While reading this weeks’ assignment I realized that I agree with many of Aristotle’s views in regards to how he disagreed with Plato and Socrates. I also found that I strongly disagreed with many of his views as well.
The biggest point of Aristotle's that I disagreed with was his idea that there is an inferior class of human beings. In one of his works, Politics, Aristotle states "When then there is such a difference as that between the 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 lowest sort are by nature slaves...". So, Aristotle is saying that one could detect a "lower" class of human beings by the build of their bodies (or the fact they use their bodies to survive) and that these "lower" people are natures slaves, like animals. I completely disagree with this view. First off I don't believe any human being is inferior or of a "lower class", especially not because of the way their bodies are built – or whether they use their bodies to survive. Yes, generally men of stronger build did the grunt work and the men of weaker build dis jobs oriented towards intelligent thought, back then, but that absolutely does not place the stronger bodied men as sub-human.
So, Aristotle did have many great ideas in views but I feel he went completely off base with this view and I felt I should "call him out on it".
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
(NN) Evil
In class on the 22nd someone said "Evil is the result of ignorance", and that is going to be the basis of this blog.I don't think I agree with the claim that ignorance is the cause of evil. Evil is caused by many different things, not just ignorance. It can even be caused by knowledge and logic, the opposites of ignorance. Say a murderer is on the stand and is asked if he realized what he did; that murderer may respond, “yes, I killed that person because I believe actions the victim partook in were wrong and he/she needed to be punished”. That person killed because of the knowledge they possessed and to them it was logical to kill.Evil can also originate from insanity. Many insane people find themselves committing evil acts unknowingly. They don't know what they are doing, but they do it anyways.So, in reference to the statement "Evil is a result of ignorance", I feel that is too limited of a statement. Yes, evil can be the result of ignorance, but it can also be the result of other states of human nature like, knowledge, logic, and insanity. In essence, it's human nature to partake in evil whether knowingly or not.
********
After entering this post I read the Chapter in our book on Aristotle, and he brought about another point of human nature that could drive someone to do evil that's not born from ignorance. Aristotle said that humans can commit evil at the height of emotion. Humans can do evil, knowing full well that they are doing wrong, without being evil or ignorant people in general.
This point adds to my other points against the statement "Evil is a result of ignorance" and I found it to be noteworthy in this blog.
********
After entering this post I read the Chapter in our book on Aristotle, and he brought about another point of human nature that could drive someone to do evil that's not born from ignorance. Aristotle said that humans can commit evil at the height of emotion. Humans can do evil, knowing full well that they are doing wrong, without being evil or ignorant people in general.
This point adds to my other points against the statement "Evil is a result of ignorance" and I found it to be noteworthy in this blog.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
(NN) Nature of the Superior
While reading this weeks chapters I came across the statement "nature teaches that the superior should exploit and rule the weaker". This was a belief held by a Sophist named Callicles, who lived circa 480-403 B.C.E.
This statement is similar to the beliefs held later by Darwin and his theory "survival of the fittest". Callicles along with Darwin believed that it was the job of the more "superior" humans to raise above the weaker of the species. Callicles even went as far as to say that it is human nature for the "superior" to "exploit and rule the weaker".
I for one don't agree with any of these points. I feel that all humans are equal and no one person is "superior" to another. When you look at what humans have made impacts they aren't always the people Callicles or Darwin would have called superior. Mattie Stephanek was a child who was born with muscular dystrophy disease, naturally Callicles and Darwin would put him into the "weaker" category, but he's not. Having lost a sibling to MD at a young age Mattie turned to the MDA and Jerry Lewis to help spread his message of peace. This boy, who died four years ago, is my greatest inspiration and in context to to this blog he is the perfect example of someone who you would think was weak but was not. I'm not sure the point I'm trying to make is completely clear here...if the human nature of the weaker was to be exploited by the superior than Mattie would have never made the impact he made on so many people, the weak have strength and they can use it. So when I think of Mattie and others like him I really can't buy the idea that "nature teaches that the superior should exploit and rule the weaker." Also being a Catholic I believe the quote from the Bible "the meek shall inherit the Earth", now I don't believe that as complete truth it is a metaphor for life.
This statement is similar to the beliefs held later by Darwin and his theory "survival of the fittest". Callicles along with Darwin believed that it was the job of the more "superior" humans to raise above the weaker of the species. Callicles even went as far as to say that it is human nature for the "superior" to "exploit and rule the weaker".
I for one don't agree with any of these points. I feel that all humans are equal and no one person is "superior" to another. When you look at what humans have made impacts they aren't always the people Callicles or Darwin would have called superior. Mattie Stephanek was a child who was born with muscular dystrophy disease, naturally Callicles and Darwin would put him into the "weaker" category, but he's not. Having lost a sibling to MD at a young age Mattie turned to the MDA and Jerry Lewis to help spread his message of peace. This boy, who died four years ago, is my greatest inspiration and in context to to this blog he is the perfect example of someone who you would think was weak but was not. I'm not sure the point I'm trying to make is completely clear here...if the human nature of the weaker was to be exploited by the superior than Mattie would have never made the impact he made on so many people, the weak have strength and they can use it. So when I think of Mattie and others like him I really can't buy the idea that "nature teaches that the superior should exploit and rule the weaker." Also being a Catholic I believe the quote from the Bible "the meek shall inherit the Earth", now I don't believe that as complete truth it is a metaphor for life.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
(NN) Examining life
Today in class we discussed Socrates quote: "The unexamined life is not worth living", and personally I disagree with this statement. A life worth living is a happy life, and happiness doesn't come from examining your life but from living your life to it's fullest. By spending all your time examining your life I feel you can never be happy because you will never find all the answers, humans are complex beings and trying to figure out our nature is fine but assuming that by not doing so your life is not worth living is a wrong assumption. I'm not saying that people shouldn't examine their lives, but they should consume their lives with that examination. I say the over examined life is a life that's not worth living.
Someone in class said that through examining our lives humans will become more rational and that rationality will inversely cause a better society for human beings. In response to that I have to say that many times its the irrational things that humans do that lead to discoveries, and if we become a completely rational society all learning would stop, right then and there. I believe that it is human nature itself to be irrational. So that statement in and of itself is a contradiction, because how can examining Human Nature lead to something that is against human nature? If humans were rational then I believe we wouldn't know what little we already know and it would be impossible for us to function as human beings. I don't know what we would be, but we wouldn't be human.
Someone in class said that through examining our lives humans will become more rational and that rationality will inversely cause a better society for human beings. In response to that I have to say that many times its the irrational things that humans do that lead to discoveries, and if we become a completely rational society all learning would stop, right then and there. I believe that it is human nature itself to be irrational. So that statement in and of itself is a contradiction, because how can examining Human Nature lead to something that is against human nature? If humans were rational then I believe we wouldn't know what little we already know and it would be impossible for us to function as human beings. I don't know what we would be, but we wouldn't be human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
