Aristotle

[Alexander-hellenist]

Hello im mark im very new to this website and i would like to show a gap in that it looks like people have overlooked

Aristotle the greatest philopher of all time, cannot be over looked when it comes to philosophythe reason why we can build upon the state and think of the changes we can make is down to aristotle student to plato, teacher of alexander has influenced us for thosuands of years and without him we would have nothing in the sence of philosphy, so when you look at karl marx think how did he come about to think about things in this way how did the foundations get put into place and you will be lead to arisotle

Thanks for listening :D

[Dimentio]

Aristotle created the foundation of materialist empiricism, which is the basic scientific method of analysing things. He had tremendous influence during the middle ages and was an inspirator for the renaissance.

He did of course also contribute to scientific racism, but that is partially excusable due to the structure of contemporary Hellenic society (Bakunin was an antisemite, and Marx has formulated some harsh words over Jews and Blacks in his private correspondence).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, Aristotle was a great (perhaps, alongside Plato, the greatest) ruling-class theorist of all time.

But let's not get his ideas out of persepective. He was a mystic and an apologist for slavery.

[Raúl Duke]

ehh...

I never seemed to like any of the ancient famous philosphers....

They seemed to elitist and boring for my tastes.

Now I know that they'er elitist (Plato could be consider the "father of fascism" due to his "Republic") and held some wierd ideas (I heard some of Plato's wierd, or I suppose mystical, ideas became part of some of the early, I think gnostic, christianity theology.)

While I'm not a philosopher to any extent I will suggest any philosophy that's is made in the 20th century (with some exceptions of some of the 19th centure philosophies) than any of this ancient stuff.

[Alexander-hellenist]

You are definatly looking at aristotle completely out of context , ruling class theorys are very new, the bosses versus the workers has been a very very new ideal in historic terms , and linking plato to fascism is completely wrong because plato was a hellenist in religion and was not a christian, taking their work and changing it to christian idealogue is one of the churchs long standing lies and deceptions and the way it has exterminated and changed alot of it is disgusting

Marx showed the procress from feudilism, into imperialism and capitalism, the class struggles talked about are completly unrelated to the times of alexander and aristotle because at the time the one was still being founded and even the greatest minds would misunderstand the foreigner

[Raúl Duke]

Well...the republic talked about the perfect government being one that made you "virtous", even against your will and also made some reference to the noble lie.

However, I could be wrong...since I said: I'm by no extent a philosopher.

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


Well, Aristotle was a great (perhaps, alongside Plato, the greatest) ruling-class theorist of all time.

Lest we forget, both men directly served the powerful men of their day. Plato was for a time an adviser to Dionysious, the tyrant of Syracuse. Aristotle was attached to the court of Phillipp II of Macedonia, and was the tutor of the young Alexander the Great. You can't get better connected than that. And it is also interesting to note that following the death of Alexander, when the Athenians rose up in revolt against the Macedonians, Aristotle had to flee for his life from Athens.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A-H:


You are definatly looking at aristotle completely out of context , ruling class theorys are very new

Not so. In addition to what Jim said, every single ancient philosopher (except perhaps Epictetus) was a member of a ruling elite or was in their pay.

That means that philosophy began as the theoretical view of the ruling class. Philosophers' aim was to invent some form of rationalisation for the power of the rich.

This they did by 'discovering' truths about reality accessible to thought alone, and hence impossible to disprove by any sort of application of the material senses of the working class.

As I have written elsewhere (links ommitted):


In the West, since Ancient Greek times, traditional theorists have in fact been imposing their theories on nature (as Cornforth noted). This practice is so widespread, and has penetrated into thought so deeply, that no one notices it, even after it has been pointed out to them. Or, rather, they fail to see its significance.

If you belong to, benefit from or help run a society which is based on gross inequality, oppression and exploitation, you can keep order in several ways.

The first and most obvious way is through violence. This will work for a time, but it is not only fraught with danger, it is costly and it stifles innovation (among other things).

Another way is to persuade the majority (or a significant section of "opinion formers" and administrators, at least) that the present order either works for their benefit, is ordained of the gods, or that it is 'natural' and cannot be fought. As is well-known, this tactic has been used for millennia; hence we have Theology and other assorted ruling-class ideologies. All of these were imposed on reality (plainly, since they cannot be read from it).

This is how Marx depicted things:

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an 'eternal law.'" [Marx and Engels (1970), pp.64-65, quoted from here.]

However, as Marx also noted, members of the ruling-class often rely on other layers in society to concoct the ideas they use to try to con the rest of us.

In Ancient Greece, with the demise of the rule of Kings and Queens, the old Theogonies and myths were no longer relevant. So, in the newly emerging Republics and quasi-democracies of the Sixth Century BC, far more abstract, de-personalised ideas were needed.

Enter Philosophy.

From its inception, Philosophers constructed increasingly baroque abstract systems of thought. These were invariably based on arcane terminology, impossible to translate into the material language of everyday life -- which they then happily imposed on nature.

As Marx also noted:

"One of the most difficult tasks confronting philosophers is to descend from the world of thought to the actual world. Language is the immediate actuality of thought. Just as philosophers have given thought an independent existence, so they were bound to make language into an independent realm. This is the secret of philosophical language, in which thoughts in the form of words have their own content. The problem of descending from the world of thoughts to the actual world is turned into the problem of descending from language to life.

"...The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels (1970), p.118.]

Philosophers felt they could do this, since, for them, nature was Mind (or the product of Mind). In that case, the human mind could safely project its thoughts onto reality --, of which true thoughts were a reflection, anyway. As above, so below, went the old Hermetic saying. The microcosm reflected the macrocosm, as another put it. The doctrine of Correspondences came to dominate all ancient and modern theories of knowledge -- so all true, 'philosophical' knowledge corresponded with underlying 'essences', impossible to detect by any other known means.

All this was based on the idea that language (but not the vernacular) was in effect a secret code, by means of which each thinker (with the 'right sort of education', of course) could represent to him/herself the Mind of 'God', or the underlying 'secrets' of nature. Language was thus seen to be representational and individualistic -- but not merely a vehicle of communication (as Marx and Engels had argued).

Naturally, this view of discourse had profound ideological significance, connected with the legitimation of class power.

This ancient tradition has changed many times throughout history, as different Modes of Production rose and fell, but its main strategy and core rationale remained basically the same: the dogmatic promulgation of abstract theories that were said to reveal the underlying rational structure of reality, conveniently hidden away from the disconfirming gaze of working people -- which is why they were, and still are, inexpressible in ordinary language --, again, as Marx noted.

From here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20...Oppose%20DM.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm)

More details at my site.

[Demogorgon]

Well obviously you have to look at Aristotle in the context of his time, we can't dismiss everything he said because it looks weird now.

However placed in the context of his time, Aristotle still supported the elite through and through. He (and Plato and most other Greek philosophers) supported strengthening the elite. Of course they had varying ideas on how this should be done (Plato rather fancied himself as the elite fiull stop) but that was present in most of them.

For Aristotle in particular, remember he was living in the age of Athenian Democracy, now of course that wasn't exactly democratic in any modern sense as it excluded so many people, made heavy use of slavery and so on, but it was about as Democratic and Egalitarian as you got in that time period, and Aristotle wanted it scaled back and power concentrated in the hands of thsoe he vieewed as being the best to rule. No prizes for guessing who they were.

His arguments pretty much exactly mimic bourgoisie arguments against Universal Sufferage in the nineteenth century.

Now his weird mystical stuff can be a bit more readily forgiven as we are talking about a man living in an area where he could not possibly have known better. That said, I think the ancient Greek philosophers are more interesting for historical value than in the context of modern philosophy as those ideas which were good and not complete anachronisms today have been much further developed since their day.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Demogorgon, much of what you say I agree with, but this needs some comment:


Now his weird mystical stuff can be a bit more readily forgiven as we are talking about a man living in an area where he could not possibly have known better. That said, I think the ancient Greek philosophers are more interesting for historical value than in the context of modern philosophy as those ideas which were good and not complete anachronisms today have been much further developed since their day.

It is not a question of whether he or they knew any better; this view of nature represented their class interests. End of story.

And modern philosophy is just a distant echo of this a prioristic view of reality, and no less to be condemned for it.

It pretends that there is some level to reality that is accessible to thought alone. Idealism through and through.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 02:34 am
Demogorgon, much of what you say I agree with, but this needs some comment:


Now his weird mystical stuff can be a bit more readily forgiven as we are talking about a man living in an area where he could not possibly have known better. That said, I think the ancient Greek philosophers are more interesting for historical value than in the context of modern philosophy as those ideas which were good and not complete anachronisms today have been much further developed since their day.

It is not a question of whether he or they knew any better; this view of nature represented their class interests. End of story.

And modern philosophy is just a distant echo of this a prioristic view of reality, and no less to be condemned for it.

It pretends that there is some level to reality that is accessible to thought alone. Idealism through and through.
Well obviously the class interests were behind such things as the view of nature, but I do feel that a lot of the stuff came down to plain lack of knowledge. I don't think someone from any social class at the time could have been more accurate.

Incidentally, I am not sure I follow you on your last comment. I agree that any philosophy based on the idea that something can be understood solely through thought is to be condemned, but are you saying this is a characteristic of modern philosophy in general or just parts of it?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

D:


Well obviously the class interests were behind such things as the view of nature, but I do feel that a lot of the stuff came down to plain lack of knowledge. I don't think someone from any social class at the time could have been more accurate.

Well that is what a priori dogmatics is all about: imposing certain theses onto nature.

And they were motivated to do this not so much by lack of knowledge (and we can say this because metaphysicians are still doing it), but because of their belief that nature was mind, and hence could be accessed by thought alone. And if nature was mind, then the status quo was ordained of god, and rebellion was to fight against the deity.

Thus power and wealth were secured.


but are you saying this is a characteristic of modern philosophy in general or just parts of it?

It is possible to show that this applies to all forms of traditiinal philosophy.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 02:52 am

Well that is what a priori dogmatics is all about: imposing certain theses onto nature.

And they were motivated to do this not so much by lack of knowledge (and we can say this because metaphysicians are still doing it), but because of their belief that nature was mind, and hence could be accessed by thought alone. And if nature was mind, then the status quo was ordained of god, and rebellion was to fight against the deity.

Thus power and wealth were secured.


I agree with that. However I think it is also the case that many of these ancient philosophers (and even more so medieval philosophers) went much further than they needed to simply to protect the interests of the ruling class.

Also, I wonder if it is possible to know exactly why ancient philsophers believed what they did because there is such a speration of time. With modern metaphysics it is obvious what is being said to back up the ruling classes because we can put it easily in context. In the case of the ancient Greeks it is obvious that some of it (most of it) was about supporting class interests, but such was the lack of knowledge you have t wonder whether anyone had come up with a coherant alternative.

It is possible to show that this applies to all forms of traditiinal philosophy.I suppose that depends on what you mean by traditional philosophy. In the twentieth century at elast there has been plenty of philosophy that does not do this.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 12:01 am
Well...the republic talked about the perfect government being one that made you "virtous", even against your will and also made some reference to the noble lie.

However, I could be wrong...since I said: I'm by no extent a philosopher.
That was Plato (who wrote the State). He was a mystic.

Aristotle was a materialist. But undoubtly, Aristotle was against full-fledged democracy in Athenian style, and advocated a indirect democratic system which he referred to as Politeia.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

D:


Also, I wonder if it is possible to know exactly why ancient philsophers believed what they did because there is such a speration of time. With modern metaphysics it is obvious what is being said to back up the ruling classes because we can put it easily in context. In the case of the ancient Greeks it is obvious that some of it (most of it) was about supporting class interests, but such was the lack of knowledge you have t wonder whether anyone had come up with a coherant alternative.

Well, I will be publishing the historical evidence that supports the view I outlined above sometime in 2008, in addition to a materialist explanation as to why they did this. Until then, I have published a summary of that material here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm

Finally, there are no cohenrent alternatives, since all of metaphysics/traditional philosophy is based on the idea that there is a hidden world, 'beneath' appearances and inaccessible to the senses, to which philosophers can gain access by thought alone.

And that in turn is based on the belief that reality is basically mind, or the product of mind.

Serpent, you are right, Aristotle was a sort of materialist, but a mystical sort of materialist at that.

[Dimentio]

Yes, but most philosophers have semi-mystical straws. Just look at dialectal theory...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Too right they do!!!

[Hit The North]

Finally, there are no cohenrent [sic] alternatives, since all of metaphysics/traditional philosophy is based on the idea that there is a hidden world, 'beneath' appearances and inaccessible to the senses, to which philosophers can gain access by thought alone.

And that in turn is based on the belief that reality is basically mind, or the product of mind.

I don't understand how that follows. The notion that some aspects of reality are not directly accessible to our ordinary senses (and are therefore "hidden") is supported by elementary science. We can't see bacteria with the naked eye, for instance. The molecular composition of matter is also not apparent to direct observation. To all intents and purposes these facts are hidden.

The privileged position which philosophers afford themselves in explaining the hidden aspects of reality is obviously suspect and unnecessary, given the availability of science. Nevertheless, the general proposition that reality is more complex than our five senses directly apprehend is sound and doesn't require an idealist explanation.

There may be problems inherent in transferring this insight about material reality to the sphere of social life (which is the only thing Marxists should be attempting to explain). Nevertheless, as Marx amply demonstrates in his investigation of Capitalism (great examples being the theory of surplus value and his treatment of the commodity in Capital) things are seldom as they appear. In fact, commodity fetishism is seen by Marx as the universal example of the way in which the economic forms of capitalism conceal its underlying social relations.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


I don't understand how that follows.

Good. I am happy to leave you in that state.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 03:53 pm
Z:


I don't understand how that follows.

Good. I am happy to leave you in that state.
It&#39;s ok, I understand now. Turns out you were just talking bollocks. <_<

[Raúl Duke]

Originally posted by Serpent+August 29, 2007 05:05 am--> (Serpent &#064; August 29, 2007 05:05 am)
[email protected] 29, 2007 12:01 am
Well...the republic talked about the perfect government being one that made you "virtous", even against your will and also made some reference to the noble lie.

However, I could be wrong...since I said: I&#39;m by no extent a philosopher.


That was Plato (who wrote the State). He was a mystic.

[/b]
Yeah, it was he who I was talking about. I&#39;m don&#39;t know anything about much of Aristotle.

Plato&#39;s work seems to be know in the US as "the republic" (However it was very likely he meant it in the original "res publica" sense, so calling it The State probably fits better. Although his solution was something along the lines of a philosopher republic.).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


I understand now. Turns out you were just talking bollocks.

As I said, I am happy for you to remain confused.

[black magick hustla]

Not so. In addition to what Jim said, every single ancient philosopher except

Diogenes the cynic was definitely NOT ruling class or at their pay.

[Dimentio]

On a side-note - the cynics, the epikureans and the aristoteleans were materialists. They claimed that there existed another spiritual world, but since it was unknown to mortals, it was of no meaning to them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot:


Diogenes the cynic was definitely NOT ruling class or at their pay.

So, in 1000 years of classical philosophy, we can find just two exceptions.

Sort of proves the rule, don&#39;t you think?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Serpent:


On a side-note - the cynics, the epikureans and the aristoteleans were materialists. They claimed that there existed another spiritual world, but since it was unknown to mortals, it was of no meaning to them.

Well yes, but they had to appeal to a hidden world, accessible to thought alone, to make their a priori version of materialism work.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 07:29 pm
Marmot:


Diogenes the cynic was definitely NOT ruling class or at their pay.

So, in 1000 years of classical philosophy, we can find just two exceptions.

Sort of proves the rule, don&#39;t you think?
Pretty much.

Its just that I have a soft stop for Diogenes =)

[Eleftherios]

Criticizing Aristotle of Plato because they were rulling class philosophers is not valid. If there are any historical materialists here, then they should realize that Aristotle was in no position to call for the overthrow of the rulling class and the esablishment of a classless society.

Plato and Aristotle contrtibuted significantly to Western philosophy, and without them philosophy would have been much different (for the worse).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marmot:


Its just that I have a soft stop for Diogenes =)

Me too -- it&#39;s called local swamp. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Alcaeos. you are right. But my criticism of these two ancient mystics is not just that they were ruling-class hacks; I can also show that much of what they say is wall-to-wall nonsense.


Plato and Aristotle contrtibuted significantly to Western philosophy, and without them philosophy would have been much different (for the worse).

And since not one single problem has ever been solved in this bogus subject (i.e., Philosophy), we owe them nothing at all -- except our contempt.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 07:31 pm
Serpent:


On a side-note - the cynics, the epikureans and the aristoteleans were materialists. They claimed that there existed another spiritual world, but since it was unknown to mortals, it was of no meaning to them.

Well yes, but they had to appeal to a hidden world, accessible to thought alone, to make their a priori version of materialism work.
And to not suffer the fate of Socrates who were decided to be executed by a democratic vote.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am not sure I follow that, Serpent. :blink:

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 10:35 pm
Alcaeos. you are right. But my criticism of these two ancient mystics is not just that they were ruling-class hacks; I can also show that much of what they say is wall-to-wall nonsense.


Plato and Aristotle contrtibuted significantly to Western philosophy, and without them philosophy would have been much different (for the worse).

And since not one single problem has ever been solved in this bogus subject (i.e., Philosophy), we owe them nothing at all -- except our contempt.
Their philosophies built the foundation of modern secular thinking. Although with many faults and misconceptions, they should be respected for trying to reason about the nature of the world.

One needs to crawl before one could walk.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Serpent:


Their philosophies built the foundation of modern secular thinking. Although with many faults and misconceptions, they should be respected for trying to reason about the nature of the world.

One needs to crawl before one could walk.

Well, I am all in favour of science, but not this mystical rubbish.

Who needs it?

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 10:39 pm
I am not sure I follow that, Serpent. :blink:
Socrates was executed for "inciting atheism in the youth" by advicing his apprentices to question everything. That lead to Plato&#39;s disgust for democracy.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 10:42 pm
Serpent:


Their philosophies built the foundation of modern secular thinking. Although with many faults and misconceptions, they should be respected for trying to reason about the nature of the world.

One needs to crawl before one could walk.

Well, I am all in favour of science, but not this mystical rubbish.

Who needs it?
For us, it might be mystical rubbish. For the people in ancient Greece, it was very different. For the first time, there was created movements based on discussions on how he word was composed.

Besides, most people are not easily persuaded by logics and rationality. They need some form of mysticism, intuitiveness and idol-worship to be motivated to for example join a political movement. Take for example Che as an icon for the religion of communism, or Rand as an icon for the religion of libertarianism.

[rouchambeau]

According to your logic, Thales is the greatest philosopher ever.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29, 2007 10:31 pm
Marmot:


Its just that I have a soft stop for Diogenes =)

Me too -- it&#39;s called local swamp. :lol:
You have a pretty weird sense of humor&#33;

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:18 pm
Criticizing Aristotle of Plato because they were rulling class philosophers is not valid. If there are any historical materialists here, then they should realize that Aristotle was in no position to call for the overthrow of the rulling class and the esablishment of a classless society.

Plato and Aristotle contrtibuted significantly to Western philosophy, and without them philosophy would have been much different (for the worse).
I disagree. Over-reliance on Plato and Aristotle is what held Western philosophy in stagnation for about 600 years during the Middle Ages.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Serpent:


Socrates was executed for "inciting atheism in the youth" by advicing his apprentices to question everything. That lead to Plato&#39;s disgust for democracy.

Yes, I know, I just could not figure out what this has to do with Aristotle.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Serpent:


For us, it might be mystical rubbish. For the people in ancient Greece, it was very different. For the first time, there was created movements based on discussions on how he word was composed.

It was mystical rubbish back there too, since this sort of stuff was confined to the leisure classes, who spent all day dreaming up ways to rationalise the power of the elite.


Besides, most people are not easily persuaded by logics and rationality. They need some form of mysticism, intuitiveness and idol-worship to be motivated to for example join a political movement. Take for example Che as an icon for the religion of communism, or Rand as an icon for the religion of libertarianism.

That just makes a fetish out of alienation and oppression.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

R:


According to your logic, Thales is the greatest philosopher ever.

Who is this directed to?

Marmot:


You have a pretty weird sense of humor&#33;

That is very good of you to say so&#33; :)

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 03:43 am
Serpent:


For us, it might be mystical rubbish. For the people in ancient Greece, it was very different. For the first time, there was created movements based on discussions on how he word was composed.

It was mystical rubbish back there too, since this sort of stuff was confined to the leisure classes, who spent all day dreaming up ways to rationalise the power of the elite.


Besides, most people are not easily persuaded by logics and rationality. They need some form of mysticism, intuitiveness and idol-worship to be motivated to for example join a political movement. Take for example Che as an icon for the religion of communism, or Rand as an icon for the religion of libertarianism.

That just makes a fetish out of alienation and oppression.
Yes, but you cannot motivate them without using fetisches. Go and try.

Plato was exiled from numerous Greek city-states because he wanted the philosophers to replace the oligarchies, tyrannies and democracies and institute a totalitarianist rule. Aristotle was for a mixture between aristocracy, oligarchy and democracy, called politeia (remniscent of parliamentarianism).

To claim that these ideas are without value is to claim that modern constitutional parliamentarism and it&#39;s course from despotic monarchism is a process without any value in itself.

You seem to not know so very much about Greek philosophers, after all.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30, 2007 03:40 am
Serpent:


Socrates was executed for "inciting atheism in the youth" by advicing his apprentices to question everything. That lead to Plato&#39;s disgust for democracy.

Yes, I know, I just could not figure out what this has to do with Aristotle.
Aristotle was a disciple of Plato who was a disciple of Socrates. You have earlier seemed to have a hard time differentiating Plato from Aristotle. Plato was an elitist because Socrates (who also was Plato&#39;s lover) was judged to death by the citizens of Athens.
Aristotle in his turn, did not see history as a cyclical degeneration from aristocracy to tyranny, and stated that he saw good and bad sides in most constitutional systems.

[revolutionaryspirit]

hi&#33; ım new at this platform and ı want to add somethings about aristotle

Aristotle was born in Stageira, Chalcidice in Greece. His parents were Phaestis and Nicomachus, who became physician to King Amyntas of Macedon. Aristotle was trained and educated as a member of the aristocracy. At about the age of eighteen, he went to Athens to continue his education at Plato&#39;s Academy. Aristotle remained at the academy for nearly twenty years, not leaving until after Plato&#39;s death in 347 BC. He then traveled with Xenocrates to the court of Hermias of Atarneus in Asia Minor. While in Asia, Aristotle traveled with Theophrastus to the island of Lesbos, where together they researched the botany and zoology of the island. Aristotle married Hermias&#39; daughter (or niece) Pythias. She bore him a daughter, whom they named Pythias. Soon after Hermias&#39; death, Aristotle was invited by Philip of Macedon to become tutor to Alexander the Great.

After spending several years tutoring the young Alexander, Aristotle returned to Athens. By 335 BC, he established his own school there, known as the Lyceum. Aristotle conducted courses at the school for the next twelve years. While in Athens, his wife Pythias died, and Aristotle became involved with Herpyllis of Stageira, who bore him a son whom he named after his father, Nicomachus.

It is during this period in Athens when Aristotle is believed to have composed many of his works. Aristotle wrote many dialogues, only fragments of which survived. The works that have survived are in treatise form and were not, for the most part, intended for widespread publication, as they are generally thought to be lecture aids for his students. His most important treatises include Physics, Metaphysics (or Ontology), Nicomachean Ethics, Politics, De Anima (On the Soul) and Poetics. These works, although connected in many fundamental ways, vary significantly in both style and substance.

Aristotle not only studied almost every subject possible at the time, but made significant contributions to most of them. In physical science, Aristotle studied anatomy, astronomy, economics, embryology, geography, geology, meteorology, physics and zoology. In philosophy, he wrote on aesthetics, ethics, government, metaphysics, politics, psychology, rhetoric and theology. He also studied education, foreign customs, literature and poetry. His combined works constitute a virtual encyclopedia of Greek knowledge. It has been suggested that Aristotle was likely the last person to know everything there was to be known in his own time.

Upon Alexander&#39;s death in 323 BC, anti-Macedonian sentiment in Athens once again flared. Eurymedon the hierophant denounced Aristotle for not holding the gods in honor. Aristotle fled the city to his mother&#39;s family estate in Chalcis, explaining, "I will not allow the Athenians to sin twice against philosophy. However, he died there of natural causes within the year. Aristotle left a will, which has been preserved, in which he asked to be buried next to his wife.
Methodology

Plato and Aristotle , a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge through empirical observation and experience, while holding a copy of his Nicomachean Ethics in his hand, whilst Plato gestures to the heavens, representing his belief in The Forms.For more details on this topic, see Aristotle&#39;s theory of universals.
Aristotle defines his philosophy as "the science of the universal essence of that which is actual." Plato had defined it as the "science of the idea," with the word "idea" referring to the unconditional basis of phenomena. Both student and master regard philosophy as universal; Aristotle, however, found the universal in particular things, which he called the essence of things, while Plato finds that the universal exists apart from particular things, and is related to them as their prototype or exemplar. For Aristotle, therefore, philosophic method implies the ascent from the study of particular phenomena to the knowledge of essences, while for Plato philosophic method means the descent from a knowledge of universal ideas to a contemplation of particular imitations of those ideas. In a certain sense, Aristotle&#39;s method is both inductive and deductive, while Plato&#39;s is essentially deductive from a priori principles.

In Aristotle&#39;s terminology, "natural philosophy" is a branch of philosophy examining the phenomena of the natural world, and included fields that would be regarded today as physics, biology and other natural sciences. In modern times, the scope of philosophy has become limited to more generic or abstract inquiries, such as ethics and metaphysics, in which logic plays a major role. Today&#39;s philosophy tends to exclude empirical study of the natural world by means of the scientific method. In contrast, Aristotle&#39;s philosophical endeavors encompassed virtually all facets of intellectual inquiry.

In the larger sense of the word, Aristotle makes philosophy coextensive with reasoning, which he also would describe as "science". Note, however, that his use of the term science carries a different meaning than that covered by the term "scientific method". For Aristotle, "all science (dianoia) is either practical, poetical or theoretical." By practical science, he means ethics and politics; by poetical science, he means the study of poetry and the other fine arts; by theoretical science, he means physics, mathematics and metaphysics.


In the period between his two stays in Athens, between his times at the Academy and the Lyceum, Aristotle conducted most of the scientific thinking and research for which he is renowned today. In fact, most of Aristotle&#39;s life was devoted to the study of the objects of natural science. Aristotle’s metaphysics contains observations on the nature of numbers but he made no original contributions to mathematics. He did, however, perform original research in the natural sciences, e.g., botany, zoology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, and several other sciences.

Aristotle&#39;s writings on science are largely qualitative, as opposed to quantitative. Beginning in the sixteenth century, scientists began applying mathematics to the physical sciences, and Aristotle&#39;s work in this area was deemed hopelessly inadequate. His failings were largely due to the absence of concepts like mass, velocity, force and temperature. He had a conception of speed and temperature, but no quantitative understanding of them, which was partly due to the absence of basic experimental devices, like clocks and thermometers.

His writings provide an account of many scientific observations, but there are some curious errors. For example, in his History of Animals he claimed that human males have more teeth than females. In a similar vein, Galileo showed by simple experiments that Aristotle&#39;s theory that the more massive object falls faster than a less massive object is incorrect.

In places, Aristotle goes too far in deriving &#39;laws of the universe&#39; from simple observation and over-stretched reason. Today&#39;s scientific method assumes that such thinking without sufficient facts is ineffective, and that discerning the validity of one&#39;s hypothesis requires far more rigorous experimentation than that which Aristotle used to support his laws.

Aristotle also had some scientific blind spots, the largest being his inability to see the application of mathematics to physics. Aristotle held that physics was about changing objects with a reality of their own, whereas mathematics was about unchanging objects without a reality of their own. In this philosophy, he could not imagine that there was a relationship between them. He also posited a flawed cosmology that we may discern in selections of the Metaphysics, which was widely accepted up until the 1500s. From the 3rd century to the 1500s, the dominant view held that the Earth was the center of the universe (geocentrism). This scientific concept, as proposed by Aristotle and Plato was later adopted as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church because it placed mankind at the center of the universe, and scientists who disagreed, such as Galileo, were considered heretics. This erroneous concept was eventually rejected.

Aristotle&#39;s scientific shortcomings should not mislead one into forgetting his great advances in the many scientific fields. For instance, he founded logic as a formal science and created foundations to biology that were not superseded (in the West) for two millennia. Moreover, he introduced the fundamental notion that nature is composed of things that change and that studying such changes can provide useful knowledge of underlying constants. This made the study of physics, and all other sciences, respectable. In actuality, however, this observation transcends physics into metaphysics.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

a few things I find necessary to post on this:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule By Public Interest Self Interest
--------- --------------------- ---------------------
One Monarchy Tyranny
-------- -------------------- ---------------------
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
-------- -------------------- ---------------------
Many Polity Democracy

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

also, Aristotle&#39;s definition of aristocracy is "rule by the best" and monarchy "rule by one" and obligarchy "rule by the wealthy"

this, however, i do not agree with because aristotle&#39;s perspective definitely originated from the perspective of his social class and therefore yes i do think his opinion is biased, because the way aristotle argues for what classifies as certain types of government is based on certain distinctions of these types of governmental power which are generally biased because from what i understand aristotle did not see anything wrong with subordinate classes. and from the whole "rule by the best" principle which i will argue does nothing but cause subordination, alienation, oppression and the such.