/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3213678]

What does /lit/ think of Aristotle's Politics, and of Aristotle in general?

I think we should have learned from him, so we might would have avoided some of the horrible states we've seen the last 50-100 years in Europe and some parts of Africa.

Also, I do not understand why Kant had to do all this commotion about ethics and morals, when Aristotle had a, to me, perfectly fine solution. I mean, he didn't involve intrinsic values and he does not end in hedonism.

>I hope someone has read some Aristotle and is willing to share his insight instead of just calling me retarded

[Anonymous No.3213689]

Are you doing homework, bro?

[Anonymous No.3213703]

Aristotle's works have no literary value. The best of his ideas in philosophy and the sciences have been fully absorbed into modern thought and thus in no way is studying Aristotle or in reading any of his works a good use of your time. If you want to read a Greek philosopher who can inspire your imagination, read Plato. At this point when approaching the ancients it's not a question of who was right or wrong but who had the most interesting or outrageous ideas. Aristotle is the introverted autistic bore of the classic philosophers. Plato, a charismatic extrovert, looked outside of himself for inspiration and was interested in identifying and appreciating the brilliance of others. Plato is the Nick
Carraway of classical philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3213704]

probably /hm/ but as to this question

>Also, I do not understand why Kant had to do all this commotion about ethics and morals, when Aristotle had a, to me, perfectly fine solution. I mean, he didn't involve intrinsic values and he does not end in hedonism.

You have to understand man's obsessive behaviour when it comes to objective values. Kant gave the solution to objective morals, while still leaving a loophole.

Aristotle does not give us that which you seem to think of as a benefit, and may very well be so in contemporary culture, i.e. an intrinsic value. See, in Aristotelian ethics, an act cannot be inherently wrong, or untruthful, as it is a means to an end (being virtuous). This collides with the fetishizing of TRUTH characteristic ot Western culture, and especially latter on with Christianity. For Christianity requires absolute truths, especially in morals (thou shall not ...), and thus Kant was the one ending on top.

[Anonymous No.3213720]

>>3213689
>>3213704
It's not homeworkbut it's still a part of what my close friends of /lit/erary friends are reading at the moment
>>3213703
Just re-read The Republic and Gorgias, I've read them before, were i also read selected parts of all Plato's other works.

>>3213704
It's exactly this, I think searching virtues is the only way to avoid utilitarianism. I used to like utilitarianism, but i always knew there was something flawed within it. Aristotle is the best contender i've come across so far.

[Anonymous No.3213727]

Plato tried to see how states should be formed and what they should do, through abstract speculation.

Aristotle did pretty much the same but tried to do it through empiric observations.

They both accept that people are different by nature, and therefore their state would need to be structured with some kind of hierarchy or order.

>tfw aristotle said mens best age was 37, while women had their best age at 18
>stay mad feministos

[Anonymous No.3213730]

>>3213678

Aristotle looks sorta like Robin Williams

[Anonymous No.3213736]

>>3213704
>in Aristotelian ethics, an act cannot be inherently wrong, or untruthful, as it is a means to an end
That seems like a good thing about his ethics.

[Anonymous No.3213744]

>>3213736
Virtues translated in Danish also has this nice sound to it, like duty, but not imposed by anyone.

Aristotle makes me fuzzy inside

[Anonymous No.3213742]

>>3213678
Aristotle is good as a historical background, though he's not that interesting. But I did find his metaphysics interesting, since its basically required knowledge to understand later philosophers, like Heidegger.

[Anonymous No.3213751]

>>3213742
>OP

I'm reading through Wittgenstein at the moment as well, if not anything, i find it aesthetic that the logics Aristotle started, ended in the hands of analytic philosophers.

Beauty of history or something

[Anonymous No.3213755]

>>3213736
yes, in contemporary ethics that might be the case. Christianity never approved of it, however, and the criticism still exists(as for its validity, well, that is another debate. I for one believe that the fetishizing for truth is way more dangerous to us than the potential harm to come of a "dead" God). I.e. what is this virtue when I have no objective metrics to measure against, except for my own flourishing?

[Anonymous No.3213765]

>>3213751
that in turn is inherited from Plato and his Good and Beautiful. I think Aristotle actually tried to get away from the same thing analytical philosophy was cumming buckets over, but in the end he was Plato's student to the core - even if he had his own little rebellion.

[Anonymous No.3213770]

>I think we should have learned from him, so we might would have avoided some of the horrible states we've seen the last 50-100 years in Europe and some parts of Africa.

We did. It's called the High Middle Ages and the Renaissance.

>Also, I do not understand why Kant had to do all this commotion about ethics and morals, when Aristotle had a, to me, perfectly fine solution.

That's your opinion. You're entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong.

>I hope someone has read some Aristotle and is willing to share his insight instead of just calling me retarded

The thing is, you are not retarded. You simply are not well-read. Come back after reading more than the 10 philosophers covered in your woefully inadequate state college philosophy department

[Anonymous No.3213933]

>>3213770
Isn't a large part of this forum based on peoples opinions?

Also, this post is hardly subject to discussion, why not try to express why my opinion are wrong instead of just saying is is?

thank you for no ad hominem though

[Anonymous No.3213980]

>>3213933
Your opinion is wrong for a variety of reasons. Because this is 4chan, I feel no need to itemize them.

But, if you must know, the major reason your opinion is wrong stems from ignorance.

>I think we should have learned from him

This is very uninformed. Scholars much wiser than either of us have spent their entire professional careers reading, interpretting and communicating Aristotle. Much of what we today call Logic is based on Aristotelian teachings (especially the Logica vetus). To presume that "we" [on a sidenote, this is in general a very poor term to use unless you are going to specifiy who does and does not have membership] have not learned from him.

>avoided some of the horrible states we've seen the last 50-100 years in Europe and some parts of Africa

This part of your post in bad, and you should feel bad for writing it.

>Also, I do not understand why Kant . . .

Completely unrelated to Aristotle

>didn't involve intrinsic values

This is a completely useless phrase unless you mean to explain it.

>end in hedonism

Amateur interpretation of Kant; again has nothing to do with Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.3213993]

>>3213980
For further reading:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hedonism/

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook.asp

[Anonymous No.3214021]

>>3213980
Thank you. Saying "we should" anything is of course bullshit, i guess what i meant was something along the lines of "I think this is important derpa derp".

I thought there was room for loose discussion on this board, I see theres not.
Seeing no one else seems interested tonight, i'll sage so the we dont bump the thread any further