[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 9 KB, 145x261, anscombe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6875381 No.6875381 [Reply] [Original]

Did Aristotle pretty much finish moral philosophy? Can anyone look at a work as beautiful and complete as the Ethika Nikomacheia and think that there's a lot more still to be done?

>> No.6875425

stoicism is way better than aristotle

>> No.6875540

>>6875425
stoicism = virtue ethics + unnecessary divine elements

>> No.6875546 [DELETED] 
File: 239 KB, 500x667, Untitled37.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6875546

>>6875381
>lit - literature

>> No.6875559

Then why did Aristotle himself wrote another book of ethics (Ethica Eudrmia)?

Anyway, I agree it's a pretty solid ethics, but I think the concept of virtue is today not as relevant as it was in the past.

>> No.6875563

>>6875546
Too bad there is no >phil.

>> No.6875586
File: 97 KB, 486x345, tumblr_nb9728PN9K1s2qce8o1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6875586

Aristotle is the most boring and useless author ever, especially if you are going to read all the huge books he wrote.

It's better to read his basics at Wikipedia or something like that and keep walking to something more interesting like Hegel or Saint Augustine

>> No.6875592 [DELETED] 
File: 439 KB, 640x853, Untitled31.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6875592

>>6875563
Doesn't mean this is the board for it. Take it to /b/ or complain to management

>> No.6875596

>>6875586
>Hegel

If there's a philosopher you should only read the wikipedia page that is Hegel

>> No.6875598

>DUDE EXCELLENCE LMAO
No. He's mostly bullshit and would make a better librarian than a philosopher, to be honest.

>> No.6875612
File: 66 KB, 680x549, 1433883846981.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6875612

>>6875592

>not understanding that philosophy is more important than fictional literature and not having philosophy board means that /phil/ can do whatever they want with this board

>> No.6875635
File: 319 KB, 803x688, 1424913890878.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6875635

>implying /phil/ is not an awful idea
>implying it will ever exist
>implying philosophy isn't literature

>> No.6875646

Honestly, if you like literature and get mad at people discussing philosophy, you don't really like (or get) literature.

>> No.6875674

>>6875559
The EE is practically the same as the EN.

Why is the concept of "virtue" not as relevant today?

>> No.6875679

>>6875646
pretty much this, to read Kafka you 'd kind of get an itching to read Heidegger after

>> No.6875698

>>6875674
By "not as relevant" I jut mean that, sadly, in today's (western) society the imperant ethics is utilitarianism. Hence we get that politics is now a branch of economy (seeking to give more wealth to the bigger number of people) instead of trying to make people "better" (virtuous).

>> No.6875714 [DELETED] 
File: 253 KB, 600x800, Untitled38.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6875714

>>6875612
>>6875646
>>6875679
>I have to read a convoluted circumlocutious tome of some angsty faggot so he can do my thinking for me
No, you're all just retarded

>> No.6875724

>>6875698

Virtue Ethics is pretty popular in Philosophical circles these days. I've had Virtue Ethicist profs. The thing is, so as long as we live in a democracy quality will always be subordinated to quantity. It is built into the very foundation of the system that the most lowest common denominator ideas are the ones that are privileged, since those ideas can gain the greatest physical mass of supporters. Virtue excludes the unvirtous and demands people better themselves, such a formula is not flattering enough to the masses, who need scapegoats to blame for their own faults and generally want the most convenient way to benefit materially.

>> No.6875749

>>6875724
Well Aristotle himself considered democracy to be a lesser form of government (in comparison with aristocracy), and as far as my knowledge goes, it is very hard to find a pre-modern philosopher who likes it.

>> No.6875780

>>6875698
I agree and I think that is precisely what makes it relevant. Utility is such a superficial principle that no careful variation of the theory is capable of producing any real content.

>>6875724
Perhaps Stoicism could be a stepping stone, as the masses are accustomed to a conception of ethics rooted in divine law.

>> No.6875803

>>6875749
Aristotle favored democracy, provided certain conditions were met.

>> No.6875854

aristotle was wrong right down to the core. His metaphysics was shit.

>> No.6875862

>>6875854
How were his *metaphysics* wrong?

>> No.6875912

>>6875862
hylomorphism and the idea of the final cause. Both of these things are just artifacts of our language and mental organizational habits. They don't actually exist.

>> No.6875921

>>6875912
How do you figure that?

>> No.6875968

>>6875912

Even in order to make the argument that there is such a thing as language and minds in order to explain away essences, one must suppose that there is in fact such a thing as language and mind, as opposed to other things. But if there are such things, then there must be an objective essence to them.

Similarly, final cause is essential to the idea of efficient cause here invoked as explanation- it is what substantively links language and mental organisational habits to their products, as opposed to there being a merely coincidental relation between the purported cause and the effect. Final causality, then, is indispensable to efficient causality.

So nah, Aristotle's metaphysics is spot-on.

>> No.6876048
File: 31 KB, 1028x710, 1432621118379.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6876048

>>6875381
reminder

perhaps the anacyclosis works for nations as well

>> No.6876061

>>6875803
>provided certain conditions were met.
such as ?

>> No.6876067

>>6876061
people werent stupid

nah, jk, im not the anon

>> No.6876105

>>6876061
There needed to be universal male suffrage (barring slaves, of course) and "moderate and sufficient property" for all citizens (or at least measures in place to guarantee it's distribution). Disparity in wealth would lead to the poor robbing the rich, so relative equality would have to be maintained. Even Aristotle's system of slavery resembled a kind of welfare.

>> No.6876245

>>6875912

>Both of these things are just artifacts of our language and mental organizational habits.

Can you give an argument for this claim ?

>> No.6877035

>>6875540
>unnecessary divine elements
go outside and take a look at nature and then tell me there is no fundamental principle in it (logos, tao, god or whatever you want to call it)

>> No.6877066

Aristotle didn't coin error theory so no.

>> No.6877071

>>6875749
I think most still prefer aristocracy in the form of educated representatives to a real democracy

>> No.6878871

>>6877035
Done.