Aristotle on Slavery.
Robert Kolker
#1254a17] But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave,
and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not
all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering
this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some
should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but
expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for
subjection, others for rule.
Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or
between men and animals (as in the case of those whose business is to
use their body, and who can do nothing better), the lower sort are by
nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they
should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore
is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to
apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature.
Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey
their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals
is not very different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs
of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freemen
and slaves, making the one strong for servile labour, the other upright,
and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the
arts both of war and peace.
#1254b31] But the opposite often happens- that some have the souls and
others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from
one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the statues of
the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class
should be slaves of the superior. And if this is true of the body, how
much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? but
the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not
seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others
slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right.
Section 1.1
#1252a] Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is
established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to
obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some
good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and
which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any
other, and at the highest good.
Some people think that the qualifications of a statesman, king,
householder, and master are the same, and that they differ, not in kind,
but only in the number of their subjects. For example, the ruler over a
few is called a master; over more, the manager of a household; over a
still larger number, a statesman or king, as if there were no difference
between a great household and a small state. The distinction which is
made between the king and the statesman is as follows: When the
government is personal, the ruler is a king; when, according to the
rules of the political science, the citizens rule and are ruled in turn,
then he is called a statesman.
But all this is a mistake; for governments differ in kind, - As in other
departments of science, so in politics, the compound should always be
resolved into the simple elements or least parts of the whole. We must
therefore look at the elements of which the state is composed, in order
that we may see in what the different kinds of rule differ from one
another, and whether any scientific result can be attained about each
one of them.
Section 1.2
#1252a25] He who thus considers things in their first growth and origin,
whether a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them.
In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist
without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race may
continue (and this is a union which is formed, not of deliberate
purpose, but because, in common with other animals and with plants,
mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of
themselves), and of natural ruler and subject, that both may be
preserved. For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by
nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body
give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence
master and slave have the same interest.
#1252b] Now nature has distinguished between the female and the slave.
For she is not niggardly, like the smith who fashions the Delphian knife
for many uses; she makes each thing for a single use, and every
instrument is best made when intended for one and not for many uses. But
among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves,
because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of
slaves, male and female. Wherefore the poets say, It is meet that
Hellenes should rule over barbarians; as if they thought that the
barbarian and the slave were by nature one.
#1252b9] Out of these two relationships between man and woman, master
and slave, the first thing to arise is the family, and Hesiod is right
when he says, First house and wife and an ox for the plough, for the ox
is the poor man's slave. The family is the association established by
nature for the supply of men's everyday wants, and the members of it are
called by Charondas companions of the cupboard, and by Epimenides the
Cretan, companions of the manger.
#1252b15] But when several families are united, and the association aims
at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to
be formed is the village. And the most natural form of the village
appears to be that of a colony from the family, composed of the children
and grandchildren, who are said to be suckled with the same milk. And
this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by
kings; because the Hellenes were under royal rule before they came
together, as the barbarians still are. Every family is ruled by the
eldest, and therefore in the colonies of the family the kingly form of
government prevailed because they were of the same blood. As Homer says:
"Each one gives law to his children and to his wives."
For they lived dispersedly, as was the manner in ancient times.
Wherefore men say that the Gods have a king, because they themselves
either are or were in ancient times under the rule of a king. For they
imagine, not only the forms of the Gods, but their ways of life to be
like their own.
#1252b28] When several villages are united in a single complete
community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state
comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and
continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if
the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state, for it is the
end of them, and the nature of a thing is its end. For what each thing
is when fully developed, we call its nature, whether we are speaking of
a man, a horse, or a family. Besides, the final cause and end of a thing
is the best, and to be self-sufficing is the end and the best.
#1253a] Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and
that man is by nature a political animal. And he who by nature and not
by mere accident is without a state, is either a bad man or above
humanity; he is like the Tribeless, lawless, hearthless one, whom Homer
denounces- the natural outcast is forthwith a lover of war; he may be
compared to an isolated piece at draughts.
#1253a7] Now, that man is more of a political animal than bees or any
other gregarious animals is evident. Nature, as we often say, makes
nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with
the gift of speech. And whereas mere voice is but an indication of
pleasure or pain, and is therefore found in other animals (for their
nature attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and the intimation
of them to one another, and no further), the power of speech is intended
to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the
just and the unjust. And it is a characteristic of man that he alone has
any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust, and the like, and the
association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a
state.
#1253a19] Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family
and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the
part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot
or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone
hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that. But
things are defined by their working and power; and we ought not to say
that they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality,
but only that they have the same name. The proof that the state is a
creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual,
when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in
relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who
has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast
or a god: he is no part of a state.
#1253a29] A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet
he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man,
when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and
justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more
dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by
intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore,
if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of
animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. But justice is the bond
of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the
determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political
society.
Section 1.3
#1253b] Seeing then that the state is made up of households, before
speaking of the state we must speak of the management of the household.
The parts of household management correspond to the persons who compose
the household, and a complete household consists of slaves and freemen.
Now we should begin by examining everything in its fewest possible
elements; and the first and fewest possible parts of a family are master
and slave, husband and wife, father and children. We have therefore to
consider what each of these three relations is and ought to be: I mean
the relation of master and servant, the marriage relation (the
conjunction of man and wife has no name of its own), and thirdly, the
procreative relation (this also has no proper name). And there is
another element of a household, the so-called art of getting wealth,
which, according to some, is identical with household management,
according to others, a principal part of it; the nature of this art will
also have to be considered by us...
Let us first speak of master and slave, looking to the needs of
practical life and also seeking to attain some better theory of their
relation than exists at present. For some are of opinion that the rule
of a master is a science, and that the management of a household, and
the mastership of slaves, and the political and royal rule, as I was
saying at the outset, are all the same. Others affirm that the rule of a
master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction
between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature; and
being an interference with nature is therefore unjust.
Section 1.4
#1253b23] Property is a part of the household, and the art of acquiring
property is a part of the art of managing the household; for no man can
live well, or indeed live at all, unless he be provided with
necessaries. And as in the arts which have a definite sphere the workers
must have their own proper instruments for the accomplishment of their
work, so it is in the management of a household.
Now instruments are of various sorts; some are living, others lifeless;
in the rudder, the pilot of a ship has a lifeless, in the look-out man,
a living instrument; for in the arts the servant is a kind of
instrument. Thus, too, a possession is an instrument for maintaining
life. And so, in the arrangement of the family, a slave is a living
possession, and property a number of such instruments; and the servant
is himself an instrument which takes precedence of all other
instruments. For if every instrument could accomplish its own work,
obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of
Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet,
"of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods";
if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the
lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want
servants, nor masters slaves.
#1254a] Here, however, another distinction must be drawn; the
instruments commonly so called are instruments of production, whilst a
possession is an instrument of action. The shuttle, for example, is not
only of use; but something else is made by it, whereas of a garment or
of a bed there is only the use. Further, as production and action are
different in kind, and both require instruments, the instruments which
they employ must likewise differ in kind. But life is action and not
production, and therefore the slave is the minister of action. Again, a
possession is spoken of as a part is spoken of; for the part is not only
a part of something else, but wholly belongs to it; and this is also
true of a possession. The master is only the master of the slave; he
does not belong to him, whereas the slave is not only the slave of his
master, but wholly belongs to him. Hence we see what is the nature and
office of a slave; he who is by nature not his own but another's man, is
by nature a slave; and he may be said to be another's man who, being a
human being, is also a possession. And a possession may be defined as an
instrument of action, separable from the possessor.
Section 1.5
#1254a17] But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave,
and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not
all slavery a violation of nature? There is no difficulty in answering
this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some
should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but
expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for
subjection, others for rule.
#1254a24] And there are many kinds both of rulers and subjects (and that
rule is the better which is exercised over better subjects- for example,
to rule over men is better than to rule over wild beasts; for the work
is better which is executed by better workmen, and where one man rules
and another is ruled, they may be said to have a work); for in all
things which form a composite whole and which are made up of parts,
whether continuous or discrete, a distinction between the ruling and the
subject element comes to light.
#1254a3] Such a duality exists in living creatures, but not in them
only; it originates in the constitution of the universe; even in things
which have no life there is a ruling principle, as in a musical mode.
But we are wandering from the subject. We will therefore restrict
ourselves to the living creature, which, in the first place, consists of
soul and body: and of these two, the one is by nature the ruler, and the
other the subject. But then we must look for the intentions of nature in
things which retain their nature, and not in things which are corrupted.
And therefore we must study the man who is in the most perfect state
both of body and soul, for in him we shall see the true relation of the
two; although in bad or corrupted natures the body will often appear to
rule over the soul, because they are in an evil and unnatural condition.
#1254b2] At all events we may firstly observe in living creatures both a
despotical and a constitutional rule; for the soul rules the body with a
despotical rule, whereas the intellect rules the appetites with a
constitutional and royal rule. And it is clear that the rule of the soul
over the body, and of the mind and the rational element over the
passionate, is natural and expedient; whereas the equality of the two or
the rule of the inferior is always hurtful. The same holds good of
animals in relation to men; for tame animals have a better nature than
wild, and all tame animals are better off when they are ruled by man;
for then they are preserved. Again, the male is by nature superior, and
the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this
principle, of necessity, extends to all mankind.
Would you have this Philosopher over for dinner?
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E70EB1B...@attbi.com...
>
> Would you have this Philosopher over for dinner?
You should be so lucky.
Since you are on a petulant rampage about Aristotle it probably hardly
matters to point out to you that virtually everyone probably agreed with
him, including all the great scientists, such as Newton and Galileo whom you
admire, up until the 19th Century. Including of course even moreso the
Indians who you are so eager to defend.
Fred Weiss
Robert Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> Since you are on a petulant rampage about Aristotle it probably hardly
> matters to point out to you that virtually everyone probably agreed with
> him, including all the great scientists, such as Newton and Galileo whom you
> admire, up until the 19th Century. Including of course even moreso the
> Indians who you are so eager to defend.
While Aristotle was justifying slavery as -both- necessary and logical
the Hebrews were limiting servitude to a maxium of seven years.
Apparently the Jews had a different opinion on the matter. In just a few
weeks we will celebrate the Passover, a major anti-slavery festival.
Bob Kolker
Ralph Hertle
What is the attitude of the religious promoters of Judaism towards
women, non-Jewish men and animals? Is it not that they should serve the
male Jews who are the true human beings? Is that not slavery?
Ralph Hertle
Larry Allen
6.atl.mindspring.net>...
Fred,
What you say is true. However I wanted to mention it is equally true
that Bob is wholly and fully incapable of perceiving the truth of it,
for himself.
The best I can ascertain, having read numerous of Bobs posts, is that
he is an extremely intelligent mathematician (certainly one of the
brighest I have ever personally experienced, if not the brightest)
that suffers a basic emotional need to debase other equally
intelligent persons whom "haven't checked their work".
His expression of a willingness to piss on the grave of aristotle, for
example, being an indication of an emotional dis-order equaled only,
in direct and proportionate opposition, to his striking intellectual
order. Opinions set aside.
In other words, Bob Kolker is one hell of an intelligent man, held
captive by the heart of an angry child.
If it appears I am engaging in arm-chair pyschiatry, so to speak,
perhaps it is because I am. Nonetheless, I have checked my work.
Having read, and often reread near countless of Bobs posts. His
uncontrollable anger is obvious. Appearing as it most often does, in
the form of utter disdain for those whom do not share in his
understanding.
Here we have a man whom (I would be willing to bet the farm) has an IQ
that surpasses perhaps 98% of the entire worlds population, that
quotes national lampoon in their flippant dissmisal of fundamental
emotional human values as a way of expressing his total disregard for
his opponents arguments as to the accuracy of their perceptions and or
of the depth of their personal convictions.
So be it.
Makes for great drama.
Larry Allen
P.S. None of us are perfect. Or, as I would prefer to state it, we are
all perfectly imperfect.
John Alway
Aristotle's politics, while interesting, are fundamentally flawed in
that he studied the cultures around him to determine what was best.
But if Bob is expecting some sort of rights upholding politics, you
have to wait a good 2000 years before Locke entered the scene. Locke,
of course, built on Aristotle's philosophy. And, as I recall
Aristotle's politics, it was fundamentally benevolent. He was looking
for what was best for life. It was the opposite of, for instance,
St. Augustine's, who thought man low and vulgar.
I find Aristotle's ethics more insightful than his politics, and his
idea of eudamonia (gee, someone's nick name on this board), which
means "Happiness through reason".
...John
Robert Kolker
Larry Allen wrote:
> Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<b4r3sm$of4$1@slb
> Here we have a man whom (I would be willing to bet the farm) has an IQ
> that surpasses perhaps 98% of the entire worlds population,
I am only in the 95-th percentile. And I don't suffer fools and slackers
gladly.
Aristotle was smart and sloppy. He did not check his work. In that, he
was a very typical Greek. The Greeks had "the gift of the gab" and were
so enamored of their cleverness that they confused nimble argumentation
with finding the truth. The Greeks not only invented mathematics and
philosophy, the invented sophistry.
Europeans learned to be a little more humble in the that regard. Which
is why science was invented in Europe and not in Greece. The Greeks got
one half of what was necessary, to wit systematic logic and axiomatic
mathematics. What they missed out on was empirical verification. The
evolved slowly in the middle ages and burst forth in the enlightenment.
The closest Hellenic civilization came to developing our kind of science
was the Alexandrian gang including Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Apollonius,
Conan (no joke!) and (I think) Eudoxus. Of this group Archimedes was the
greatest and his science is just as good today as it was when he
invented/discovered it. He came within a whisker of inventing integral
calculus and he almost developed an algebraic system in -The
Sandreckoner-. Close, but no cigar. Alas, Archimedes never established a
school and a tradition and any chance that he might have done so was cut
off with the edge of a Roman blade.
We owe the Greeks a great deal. They started the task of pushing out the
Gods and dealing with nature on natural terms. The Greeks helped get rid
of superstition. The Greeks were as smart as anyone gets, but their
wisdom did not rise as high as their intelligence.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
John Alway wrote:
> for what was best for life. It was the opposite of, for instance,
> St. Augustine's, who thought man low and vulgar.
Read Cahill's book -How the Irish Saved Civilization-. The Irish, God
bless them, begod and begorra apparently provided an antidote to
Augustine's anti-human world view. St. Podrick's day is coming up and I
say God bless the Irish, because they make me laugh. Erin go bragh!
Catholicism has been a blight and curse on mankind, but the Irish made
it easier to bear and less destructive than it might have been
otherwise. Unfortunately, there has been no endigenous antidote to
Protestant/Paulist misery. The only thing that has saved us is that most
of us, thank God, are pagans.
Bob Kolker
W
Robert Kolker <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>Larry Allen wrote:
>> Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<b4r3sm$of4$1@slb
>> Here we have a man whom (I would be willing to bet the farm) has an IQ
>> that surpasses perhaps 98% of the entire worlds population,
>
>I am only in the 95-th percentile.
Larry keeps his farm. You are 99.5 or higher.
You're not in the 95 percentile. You are certainly
no idiot.
Noman
Don Matt
discussion.
As I've pointed many times I'm not for slavery - in fact I'm against
it by all means. But sometimes seems that somehow Aristotle had a
point when he argued that one is to rule and another to be ruled. My
question is: don't you see this principle in free market economists'
and individualist's analysis of social competition, where the most
prepared one is to rule the weaker and unprepared? Accord to their
analysis: one is to be the owner (to rule) and another the employee
(to be ruled).
This is even worse if we consider the effects that inheritance do in
the society, putting in a higher social position (one that rules) a
person that only is wealth because was born this way - the same way a
free man of Athens was free because was born this way.
So, if I'm not in error, even in a society based on individual rights
and freedom the outcome is the same: one is to rule and one is to be
ruled.
Is Aristotle so wrong?
Don.
Rob
> "Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:3E70EB1B...@attbi.com...
> >
> > Would you have this Philosopher over for dinner?
>
> You should be so lucky.
>
> Since you are on a petulant rampage about Aristotle it probably hardly
> matters to point out to you that virtually everyone probably agreed with
> him,
Aristotle knew of people who disagreed: "Others affirm that the rule
of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the
distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by
nature; and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust."
Politics I.3
Rob
Acar
>
> Apparently the Jews had a different opinion on the matter.
You said "Jews". Are they all the same?
Acar
The Jews has a weapon of mass destruction - the Angel of the Lord. It
targeted civlian children. :-)
..
..
..
..
Acar
"Larry Allen" <loveroft...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f60dff2c.03031...@posting.google.com...
>
> Here we have a man whom (I would be willing to bet the farm) has an IQ
> that surpasses perhaps 98% of the entire worlds population,
By Yogi Berra's logic that is no big deal. He would say that probably more
than 50% of people have an IQ higher than 98% of the population.
Robert Kolker
Don Matt wrote:
> So, if I'm not in error, even in a society based on individual rights
> and freedom the outcome is the same: one is to rule and one is to be
> ruled.
So the Southron Confederacy was right all along. Those darkies were only
fit to pick the white man's cotton and be whupped if they were lazy.
>
> Is Aristotle so wrong?
Factually, no. The strong dominate the weak. Morally, it is monstrous.
It is O.K. by Mr. A that strong dominate the weak and extract labor by
force.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Acar wrote:
> The Jews has a weapon of mass destruction - the Angel of the Lord. It
> targeted civlian children. :-)
What angel? Yaweh himself killed the children of Sodom and Gamorrah. Bad
Yaweh, no burnt offering for you today.
Bob Kolker
Rob
> Aristotle's politics, while interesting, are fundamentally flawed in
> that he studied the cultures around him to determine what was best.
> But if Bob is expecting some sort of rights upholding politics, you
> have to wait a good 2000 years before Locke entered the scene.
I'd recommend looking at Fred Miller's _Nature, justice, and rights in
Aristotle's Politics_. He makes a very impressive case that Aristotle
does have a doctrine of rights (more precisely, something functionally
equivalent to a doctrine of rights). He does not, of course, believe
in exactly the same schedule of rights as Objectivists, but that
leaves him in the company of most believers in rights throughout
history.
> I find Aristotle's ethics more insightful than his politics, and his
> idea of eudamonia (gee, someone's nick name on this board), which
> means "Happiness through reason".
That's not what it means. It was a term that was commonly used by the
Greeks, not just Aristotle, for the highest or chief good in terms of
which to guide one's life. Having named the good, then there were
disputes about what it amounted to.
"Verbally there is very general agreement, for both the general run of
men and people of superior refinement say that [the chief good] is
eudaemonia, and identify living well and faring well with being
eudaemonic; but with regard to what eudaemonia is they differ...."
(_Nicomachaean Ethics_, 1095a 17-20)
Some said the chief good was the life of pleasure, others favored the
virtuous life, the contemplative life, or the public political life
aimed at honor. Aristotle can be cited as a partisan of at least a
couple of the items on that list.
Rob
Robert Kolker
Rob wrote:
> equivalent to a doctrine of rights). He does not, of course, believe
> in exactly the same schedule of rights as Objectivists, but that
> leaves him in the company of most believers in rights throughout
> history.
Yup. Rights for Athenian male citizens. That leaves 5/6 of Athens
without rights. I am sure he felt sorry for the Spartan Helots, at a
distance of course. Some liberal.
Dan Lind
@attbi.com>...
> Catholicism has been a blight and curse on mankind, but the Irish made
> it easier to bear and less destructive than it might have been
> otherwise. Unfortunately, there has been no endigenous antidote to
> Protestant/Paulist misery. The only thing that has saved us is that most
> of us, thank God, are pagans.
For Catholics there is a direct, inverse, correlation between
unhappiness and inconsistency.
The unhappier the Catholic the more consistently he holds and acts on
his beliefs.
A happy Catholic is a hypocritical Catholic.
The same holds true for Protestants as well.
Dan Lind
Fred Weiss
"Rob" <log...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:ea1f2acf.03031...@posting.google.com...
I have no doubt. I did say "virtually everyone" which is not quite the same
as "everyone" unanimously. Though mindful of you and some others hovering
around and looking for every opportunity to pounce, I should know to more
carefully qualify everything I say so as to avoid this kind of cheap and
dishonest attack.
However I will note that among you, David, Gordon, who have jumped on my
statement, plus all the other erudite people in the group, I have not
exactly seen a list of examples. Opponents of slavery have not exactly
coming leaping to mind. Of course we always have to make an exception for
David's 11th Century Iceland.
As for Europe, I imagine the serfs provided a suitable substitute.
None of which constitutes a defense of Aristotle on this matter which was
not among his better positions, of which there were also others, which no
one denies - which does not significantly diminish the enormity of his
achievements in other areas, although that it is the intention of comment's
like Bob's, just as it is on the same issue with regard to the Founding
Fathers, especially Jefferson.
Fred Weiss
Acar
You wrote: "... in just a few weeks we will celebrate the Passover, a major
anti-slavery festival." It celebrates the Angel of the Lord "passing over"
Jewish children. Clear ethnic profiling.
..
..
John Alway
942...@posting.google.com>...
> John Alway <jwa...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > Aristotle's politics, while interesting, are fundamentally flawed in
> > that he studied the cultures around him to determine what was best.
> > But if Bob is expecting some sort of rights upholding politics, you
> > have to wait a good 2000 years before Locke entered the scene.
>
> I'd recommend looking at Fred Miller's _Nature, justice, and rights in
> Aristotle's Politics_. He makes a very impressive case that Aristotle
> does have a doctrine of rights (more precisely, something functionally
> equivalent to a doctrine of rights). He does not, of course, believe
> in exactly the same schedule of rights as Objectivists, but that
> leaves him in the company of most believers in rights throughout
> history.
He lived in the infancy of philosophy, at a time when little was
known of anything. There is no way he could have had a rights theory
on a par of Objectivism. In fact, it is the element of time, and
*when* one lives that Bob seems to have no appreciation for. I
today, have a million advantages over Aristotle because of when I
live, as did Galileo and Newton.
But, thanks for the recommendation.
> > I find Aristotle's ethics more insightful than his politics, and his
> > idea of eudamonia (gee, someone's nick name on this board), which
> > means "Happiness through reason".
> That's not what it means. It was a term that was commonly used by the
> Greeks, not just Aristotle, for the highest or chief good in terms of
> which to guide one's life. Having named the good, then there were
> disputes about what it amounted to.
> "Verbally there is very general agreement, for both the general run of
> men and people of superior refinement say that [the chief good] is
> eudaemonia, and identify living well and faring well with being
> eudaemonic; but with regard to what eudaemonia is they differ...."
> (_Nicomachaean Ethics_, 1095a 17-20)
> Some said the chief good was the life of pleasure, others favored the
> virtuous life, the contemplative life, or the public political life
> aimed at honor. Aristotle can be cited as a partisan of at least a
> couple of the items on that list.
Let me give it to you from my dictionary of philosophical terms:
"Eudaimonia -- Aristotle's word for the happiness attained when an
individual's potentiality for a full rational life is realized to the
utmost and the individual fully expresses all his or her varied
capacities. This striving for self-realization is the essence of
being human."
...John
Robert Kolker
Acar wrote:
>
> You wrote: "... in just a few weeks we will celebrate the Passover, a major
> anti-slavery festival." It celebrates the Angel of the Lord "passing over"
> Jewish children. Clear ethnic profiling.
More than that. Ethnic cleansing of the Egyptian first born. Lesson to
the Egyptians: Don't fuck around with the Jews. By the way, Pharo had 5
chances to let the Jews go and avoid such extremities. He stubbornly
turned them down.
Bob Kolker
Ralph Hertle
Do you see a parallel regarding slavery in that both the American
Confederacy and the Ancient Greek world of, say, 350 BC, had
approximately the same percentage of slaves - approximately 20%?
The African slaves were terribly incapable of defending themselves due
to the lack of skills, language, weapons, infrastructure, etc. The
Ancient Greek slaves were mostly captured enemy soldiers. Wouldn't the
latter have been a real handful to control for the Ancient Greeks in the
open working environment?
The North Koreans during the KWar required only one personnel to control
some seven captured US soldiers. The Americans required one personnel to
control some 2 or 3 North Koreans. This was told to me during army
clalls training in the "Escape and Evasion Course" that trains soldiers
to escape captivity and prison camps. No US soldier ever escaped from
the North Koreans during the KWar, and numerous N. Koreans escaped the
American captivity. The US Army brass was so alarmed that Americans went
to war in such a demoralized state that they could not escape - even
from markedly fewer captors - and the Army created a special training
course.
Why were the Ancient Greeks so successful at enslaving their military
enemies?
What is it in the two societies that gives rise to the same ratio of
non-free to free?
Ralph Hertle
?????????????????????????????????????????/
Robert Kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
> Bob:
>
> Do you see a parallel regarding slavery in that both the American
> Confederacy and the Ancient Greek world of, say, 350 BC, had
> approximately the same percentage of slaves - approximately 20%?
Athens at the time of Pericles was 5/6 non citizen, who were mostly
slaves and indentured servents. Some were foreign artisans and scholars,
but they had no say in how the city was run.
Sparta was 10 percent particpant in the ruling about 15 percent middle
class and useful folks and the rest 75 percet were Helot slaves.
Corinth was run by an oligarchy, Syracuse was run by a tyrant. The
Greeks were not what you would call liberal.
Bob Kolker
Larry Allen
@attbi.com>...
> Larry Allen wrote:
> > Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<b4r3sm$of4$1@slb
> > Here we have a man whom (I would be willing to bet the farm) has an IQ
> > that surpasses perhaps 98% of the entire worlds population,
Bob Kolker wrote:
>
> I am only in the 95-th percentile. And I don't suffer fools and slackers
> gladly.
>
> Aristotle was smart and sloppy. He did not check his work. In that, he
> was a very typical Greek. The Greeks had "the gift of the gab" and were
> so enamored of their cleverness that they confused nimble argumentation
> with finding the truth. The Greeks not only invented mathematics and
> philosophy, the invented sophistry.
Why then I wonder Bob, did the greeks invent sophistry in the first
place? According to webster, sophistry is defined as: an argument
apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an
argument used to deceive.
It was Fred Weiss himself that first brought this concept to my
attention in a practical context in terms of contemporary society.
I can understand, or at least perceive, the motivation for producing
mathematics, and likewise, philosophy. But I cannot yet perceive, let
alone understand, the motivation for the production of an ability to
use a rational and or a seemingly logical structure of thought to
intentionally deceive the recipient of such thought. It strikes me as
a sort of psychological ambush.
You continued:
> Europeans learned to be a little more humble in the that regard. Which
> is why science was invented in Europe and not in Greece. The Greeks got
> one half of what was necessary, to wit systematic logic and axiomatic
> mathematics. What they missed out on was empirical verification. The
> evolved slowly in the middle ages and burst forth in the enlightenment.
And this is precisly why I believe the mathematicians leading our
world today have a secret worldwide conspiracy to keep those of us who
are, shall we say, mathematically challenged, held down, so to speak.
For it seems to me, being a layman, that if systematic logic and
axiomatic mathematics equal one half, and empirical verification equal
the other half, we have an imbalance of exactly one fourth. Speaking
in jest, as I occassionaly find myself wholly and fully unable to
prevent myself from doing.
Lastly you penned:
> The closest Hellenic civilization came to developing our kind of science
> was the Alexandrian gang including Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Apollonius,
> Conan (no joke!) and (I think) Eudoxus. Of this group Archimedes was the
> greatest and his science is just as good today as it was when he
> invented/discovered it. He came within a whisker of inventing integral
> calculus and he almost developed an algebraic system in -The
> Sandreckoner-. Close, but no cigar. Alas, Archimedes never established a
> school and a tradition and any chance that he might have done so was cut
> off with the edge of a Roman blade.
>
> We owe the Greeks a great deal. They started the task of pushing out the
> Gods and dealing with nature on natural terms. The Greeks helped get rid
> of superstition. The Greeks were as smart as anyone gets, but their
> wisdom did not rise as high as their intelligence.
>
> Bob Kolker
Two final points Bob.
Firstly, having already bet the farm, (and won), despite your claims
otherwise, I would bet the farm again, that somewhere deep down within
you, Bob Kolker, there lives a brilliant philosopher.
Which leads to my second point, arising as it does, in the form of a
question.
To wit: Do you perceive philosophy to be altogether without merit?,
owing to the seeming absence of the necessity of an
objective/empirical verification of it?
In other words, do you hold to the idea that a truth is not a truth
until it is proven to be a truth?
Larry Allen
Arnold
"John Alway" <jwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dbb7370e.03031...@posting.google.com...
>
> "Eudaimonia -- Aristotle's word for the happiness
attained when an
> individual's potentiality for a full rational life is
realized to the
> utmost and the individual fully expresses all his or her
varied
> capacities. This striving for self-realization is the
essence of
> being human."
Sounds like Man Qa Man. Life is more than survival.
--
Arnold
Eudaimonus
> Would you have this Philosopher over for dinner?
He who "participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to
have, such a principle", "can be, and therefor is, another's", and therefore
"is a slave by nature".
The critical part of that sentence is "can be and therefor is". His point
is that the Aristotelian slave _can not help belonging to another_. Lacking
in rational principle, but requiring rational principle in order to act
effectively, he will neccessarily pick up the rational principles of someone
else, in order to have a rational principle to act upon. But what makes the
slave a slave is that this rational principle has it's origin outside of
himself, in another. This other is, relative to him, his master. The true
master would those relative masters who are not slaves - those who 'can and
therefor do' generate rational principles within themselves, and therefor
provide the rational principle for others.
So, if I have not the ability to have rational principle, but am able to
understand rational principle, then I should most certainly wish for this
Philosopher to come over for dinner - I should indeed hope that we would
provide me with some rational principles!
And, of course, if I were able to have my own rational principle, I would
have other reasons for wishing to have him over for dinner (but to discuss
that would involved a discussion of the value of friendship).
So, yes, I would have this Philosopher over for dinner.
Acar
That's less chances than Saddam has had. History repeats itself. We have a
burning Bush. We hear that God speaks to George and he tells Saddam: "Let
your people go". We a Red Sea strategy. Saddam said that he will fight to
the last child (first born?) There's nothing new unders the desert sun,
except for American tanks.
..
..
John Alway
E2....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
You're right. There are so many such gems in the works of
Aristotle, that his errors pale in comparison.
...John
Robert Kolker
Larry Allen wrote:
>
> Why then I wonder Bob, did the greeks invent sophistry in the first
> place? According to webster, sophistry is defined as: an argument
> apparently correct in form but actually invalid; especially : such an
> argument used to deceive.
Sophists taught argumentation with the intent to convince, regardless of
the quality of that which was being argued for. This is distinct from
dialectic which is argumentation intended to uncover the truth of things.
In Athens politics (for citizens) was the national sport. The standing
of a citizen could be enhanced by how well he swayed his fellows in
argumentation. For this reason, Sophist instructors were in great
demand. They demontrated their verbal skills to the delight of their
audiences (think of magicians who make elephants disappear) and made a
pretty drachma from those who hired them as rhetoric instructors.
> To wit: Do you perceive philosophy to be altogether without merit?,
> owing to the seeming absence of the necessity of an
> objective/empirical verification of it?
>
> In other words, do you hold to the idea that a truth is not a truth
> until it is proven to be a truth?
A proven proposition follows from its premises, given that the proof is
valid. The real question is how true or the premises. The protocol in
science is to subject inferences from the theory to experimental test.
If the experiment falsifies the conclusion from the theory (given that
the experiment is properly designed) the theory is broken, i.e. one of
the premises is not true under some circumstance.
The only a priori principles that can be presumed are the principle of
identity and the principle of non-contradiction (this was made clear by
Leibnitz). Any proposition that asserts details of the world must be
tested empirically, at least in principle. If a proposition cannot be
tested then its statuis is doubtful. If a proposition is a tautology
(i.e. true in any world) it is worthless as a scientific proposition. A
science has to be truth of -this- world. Any consistent theory will
produce -possible- statements as inferences (assuming the premises are
possible), but that is no guarantee of truth.
If Aristotle had used this principle he would have found out, in five
minutes flat, that his statement that heavier things fall faster -in
proportion to their weight- is flat out false in general. It only holds
were air resistance is a force equal are greater in magninitude than
gravity, and does not hold at all in a vacuum.
If Aristotle had either played ice hockey or arranged inclined plane
experiments, as did Galileo, he would have discovered the first law of
motion. The natural motion of bodies is NOT rest. It is uniform straight
line motion and rest is just a very special case, and that is dependent
on the reference frame. All of the carpentry, woodworking and metal
working skills available to Galileo existed in Athens. The only thing
Galileo had that Aristotle could not reasonably have was the telescopic
lens. Telescopes were not needed to find the basic laws of motion.
Aristotle, like many Greek thinkers and savants, did not consider
experiment necessary. Au contraire, they considered sense data as a
source of error (we cannot always believe our eyes as is well known).
The felt Truth lay in a priori valid principles. Even today, many
believe that mathematics is a better source of truth than physics. This
is not correct.
Mathematics, when doen right, guarantees that the premis follows from
the conclusion and even then their is doubt. Andrew Wiles, who finally
proved Fermat's Last Theorem (so-called) produced a proof that was
several hundred pages long. His first crack turned out to have a hole in
it, so several month later he presented a repaired proof. The proof was
so long and the mathematical specialities involved were so abstruse that
a comittee of a dozen world class mathematicians went over Wile's proof
with a magnifying glass and a fine tooth comb. They concluded, as a
comitte, that the proof we valid. Even first rate mathematicians in
other fields, had to take their word on the matter. Bottom line: The
comittee did their level best to vet the proof. Could they have made a
mistake? You bet they could. It would have been a subtle and obscure
mistake, but the possiblility of error has not been positively
eliminated. Second Bottom Line (a contradiction in terms): when it comes
to difficult proofs, mathematics is just as empirical as physics.
Ultimate conclusion. If you want to find out what the world is, you have
to go out in the world and content and delve in it, according to -the
world's nature- and within one's abilities to observe and think. It is
impossible to deduce the world a priori. One has as much chance of
pulling the world out of his head, as he does in pulling the world out
of his arse. And at least what comes out of the arse in empirically
verifiable.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Arnold wrote:
>
>
> Sounds like Man Qa Man. Life is more than survival.
Spoken like a survivor. If you had not survivied, you could not have
said the above.
Survival is necessary, but some would say, not sufficient.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Acar wrote:
>
> That's less chances than Saddam has had. History repeats itself. We have a
> burning Bush. We hear that God speaks to George and he tells Saddam: "Let
> your people go". We a Red Sea strategy. Saddam said that he will fight to
> the last child (first born?) There's nothing new unders the desert sun,
> except for American tanks.
An Abrams M-1-A in full battle mode is like unto the Wrath of the Lord.
That is a Can of Whup-Ass! 'OooRah!
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
John Alway wrote:
> You're right. There are so many such gems in the works of
> Aristotle, that his errors pale in comparison.
I am so apalled by Aristotle's errors that I turn pale contemplating
them. I have not forgiven Thomas Jefferson. Why should I forgive
Aristotle. His sloppiness cost mankind a great deal, and it was totally
avoidable.
Bob Kolker
Dan Lind
4084@sccrnsc02>...
> > Would you have this Philosopher over for dinner?
>
> He who "participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to
> have, such a principle", "can be, and therefor is, another's", and therefore
> "is a slave by nature".
>
> The critical part of that sentence is "can be and therefor is". His point
> is that the Aristotelian slave _can not help belonging to another_. Lacking
> in rational principle, but requiring rational principle in order to act
> effectively, he will neccessarily pick up the rational principles of someone
> else, in order to have a rational principle to act upon. But what makes the
> slave a slave is that this rational principle has it's origin outside of
> himself, in another. This other is, relative to him, his master. The true
> master would those relative masters who are not slaves - those who 'can and
> therefor do' generate rational principles within themselves, and therefor
> provide the rational principle for others.
This description of the "Aristotelian slave" strikingly reminds me of
Rand's "second-hander."
Dan Lind
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Tom S.
news:ad7b0c77.0303...@posting.google.com...
> Eudaimonus <jwsc...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:<FMwca.85792$L1.1
> 4084@sccrnsc02>...
> > > Would you have this Philosopher over for dinner?
> >
> > He who "participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not
to
> > have, such a principle", "can be, and therefor is, another's", and
therefore
> > "is a slave by nature".
> >
> > The critical part of that sentence is "can be and therefor is". His
point
> > is that the Aristotelian slave _can not help belonging to another_.
Lacking
> > in rational principle, but requiring rational principle in order to act
> > effectively, he will neccessarily pick up the rational principles of
someone
> > else, in order to have a rational principle to act upon. But what makes
the
> > slave a slave is that this rational principle has it's origin outside of
> > himself, in another. This other is, relative to him, his master. The
true
> > master would those relative masters who are not slaves - those who 'can
and
> > therefor do' generate rational principles within themselves, and
therefor
> > provide the rational principle for others.
>
> This description of the "Aristotelian slave" strikingly reminds me of
> Rand's "second-hander."
>
Re-reading the original a few times (including getting past the typos and
run-on sentences), I believe you're right. It sounds like the more
contemporary idea (for better or worse) of co-dependency.
Tom
**
"A mind, like a home, is furnished by its owner,
so if one's life is cold and bare he can blame
none but himself." -- Louis L'Amour
John Alway
@attbi.com>...
You couldn't be more wrong.
Aristotle made possible the Italian Renaissance, and the existence
of and advancement of science, as well as the development of
individual rights and therefore freedom.
"it was totally avoidable" for someone who has an infinite amount
to time.
And, there is nothing to forgive Thomas Jefferson for, and an
awesome amount to praise him for.
...John
John Alway
[Careful reading of Aristotle]
> So, yes, I would have this Philosopher over for dinner.
Well read. Just goes to show you that you can't read Aristotle
casually, or you're almost sure to read him wrong. He packs quite a
bit into a short piece.
...John
Robert Kolker
John Alway wrote:
>
> You couldn't be more wrong.
>
> Aristotle made possible the Italian Renaissance, and the existence
> of and advancement of science, as well as the development of
> individual rights and therefore freedom.
The advocate of slavery helped the development of human rights? Do tell.
>
> "it was totally avoidable" for someone who has an infinite amount
> to time.
Aristotle had the same technology to hand as Galileo, except for the
telescope. Galileo developed his experimental rigs and test beds within
a few years. That is because he knew he had to check his work. Aristotle
could not develop this technique in a thousand years because he did not
think he had to check. So he didn't.
Bob Kolker
Eudaimonus
> Aristotle had the same technology to hand as Galileo, except for the
> telescope. Galileo developed his experimental rigs and test beds within
> a few years. That is because he knew he had to check his work. Aristotle
> could not develop this technique in a thousand years because he did not
> think he had to check. So he didn't.
Mr. Kolker, I implore you to please stop slandering Aristotle so. You may
say that he did not check his work, for indeed, in instances he did not.
However, to say that he did not do so because he did not think he had to, is
a simple error of attributing to somebody a position that they did not hold.
Aristotle was clear through out all of his metaphysical and logical works
that the foundation of proof was demonstration. He didn't work out that
principle very well, and applied it even worse, but that was a principle of
his, and to speak of Aristotle as if he believed in fact the opposite, is
nothing short of libel.
Ralph Hertle
You seem to be saying that Aristotle was for slavery.
Of course he said what he did. That is providing one of his successors,
grad students, translators, librarians, politicians, editors, or
Christian monks didn't insert that into the collected works.
Given the philosophic pro-life ideas that he had (and, here, this is not
a Christian Pro-creationist term), Aristotle could not have written
those pro-slavery notes. The pro-slavery and city-tyranny sections had
to have been placed in his works for political reasons in order to
placate the current politicians. One has to recall that throughout his
career Aristotle had to speak his rather radical philosophical ideas in
the same town as the exponents of dictatorship, oligarchy, and democracy
at different times.
Aristotle saw Socrates, a man of peace, executed, and he saw or knew
about the tens of thousands of people in the several cities under many
changes of governments, also executed or exiled. Unwanted people had
restrictions, confiscations, searches, and many other affronts as well.
Aristotle himself was exiled from Athens near the end of his life for
the reason that his ideas were not appreciated. He appointed
Theophrastus to take over the school. There is at least one other time
when he had to leave town and seek asylum in another city.
Slavery was one of the sacred cows, and it is not without a basis in
fact, that one could well think that political placations may have been
appropriate.
I say, read and wince. Read the stuff on slavery and tyranny for what it
says about the society - as journalism - rather than as what ethical
ideas that Aristotle may have wanted to promote. At best those materials
give us a snap shot as to what was happening.....and if people of the
future were reading his works the ideas would seem to be a cry for help.
My opinion is that the writer of Aristotle's world views logically and
morally wasn't the same person as the person who wrote the materials on
slavery and tyranny. However, if it was, he was lying to save his neck.
Ralph Hertle
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Robert Kolker
Eudaimonus wrote:
> Mr. Kolker, I implore you to please stop slandering Aristotle so.
> You may say that he did not check his work, for indeed, in instances
> he did not. However, to say that he did not do so because he did not
> think he had to, is a simple error of attributing to somebody a
> position that they did not hold.
Then why didn't Aristotle check his nonsense that bodies fell with a
velocity proportional to their weight? That one could have been put away
in about 5 minutes.* People know how to build smooth wooden planes in
Anthens and they know how to cut cylinders. Why didn't Arisotle roll
cylinders down planes and check his work.
> Aristotle was clear through out all of his metaphysical
Metaphysical is the magic word. Metaphysical but not empirical. The was
the downfall of the Greeks.
> and logical works that the foundation of proof was demonstration. He
> didn't work out that principle very well, and applied it even worse,
> but that was a principle of his, and to speak of Aristotle as if he
> believed in fact the opposite, is
He did apply his principle. He did not think that empirical checking was
necessary. So he didn't check. Sloppy.
> nothing short of libel.
Libel is asserting falsehoods. Aristotle did not check his conclusions
empirically which is why he made so many howlers. Sloppy and lazy. Give
that Philosopher a C-. Aristotle was a great drama critic and a lousy
physicist. Which is too bad since physics is much more important than
drama. He also could not count teeth very well either (see Book 2 Part 3
of -History of Animals-**). How hard is it to get a women to open her
mouth long enough to have her teeth counted? Duh!
Every word I have said about Aristotle is true. He did not check his
work empiricially.
Bob Kolker
* Around 610 C.E. John Philliponus did the obvious experiment. He
dropped a big rock and a little rock from the same height and noticed
they landed almost at the same instant. He falsified Aristotle claim
about falling bodies. He did not require hight tech either. Just the
humility to realize that a general assertion should be checked.
**Part 3
In this particular, the horse differs entirely from animals in general:
for, generally speaking, as animals grow older their teeth get blacker,
but the horse's teeth grow whiter with age.
The so-called 'canines' come in between the sharp teeth and the broad or
blunt ones, partaking of the form of both kinds; for they are broad at
the base and sharp at the tip.
Males have more teeth than females in the case of men, sheep, goats, and
swine; in the case of other animals observations have not yet been made:
but the more teeth they have the more long-lived are they, as a rule,
while those are short-lived in proportion that have teeth fewer in
number and thinly set.
Robert Kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
> Bob:
>
> You seem to be saying that Aristotle was for slavery.
I did not say. Aristotle wrote it.
>
> Of course he said what he did. That is providing one of his successors,
> grad students, translators, librarians, politicians, editors, or
> Christian monks didn't insert that into the collected works.
If you start assuming redaction then all bets are off. Under that
assumption we would not know what Aristotle said. Since none of us were
there when Aristotle wrote his work (or supervised the notes of his
graduate students) we either believe the documentation or give up the
discussion in the entirety.
You cannot pick and choose. You either accept the documentation as
received in the entirety or you reject it all.
>
> Aristotle saw Socrates, a man of peace, executed,
Aristotle was born 20 years after Socrates was put to death. It was
Plato who saw his mentor tried and convicted.
> and he saw or knew
> about the tens of thousands of people in the several cities under many
> changes of governments, also executed or exiled.
Aristotle lived after the Pellipenesian wars and after the pro-Spartan
oligarchy was overthrown in 401 B.C.E. Things did not get "interesting"
until much later on when the Macedonians started to squeeze Athens.
> Unwanted people had
> restrictions, confiscations, searches, and many other affronts as well.
> Aristotle himself was exiled from Athens near the end of his life for
> the reason that his ideas were not appreciated. He appointed
> Theophrastus to take over the school. There is at least one other time
> when he had to leave town and seek asylum in another city.
>
> Slavery was one of the sacred cows, and it is not without a basis in
> fact, that one could well think that political placations may have been
> appropriate.
>
> I say, read and wince. Read the stuff on slavery and tyranny for what it
> says about the society - as journalism - rather than as what ethical
> ideas that Aristotle may have wanted to promote. At best those materials
> give us a snap shot as to what was happening.....and if people of the
> future were reading his works the ideas would seem to be a cry for help.
>
> My opinion is that the writer of Aristotle's world views logically and
> morally wasn't the same person as the person who wrote the materials on
> slavery and tyranny. However, if it was, he was lying to save his neck.
That kind of ad hoc hypothesizing renders ALL discussions of Aristotle
moot. As I said, you either accept the historical record or you reject
it. You are in no position to pick and choose.
You are saying Aristotle did not write all the pro-slavery stuff. It was
written by someone else with the same name. Really now. Are you serious?
Bob Kolker
Eudaimonus
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3E73C5BA...@verizon.net...
> Aristotle himself was exiled from Athens near the end of his life for
> the reason that his ideas were not appreciated. He appointed
> Theophrastus to take over the school. There is at least one other time
> when he had to leave town and seek asylum in another city.
Aristotle was not exciled. Arisotle left due to a fear of the
anti-Macedonian feelings in Athens at the time. He was 61 years old and
died of natural causes the next year. The triggering event may well have
been the death of Alexander that year.
Aristotle did leave Athens once before, and that being when he left the
Academy after Plato's death. Wither this was because of anti-Macedonian
feeling, or because he was not named to head the Academy is unclear. ( I
would postulate the two were not unrelated. ) He went to the island of
Assos where he stayed and conducted his biological investigations, until it
was conquered by the Persians, wherein he went to Macedonia proper. This is
the time when it is supposed that he was tutor to Alexander.
To suppose that the people (who ruled Athens) would have exiled Aristotle
because of his ideas, is to give to much credit to the people of Athens - I
sincerly doubt the adverage Athenian would have known much more about
Arisotle than that he was from Macedonia, and a part of the Macedonian court
(all of which are not true, but doubtless what the people of Athens would
have believed). And certainly, even if they would have known more about his
ideas, I doubt they would have cared more about that than about his
political ties.
Just look up any biography and it's all there.
John Alway
@attbi.com>...
> John Alway wrote:
> > You couldn't be more wrong.
> > Aristotle made possible the Italian Renaissance, and the existence
> > of and advancement of science, as well as the development of
> > individual rights and therefore freedom.
> The advocate of slavery helped the development of human rights? Do tell.
I have told. The point is that Aristotle developed logic, science,
and set out the nature of man "Man is the rational animal", all of
which were key components to the development of rights. Not to
mention the notion of Natural Law, which was also a Greek concept.
You're problem is you expect magic. This is really the long and
short of it. You have irrational expectations and understandings of
what a man can do in his life time, and you have a poor understanding
of time and place. I'm not saying it's easy to know time and place,
but you're way off the mark in understanding what it was like in
Ancient Greece. You tell me, is there one scientific or
philosophical or mathematical break through attributed to you?
Perhaps this will tell you a little bit about how difficult it really
is.
> > "it was totally avoidable" for someone who has an infinite amount
> > to time.
> Aristotle had the same technology to hand as Galileo, except for the
> telescope.
Nope. Not remotely true. Aristotle had no water clock and Galileo
himself made it clear that Aristotle didn't have important knowledge
that was developed after him. He didn't have things like the decimal
system, which made doing math ten times easier. He didn't have
knowledge of a ton of things that the Romans invented.
> Galileo developed his experimental rigs and test beds within
> a few years.
Galileo devoted himself to a narrow area. Aristotle had other
interests. I quoted a source to you on this in one of the other
threads.
> That is because he knew he had to check his work. Aristotle
> could not develop this technique in a thousand years because he did not
> think he had to check. So he didn't.
This is false. Aristotle knew full well that one had to check
with the facts continually. He's the guy who came up with this, along
with the foundational epistemology which allowed this view to hold
sway.
A word for you HYPOTHESIZING. This was Aristotle's idea.
You hypothesize and rehypothesize and check your hypothesizes
against the facts logically.
He knew about checking. He's the one who set out the importance
of it to begin with.
...John
Robert Kolker
Eudaimonus wrote:
> To suppose that the people (who ruled Athens) would have exiled Aristotle
> because of his ideas, is to give to much credit to the people of Athens - I
> sincerly doubt the adverage Athenian would have known much more about
> Arisotle than that he was from Macedonia, and a part of the Macedonian court
> (all of which are not true, but doubtless what the people of Athens would
> have believed). And certainly, even if they would have known more about his
> ideas, I doubt they would have cared more about that than about his
> political ties.
"
The death of Alexander in 323 B.C. shocked the entire Greek world. Once
again Aristotle was persona non grata at Athens. A charge of "impiety"
was brought against him. Rather than have Athens "sin twice against
philosophy" (Socrates had been accused of the same crime), Aristotle
turned his school over to his old friend, Theophrastus, and fled to his
mother's home in Chalcis. He died in Chalcis from a stomach disease at
the age of 64 in 320"
For more details see:
http://www.hol.gr/greece/texts/aristo2.txt
Bob Kolker
Eudaimonus
> Every word I have said about Aristotle is true. He did not check his
> work empiricially.
That's not all you said, and you know it.
Arisotle put demonstration at the head of all proof. What he lacked was a
clearly formulated method for conducting demonstration. He thought it was
simply a matter of looking out at the world and seeing what is there. In
other words, I say "This ball is red" and you say it's blue, I pull out the
ball, you see that it is red, and I have demonstrated it is red. That's as
sophisticated as Aristotle got in terms of empiricism.
I suppose you are right thought, we _don't_ all have to start somewhere ...
Robert Kolker
John Alway wrote:
>
> Nope. Not remotely true. Aristotle had no water clock and Galileo
> himself made it clear that Aristotle didn't have important knowledge
> that was developed after him.
Wooden planks and planes were hewn in athens. The clypsedra or drip
clock was known from ancient Egypt. Thales could have brought one back.
The Greeks knew how to turn wood on a lathe (that is how they made the
pegs that held their ships together). So cylinders could have been
turned to roll down inclined planes. Metal balls and beads were common
place as ornaments.
> He didn't have things like the decimal
> system, which made doing math ten times easier. He didn't have
> knowledge of a ton of things that the Romans invented.
Athenian shipwrights were world reknowned and Ionian metal workers were
a dime a dozen in Athens. Like I said, everything Galileo used in his
experiments (save lenses and the telescope) were at hand for Aristotle.
Galileo did not need decimal arithmetic to establish the first law of
motion. All he had to do was notice that a smooth round thingy went a
long way on a horizontal smooth board before slowing down. That is how
Galileo did it.
>
>>Galileo developed his experimental rigs and test beds within
>>a few years.
>
>
> Galileo devoted himself to a narrow area. Aristotle had other
> interests. I quoted a source to you on this in one of the other
> threads.
You are right. Aristotle was much too busy to check his conclusions
empirically. Aristotle was a tad thin on the ground. Galileo did metal
work and taught himself how to grind lenses. Galileo was a hands on
intellectual, Aristotle was wind and words. Which is why Galileo
invented modern science and Aristotle didn't. Galileo went partly blind
from watching sunspots. I will bet Aristotle never suffered any pain
from doing close observations.
> This is false. Aristotle knew full well that one had to check
> with the facts continually. He's the guy who came up with this, along
> with the foundational epistemology which allowed this view to hold
> sway.
So why didn't he? John Philliponus falsified Aristotle's dictim on
falling bodies* with a simple five minute experment.
Step 1. Find two stones of simlar shape one big (and heavy) and one
small (and much lighter).
Step 2. Find a high place
Step 3. Drop the stones off held level.
Step 4. Have someone on the ground say how close the stones fell.
Step 5. Repeat several times with different sizes and weights of stones
or other heavy objects.
Duh!
And I haven't even gotten around to female dentation.
Bob Kolker
*The velocity of the fall is proportional to the weight. Twice as heavy
means it falls twice as fast. Quite false. As long as air resistance is
negligable, all bodies fall at the same rate (Principle of Equivalence,
later used by Einstein to formulate General Relativity).
Robert Kolker
Eudaimonus wrote:
> Arisotle put demonstration at the head of all proof. What he lacked was a
> clearly formulated method for conducting demonstration. He thought it was
> simply a matter of looking out at the world and seeing what is there. In
> other words, I say "This ball is red" and you say it's blue, I pull out the
> ball, you see that it is red, and I have demonstrated it is red. That's as
> sophisticated as Aristotle got in terms of empiricism.
Not very sophisticated. Down right bloody second rate, I would say.
The trick in experimental work is not to prove yourself right, but to
prove yourself wrong. Apperently it never occurred to Aristotle that he
could have been wrong.
Bob Kolker
Ralph Hertle
You have written far many more instances of errors of logic than you
claim that Aristotle lied, or failed to check his work. That may be
apparent to all readers of HPO.
An example of one of your lies, or errors of omission, is in the
following quotAtion from your post:
............
Robert Kolker wrote:
>
> [ text omitted ]
>
> You are saying Aristotle did not write all the pro-slavery stuff. It was
> written by someone else with the same name. Really now. Are you serious?
>
> Bob Kolker
............
What I actually said was,
"....I say, read and wince. Read the stuff on slavery and tyranny for
what it says about the society - as journalism - rather than as what
ethical ideas that Aristotle may have wanted to promote. At best those
materials give us a snap shot as to what was happening.....and if people
of the future were reading his works the ideas would seem to be a cry
for help.
My opinion is that the writer of Aristotle's world views logically and
morally wasn't the same person as the person who wrote the materials on
slavery and tyranny. However, if it was, he was lying to save his neck. "
Please note that I used the logical term, if. I think that it is clear
that I proposed three possibilities. There may in fact be more
possibilities, however, these are the more obvious ones that came to mind:
a. Aristotle's works were changed or edited by others. [There is good
evidence for that right within the collected works, and by that I mean
gross inconsistencies of fact and style, for example. These have been
posted on HPO and brought directly to your attention on the appropriate
threads. In other sources it is known that many of the pieces of
Aristotle's work were actually composed of compilations and editings of
his student's lecture notes, and that that may have happened after he
left the school or died.]
b. Aristotle wrote and approved of everything that has come down to us
in history in his collected works.
c. Aristotle wrote most of his works, and that he may have written
specific pieces for the specific purpose of placating the politicians
and avoiding prosecution that could result in death, imprisonment,
confiscation, shutting down, and exile, for example.
I have restated and added to what I previously said in an attempt to
make what I said even more understandable. You have simply thoughtlessly
replied, and in doing so ......
YOU HAVE FAILED TO CHECK THE LOGIC AND THE ACCURACY OF YOUR WORK.
You win the happy prize of ten French goose quill feathers and a block
of Japanese squid ink.
Ralph Hertle
Fred Weiss
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E73CD3E...@attbi.com...
> Then why didn't Aristotle check his nonsense that bodies fell with a
> velocity proportional to their weight?
> Around 610 C.E. John Philliponus did the obvious experiment.
Err...that was about 900 years after Aristotle. That might lead you to
question how obvious it was. And after that it was nearly another 1,000
years to Galileo. You would think someone would have done the obvious,
wouldn't you? In 2,000 years only one person performed the experiment before
it was finally established by Galileo.
What you don't grasp is that the principles of experimental science had to
be discovered and that their discovery represented an enormous achievement
for mankind. It may seem obvious to you with the benefit of hindsight but it
obviously wasn't..... obvious.
Fred Weiss
Ralph Hertle
Thanks for the factual information.
It isn't the political ties. A person's ideas in many societies can
attract hostilities even more than political associations. One example
was the ideas of Joshua bar Joseph. Another was Anne Franck, and even
though she didn't write philosophy her religionist forebears did.
Another was Hypatia, a director of the Library at Alexandria who was
killed by Christian monks. In history, there are thousands more persons
who had innovative or objectionable ideas who were attacked, and who had
almost no political associations.
Aristotle did have to move to avoid retribution in some instances. He
did have ideas, and he did have political associations. He wasn't
exactly a low profile ineffectual nobody.
The case that Aristotle's writings on slavery and tyranny could have
been motivated by thoughts of possible political- or religious- caused
harm or revenge can still be inductively made. Deductively, we have to
rely only on the facts that we have.
Ralph Hertle
Eudaimonus wrote:
[ text omitted ]
Robert Kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
>>
> YOU HAVE FAILED TO CHECK THE LOGIC AND THE ACCURACY OF YOUR WORK.
I say to you again. Either you accept the collected works of Aristotle
which have been known for hundreds of years as authentic or you reject
the lot. Why? Because if you pick and chooose you have no facts to work
on (we do not have time travel yet). All you have are ad hoc assumptions
about out what Arisotle *should* have written (according to YOUR lights,
and who are YOU?). In short, the ad hocs are arbitrary assumptions. If
we do not know what Aristotle really said, then all conversation on the
matter should cease forthwith as a waste of time.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
> What you don't grasp is that the principles of experimental science had to
> be discovered and that their discovery represented an enormous achievement
> for mankind. It may seem obvious to you with the benefit of hindsight but it
> obviously wasn't..... obvious.
Hindsight? Dropping the rocks requires hindsight? It is a trivial
excercise in checking. A five year old kid could do it. Two year old
kids do it when they play drop the object from their highchairs.
Bob Kolker
Ralph Hertle
You are so right. Its too bad that Aristotle's book on Induction has
been lost. Of all the books that could never have been allowed into
Christianity that is the one - induction directly contradicts faith,
enables scientific discoveries, enables new esthetic concepts for works
of art to be created, and it is the primary logical tool that is used in
ethical and psychological thought and therapy.
One demonstrates the validity, truth, and consistency of ideas that are
arrived at by induction by deduction, and specifically by means of
logical demonstration and proof. Checking one's work is a form of that.
Logic is the essential tool that is used for the validation of concepts,
and if anyone in the world had anything to do with that fundamental
intellectual tool it was Aristotle.
I would agree that it was Aristotle who taught the intellectuals of the
world, and everyone else who would listen, how to make their ideas and
reasoning directly true of the facts of existence.
Human beings do, on some occasions, make errors, and it is necessary to
go over one's work and to check the factual and universal premises, and
logic in order to ascertain that the particular conclusions are
necessarily derived from the facts and universal premises. Likewise, in
induction, or to validate universals, one must re-process all the
relevant particular data and inductive methods in order to verify the
universal conclusions.
John, you point out one more of Aristotle's unacknowledged
accomplishments, that, I think, heretofore has not been brought to light.
He taught the world how to check their work, specifically the science of
how to identify errors of logic, and to demonstrate proper inductive and
deductive logic, definitions, and postulates. He taught us to accurately
identify the facts of the universe.
Broadly speaking, Aristotle, brought us Logic.
Ralph Hertle
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
Robert Kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
> I would agree that it was Aristotle who taught the intellectuals of the
> world, and everyone else who would listen, how to make their ideas and
> reasoning directly true of the facts of existence.
So why was his physics so bad?
Bob Kolker
Ralph Hertle
Aristotle's goal was not any type of Empiricism or empiricist science.
Those are modern concepts. What he was interested in was the
identification of the facts of the universe, the means of acquiring the
facts, the methods of making discoveries of new ideas, the methods of
the validation, demonstration and proofs of concepts.
His science of epistemology, including Logic meant that checking the
accuracy of one's thinking was part of the task. Every merchant and
every bookkeeper knew that accuracy was a practical and moral part of
craftsmanship.
His science of metaphysics, including identifications and definitions,
meant that one must use accurate sense perception and accurate
descriptions to identify the nature and properties of the existents
being observed.
You say that he lacked a "....method for conducting demonstration."
Actually his method of diagnosing the cause and effect relationships
involved in any physical existence, properties, relationship, or
functioning of existents was the basis of all the science that we have
today. There simply wouldn't be a science today if it were not for
Aristotle's science of Cause and Effect.
All demonstration, and that means all, is conducted by means of reason
and logic. Aristotle perfected the general theory of logic, which
provides that the conclusion that is demonstrated by the concepts of the
premises, which may be either identities of metaphysical or
epistemological existents, that is the principal method of
demonstration. In fact, no demonstrations of any type in the sense of
validating properties, potentials, and functionings, is possible without
logic.
You should judge the man, not for what he didn't do, and for what others
did later. Rather, you should place him in a position of higher esteem
because of his accomplishments, and for the causes that he established
that enabled all subsequent science that followed to accurately
establish and identify the nature of the facts of existence.
Aristotle, by means of his science of logic, was the primary developer
of demonstration, however, it was Thales who invented the hierarchical
system of logical proofs that makes up all the true science ever known.
Ralph Hertle
.............
...............
Ralph Hertle
True to Kantian form you imply that there are no perfect or totally
accurate works extant or theories possible. That includes Aristotle's
works and ideas.
Since, according to Kant (and Plato), all knowledge is impossible,
whatever (to borrow a contemporary American Pragmatist catchword) you
say also has no meaning.
It appears to me that your analytical method is not one of the
application of principles, rather, it is one of conformance with set
patterns of rules - namely those of, Kant's requirements and Plato's
generalities.
The dilemma that I see in your argumentation technique is that you seem
to respect facts, however, you disapprove of logic - which is the means
of demonstrating and validating facts (both metaphysical and
epistemological existents).
Oh, and I am sorry, that is another Aristotelian concept - fact.
Ralph Hertle
Ralph Hertle
Why don't you use inductive and deductive logic rather than checking facts?
Why not Logic? That's a far better, wore accurate, and more efficient
way to identify and prove facts than any amount of empirical checking.
Ralph Hertle
.....................
Ralph Hertle
Of course there seems to be some glaring lack of quality of thinking
regarding Aristotle's writings on physics, and that surely isn't up to
the same level of excellence as is evidenced in his other works.
I will agree that his physics is bad, It is downright shabby. I think
that it was the result of student work on questions proffered, or,
possibly, some faulty transcriptions of his work or lectures by persons
who didn't understand the material.
Other than that, and as far as I know, we may never know why these bad
examples appear in the collected works.
We know the facts, and I think that we should intellectually view the
apparent pronouncements of Aristotle regarding physics with suspicion,
and we should virtually quarantine them until such time as we have the
true facts available - if ever.
His remarks on the fundamental concepts, e.g., the axioms, or even more
particular statements, e.g., the concepts of up and down, are far better.
I think that, especially for someone who has a high degree of knowledge
and passion for facts, science and physics, Aristotle's comments on
science, e.g., on feathers and weights, would be disappointing. One
searches for more, and it isn't there. Worse, the writings on those
subjects seems to be corrupt, that is, that it has mixed inaccuracies
and elements of style that allude to accurate, however, false, facts.
My personal experience is that I know a woman who was a student of a
brilliant and innovative professor. The brilliant professor lectured
from his own prepared notes. The student's own notes taken during
lectures turned out to be better transcriptions than the professor's own
book on the subject. He was a great innovator, and he was a fabulous
lecturer, however, his writing didn't twinkle. In Aristotle's case, he
may have been let down by some inept students who transcribed his lectures.
Ralph Hertle
Robert Kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
>
> The dilemma that I see in your argumentation technique is that you seem
> to respect facts, however, you disapprove of logic - which is the means
> of demonstrating and validating facts (both metaphysical and
> epistemological existents).
I love logic as long as it leads to experimentally verifiable
conclusions. The ultimate arbiter of truth (for those propositions which
say something about the world) is fact. This is just the Plain Old
Correspondence Theory of Truth, something on which Aristotle and I concur.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
> Bob:
>
> Why don't you use inductive and deductive logic rather than checking facts?
>
> Why not Logic? That's a far better, wore accurate, and more efficient
> way to identify and prove facts than any amount of empirical checking.
Logic and theory is (mostly)* how you get to statements about the world.
The problem is just because such a statement is derived logically does
not mean that it is true, which is why we test our theories.
Bob Kolker
* There ae also smart wild ass guesses and speculations which also may
turn out to be true, but wild and wooly guessing is not the most
reliable way to get to true statements. However, when one does not have
a theory, there is nothing to loose by speculation and guessing. As long
as the speculations and guesses are later checked.
Robert Kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
> We know the facts, and I think that we should intellectually view the
> apparent pronouncements of Aristotle regarding physics with suspicion,
> and we should virtually quarantine them until such time as we have the
> true facts available - if ever.
Why wait. Arisotle's physics has been falsified by experiment. They may
be discarded without danger. False is false.
>
> His remarks on the fundamental concepts, e.g., the axioms, or even more
> particular statements, e.g., the concepts of up and down, are far better.
Up and down is the child's eye view of the world. Tell me, do the folks
in Austrialia walk around on their heads? Or are we walking around on
our heads? Neither. Up and Down have now absolute meanings. They are not
invariant. At best they are purely local terms whose meaning changes as
one moves about on a closed positively curved manifold.
>
> I think that, especially for someone who has a high degree of knowledge
> and passion for facts, science and physics, Aristotle's comments on
> science, e.g., on feathers and weights, would be disappointing. One
> searches for more, and it isn't there. Worse, the writings on those
> subjects seems to be corrupt, that is, that it has mixed inaccuracies
> and elements of style that allude to accurate, however, false, facts.
>
> My personal experience is that I know a woman who was a student of a
> brilliant and innovative professor. The brilliant professor lectured
> from his own prepared notes. The student's own notes taken during
> lectures turned out to be better transcriptions than the professor's own
> book on the subject. He was a great innovator, and he was a fabulous
> lecturer, however, his writing didn't twinkle. In Aristotle's case, he
> may have been let down by some inept students who transcribed his lectures.
It is very likely. But this is a stylistic judgement. I am more
concerned with the specific assertions Aristotle makes about the natural
world. When it comes to matter and motion he is mostly wrong. He also
makes some deep category errors (as opposed to factual errors). He
assumes that purpose and ends have a general meaning in reality. They
don't. The universe is mostly non-alive. Insensate matter and swirling
energy have no purpose or end. They just are. For general application
only one notion of cause is valid, efficient cause. And even that
reduces to invariant temporal sequencing. See David Hume on cause.
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
> Eudaimonus:
>
> Aristotle's goal was not any type of Empiricism or empiricist science.
> Those are modern concepts. What he was interested in was the
> identification of the facts of the universe, the means of acquiring the
> facts, the methods of making discoveries of new ideas, the methods of
> the validation, demonstration and proofs of concepts.
Interesting. You say he was interested in facts, but denied himself the
means by which he could verify whether his conclusions asserted facts or
not. Demonstration and proofs are not proofs the truth of statements.
They are ways we derive statements about the world which might or might
not be true. Just because an assertion about the world was logically
derived from some hypotheses does not mean that assertion is true.
>
> All demonstration, and that means all, is conducted by means of reason
> and logic. Aristotle perfected the general theory of logic, which
> provides that the conclusion that is demonstrated by the concepts of the
> premises, which may be either identities of metaphysical or
> epistemological existents, that is the principal method of
> demonstration. In fact, no demonstrations of any type in the sense of
> validating properties, potentials, and functionings, is possible without
> logic.
True. However Aristotle did not perfect the art. It was perfected
beginning in the 19-th century. Aristotle's logic could not deal with
generalized relations nor did they deal with compound statements. In
this regard, Chyrsippus, the Stoic logician was closer to modern logic.
>
> You should judge the man, not for what he didn't do, and for what others
> did later. Rather, you should place him in a position of higher esteem
> because of his accomplishments, and for the causes that he established
> that enabled all subsequent science that followed to accurately
> establish and identify the nature of the facts of existence.
>
> Aristotle, by means of his science of logic, was the primary developer
> of demonstration, however, it was Thales who invented the hierarchical
> system of logical proofs that makes up all the true science ever known.
Thales began this project, praises upon him. It has been going on ever
since and goes on, even today.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E73FDEA...@attbi.com...
A is A and the Law of Non-Contradiction, plus the rest of logic, is even
more "obvious", but there are entire cultures who *still* don't get it, not
to mention otherwise intelligent people on hpo (including yourself
sometimes).
You didn't answer my question. Answer it. If it is so obvious, why did it
take 2,000 years until the principle was established via experiment?
Fred Weiss
Robert Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
> You didn't answer my question. Answer it. If it is so obvious, why did it
> take 2,000 years until the principle was established via experiment?
>
The gap in time was under 2000 years and we don't know how many people
did the experiment and did not have their accounts thereof survive. The
experiment is so simple and obvious that is was probably done thousands
of times. The first dissent to Aristotle -we read about- is John
Philliponus. In those dark days few people could write, but anyone
could toss rocks.
Kids experiment all the time. Whether they derive any Grand Prinicples
from their fiddling is another question. For all I know, there could be
a lost book, -Experiments of Aristotle-, but that is pure speculation.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E74A3B7...@attbi.com...
It is as justified a speculation as yours that it was "probably done
thousands of times". If it is so obvious that it was done thousands of times
(but we just don't know about it), then it is certainly probable that
Aristotle did it (but we just don't know about it).
I am quite willing to accept that not only didn't Aristotle do it, but that
no one did until Philiponus and that it was then not fully established and
well known until Galileo.
You are far, far too taking for granted what is and isn't obvious.
Incidentally if you asked the average person the question today in 2003,
what do you think they'd say? How many people would assume that a heavier
object would fall faster than a light one. Furthermore it is not entirely
clear to me that the interest was even great enough to warrant the question
and its answer until "the age of science" in Galileo/Newton's era. I'd
assume this was true of a great many other "obvious" questions as well, not
just this one, which would have required nothing more than relatively simple
experiments.
Fred Weiss
John Alway
2.atl.mindspring.net>...
> You are far, far too taking for granted what is and isn't obvious.
Exactly my point.
> Incidentally if you asked the average person the question today in 2003,
> what do you think they'd say? How many people would assume that a heavier
> object would fall faster than a light one.
Do the experiment. Take a feather, a piece of cloth, and a rock and
drop all three at the same time. See if they fall at the same rate.
Not so easy to determine g=9.8m/s^2
...John
Eudaimonus
> You are far, far too taking for granted what is and isn't obvious.
> Incidentally if you asked the average person the question today in 2003,
> what do you think they'd say? How many people would assume that a heavier
> object would fall faster than a light one. Furthermore it is not entirely
> clear to me that the interest was even great enough to warrant the
question
> and its answer until "the age of science" in Galileo/Newton's era. I'd
> assume this was true of a great many other "obvious" questions as well,
not
> just this one, which would have required nothing more than relatively
simple
> experiments.
Fred, isn't it the most interesting thing of all, that they mistake that the
comman man makes, and Galileo did not make, is one precisely addressed by
Aristotle's metaphysics (namely, by means of the notion of essense).
The notion that you should hold all other variables the same and vary only
weight, in order to judge the effect of the weight - would thinking that up
have been possible without the essense/accident notion that was thought up
by Aristotle?
Not to mention what science would be possible without a rudementary modal
logic!
Eudaimonus
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3E7431F9...@verizon.net...
> Of course there seems to be some glaring lack of quality of thinking
> regarding Aristotle's writings on physics, and that surely isn't up to
> the same level of excellence as is evidenced in his other works.
It is entirely possible that the work we have by the name of "Physics" was
not actually written by Aristotle himself.
Surely a plausable story could be constructed as to how a work by one of his
fellow instructors at the Lyceum, or one of his students, wrote the lecture
notes for their own lecture, and it got lumped in together.
After all, that is not without precident. A number of the works in "The
Collected Works of Aristotle" are, by common scholarly agreement, not
written by Aristotle.
One can also wonder as to just _when_ Aristotle wrote, if he was indeed the
one who wrote it, "Physics". Could it be from an early part of his career?
Did he write it, prehaps, well before he worked out his thoughts on the
problems of Analytics and Metaphysics?
Such questions don't have obvious answers.
And one shouldn't pass up the notion that he just wasn't very interested in
Physics per sae, and so only made a half-hearted attempt at it cause he
thought (or was told) that he had to teach on it cause of how brillant he
was.
Robert Kolker
Eudaimonus wrote:
>
> It is entirely possible that the work we have by the name of "Physics" was
> not actually written by Aristotle himself.
You are right. It was written by someone else with the same name.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Eudaimonus" <jwsc...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:g7tda.148449$sf5....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
I agree.
It is similar to the currently fashionable and inexcusable effort to
denigrate Jefferson for owning slaves ignoring the fact that it was he to a
considerable extent, along with the other Founders, who established the
groundwork for its eventual abolition in the United States.
Fred Weiss
Clark Kent
"... for a dinner?", but that is a minor mistake when you are asking if
anyone would like to have a dead person over for a dinner.