RE: Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?
February 23, 2022 at 2:42 am
(This post was last modified: February 23, 2022 at 2:49 am by Belacqua.)
(February 23, 2022 at 2:03 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: How accurately do you think Aristotle rated people? How close was he to the bullseye?
Interesting question. I'm not sure. Naturally his standards were different from ours.
You know, the Greeks were all about that agon. Comparisons and rankings were second nature. He does say at the beginning of the Ethics that we mustn't expect more exactitude than a given subject will allow, so I suspect that gold silver and bronze weren't as clearly awardable in "moral character" as they were in sports.
He did assume that in general some people are better than others, that some people are natural slaves, and that we should accept our place in the order. High-level people have duties to low-level people, but the general hierarchy is a fact of nature.
This sounds horrible to us, but it's also a kind of challenge to our honesty. I know that I am fairly good at some things and certainly bad at others. The goal is to be honest and clear about this, and have neither false modesty nor false pride.
Quote:Nobody objected to snobbishness before Christianity? C'mon man. What's wrong with snobbishness in a godless world?
Sorry, I wasn't clear here. I should have used way more words.
Aristotle would say that overrating one's talents is a fault. Imagining oneself higher in the hierarchy than is really deserved is a fault. So maybe we wouldn't say "snobbishness," maybe "hubris."
To our ears he sounds snobbish, because he is so willing to say that he and his level is higher than others.
What the Christians added, uniquely, is that socially low-level people have a kind of value in the eyes of God that's equal to the aristos. Or that God even loves them more. Aristotle would have said that some people are just obviously more valuable, to the polis, to the culture, etc.
