
Why read Aristotle today? - diodorus
https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-aristotle-teach-us-about-the-routes-to-happiness
======
ropeadopepope
Because human behavior boils down to Plato vs Aristotle. If you don't read
both, then there is a segment of the population who's actions and opinions are
going to be a complete mystery to you.

~~~
5DFractalTetris
I agree with the second statement. As for the first one, there's some other
stuff in there too: Mythologies, religions, Foucault, philosophy of science.
Why some wear t-shirts and eschew the automobile, while others drive cars in
grass skirts.

Many of my professors loved the idea of the cargo cult, the horror and glory
of it. So, don't be fooled: You may discover a bit of cargo cult within modern
studies of Plato and Aristotle.

~~~
wry_discontent
What's the cargo cult wrt Plato and Aristotle? I remember the idea from
Feynman's book, but I'm not sure how it relates to Plato v. Aristotle.

~~~
5DFractalTetris
It's the cargo cult of Western Civilization, when Plato, Aristotle, Greece,
and Rome are taught. Universities and teachers invoke the grandeur and
largesse of ancient empires and philosophers, in the hope that the future will
be more like the semblance of an idealized past. Whereas Greece and Rome had
the shield and spear, now these have been replaced by technologically-advanced
militaries, the same which created the cargo cults Feynman mentioned.

For one thing, Plato and Aristotle both assert that there's some sort of
absolute truth or order to the world, but many other human traditions reject
this idea and offer a variety of counterpoints. My favorite is that the
questions of material/immaterial, monism/dualism are irrelevant, and that the
universe is presided over by tricksters of various sorts with almost nothing
to do with the co-occurring human world. There's Coyote, Loki, Anansi, Hermes,
many mythical characters from across traditions who would have both Plato and
Aristotle know they're merely daft professors, and there's no such thing as
atoms nor caves.

These ideas and their idealized past always center on the idea of a natural
human order. This arises from, in Plato, the idea that each mind is imprisoned
in a series of closed cabinets, and can achieve perfect knowledge of neither
truth nor justice; in Aristotle, from a first-moving cause within a universe
in which all things are bound by a certain causality. Rome utilized an
initiate religion which was used to structure business hours, and you can
trivially extrapolate to Darwin and Victorian society, or wherever you like.
And, generally speaking, things aren't great for people without the "advanced
literacy." Philosophers from around the same era would lampoon all of these
notions: Heraclitus insisted there was no cause and effect, Diogenes insisted
there could be neither ideals nor wisdom. Even today you can find physicists
who are skeptical of causality outside of controlled experiments.

When you look at alternatives to the Great Civilizations of the West and Near
East, many of them vanished without written record (I wrote from my laptop, as
a technology professional) or created massive citadels and then abandoned them
the way one leaves behind sand castles (common throughout the Americas). The
apocalypse prophecy of the Hopi tradition, Koyaanisqatsi, states that the
world ends when people begin to mine for minerals. Note that after the fall of
the Roman Empire, steel was lost to civilization (outside of China? Can't
remember) for a long time. But of course, you can think of perhaps ten
traditions, without using Google, where the end times have always been upon
us.

To place faith in one particular myth, philosophy, or history as always
defining of an individual person or their world, or somehow superior to
another, is to err. Individual world-theories are often the o-rings of our
society, to be puzzled out by inspectors like Feynman long after they fail
catastrophically, but in other places their graceful interaction can indeed
change the world forever and for the better.

Not sure what all these words will mean to you but I hope they helped you
understand where my mind has wandered lately.

------
bshepard
The parts in Guy Robinson's "Philosophy and Mystifications" about Aristotle
still resonate with me in one way or another a few years after reading it. The
book is happily available online: [http://www.spiritual-
minds.com/philosophy/assorted/041517851...](http://www.spiritual-
minds.com/philosophy/assorted/0415178517%20-%20Guy%20Robinson%20-%20Philosophy%20And%20Mystification~%20A%20Reflection%20On%20Nonsense%20And%20Clarity%20-%20Routledge.pdf)

Here's a relevant bit:

"When Aristotle looks for a place to begin the investigation of any topic he
suggests that we begin with “the opinions of the many or the wise.” This is
hardly because those opinions are thought to be infallible. We need not have a
mystical view about “the collective wisdom of humanity” to think it sensible
to start there. It simply makes more sense than wasting our time with random
fanciful or extraordinary views, views that have come out of nowhere and are
likely only to lead nowhere, the wild suppositions of impossible happenings:
colors that change on a certain date, universes that consist only of sounds or
of one object, and so forth. Under the influence of Descartes’s method, these
imaginings have been thought to reveal “conceptual boundaries.”

------
capiv
Aristotle is still the most insightful and relevant philosopher after all
these years. From physics, to psychology, to biology, to politics, to ethics,
to metaphysics, to logic. No single man has made more contributions to him.

~~~
nyc111
> Aristotle is still the most insightful and relevant philosopher after all
> these years. From physics, to psychology, to biology, to politics, to
> ethics, to metaphysics, to logic. No single man has made more contributions
> to him.

I totally agree. Aristotle is still relevant today. But regarding happiness,
as presented in this article, all these philosophers, Aristotle included,
offer behavioral recipies that the SELF must enforce on his body in order to
be happy. Usually by enforcing such things as frugality and fasting, instead
of letting the body do what it wants. So let the body decide what is best for
itself.

But what I want to say is that, happiness is, to a great extent, a feeling
resulting from, or caused by, some chemicals. Like melatonin and seratonin. So
all we have to do is to create the right conditions for the body to secrete
the optimum amount of happiness chemicals. So it seems happiness is not about
forcing body to behave a certain way.

~~~
tiberius1900
> So let the body decide what is best for itself.

And what if the body decides that the best thing for itself is crack cocaine?
You don't want happiness per se, but a fulfilling and satisfying life.

Think about it, if you could wire yourself to a machine that injected all the
happiness chemicals into your brain for the rest of your life would you do it?

"Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the word happy
would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness."

~~~
Koshkin
> _what if the body decides that the best thing for itself is crack cocaine?_

Only in the sense that the brain is part of the body.

> _You don 't want happiness per se, but a fulfilling and satisfying life._

Also see [https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/06/the-
meani...](https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/06/the-meaning-of-
the-pursuit-of-happiness).

------
emptybits
Acceptance and its role in happiness is such a great topic and I am so
grateful we can access the works of long-past lucid thinkers. This is a very
productive use of limited reading time IMO.

Putting aside Aristotelian virtue-of-external-goods, there is so much
agreement with the Stoics (action-from-virtue and virtue-from-within). And
THEN, when you fold in schools like Daoism and Buddhism (the philosophy, not
religion) and their takes on acceptance and happiness ... I am also impressed
(comforted?) that there is so much in common with the west. (Confirmation of
fundamentals? I recognize this optimism is decidedly un-Stoic. Lol.)

BTW, here's another good article IMO that contrasts the two Greek camps:

[http://modernstoicism.com/poor-but-happy-aristotle-and-
the-s...](http://modernstoicism.com/poor-but-happy-aristotle-and-the-stoics-
on-external-goods-by-gabriele-galluzzo/)

------
motohagiography
Aristotle's notion of megalopsuchia, seems richer than our modern sense of
manganimity, and it is a very interesting jumping off point for personal
growth. From a practical view, the temperance Aristotle required on qualities
to make them virtues, could be applied with the tools of the stoics.

~~~
drunkenmonkey
As an oblong reference regarding megalopsuchia, you may enjoy Peter Chung’s
Aristotle as visited in the anime film series titled “Reign: The Conqueror”.

------
timpetri
I found this article very fascinating. I'm sad to admit that I know very
little about the large number thinkers from that time though. If anyone could
point me in the direction of some literature that would introduce me to all
this, that would be greatly appreciated!

~~~
throwaway10e6
Philosophy PhD here.

I'd recommend a couple of classics, both accessible to non-specialists:

 _The Great Chain of Being_ is a nice overview of some of the main themes of
ancient metaphysics and their later influence.[1] It ranges far beyond the
ancient world, but it does as good a job as anything can of showing how
ancient theories that might easily seem conceptually alien could in fact have
been rational.

 _Shame and Necessity_ is about what you might call the ethical mindset of the
ancient world.[2] The general aim is to explore how the ways Greeks and Romans
engaged with moral questions systematically differed from what ethics would
become after the advent of Christianity. (I can't praise this book enough.
Williams was insanely erudite and analytically sharp.)

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Great-Chain-Being-Study-
History/dp/06...](https://www.amazon.com/Great-Chain-Being-Study-
History/dp/0674361539)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Shame-Necessity-Sather-Classical-
Lect...](https://www.amazon.com/Shame-Necessity-Sather-Classical-
Lectures/dp/0520256433)

------
dzonga
I lean toward Hume's skepticism and empiricism. I also think stoicism is
important. But after deep and reflective thought there platonism and stoicism,
tend to be heavy on logic and rationalism.Whereas life is practical, and
doesn't really work on rationalism outside of academic matters. example
penicillin was a pure accident, found by experience then later studied by
academics.

------
andrew_
The article cites his works on happiness, but I scanned several times and
couldn't find which works I should read about the subject. I'm fairly ignorant
about Aristotle's teachings, writings and only have a knowledge of who the man
was. So I'm a bit lost as to which to begin with, targeting the article's
focus on his ideas of happiness. Suggestions?

~~~
seanstickle
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics tackles happiness.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics)

"Let us resume our inquiry and state, in view of the fact that all knowledge
and every pursuit aims at some good, what it is that we say political science
aims at and what is the highest of all goods achievable by action. Verbally
there is very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of
superior refinement say that it is happiness, and identify living well and
doing well with being happy; but with regard to what happiness is they differ,
and the many do not give the same account as the wise."

------
bhaak
Because every science, through one way or another, goes back to those
questions that he asked.

Together with Socrates and Platon those three Greeks basically posed questions
that every age answered in their own way.

~~~
empath75
It has often been said that all of philosophy is just commentaries on
Aristotle and Plato and I think that was almost literally true at least up
through the Renaissance.

------
ccnafr
I wouldn't recommend reading Aristotle's works, bur rather the analysis of his
writings in modern contexts.

------
DubiousPusher
See, every time I try to enjoy ancient philosophy, I get going and then bump
into a comment like this.

>Nobody would call a man ideally happy if he has not got a particle of courage
nor of temperance nor of decency nor of good sense, but is afraid of the flies
that flutter by him, cannot refrain from any of the most outrageous actions in
order to gratify a desire to eat or to drink, and ruins his dearest friends
for the sake of a penny…

If Aristotle means that the general lack of these qualities leads to
unhappiness than he just needed to have some more profligate friends. I've
known cowards, adicts and individuals with terrible practical instincts who
were all happy people. If he specifically means the total lack of one of these
traits well then no s---. Of course those individuals have a harder time being
happy. They're lacking a significant tool the rest of us pack around in tool
box for dealing with day to day life. And there's a decent chance they're
suffering a debilitating neuroses. In the first case it's naive. In the second
it's inane. Obviously Aristotle wasn't an idiot but I find the same flaw among
nearly all ancient Greek philosophers. He was retroactively fitting a moral
reasoning to his own secular but restrained moral instincts. There's a way of
living that felt right to him and he reasoned himself into thinking it was
"best". I may be more sympathetic to the Stoics and the Epicureans but I get
the same vibe when I read their works.

~~~
atmosx
You've known _addicts_ who were _happy_ ? What's your definition of happiness?
Most addicts I know off, are extremely miserable. I don't know many, just a
few, but none of them look even remotely happy to me. They were well aware of
their situation and the repugnant feeling that their presence caused to
others. They can/could barely stand themselves.

~~~
DubiousPusher
I think you may be confusing addicts with the popular notion of a "junky".

But yes, I've known alcoholics, pot heads, pill poppers and a few dope fiends
who lead productive fullfilled lives, seem extraordinarily content and
actively contribute back to their communities. If those aren't signs of
happiness, I don't know what are.

Of course I've known many more for whom addiction has been a total disaster.
So I'm not recommending it or anything but I don't think it should be a
disqualifier for considering one "happy". And yes when I say "happiness" I
mean something beyond momentary satisfaction.

This just strikes me as more of the same old school dudes conflating control
or self discipline with virtue and conflating virtue with happiness (not that
they have nothing to do with each other but I'm not sure they're the same
things.)

~~~
keiferski
You are projecting a modern definition of “happiness” onto Aristotle. Think of
it instead as “thriving” or “reaching your potential in all aspects of your
life.”

~~~
DubiousPusher
Uh, yes. Cause the premise of this article was why we as modern people we
should appreciate Aristotle's reflections on happiness, not why I should
appreciate the meticulous perfection of the internal logic of his world view.

In my opinion, either Aristotle should've broadened his view of "virtue" or
"happiness" to not worry so much about personal weakness or vice. Or his
notion of these aren't really worth taking up as a modern measure against
one's life.

------
stareatgoats
> Only humans have moral agency, and therefore, as co-inhabitants of planet
> Earth with an astounding number of plants and animals, have the unique
> responsibility for conservation.

Ancient Greek thinking like this usually leaves me with a sense akin to shock,
I think because I'm victim of some darling prejudices of our time: that the
quality of human thinking has gradually improved over eons. That the vast
number of humans now engaged in thinking on all continents, with marvels of
technology at their fingertips would mean we have ready access to unparalleled
understanding of the human condition compared to times past. Instead we are
like children. We can hardly even understand what those people were talking
about.

Moral agency? Never heard about it :-/.

~~~
AlexB138
I read quite a lot of ancient philosophy and grappled with basically this
exact thought. It was a bit painful to feel as though we've intellectually
slid backwards. There is a theory that calls that era the Axial Age, which is
worth looking up. That era contained some of the greatest thinkers in history:
Anaxagoras, Aristotle, Buddha, Confucius etc.

The thing to keep in mind is that there is incredible selection bias at work
here. The vast majority of people living then were illiterate and living
brutal lives. They didn't know or care about philosophy, much like the
majority of people now. Yes, ancient Athens was special in that it had a
special focus on thought, but I would still bet that the modern era has a
greater percentage of people who are interested in great thought than ever
before, and we've had our own thinkers at great heights.

~~~
atmosx
I can't speak about Buddha or Confucius.

Greek legacy was build in ~100-150 years, which is more like a _flash_ in
human history than an _era_. I'm talking about 5th century BC specifically.
Walking to the streets of the Athenian city state you could come across:

\- philosophers: Socrates, Isocrates, Protagoras, Parmenides \- historians:
Herodotus, Thucydides and Xenophon \- authors: Aeschylus, Sophocles,
Euripides, Aristophanes \- scientists(?): Democritus (the atom guy), Phidias
(greatest sculptor in Ancient Greece), Hippocrates (father of modern Medicine)
\- politicians: Pericles and Demosthenes \- military minds: Miltiades,
Themistocles

I think the fact that democracy was established the century before, had a lot
to do with this concentration of _minds_.

That said, of course, slavery was a thing, women were more like objects and
only a few had voting rights.

~~~
gnulinux
In which sense Democritus is a scientist? He never emprically observed atoms
or used scientific method in any meaningful sense. He was a natural
philosopher, and a very crucial figure in his school too. The basic idea is
that natural philosophy was heavily challenged by Parmenides who made some
really good points about how everything should be one and unitary and thus
nothing exists in the sense we see and observe ("everything is an illusion").
Then later philosophers tried to circumvent Parmenides while maintaining some
bit of realism and common sense. Democritus is one such philosopher, who tried
to agree realism with Parmenides by suggesting that everything may be composed
of a single type of objects called atoms and their composition gives us the
illusion of "differences" such as color, taste etc and thus everything like
feelings, colors, tastes are "by convention" when in reality it is atoms all
the way down. This argument is more important in the context of post-
Parmenidean Greek Natural Philosophy rather than scientific context.

EDIT Fun fact: Democritus -- also known as the founder of materialism -- is
highly influential in modern enlightenment too. Most famously, Karl Marx was
heavily influenced by his ideas so much so that his Doctoral thesis was on
him. If you read Marx's writings chronologically, you'll see that he started
his philosophical career as an idealist, and then (possibly with Democritus
influence) turned 180 degrees and became a materialist and dedicated his life
to argue against idealism.

~~~
atmosx
Since the scientific method wasn’t known at the time, it’s hard to argue that
indeed, he was more of a philosopher.

That said the quote: “Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything
else is opinion.” spelled more than 2k years before J. Dalton, is enough to
call him a scientist IMHO.

After, the only way one can progress and see the future, is by standing at the
shoulders of giants.

------
exratione
It is interesting to compare this interpretation of Aristotle on happiness
with the transhumanist take on happiness, pleasure, and suffering known as the
Hedonistic Imperative. When doing so, Aristotle starts to look a lot closer to
stoicism, in sense of acceptance of the human condition as it is, planning a
strategy within established limits that cannot be changed. The spectrum of
philosophy expands, with most of the ancients sitting quite close to one
another in a much larger state space than they had access to.

------
gibsonf1
One of the great things about Aristotle is his focus on induction, using the
facts and experience of life as the basis for reasoning, and human nature
specifically for inducing virtue, morality and the good life. But I would even
more highly recommend Jordan Peterson's "12 Rules of Life" as far more helpful
given Peterson's incredible intelligence and inductive abilities through both
his practice as a psychologist and his intense study of past philosophy.

~~~
ssijak
I read 40 books from the beginning of the year. "12 Rules of Life" is the only
book I could not finish. I stopped at about 70-80% (actually I just left it on
1.25x on Audible while doing other things but without my full attention). He
just rambles about Gepetto story and Bible stories that after a while it loses
al sense, yeah we get it what you want to tell, but if you make parallels with
Bible stories for a hundredth time it loses its appeal and point. His book
would be fine if it cut almost all of those Bible references out, left some,
and included other references and stories also to which people could more
relate to.

~~~
jeremyt
That is his whole point. Bible stories...archetypes.

It's like saying Sam Harris would make a lot of sense if he'd just stop
rambling about consciousness, ethics, and AI.

~~~
watwut
Esoteric at least don't pretend to be science. Esoteric and magical healing
are more honest than that.

