Aristotle: The Father of Virtue and Logic as a Science

[Brain Candy]

Aristotle was the first to systemize logic. He assessed how a thinking mind forms the arguments, and then undertook a development of a theory of logic which could be used to apply to a debate, and be utilized to organize an argument, or merely break it down. Aristotle used a system of "categories" to define what he held as "primary" and "secondary" substances. The primary substances were those things which were particular and concrete, such as "that statue", or "that boat." The classification to which the particular thing belongs is known as the secondary substance. These were to be known as "qualities," which may be descriptions of "that man," or "that boat."

The Categories:

1. substance (who or what is this thing?)

2. quantity (how much?)

3. quality (how is it classified?)

4. relation (to whom or what does it refer?)

5. activity (what does it inflict on another?)

6. passivity (what is inflicted on it?)

7. when (at what point in time?)

8. where (where is it?)

9. site or posture (in what state of mind?)

10. habit (how is it enduring and living?)

Every human activity has some good as its end or object; but different human activities have different ends, Aristotle reasoned. This is simple in that Aristotle realized the benevolence of the mind, and its wish to attain only what it saw as good, but he also saw that different humans have different concepts of what is good, and therefore prematurely realized cultural relativism.

Humans achieve happiness when they complete their function. Therefore, the primary goal in life should be the discovery of this function. In this way can a man enjoy the life he leads, and in this way can he bring his life to a complete and fulfilled end. If he errs in the exploration for this function, or should he not even bother to search for it, he becomes lost and distracted by the pleasurable, yet empty, things in life, and the function becomes more obscure, and the quest for it would now be more arduous, since he has become accustomed to the easy, pleasurable objects, and these, as any habits, can be difficult to release.

Profile:Aristotle

That last part seems like the basis for the principles of christianity, except they replace distraction with the word sin and thus get people up in arms on both sides shouting ..GOOD.. ..EVIL.. without knowing why, and atheists and modern pagans thinking they are "opposing the chains of christianity" by acting like fools .

I wish politicians would declare they follow the teaching of Aristotle more then the teachings of the bible, or they follow the bible but put emphasis on where it follows the same line of thought, if not directly derives from, this great thinker

Edited February 17, 2008 by Brain Candy

[August1991]

I wish politicians would declare they follow the teaching of Aristotle more then the teachings of the bible, or they follow the bible but put emphasis on where it follows the same line of thought, if not directly derives from, this great thinker

Pierre Trudeau loved very much this thought written by Aristotle: The main goal of society is that its members be able to collectively and individually live a full life.

Link

IMHO, mathematics are much better understood now than in Aristotle's time and hence, we have a much better understanding now of human affairs than Aristotle could possibly have understood. Arrow's Impossibility Theorem or the Coase Theorem, fundamental to understanding human relations, are well beyond Aristotle.

Aristotle deserves credit for being the first to examine the terrain. The Wright Brothers built the first airplane but I doubt their skills would be useful to build a 747.

[Brain Candy]

Link

Aristotle deserves credit for being the first to examine the terrain. The Wright Brothers built the first airplane but I doubt their skills would be useful to build a 747.

I must disagree here, you cant understand the principles behind how a 747 works if you cant understand how the first airplane worked.

Also you mention theories here that are based in economic s(needs, wants and obstructions to those things), which is related to but not the same as philosophy. They are better at explaining how large scale situations tend to work but do not go deep into the 'why' and the 'good and bad' of things, and definately dont deal with anything like ethics, virtue, or perception of reality like Aristotle, Plato and their more direct decendance did.

Interesting article!

Edited February 18, 2008 by Brain Candy

[August1991]

I must disagree here, you cant understand the principles behind how a 747 works if you cant understand how the first airplane worked.

I think Isaac Newton said that if he could see far, it was because he sat on the shoulders of giants. So, who should receive credit? Newton or the giants?

Well, Newton also said that he felt like a young boy looking at pebbles on the beach.

Aristotle was concerned about this universe, this world, and people in this world. I think Aristotle would have been awestruck by the discovery of John Nash. But John Nash came after John von Neumann, and von Neumann after Leibnitz and Newton and Einstein.

For Aristotle, Nash would have been shocking.

----

To change the subject, after Plato and Aristotle, after Rome, there were the Dark Ages. I fear that we may slip into such a world. We will all be dead and gone but our great-great-great grandchildren will live in a dark ages of ignorance and superstition.

The defence of civilisation is not merely an intellectual battle. It is a violent physical battle too. As civilized people, we must understand others and keep an open mind. But we must not be shy to defend our principles too.

[Oleg Bach]

I think Isaac Newton said that if he could see far, it was because he sat on the shoulders of giants. So, who should receive credit? Newton or the giants?

Well, Newton also said that he felt like a young boy looking at pebbles on the beach.

Aristotle was concerned about this universe, this world, and people in this world. I think Aristotle would have been awestruck by the discovery of John Nash. But John Nash came after John von Neumann, and von Neumann after Leibnitz and Newton and Einstein.

For Aristotle, Nash would have been shocking.

----

To change the subject, after Plato and Aristotle, after Rome, there were the Dark Ages. I fear that we may slip into such a world. We will all be dead and gone but our great-great-great grandchildren will live in a dark ages of ignorance and superstition.

The defence of civilisation is not merely an intellectual battle. It is a violent physical battle too. As civilized people, we must understand others and keep an open mind. But we must not be shy to defend our principles too.

People forget that the King - Jesus the Christ was the man who surpassed even Aristotle in the logic area- it was his logic that built real civilaization! He was a very compassionate and pragmatic in his thinking- the best...in fact devine.

[Wilber]

I must disagree here, you cant understand the principles behind how a 747 works if you cant understand how the first airplane worked.

The Wright brothers didn't build the first airplane by any means. They were however the first to come up with an engine that made powered flight possible. They built on what others did before them and we built on what they did. Same can be said for everything else in human evolution. Interestingly enough, 105 years after the Wright's first powered flight, powerplants are still the limiting factor when it comes to what todays aircraft can do.

[Brain Candy]

People forget that the King - Jesus the Christ was the man who surpassed even Aristotle in the logic area- it was his logic that built real civilaization! He was a very compassionate and pragmatic in his thinking- the best...in fact devine.

Then what is real and what is fake civilisation, and why is everything that came before Jesus the latter.

[Brain Candy]

To change the subject, after Plato and Aristotle, after Rome, there were the Dark Ages. I fear that we may slip into such a world. We will all be dead and gone but our great-great-great grandchildren will live in a dark ages of ignorance and superstition.

The defence of civilisation is not merely an intellectual battle. It is a violent physical battle too. As civilized people, we must understand others and keep an open mind. But we must not be shy to defend our principles too.

I agree, a collapse similar to the dark ages or, worse, a "Brave New World" like scenario where a few manipulative people control and streamline the distracted masses into a few mechanical functions are both possible outcomes of society longterm. I think the best way to resist it on a personal level is to approach your life as something varied and dynamic while at the same time having some sort of focus or idealism at its core, sort of like how civilisations work when they are healthy, or how the important philosophers presented their ideas, or how great symphonies are constructed.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Brain Candy

[charter.rights]

I agree, a collapse similar to the dark ages or, worse, a "Brave New World" like scenario where a few manipulative people control and streamline the distracted masses into a few mechanical functions are both possible outcomes of society longterm. I think the best way to resist it on a personal level is to approach your life as something varied and dynamic while at the same time having some sort of focus or idealism at its core, sort of like how civilisations work when they are healthy, or how the important philosophers presented their ideas, or how great symphonies are constructed.

If one looks at the fall of the Roman Empire it is easy to see that the collapse of their institutions preceded the fall.

If one looks at our institutions it is plain knowledge that they are in a state of crisis - from health care to education to justice to government, all are failing the people. The collapse of this civilization isn't something that can happen....it IS happening now and it is getting worse.

[Brain Candy]

If one looks at the fall of the Roman Empire it is easy to see that the collapse of their institutions preceded the fall.

If one looks at our institutions it is plain knowledge that they are in a state of crisis - from health care to education to justice to government, all are failing the people. The collapse of this civilization isn't something that can happen....it IS happening now and it is getting worse.

Education at least has been blatantly trying to cover up its failings for a while, by either artificially increasing test scores or simply making everything easier, though this may also be a problem of dysgenics, see this article:

The Reversing of the "Flynn Effect"

I think a general decrease in intelligence is the most inarguable sign of something that needs fixing, and the general decrease in how much intelligence is used in favour of distraction (observe how much time nerds spend playing videogames or arguing about Lost) makes the problem much worse. The increase and overuse of "mood stabilizers", which are apparently polluting our own drinking water, probably comes in second.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Brain Candy

[WIP]

Education at least has been blatantly trying to cover up its failings for a while, by either artificially increasing test scores or simply making everything easier, though this may also be a problem of dysgenics, see this article:

The Reversing of the "Flynn Effect"

I think a general decrease in intelligence is the most inarguable sign of something that needs fixing, and the general decrease in how much intelligence is used in favour of distraction (observe how much time nerds spend playing videogames or arguing about Lost) makes the problem much worse. The increase and overuse of "mood stabilizers", which are apparently polluting our own drinking water, probably comes in second.

Okay! I've got to say this Dr. John Breeding that you've linked to is just a quack who promotes the Scientology movement's claims against psychiatry. He's presenting the same b.s. about psychiatrists drugging children that famous couch-jumper Tom Cruise spouts off about. Considering that this garbage is presented as fact by a cult that teaches that the mind is "spirit" and not a product of brain function, this is dogma that can cause harm to people who need psychiatric drugs. And, if you've ever had to deal with people who are seriously schizophrenic, you'd realize that the people who most need the drugs are also the ones who can be most easily led to refuse medication because of paranoia inspired by this crap! Psychiatry has increased its effectiveness with the development of new antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs. The psychotherapies that this guy promotes don't work for everyone, and they take a long time to show positive results even where they are useful.

The side effects and other problems of psychiatric drugs don't disprove their value, but instead show us how altering the brain's neurochemistry can change our emotions, such as happiness or sadness. The therapies that Dr. Breeding advocates, such as psychotherapy and exercise work in the same manner of altering the brain's neurochemistry. When you exercise, for example, your body will release a rush of endorphins. The amount and rate of endorphin release you feel from aerobic exercise will determine the mood-elevating benefits you feel from your chosen exercise. There's nothing magical about it! It's just a different pathway to altering the brain's chemistry.

[Brain Candy]

Scientology is new age "religious" insanity, but the one positive aspect to it is understanding that the psychiatry is getting slightly nuttier then it is.

Different experiences cause different effects to the brain, and their are reasons for all the effects. If exercise is both healthy and makes you happy, why not do that instead of taking a pill that gives you the sensation of being happy without the effort or benefit to your health? or reorganize your life if its a more constant depression? Unless your a total nutcase I dont see the point unless you really want to hide from reality, in which case either people are lied to about the neccessity of these pills or modern living must be a real downer.

I agree Scientology is bs but the idea that behind the functions of the brain lies a "spirit" or "will" is an idea that has showed up in most philosophies, religions, art, etc. I think thats the main problem with science in itself is it provides no context for its findings; Im happy and a pill rather then thinking about the root causes will make me happy faster, bring me my soma!

Edited March 22, 2008 by Brain Candy

[WIP]

I'm having a little trouble trying to post links on this forum. I thought I had it all set up right, but the webpage I linked above is broken. Anyway, this idea that depression is a lifestyle illness is as dangerous as it is misleading. Some of us are fortunate enough to rarely, if ever feel depressed, while others are almost constantly in a state of clinical depression through no fault of their own. Some neuroscientists are coming to the conclusion that each of us may have a "happiness" set point that's similar to the metabolic set point that regulates body weight and body fat levels.

Sure there are a lot of over-lapping factors between lifestyle, physical illness, traumatic childhood events and their effects on the brain. But people who are suffering from severe clinical depression are not going to get better with exercise or new age b.s. All it will do is make them feel guilty or despondent when things don't get better. Remember, this Scientology connection first became a news story when that idiot Tom Cruise condemned Brooke Shields for taking antidepressants after post-partum depression. "Dr. Cruise" based his expert analysis from the cult pseudoscience offered up by John Breeding and his analysis of L. Ron Hubbard's wise insights into the workings of the mind......in other words, he had nothing intelligent to offer on the subject.

[Brain Candy]

I was unaware of that guys scientology connection, however the point still stands that it seems nutty that depression is an illness rather then a state of mind triggered by something that needs addressing, though some people are more suseptible to it then others, and some extremely smart people have a tendancy towards a totally melancholy outlook that they draw on to give great gifts to the world. Exercise and proper diet I find extremely helpful to remaining not always happy, but healthy mentally and physically.

I can sympathize with people in a state of feeling stuck or lost in a situation or particular trauma, but life sometimes throws you huge problems and for whatever reason mankind has managed fine long before the invention of antidepressants. You will always carry moments of extreme emotional reaction with you, and the "solution" is to come to terms with it, usually through a spiritual revelation that "gasp!" the world isnt governed by any specific moral code, and a pill wont help with this. We could go into the philosophical implications of this, but that would take a while.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Brain Candy

[WIP]

I agree Scientology is bs but the idea that behind the functions of the brain lies a "spirit" or "will" is an idea that has showed up in most philosophies, religions, art, etc. I think thats the main problem with science in itself is it provides no context for its findings; Im happy and a pill rather then thinking about the root causes will make me happy faster, bring me my soma!

The philosophical belief called Substance Dualism - which teaches that mind and body are separate substances had its origins in the teachings of Plato and some other Greek philosophers. But Aristotle, whom you mentioned previously, did not teach that the psyche was a separate, immaterial substance. He said that the soul of man is thinking. His concept of the soul being the essence of the person, implies that it is a form that does not exist separately from our physical bodies. This version of dualism would be closer to property dualism - that matter may have forms or undiscovered, non-material properties, but those properties do not have a separate existence.

Later Greek philosophers such as Plotinus, went back to the Platonic teaching of a separate spirit that was animating the body. And of course this was the doctrine that was adopted by Christian theologians such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. It's interesting that although this became orthodox Christian teaching, the doctrine of immortal soul is almost nonexistent in the Bible itself. Especially if you read the Old Testament, written before Greek philosophy became influential, you'll notice that the writers of philosophical books such as Job, the Psalms and Proverbs do not teach that there is an immortal soul. When Job is suffering, he is tempted to curse God so that he may die and be relieved of his pain. This passage would make no sense if the writer believed in an immortal soul. In such a case, his soul would be sent to hell to even greater suffering! So, long story short, you can't assume that the doctrine of immortal souls was universal, even in the Judeochristian tradition.

In this day and age, the doctrine of the soul should be deep-sixed since it's ludicrous in an age when we are learning how the brain stores memories and thanks to the Libet Volition experiments, we have learned that our decision-making processes start working a fraction of a second before we are even consciously aware of our decisions. There are a number of ways of interpreting the results; even Benjamin Libet himself, didn't like the implications they had on Free Will. But to me, I don't see any way around the conclusion that we do not have complete free will that is separate from brain function.

[WIP]

I was unaware of that guys scientology connection, however the point still stands that it seems nutty that depression is an illness rather then a state of mind triggered by something that needs addressing, though some people are more suseptible to it then others, and some extremely smart people have a tendancy towards a totally melancholy outlook that they draw on to give great gifts to the world. Exercise and proper diet I find extremely helpful to remaining not always happy, but healthy mentally and physically.

I can sympathize with people in a state of feeling stuck or lost in a situation or particular trauma, but life sometimes throws you huge problems and for whatever reason mankind has managed fine long before the invention of antidepressants. We could go into the philosophical implications of this, but that would take a while.

I doubt any of the medical professionals who research mental illness would advocate drugs alone to solve depression or even psychosis. Every illness can benefit from a holistic approach, and if some psychiatrists are pill-poppers and are too quick to write prescriptions for Ritalin and antidepressants, that's probably because of the same factors that encourage MD's to prescribe drugs: they have too many patients and not enough time to spend diagnosing illness, so it's easier to just prescribe drugs and send them on their way. An MD who has an overweight patient with high bloodpressure has the same situation as the psychiatrist with the patient suffering from depression- and that's further proof that depression and mental illness is not an ethereal condition of the psyche, but is instead just as physical a problem as heart disease and cancer! They can advocate lifestyle changes to help solve the problem or they can prescribe a drug. In both cases, the alternative cure depends largely on the patient's own initiative. If the doctor advocates diet and exercise, it won't do any good if the patient cannot or will not act on that advice!

[Brain Candy]

It is not seperate from the brain. Thats the problem of mood enhancers on a metaphysical level; It's altering what you are experiencing without an actual change in what you are doing, and if you take it on a long term basis I couldnt imagine a larger denial of reality.

Obesity is a bit different because It's effects are more measurable and usually has no positive impact, but even then there are alot, though not all of cases where its effects are reversable through diet and exercise, if your not lazy, but I dont think their is a cure for idleness yet.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Brain Candy

[WIP]

The reason why obesity is more measurable (but not necessarily more treatable) is because the brain is so much more complex and difficult to understand. Many, if not most psychiatric drugs were developed for other purposes and were further researched for their psychiatric potential after unexpected mental benefits were discovered.

I have never had to take psychiatric drugs myself, so I can't speak from firsthand knowledge. But I have seen a few people reject drug treatments to their own detriment because of paranoia and fear of drug side-effects. The problem I have with the anti-drug movement is that they are issuing a blanket dismissal of treatments that may be necessary for some people. Just like everyone who's overweight may not need bypass surgery, not everyone who's depressed needs antidepressants. But the people who do need them should feel free to use them without being faced with intimidation and condemnation from antipsychiatry zealots.