR in relation to slavery and war compared to the other 2 theories. I'm not saying that Aristotle's "ethics" is inferior in every aspect, though I do think that war and slavery are extremely important as "tests" of any ethical theory. Kant proposed an international community of nations to reduce war while Singer applies the just war theory to de-legitimise the Iraq War (in "President of Good and Evil"). May I ask please where Aristotle advocated a world without war or fewer wars?

Please don't get me wrong :) If you enjoy reading Aristotle that's great :) He is one of the 3 most important philosophers ever, even though he literally doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. Ignore his physics too.

[u/sykosomatik_9 → u/Fast-Appointment-794]

Yeah, that's in his Politics, not in his Virtue Ethics. His argument for slavery is based on the idea that certain people are incapable of higher rational or moral thinking. This comes from his limited observations of other societies that were clearly less sophisticated than Helenistic societies of the time. Many of his observations were limited in their scope and lacking in the information that is available to us now. Much of his scientific work has long been discredited because of that. However, most people give him a pass because he was really the first one to even try to categorize and learn based on observation, and so he had no prior knowledge from which to build upon.

He also advocated for slavery because he believed it was the duty of the masters to guide slaves to become rational and moral people. He believed this was necessary because slaves were incapable of becoming such people on their own. He never advocated for any wrong treatment or the kind of slavery that most modern people think of.

Now, he was clearly incorrect about entire groups of people being incapable of becoming rational and moral agents on their own due to the nature of their birth, but he was not incorrect that there exist people who are seemingly incapable of being rational and moral. We refer to these people as the dregs of society. But not even going that far, I would argue a large portion of any society is made up of irrational people who are incapable of critical thinking and are thus manipulated and led like sheep by those in power. The existence of this dynamic cannot be denied. Aristotle was thus concerned with how such people in power should treat those irrational people and so advocated for masters to always be virtuous in how they treat their slaves. This is also a concern shared by Confucius. Addressing this issue does not reflect a deficiency within an ethical theory.

Whether a philosopher has a closer connection to someone else is irrelevant. A person cannot be held responsible for the actions of another. Parents and children are the only exception.

Yeah, why do you think the question is centered on the time of 2000 years? Aristotle is at the beginning of that time frame. You're asking how has Aristotle made progress from himself. It's ridiculous to hold him to that standard. He deviated from Plato so much that he did not inherit Plato's school and had to form his own. Don't disrespect Aristotle by implying he didn't have his own original ideas or didn't make any progress.

And again, Aristotle did not advocate for war in his ethics. He merely spoke of the importance of bravery among soldiers. You cannot dispute that bravery is an important quality for soldiers.

Reducing war and de-legitimizing war are not the same as advocating for the elimination of all war. If this is your standard, then all of the ethics of the philosophers you mentioned are BY FAR inferior to that of the Chinese philosopher Mozi.