> he has some pretty messed up and weird views
What’s an example?
back
2 comments
He thought some humans were slaves by nature and women were naturally inferior to men.
edit: whoa, I didn't realize how racist this guy was. He could be classified as a eugenicist I suppose.
He also believed in spontaneous generation (fair, without technology we have now it would be really confusing to understand where all kinds of things come from).
Seemed to believe infinity was impossible yet also that the heavens are infinite. Maybe he distinguished between the earthly and heavenly planes, but still seemed to think they were similarly constructed from elements.
The list goes on.
>He thought some humans were slaves by nature and women were naturally inferior to men.
These are unfortunately still all too common beliefs. The latter has mostly been folded into racial essentialism and racial realist beliefs, because slavery is no longer legal (13th amendment loophole notwithstanding) and you can still find people arguing women are intellectually inferior and incapable of rational thought.
The whole anti-DEI movement is based on the premise that non-whites and women categorically don't deserve the same status in the workforce as white men, and the only reason they have "equality" is due to anti-white racism.
A bit off topic, but I'm guessing Aristotle himself would say that chasing "status in the workforce" (as opposed to leisure, riches, wisdom, power etc) is itself a good example of slavish disposition. Status in the bosses' eyes, amirite?
Homestuck sucks why do you not admit it?
> He thought some humans were slaves by nature and women were naturally inferior to men.
The notion that all human individual are of equal worth isn't exactly common. You may think it's weird, but it was fairly standard worldview for a lot of humanity for a lot of history. Your outlook may simply be shaped by living in a Christian-based culture:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(Holland_book)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_Wor...
While I think curiosity is a natural human trait, doing "science" is not 'as natural', as certain metaphysical assumptions need to be in place before it can really be done, and not all worldviews/cultures accepted them:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Provid...
That's worth pointing out, definitely. I'm aware that perhaps most people on earth wouldn't think this is a weird position to hold; it's largely my critique of him from a subjective point of view. There are massive populations in the world practicing explicit, intentional social stratification. Inegalitarianism might be the mean, whether people realize it or not.
I just don't think it should be.
many humans are still slaves by nature -- look at how averse many folks in the society are to rational and pragmatic thinking, being enslaved by religion, ideology and showing indifference to human suffering, and endless worship of wealthy.
We need to distinguish between "many people are born into slavery" and "many people are meant to be slaves by their inborn nature". The former is true, the latter is not, even in the example you've given.
Also, he was referring to people performing labour, not people adhering to spiritual belief or ideological systems.
I see what you mean, but I don't think this means what he believed was true. I see it as categorically different. People adhering to beliefs without critical thought vs being forced into labour due to their 'nature' are very different matters.
being born into slavery is a random fact -- life happens and they had no control over it really.
many people are meant to be slaves is also a fact -- it is not like everyone is gifted cerebrally, or even blessed to be in an environment where, by the time they are adults, have been shown a good formula for life; so consequently a section of the society is destined to be just slaves, it just needs the presence of a manipulator.
Aristotle, being an endless questioning guy he was, might have figured this out, although i'm not sure.
I'm going to firmly disagree and insist that no one should ever be a slave, and they are not meant to be slaves, regardless of their intellectual capacity or whether they were shown a good formula for life. Human society is in a failed state anywhere in which someone is forced into slavery.
I think you're committing a naturalistic fallacy, and I don't agree at all that people are ever meant to be slaves.
The most I can agree to is that "some humans are born into slavery due to chance". This is factual. That people are meant to be slaves is not a fact. Perhaps we have a language barrier here.
'meant' was used to the effect of 'destined';
I've no disagreements with your position or moral principles. But spherical cow is different from reality.
By 'destined' I assume you mean 'there was never a way their life would play out other than them becoming slaves'. But the word 'meant' and 'destiny' carry a meaning of "it is the right thing to happen", which I think we all agree is not the case.
> Aristotle, being an endless questioning guy he was
I dunno--as far as I can tell Aristotle never asked the slaves who supported his philosophical lifestyle what they thought about it.
> Aristotle never asked the slaves who supported his philosophical lifestyle what they thought about it.
My guess is he likely did with the slaves he freed or made provisions for in his will (and preserved by Diogenes Laërtius)
"many people are meant to be slaves is also a fact" - you definitely need to spend a while researching what comprises a fact.
'meant' was a wrong choice of word which i stated above.
you come across as a child by being snarky - you definitely need to spend some time learning how to behave like an adult.
You literally posted that some people are effectively born slaves, that's beneath contempt and if you said it to my face I would certainly have been far, far less kind. Also you definitely need to spend a while researching what comprises being an adult.
"Meant" is the problem here - if you think "meant" by your mentioned "manipulator", then yes - the elites are evidently holding that worldview for millennia. But "meant" - as in "natural order of things" / "higher purpose" is obviously not a fact, and should be strongly denounced.
He stated, in a separate work, that women had fewer teeth as an example of his views on their inferiority. Makes you want to take everything he said with a grain of salt.
In his defense (sorry if defending him offends here), women probably did, at the time, often have fewer teeth due to worse dental care.
https://sourcelibrary.org/book/problemata-text-beginning-omn...
An original source for this. I wonder if wisdom teeth affected this count? It’s so odd of a claim
The thing I always come back to is Aristotle's belief that if you release an object being circled about your head by rope, it will move perpendicular to the tangent line of the circle. This is trivial to disconfirm by experiment. It moves parallel to the tangent. It's just that science of his school of thought was rationalist. They believed in the power of thought more than the power of experiment. You can surely observe the lifecycle of women and men and see they develop and shed teeth in exactly the same ways and same number, but why bother doing that if you earnestly believe you can just intuit laws of nature purely by thinking really hard?
To be clear, I'm a huge Aristotle fan. He's a towering intellect I will never come close to equaling. His ideas set the stage for very nearly all western thought. It just goes to show that everyone everywhere has deficiencies and blind spots. The smartest person who ever lived can still be wrong in extremely obvious ways in retrospect. Intelligence is no guarantee you're going to actually be right about very much.
It's hard to square this with my impression of Aristotle as a kind of early empiricist, cataloging and dissecting animals.
Women and men have identical dental anatomy, so no, it's not wisdom teeth. Women would technically be earlier and thus have more, if you get into the details.
Aristotle has flaws, that's all.
I love his work on happiness. On the academic side of Philosophy, I believe his conception stands alongside what is typically called "Hedonism" defining the two major schools of thought, obviously with modern takes and twists. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on "Happiness" if you're interested.
I learned today that I have 28 teeth. Anyone have 32?
Sorry for defending Aristotle? Have we lost the plot as a society?
I think they are just signaling their political/religious affiliation.
Which is?
And, are you now signalling yours?
>>Which is?
If you need to apologize for defending Aristotle after more then 2000 years after his death, you must be a part of a political establishment which is very out of tune with the feelings of ordinary people and are a part of a religious community which is unforgiving of any transgressions and can cancel and outcast you for a minor verbal delict.
>>And, are you now signalling yours?
Not very precisely. I think at least 90% of political body would disagree with their position. Also all the biggest world religions believe in repentance.