Plato and Aristotle, where the real trouble started…

[amicus]

Someone like ‘Liar‘, will no doubt precede this antecedent, I fully expect that.

Plato, of course, thought that all things came from the mind. That all knowledge was somehow contained within the human brain and it was the purpose of the individual human to dig it out and fondle it.

Aristotle, on the other hand, a former student of Plato, was a more practical man, he went out and actually laid hands on the real things of life, he liked fish in particular.

Plato saw shadows on the cave wall, Aristotle saw shadows as an absence of light.

(allegories here)

Thus began the trek to modern day times of those who see reality as that which is, and those who see reality as a product of the mind.

It is a tedious journey, I hasten to say, requiring a Doctorate to document either case.

Trust me, don’t make the effort, take my word.

Amicus…

 

[neonlyte]

No... the real trouble started with the lettuce. See... that's where the sex started to go wrong. The Greeks got it from the Egyptians - MIN the Goddess of Sex and Lettuce, got screwed over Adonis and whether he was really born in a head of lettuce or killed by a boar in the lettuce fields. And by the time it got to the Romans, they fed it to political guests at a stimulant to keep them awake at night and thus reducing their ability to negotiate when its actually a soporiphic (sp.?)

I believe Plato used to smoke Lettuce and became the head case of all time.

 

[amicus]

No... the real trouble started with the lettuce. See... that's where the sex started to go wrong. The Greeks got it from the Egyptians - MIN the Goddess of Sex and Lettuce, got screwed over Adonis and whether he was really born in a head of lettuce or killed by a boar in the lettuce fields. And by the time it got to the Romans, they fed it to political guests at a stimulant to keep them awake at night and thus reducing their ability to negotiate when its actually a soporiphic (sp.?)

I believe Plato used to smoke Lettuce and became the head case of all time.

~~~

Really nice early threadjack....damn and here I thought it was the followers of Pan and those freakin' Hedonists, who taught everyone to masturbate, when sex between boys went all wrong.

Then the damned Satyrs and Nymphs intervened and Adonis bent over and Cleopatra poked him and Suliman the great applied the lubricant, ya really can't trust historiographers and revisionists, ya can't even believe in St. Nicholas anymore without an offering to the Gods; oiveyh, yahwah and gifiltefish, who'da thunk it?

ahem...

 

[lil_elvis]

Nah, it was that damned serpent and eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Found out we were naked and it's been one sexual hang up or another ever since

 

[amicus]

Nah, it was that damned serpent and eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Found out we were naked and it's been one sexual hang up or another ever since

~~~

Naw, how damned prosaic and biblical can you be on a porn site? cheeze, Everyone knows it was the Africans with female genital mutilation that eliminated the clitoris and solved all of mankind's dilemma's.

Silly goose...


Amicus...

 

[Liar]

The most important disctintion between Plato and Aristotele is that Plato essentially said "The truth is out there!" (or "in there", minor discinction). To which Aristotele's take was "Yeah, but what are you gonna do about it?" Since we're not gods, the only truth we're ever able to reach or handle, is endoxic, clouded by our own perspective, prejudices and lack of fulll knowledge. And if our truth is closer to the Idea World's divine truth than the other man's tryúth, will do nothing to convince the other man that it's so. And at the end of the day, amounts to pretty much nothing.

Which is why Plato cuddled philosophy, and Aristoteles produced works in ethics, politics, rhethorics and dialectics.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Liar]The most important disctintion between Plato and Aristotele is that Plato essentially said "The truth is out there!" (or "in there", minor discinction). To which Aristotele's take was "Yeah, but what are you gonna do about it?" Since we're not gods, the only truth we're ever able to reach or handle, is endoxic, clouded by our own perspective, prejudices and lack of fulll knowledge. And if our truth is closer to the Idea World's divine truth than the other man's tryúth, will do nothing to convince the other man that it's so. And at the end of the day, amounts to pretty much nothing.

Which is why Plato cuddled philosophy, and Aristoteles produced works in ethics, politics, rhethorics and dialectics.[/QUOTE]

~~~

I think you've been drinking or high, Liar, no matter, so am I, but I do edit and use spell check, even so.

And there is a major distinction between, 'out there' and 'in there', the entire focus of my assertion of the differences between Aristotle and Plato.

The illusory world of mental projections, (Plato was fond of poppy juice), versus the 'hands on' efforts by Aristotle and his followers, defines the difference between socialism and human freedom to this very day...which was the point of my post...but...you know that...


amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I've never found metaphysics all that interesting personally, but Aristotle's Ethics are remarkably useful, usable, practical tools for discovering what The Good Life is and living it. I strongly recommend them to all. So many of the challenges and quandaries that face us all find there solution in this system. One of my favorite modern thinkers characterized the gist of it as follows:

"Aristotle was right. Virtue is a habit. Virtue does not flourish in the next generation because we tell our children to be honest, compassionate and generous in the abstract. It flourishes because our children practice honesty, compassion and generosity in the same way that they practice a musical instrument or a sport."

wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichomachean_Ethics

Aristotle believed that ethical knowledge is not precise knowledge, like logic and mathematics, but general knowledge like knowledge of nutrition and exercise. Also, as it is a practical discipline rather than a theoretical one; he thought that in order to become "good", one could not simply study what virtue is; one must actually be virtuous. Analogously, in order to become good at a sport like football, one does not simply study but also practices. Aristotle first establishes what was virtuous. He began by determining that everything was done with some goal in mind and that goal is 'good.' The ultimate goal he called the Highest Good: happiness (Gk. eudaimonia - sometimes translated as "living well").

. . . Aristotle believed that every ethical virtue is an intermediate condition between excess and deficiency. This does not mean Aristotle believed in moral relativism, however. He set certain emotions (e.g., hate, envy, jealousy, spite, etc.) and certain actions (e.g., adultery, theft, murder, etc.) as always wrong, regardless of the situation or the circumstances.

. . . In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle often focused on finding the mean between two extremes of any particular subject; whether it be justice, courage, wealth and so forth. For example, courage is a mean between two feelings (fear and confidence) and an action (the courageous act). Too much fear or too little confidence leads to cowardice, and too little fear or too much confidence can lead to rash, foolish choices. Aristotle says that finding this middle ground is essential to reaching eudemonia, the ultimate form of godlike consciousness. This middle ground is often referred to as The Golden Mean.

. . . Aristotle says that developing good habits can make a good human being and that practicing the use of The Golden Mean when applicable to virtues will allow a human being to live a healthy, happy life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichomachean_Ethics

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

And I say there is no truth, just utility.

 

[Pure]

Plato, of course, thought that all things came from the mind. That all knowledge was somehow contained within the human brain and it was the purpose of the individual human to dig it out and fondle it.

Aristotle, on the other hand, a former student of Plato, was a more practical man, he went out and actually laid hands on the real things of life, he liked fish in particular.

Plato saw shadows on the cave wall, Aristotle saw shadows as an absence of light

this is so far from reality, one doesn't know where to start. ami, not having read Plato, and showing no evidence of acquaintance is parroting Rand, who also wasn't very familiar with Plato, but had an inordinate fondness for Aristotle, with whom she wasn't familiar either.

ami wants to say Plato is a "subjectivist" and Aristotle and "objectivist" like Rand. neither claim is true.

This is like trying to argue with someone who says, "OK, Plato is the Lone Ranger and Aristotle is Tonto. Take my word. Now, do you want to discuss things?"

 

[Pure]

rox quoting wiki

Aristotle believed that ethical knowledge is not precise knowledge, like logic and mathematics, but general knowledge like knowledge of nutrition and exercise.

In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle often focused on finding the mean between two extremes of any particular subject; whether it be justice, courage, wealth and so forth. For example, courage is a mean between two feelings (fear and confidence) and an action (the courageous act).

Don't you see that this is the opposite pole to the ethics of Rand, etc.?
This is not an ethics of REASON, or even "rationality."

Neither, incidentally would it be an ethic of 'self interest' plus the invisible hand to make everything harmonize.

The only point of contact i see with roxannes, murray, rand's, ethics [despite differences]--and not Smith's-- is elitism. There will be the nobles and the peasants. the nobles have reason and know what's best. The peasants, as roxanne says, can be taught 'habits' like not shoplifting.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

rox quoting wiki

Aristotle believed that ethical knowledge is not precise knowledge, like logic and mathematics, but general knowledge like knowledge of nutrition and exercise.

In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle often focused on finding the mean between two extremes of any particular subject; whether it be justice, courage, wealth and so forth. For example, courage is a mean between two feelings (fear and confidence) and an action (the courageous act).

Don't you see that this is the opposite pole to the ethics of Rand, etc.?
This is not an ethics of REASON, or even "rationality."

Neither, incidentally would it be an ethic of 'self interest' plus the invisible hand to make everything harmonize.

The only point of contact i see with roxannes, murray, rand's, ethics [despite differences]--and not Smith's-- is elitism. There will be the nobles and the peasants. the nobles have reason and know what's best. The peasants, as roxanne says, can be taught 'habits' like not shoplifting.

Yes, well this shows how you probably either don't know much about or misintrepret Aristotle's system to a large degree, but even more, how little you know about Roxanne, notwithstanding the fact that you're always claiming to know what I would think about various things (usually in terms of which despised persons I would supposedly agree with.)

 

[Liar]

ami wants to say Plato is a "subjectivist" and Aristotle and "objectivist" like Rand. neither claim is true.

If Aristotele was any kind of --ist it would be a (drumroll, please) relativist. His own creations, phronetics and the golden median, are products of the very idea that we can't possibly know the Divine truth for sure, and thus can't possibly know we're right. So we have to make do with what we've got, make sober deliberation the cornerstone of desicion making instead of dogms and axioms, in order to cowboy up and get shit done. We'll be wrong now and then, but with experience and practice comes Wisdom of Action (phronesis), and we'll probably do more good than bad.

Wherhet that's anywhere related to Randism or not, I have no idea. haven't read the gal other than one pretty silly novel.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If Aristotele was any kind of --ist it would be a (drumroll, please) relativist. His own creations, phronetics and the golden median, are products of the very idea that we can't possibly know the Divine truth for sure, and thus can't possibly know we're right. So we have to make do with what we've got, make sober deliberation the cornerstone of desicion making instead of dogms and axioms, in order to cowboy up and get shit done. We'll be wrong now and then, but with experience and practice comes Wisdom of Action (phronesis), and we'll probably do more good than bad.

Wherhet that's anywhere related to Randism or not, I have no idea. haven't read the gal other than one pretty silly novel.

Hmmm -

This from that most authoritative of sources (wiki ):

Aristotle believed that every ethical virtue is an intermediate condition between excess and deficiency. This does not mean Aristotle believed in moral relativism, however. He set certain emotions (e.g., hate, envy, jealousy, spite, etc.) and certain actions (e.g., adultery, theft, murder, etc.) as always wrong, regardless of the situation or the circumstances.

“Virtue (arete) then is a settled disposition of the mind determining the choice of actions and emotions, consisting essentially in the observance of the mean relative to us, this being determined by principle, that is, as the prudent man would determine it.” (Book II, Ch. 6)

. . . the mean we should strive for is relative to us. The intermediate of an object is unchanging; if twelve is excess and four is deficiency, then roughly eight is the intermediate in that object. Aristotle proposes something different for finding an intermediate relative to oneself. Aristotle’s ethics are not a one-size-fits-all system; what he is looking for is the mean that is good for a particular individual. For example, watering a small plant with a gallon of water is excessive but watering a tree with a gallon of water is deficient. This is because different plants have different needs for water intake and if the requirements for each plant are not met, the plant will die from root rot (excess) or dehydration (deficiency). The third pillar is that each virtue falls between two vices. Virtue is like the mean because it is the intermediate between two vices.

. . . We must not understand Aristotle to mean that virtue lies exactly at the centre of two vices. Aristotle only means that virtue is in between the two vices. Different degrees are needed for different situations. Knowing exactly what is appropriate in a given situation is difficult and that is why we need a long moral training. For example, being very angry at the fact that your wife is murdered is appropriate even though the state is closer to extreme anger (a vice) than it is to indifference (a vice). In that case, it is right for the virtuous man to be angry. However, if some water has been spilt in the garden by accident then the virtuous response is much closer to indifference.

 

[Pure]

just out of curiosity, roxanne, have you read the nichomachean ethics? ever taken a course involving them? ever read a scholarly paper on them?

what makes you think they're compatible with your rightwing views?

as i said, the only obvious point is that they're elitist; but that's not really a foundation for anything.

do you believe in 'the objectivity of ethics"? do you think Aristotle did?

do you think Ari was proposing an 'ethic' with a central place for 'self interest', as you would like to have? care to give evidence about that.?

Ari did indicate that the the self interest of a *certain section of the elite* was to be encouraged. His _megalopsuchic_ man. This might have similarities with Burkean or very old 'aristocratic' conservatism, but that's hardly the stuff you're preaching here.

 

[ccnyman]

rox quoting wiki

Aristotle believed that ethical knowledge is not precise knowledge, like logic and mathematics, but general knowledge like knowledge of nutrition and exercise.

In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle often focused on finding the mean between two extremes of any particular subject; whether it be justice, courage, wealth and so forth. For example, courage is a mean between two feelings (fear and confidence) and an action (the courageous act).

Don't you see that this is the opposite pole to the ethics of Rand, etc.?
This is not an ethics of REASON, or even "rationality."

Neither, incidentally would it be an ethic of 'self interest' plus the invisible hand to make everything harmonize.

The only point of contact i see with roxannes, murray, rand's, ethics [despite differences]--and not Smith's-- is elitism. There will be the nobles and the peasants. the nobles have reason and know what's best. The peasants, as roxanne says, can be taught 'habits' like not shoplifting.

Pure, could you explain your argument more? I don't see where it would be the opposite. Rand's ethics is based on:

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

How does that preclude or is opposite of Aristotle's examination of man?

 

[colddiesel]

You're all wrong .The problems all started with Pythagoras. If he'd eaten up his beans the world would be perfect!!

 

[Pure]

hi cc:

taking your summary as not bad for 50 words,

cc's summary of Rand: Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

P: Rand believed that from man's desire to live and his rationality, substantive moral principles could be deduced, such as 'don't steal.' Her view of human 'essence' is highly distilled, and partly derived from caricatures of classical liberalism that treat humans as self interested individuals (utility maximizers).

This is in the same ball park as Kant (though Rand did not realize it). Kant held that the irrationality of stealing could be seen upon reflection and reasoning.

Aristotle is trying to reason from the "virtue" of man; and that virtue is complex, and certainly includes capacities other than reason, e.g. for friendship.

There might seem to be overlaps with Rand, say, on friendship, but if you look closely, for her it's NOT that friends love each other, it's that friends finds that their rational self interests coincide and prize the other insofar as their individual "interest" is furthered.

It might also be noted that Rand held that two persons' 'rational self interests' never, in the last analysis, conflict. Again this has similarities to Kant and other "duty" theorists, e.g. two person's duties never conflict. I don't think Aristotle, realistically looking at the society of his day would buy such 'absence of conflict.' He could insure it to some degree by an entirely other method than Rand: He could postulate different man and woman virtues, and ensure that the latter included keeping house and deferring to the man on rational matters.

So these sorts of things are the basis of my somewhat oversimpllified statement about Rand's being opposite to Aristotle.

 

[Boxlicker101]

~~~

I think you've been drinking or high, Liar, no matter, so am I, but I do edit and use spell check, even so.

And there is a major distinction between, 'out there' and 'in there', the entire focus of my assertion of the differences between Aristotle and Plato.

The illusory world of mental projections, (Plato was fond of poppy juice), versus the 'hands on' efforts by Aristotle and his followers, defines the difference between socialism and human freedom to this very day...which was the point of my post...but...you know that...


amicus...

Editing, okay, but how do you use spellcheck on a post?

 

[slyc_willie]

Someone like ‘Liar‘, will no doubt precede this antecedent, I fully expect that.

Plato, of course, thought that all things came from the mind. That all knowledge was somehow contained within the human brain and it was the purpose of the individual human to dig it out and fondle it.

Aristotle, on the other hand, a former student of Plato, was a more practical man, he went out and actually laid hands on the real things of life, he liked fish in particular.

Plato saw shadows on the cave wall, Aristotle saw shadows as an absence of light.

(allegories here)

Thus began the trek to modern day times of those who see reality as that which is, and those who see reality as a product of the mind.

It is a tedious journey, I hasten to say, requiring a Doctorate to document either case.

Trust me, don’t make the effort, take my word.

Amicus…

Ami, I wouldn't trust you with a gun to your back and me holding it.

I believe that all things begin and end with the mind. The mind congeals, shapes, and interprets reality. What we see, think, and believe is based upon how our mind coalesces outside stimuli. You will find fault with that reasoning, I am sure; in fact, I welcome the challenge.

However we react to the events of our lives depends upon the way we perceive them. Whatever occurs as a result of our actions to those events is determined by our basic belief system. Part of that is learned; part of it is inherent.

Plato saw shadows on a cave wall, indeed. But he wondered why those shadows were there, and if they meant something due to their placement and timing. Aristotle saw shadows as an absence of light? Hardly. Shadows don't exist without light.

ETA: Unfortunately, it's late. I have work in the morning. But I'd like to see where this goes.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

just out of curiosity, roxanne, have you read the nichomachean ethics? ever taken a course involving them? ever read a scholarly paper on them?

what makes you think they're compatible with your rightwing views?

as i said, the only obvious point is that they're elitist; but that's not really a foundation for anything.

do you believe in 'the objectivity of ethics"? do you think Aristotle did?

do you think Ari was proposing an 'ethic' with a central place for 'self interest', as you would like to have? care to give evidence about that.?

Ari did indicate that the the self interest of a *certain section of the elite* was to be encouraged. His _megalopsuchic_ man. This might have similarities with Burkean or very old 'aristocratic' conservatism, but that's hardly the stuff you're preaching here.

In contrast to and in spite of your snideness and illegitimate insinuations I will provide a civil answer. Actually, I have read large chunks of the Nichomachean Ethics (and all of the Politics), and have taken a course - kind of. I listened to a 12-lectures on tape series presented by Father Joseph Koterski, of Fordham University, who is a very likeable chap, and most knowledgeable.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

hi cc:

taking your summary as not bad for 50 words,

cc's summary of Rand: Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

P: Rand believed that from man's desire to live and his rationality, substantive moral principles could be deduced, such as 'don't steal.' Her view of human 'essence' is highly distilled, and partly derived from caricatures of classical liberalism that treat humans as self interested individuals (utility maximizers).

This is in the same ball park as Kant (though Rand did not realize it). Kant held that the irrationality of stealing could be seen upon reflection and reasoning.

Aristotle is trying to reason from the "virtue" of man; and that virtue is complex, and certainly includes capacities other than reason, e.g. for friendship.

There might seem to be overlaps with Rand, say, on friendship, but if you look closely, for her it's NOT that friends love each other, it's that friends finds that their rational self interests coincide and prize the other insofar as their individual "interest" is furthered.

It might also be noted that Rand held that two persons' 'rational self interests' never, in the last analysis, conflict. Again this has similarities to Kant and other "duty" theorists, e.g. two person's duties never conflict. I don't think Aristotle, realistically looking at the society of his day would buy such 'absence of conflict.' He could insure it to some degree by an entirely other method than Rand: He could postulate different man and woman virtues, and ensure that the latter included keeping house and deferring to the man on rational matters.

So these sorts of things are the basis of my somewhat oversimpllified statement about Rand's being opposite to Aristotle.

I know less philosophy than Pure, but I find no problem in this description. In this area I find Aristotle (and Adam Smith) much wiser than Rand.

 

[Liar]

Editing, okay, but how do you use spellcheck on a post?

I have a spellchecker in my browser (Opera) on all form fields. I usually disregard it though and end up with post that looks like crap.

 

[Liar]

Ps. I'll come back to this thread and post something on topic, if i'm ever sober again.

 

[Pure]

rox,

I know less philosophy than Pure, but I find no problem in this description. In this area I find Aristotle (and Adam Smith) much wiser than Rand.

thanks for the implied compliment. i do like to think i have a basic grasp of the central points and foundation of ms. rand.

you do well to expand and form your own opinions, as you're doing. as you know, she had nothing much good to say about anyone after Aristotle*. that makes for two "peaks" in the history of philosophy: Aristotle and Rand. rather narcissistc, IMHO.

---
* and the impression is worsened, since her description and summaries of other philosophers' positions are gross caricatures, if not vastly inaccurate. there is always a sense of 'he got it wrong, but i've got it right.' and what's wrong, of course, is usually a straw man (see amicus latest on Plato, for example, which is recycled Rand points.)