• Michael Lee
    52
    I know full well bringing Aristotle into use would anger my friends who are strict scientists. They hate him!

    But I feel in the Twenty-first Century, we desperately need him. Yes, he made many mistakes, like thinking heavy bodies fall faster than light ones and the Earth is the centre of the Universe, flies have four legs and women have fewer teeth than men, etc., etc. But that's not his fault! It's the fault of the people for not challenging his thoughts no matter how good they were. Even mega-geniuses like Albert Einstein's theories ought to be brought into question although it's important to think out your objections carefully before you voice them; you don't want to embarrass yourself.

    But it has gone too far! The scientists make the things Aristotle was incredibly talented at, like ethics, epistemology, logic, his understanding of universals and especially his knowledge of how politics works that we really need today, worthless because of the damage he did to science.

    We normally think of Socrates who disliked Democracy because it panders to the interests of the ruler and not to the interests of the people, deceiving them into believing material turnover is happiness.

    But the might of criticisms against Democracy came from Aristotle who carefully explained the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Democracy, he argued, is based on the assumption that all people are equal in thought and reason and therefore each person should have an equal say in how things should be decided. The problem with this, thought Aristotle, is some people clearly think more rationally than others. For example, one person may vote according with the actions or policies of the politician in question, while others may vote a way because the politician is attractive and they are in love with him or her. Worse, he argued, it is almost always the case the most reasonable argument is held by the minority because few people think rationally against their own desires. Besides, as in the Athenian trial of Socrates, not only do we not know how many should vote one way and not another to make our decision, but we are allowing our decisions to be determined by a mathematical percentage that could not care less about our wellbeing.
  • tim wood
    8.7k
    I vote yes, but not back uncritically. And not back until made somewhat more accessible. Much of Aristotle could be offered to an intelligent 14-year-old. Some of him in elementary school. But there's needed a double or triple translation: Greek to English, English to accessible English, and then rendered for the intended audience. None of this means dumbed-down. Maybe simplified a bit.
  • Isaac
    10.3k


    So you want a revival to lend some 'appeal to authority' weight behind 'stuff you reckon' against those pesky scientists with their 'falsifiable theories' and their 'evidence'. Damn those scientists, how dare they undermine what we very strongly reckon is the case!

    I've had a glance at a couple of societies so I must know how they work! I've had a 'bit of think' about people's voting habits so obviously I'm right about that too! The brazen nerve of those damned scientists to actually do stratified samples and test them against control groups to examine the variables affecting how people vote and then running the results through statistical analysis to remove bias. How dare they! What we need is the return of someone who just looks out of their window and 'reckons' some stuff.
  • NOS4A2
    8.3k


    Besides, as in the Athenian trial of Socrates, not only do we not know how many should vote one way and not another to make our decision, but we are allowing our decisions to be determined by a mathematical percentage that could not care less about our wellbeing.

    There has been no shortage of those who argue that their claim to the greater good takes precedence over democracy. But is it worth it to toss out the entire democratic enterprise because some technocrat or other believes he can forge the best path? As we’ve seen in the past, it is not worth it.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I know full well bringing Aristotle into use would anger my friends who are strict scientists. They hate him!

    But I feel in the Twenty-first Century, we desperately need him. Yes, he made many mistakes, like thinking heavy bodies fall faster than light ones and the Earth is the centre of the Universe, flies have four legs and women have fewer teeth than men, etc., etc. But that's not his fault! It's the fault of the people for not challenging his thoughts no matter how good they were. Even mega-geniuses like Albert Einstein's theories ought to be brought into question although it's important to think out your objections carefully before you voice them; you don't want to embarrass yourself.

    But it has gone too far! The scientists make the things he was incredibly talented at, like ethics, epistemology, logic, his understanding of universals and especially his knowledge of how politics works that we really need today, worthless because of the damage he did to science.

    We normally think of Socrates who disliked Democracy because it panders to the interests of the ruler and not to the interests of the people, deceiving them into believing material turnover is happiness.

    But the might of criticisms against Democracy came from Aristotle who carefully explained the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Democracy, he argued, is based on the assumption that all people are equal in thought and reason and therefore each person should have an equal say in how things should be decided. The problem with this, thought Aristotle, is some people clearly think more rationally than others. For example, one person may vote according with the actions or policies of the politician in question, while others may vote a way because the politician is attractive and they are in love with him or her. Worse, he argued, it is almost always the case the most reasonable argument is held by the minority because few people think rationally against their own desires. Besides, as in the Athenian trial of Socrates, not only do we not know how many should vote one way and not another to make our decision, but we are allowing our decisions to be determined by a mathematical percentage that could not care less about our wellbeing.
    Michael Lee

    The idea of the written word in some sense is a preservation of the mind. I believe a lot of Aristotle's works still exist and I wouldn't say that Aristotle was "wrong" about the things he said. He made scientific claims on observation and has anyone ever seen a feather fall at the same rate as a cannonball? Aristotle's observations are true and a whole physics can be built and that too mathematically around his observations and claims. Just think of it. Given a certain surface, it'll have a constant slowing down effect on moving objects, much like gravity and we have equations to describe the motion of objects against gravity as when thrown upwards. Likewise we can also arrive at perfect mathematical equations for objects that slow down due to friction and these wouldn't be wrong per se; they would simply fail to explain motion in the vacuum of space.

    Coming back to bringing Aristotle back, I think we don't need to; his thoughts are with us and it's that we desire don't we? Farsighted Aristotelians have effectively embalmed his mind in books and, as far as I'm concerned, we needn't bother resurrect Aristotle in flesh if that's what you mean. Let the poor man rest. :smile:
  • WatchingRook
    8
    So you want a revival to lend some 'appeal to authority' weight behind 'stuff you reckon' against those pesky scientists with their 'falsifiable theories' and their 'evidence'. Damn those scientists, how dare they undermine what we very strongly reckon is the case!Isaac

    I have to admit this is a far from charitable reading, but it does make some decent points in the latter
    half. If you wish to use scientific language we could say Aristotle's observations of a few civilizations are case studies. And if you are going to criticize him, I think to do it fairly you would need to cite where he makes his mistakes. He doesn't say his political theory describes what is going on, he says it is how it should be. I would love to argue the point with you (I think that's what most of us are here for) but I think polemics should be left somewhere else.

    But it has gone too far! The scientists make the things Aristotle was incredibly talented at, like ethics, epistemology, logic, his understanding of universals and especially his knowledge of how politics works that we really need today, worthless because of the damage he did to science.Michael Lee

    I agree with you on the ethics count. One problem I think that most people make when it comes to the scientific mind is applying the scientific method to everything. The only way that science could create a unified theory of morality is if it had some way to objectively measure morality. As such, ethics seems to be thoroughly and eternally fixed in the ballpark of philosophy.

    As my own aside,
    virtue ethics I think are the most common sense ethics around. I mean by common sense in that it seems the system that describes how people actually do decide if someone is good or bad. Disagreements? Objections?
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    Nope. Let dead dogs rest in peace...

    Aristotle's primitive "teleology" approach to ontology is also inherently bound up in his approach to ethics. It haphazardly assigns purpose from form or function, and hails itself as the fullest and most true understanding there is to be had. It's quite popular among theologians wishing to argue ethical points on the basis of intelligent design.

    Logic itself is wonderful, but we've progressed immensely since Aristotle; keep the cave allegory, bin the rest.(oops that's Plato). Keep.... his memorable quotes?


    “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
    ― Aristotle, Metaphysics

    Huzzah!

    Thread fulfilled!
  • Gregory
    4.6k
    Aristotle is an aesthetic and movement in time short of guy. It was Aquinas that turned him into dogma. Hegel and Heidegger have the former approach. Aristotle w
  • Gregory
    4.6k
    Aristotle was a good writer
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.