Q&A 3, Second Answer

The basic form of my question is: Is the unconditional love endorsed by the Bible really better than Aristotle's idea of love only existing between 'good' people?

I do not think so.  While Aristotle's view certainly has flaws, the basic idea actually seems more sincere and genuine than the biblical view.  In general, I think that Aristotle's view could be amended to something like 'love can exist between people who like elements of one another'.  This would prevent features such as social status, gender, or race, by their outdated incorporation into the idea of good, from interfering.  The biblical suggestion that one should love everybody equally, regardless of any qualities individual people might lack or possess, seems almost utterly meaningless to me.  If one loves everyone regardless of their unique personality and behaviour, what does that sort of love actually mean?  To me, it seems very artificial.

Q&A 3, First Answer

The basic form of my question is: Given his extensive reasoning in other areas, why would Aristotle's views on slaves, women, and non-Greeks remain so conservative?

Three answers come to mind regarding this question.  Firstly, Aristotle could have simply taken the supposed inferiority of the groups mentioned above for granted, given the widespread belief that they were indeed so; acceptance of this belief might have been so deeply ingrained in his view of the world that he could not comprehend that things might be otherwise without considering them for a very long time, which he chose not to devote to the topic.

Secondly, Aristotle might have actually given the matter a lot of thought and come to the conclusion that these people were actually equal to non-slave Greek men, but then chosen not to publish that conclusion for either selfish reasons or what he thought were reasons for the good of the country.  I am inclined to disbelieve this theory, as Aristotle strikes me as being rather too intelligent and intellectually courageous to have taken this path.

Lastly, Aristotle could conceivably have been suffering from a lack of experience.  For a large portion of his younger years, he lived in Plato's academy and studied with a lot of other young, philosophical Greek men.  By the time he left and became acquainted with more women, slaves, and possibly non-Greek travelers, he may already have formed very strong worldviews which he was hesitant to change.  This last option seems the most likely to me.

Social Knowledge

In class on Wednesday, we discussed Aristotle's claim that humans are social animals.  Among the examples of humans' social natures we brought up were interpersonal relationships and also the possession of material objects created by other humans.  There is also another important aspect of humanity's social nature which we touched on only very briefly, and upon which I would like elaborate slightly here - knowledge.

Even in the event that a human being is deposited, with no material possessions whatsoever, upon an island previously untouched by human activity, and manages to create tools and survive, that human is in fact relying on some sort of socialization.  This is because, in order to know which tools to create, what resources to find, and how to create and find these things, the human is relying on knowledge about surviving gained from years of living amongst other humans.

Response: Old Literature

In response to Emily Boughton's post "I'm Not Listening" (February 7, 2012):
I agree that people do frequently dismiss the views of others with whom they disagree on some point or another, often when they would be better off listening to the rest of those views.  I also think that this mode of thought can extend to literature.  In Wednesday's class we spoke for a short while about the book Robinson Crusoe, which was published in the 1700s and contained a large number of ideas and views that most people today regard as backward and, in some cases, repellent.  Yet the book also contains a great deal of insight about human nature, pleasant prose, and a story which some consider to be quite thrilling if they can get past the outdated views which permeate the text.

In fact, a large portion of literature written long ago expresses views that offend many modern readers, and sadly, this can sometimes cause such readers to dismiss it out of hand as 'bad' and totally worthless - much as they might dismiss another person who supported some view they objected strongly to.  I think that this is definitely a mistake.  Old literature can, and often does, contain information which can be both fascinating and relevant even today.

Cyclical Causation

In Monday's class, we briefly brought up the possibility of cyclical causation.  On first glance this possibility could seem like an alternative to Aristotle's 'unmoved mover', or 'uncaused cause'.  However, unless certain seemingly impossible circumstances are in fact possible, it cannot be so.  Even a cyclical event - such as the swinging of a perfectly balanced pendulum, in a location devoid of all gravity, friction, and any other forces which might slow and eventually halt its movement - has to have begun at some point.  While in the above example the pendulum moves itself, it could not have always been moving; something had to start it moving, even if it can then continue doing so infinitely.  The only way, I think, for cyclical causation to work is if we accept the existence of time travel, whereby something could travel back in time and become its own cause.  As most of us do not accept the possibility of time travel, cyclical causation is not a valid alternative to the 'uncaused cause' theory - which is not, of course, to say that there are not other alternatives.