Tag Archives: philosophy

Why Should Philosophers Care About Ancient Philosophy?

Posted on by

The apologist in the humanities springs forth as a perennial, an eager advocate for this old man or that classic tome, often as not incurring the wrath of modernity at least as great as his own love for antiquity.  Even these defenses of the humanities ––classics, philosophy and literature being closest to my heart–– have become treasured chestnuts: “It enriches the individual,” “Humanities matters for its own sake,” “It is the source of X or Y.”

Instead of these appeals, which, in my understanding, would only reach those already possessed of a humanistic sympathy, I wish to offer four pragmatic reasons to be interested in ancient philosophy.  These reasons are particularly addressed to those interested in philosophy, especially modern philosophers, whether professors or students or avid amateurs.

1) Ancient Philosophy is a 2,300 year old conversion with great minds.
While there are undoubtedly many great treatises that are being written, or have been in recent memory, there are a number of benefits from focusing on a field of study which has persisted through millennia.  As opposed, to say, Wittgenstein, who has had less than 100 years worth of great minds commenting and interacting with his work, Aristotle has had a prolonged engagement with generation upon generation of thinkers.  Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Hobbes, have all either borrowed, adapted, or explicitly confronted Aristotelean ideas.  These, fortunately, are only some of the philosophers who have gone to the mat with Aristotle; there are countless others, including commentators from late antiquity whose sole ambition was to write on Aristotle.  So two philosophical birds can be had with one stone: if you read other great philosophers on Aristotle, you get two great minds on worthwhile topics.

2) Ancient philosophy provides a common framework for philosophy.
If the definition of philosophy is frustratingly difficult to come by, perhaps we can at least have (or preserve) the canonical philosophy that the Greeks have given to us.  The questions about what is, how we ought to live, how we can know, are central to ancient philosophy, to be sure, but these inquiries continue to guide philosophy in modern intellectual contexts as well.  It is hard to imagine a philosophical question worth pursuing that does not first show up in the pages of Plato, even if it shows up in the philosophical master’s periphery and was not his whole landscape.

3) Ancient Philosophy offers a helping hand.
It is uncontroversial, I hope, to say that every age has its moral or intellectual blindspots.  There are problems we face and cannot solve precisely because we are the responsible party for the undetected arrival of the original difficulty. A benefit of ancient philosophy, however, is that, at the very least, these thinkers do not share the same handicaps that we do.  For their faults, whatever they are, they will not count among them either consumerism, political correctness, or technological worship.  What this means is that when it comes to overlapping philosophical interests, the ancients will have different perspectives and concerns than us, which in turn can provide us novel and insightful answers to the issues we think we have discovered for the first time.

4) Ancient Philosophy explains the ancient origins of modern philosophy.
Did you know that Aristotle gives philosophical reasons to adopt a systematics, that is, a system of animal classification, hundreds of years before Carl Linnaeus? [1] And that this system of classification was in direct response to competing Platonist classifications?  Although surprising, a seemingly “modern” area of philosophy such as the philosophy of biology was already blooming in ancient literature.  Similarly, although outdated in many parts, Aristotle’s Physics and Plato’s Timaeus offer compelling reasoning in such areas as the philosophy of time [2] and various elements of the cosmological argument.  Of course, metaphysics and ethics are plentiful in the Platonic and Aristotelean corpus, and never go out of style.  There are few, if any, books on ethics which can surpass the Nicomachean Ethics.  Even in logic [3] or philosophy of language [4] there is a robust fount of philosophy that began well before those influential modern disciplines, and still have much to offer for those willing to put in the time.

REFERENCES:

[1] See Parts of Animals, Book 1
[2] See Aristotle, Physics, Book 4, Ch. 1-14
[3] see Aristotle’s Organon
[4] The Organon once again, and Plato’s Cratylus)

Aristotle’s Case Against Vegetarianism: Predator and Prey

Posted on by

If it is a given that man is an animal, as is so famously articulated in Aristotle’s famous dictum that man is a social animal, then there should be no good reason to exclude ideas which, in general, are meant to apply to man as an animal, from animals.  So in the case of vegetarianism: if there is an argument suitably argued against vegetarianism for animals qua animals then it will apply to man insofar as he is an animal as well.

This is the case in an interesting passage from the first book of Aristotle’s Politics.

For some animals, when they are created, at the outset bring forth with them in the process of creation (τοῖς γεννωμένοις) so much nourishment as is adequate until the time when the animal itself is able to provide for itself; for example those animals which have larvae or eggs. As many animals as give birth to live young, they have nourishment in themselves for a given time, the substance called milk.  So that clearly one must think that [there is nourishment] for the things which have been created (γενομένοις), plants on account of animals and the other animals for the sake of humans.  The tame animals are for the use and nourishment of mankind, while the wild ones, if not all, most of them, are on account of nourishment and help, in order that clothes and other tools come to be from these.  And therefore, if nature does nothing in vain or without a purpose, it is necessary that nature made all of these on account of humans (Translation mine, Aristotle, Politics, 1256b10-22) [1]

Aristotle, not uncharacteristically, is running together lines of thought, arguments and assumptions.  He begins from the idea that in nature when an animal is in the process of being former, it is supplied by nature with some form of physical sustenance, such as an egg providing not only a type of shelter but also some nutrition for the growing embryo.  To Aristotle, this is a universal feature for animal life; even in the case of animals which give birth to live young, their mothers are capable of lactation to provide this same sustenance in a different manner.  Thus, the thinking goes, when an animal is past the initial stage of life, nature would likewise still provide it with nourishment as when it has reached the point of maturity.

Latent within this passage is the idea that once nature has delivered an animal into its full physical maturity, it will have come to possess capabilities to procure food by its own means.[2]  Thus, there is still a need for food, but the initial form of food, such as a lactating mother, is not longer present for the animal.  The animal feels the urge to continue feeding, and in Aristotle’s mind, it has a natural instinct to seek those things which will best suit its appetite.  Among those things are both plants and animals.  Thus vegetarianism is ruled out, albeit Aristotle does need some detail work in explaining the nuances of this idea in full.

Lastly, there is the point made about nature doing nothing in vain.  What does he mean in applying that thought in this case?  (1) Either that nature does not bring an animal into maturity to just let it die since it has no way to get food (e.g. a human baby dies because it cannot find food); but this would be absurd.  (2) Or nature does not bring an animal into existence for it not be used in the proper way (i.e. cows are made for hamburgers, for leather, and for milk) (3) Or both, to put it somewhat directly, the predator and prey are made for a purpose, and both fulfill their roles.

REFERENCES:

[1]  καὶ γὰρ κατὰ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς γένεσιν τὰ μὲν συνεκ- (10)
τίκτει τῶν ζῴων τοσαύτην τροφὴν ὥσθ’ ἱκανὴν εἶναι μέχρις
οὗ ἂν δύνηται αὐτὸ αὑτῷ πορίζειν τὸ γεννηθέν, οἷον ὅσα
σκωληκοτοκεῖ ἢ ᾠοτοκεῖ· ὅσα δὲ ζῳοτοκεῖ, τοῖς γεννωμένοις
ἔχει τροφὴν ἐν αὑτοῖς μέχρι τινός, τὴν τοῦ καλουμένου γά-
λακτος φύσιν. ὥστε ὁμοίως δῆλον ὅτι καὶ γενομένοις οἰη- (15)
τέον τά τε φυτὰ τῶν ζῴων ἕνεκεν εἶναι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ζῷα
τῶν ἀνθρώπων χάριν, τὰ μὲν ἥμερα καὶ διὰ τὴν χρῆσιν
καὶ διὰ τὴν τροφήν, τῶν δ’ ἀγρίων, εἰ μὴ πάντα, ἀλλὰ
τά γε πλεῖστα τῆς τροφῆς καὶ ἄλλης βοηθείας ἕνεκεν, ἵνα
καὶ ἐσθὴς καὶ ἄλλα ὄργανα γίνηται ἐξ αὐτῶν. εἰ οὖν ἡ (20)
φύσις μηθὲν μήτε ἀτελὲς ποιεῖ μήτε μάτην, ἀναγκαῖον
τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἕνεκεν αὐτὰ πάντα πεποιηκέναι τὴν φύσιν.

[2]  Unsurprisingly, Aristotle will include hunting among the means.

10 Things You Need To Know About Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

Posted on by

1.  Why is it called the Nicomachean Ethics?
The Nicomachean Ethics is a book written by Aristotle named for Nicomachus (Νικόμαχος), which in keeping with the Greek practice of boys being named after their grandfathers, was the name of both Aristotle’s father and his son.  Accordingly, we are unsure if the book was dedicated to or inspired by either Aristotle’s father or son, or perhaps his grandfather, who was confusingly also named Nicomachus.1)See Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Opinions of Famous Philosophers, Book V, Aristotle, for more (though perhaps dubious) information on the biography of Aristotle  There is a tradition that holds, though, that the book was named after Aristotle’s son.

2.  The “Hidden Meaning” of Nicomachus
Nicomachus means “victor in the battle,” so it perhaps is no surprise that courage is the very first virtue discussed in detail, as Aristotle makes it a point to say that the prime exemplification of courage is courage in battle.  He further contends that the other uses of the word courage are really an extension of this primary usage from war.

3.  The Chief Good
The inquiry which serves to guide the entire enterprise of the Nichomachean Ethics is answering the question as to what is the chief human good.  The chief good, still familiar to us today through use of the Latin term, summum bonum, is that thing at which all people aim, and for which all other things are done.  Aristotle says that happiness is the chief good, and famously says that happiness is an “activity of reason in accordance with virtue… and this is in a full life” (1098a16-18).2)τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἀγαθὸν ψυχῆς ἐνέργεια γίνεται κατ’ ἀρετήν… ἔτι δ’ ἐν βίῳ τελείῳ.  This last point is meant to emphasize that in order to achieve the chief good one must live a complete life of excellence, all the way unto death.

4.  Did Aristotle write anything else on ethics?
The Nicomachean Ethics is not the only work by Aristotle on the subject of ethics, or practical living.  There is also the Eudemian Ethics and the Magna Moralia, sometimes also called the Great Ethics.  While the Eudemian Ethics is considered genuine, many scholars cast doubt on the Aristotelian authorship of the Magna Moralia, and most believe the comparatively small On Virtues and Vices is not by Aristotle.

5.  Don’t forget politics…
In our modern world, we seldom expect politics and ethics to go together.  However, this was exactly the layout in Aristotle’s plan for the Ethics.  Near the end of the treatise, he makes a point to say that in order to complete this discussion of human affairs, a study of the constitutions of different cities must be undertaken.  Although the human good, i.e. happiness, is something that is pursued by an individual, it is actualized within the confines of a Greek city-state (polis).  Thus, the important and appropriate conditions of virtue must be cultivated by those knowledgable about politics; only in such a system can the virtuous man live.

6.  Many Virtues in Two Divisions
Aristotle divided up his virtues into two main kinds, though this is not to say that he believed the virtues were in fact separable from each other.  On the one hand there are virtues of character: courage (andreia), moderation (sophrosyne),  generosity (eleutheriotes), munificence (megaloprepeia), magnanimity (megalopsuchia), mildness (praotes), and justice (dikaiosyne), as well as others dealing with sociability.  While the intellectual virtues are scientific knowledge (episteme), craftsmanship (techne), prudence (phronesis), intelligence (nous), wisdom (sophia), understanding (synesis), and sense (gnome).

7.  Eudaimonia
A word that often causes non-Greek readers of the Ethics problems is eudaimonia.  This is often translated as “happiness.”  The root of the word means something like “well-favored by a god.”  It is literally “well-demoned,” except that “demon” here is a rather positive term, unlike our English usage, and it means something like a demigod or divine being.  Furthermore, this “happiness” does not correspond to a feeling, as our word does, but it confers a type of status on someone, what we might call flourishing or a blessed state.  More helpful than this Greek term is what was said in point 3 above: happiness or eudaimonia is an “activity of reason in accordance with virtue… and this is in a full life.”

8.  Virtue and Ethics
The Greek word arete is often translated virtue or excellence.  In fact, what this second translation demonstrates is that for an ancient Greek, arete covered excellence in any area, such as a horse, a hammer or a human.  In our day, we could even extend this usage and say there is an arete of a car, i.e., that excellence which good cars demonstrate when they are being driven.  Our word “ethics” derives from the Greek word ethike, meaning those things “pertaining to and expressing traits of character.”  We should be wary, then, of attributing to Aristotle a moral system in our modern understanding of that term.

9.  Aristotle and Virtue Ethics
Aristotle, in writing the Nicomachean Ethics, initiated the school of theorizing today called Virtue Ethics.  In this system, more emphasis is placed on cultivating the character and virtues of an individual so that one becomes a virtuous person, whereas other major ethical theories tend to focus on either rules or outcomes.

10.  NE or EN?
Often either the initials NE or EN are used to refer to the Nicomachean Ethics.  The reason for this is that NE stands for the English Nicomachean Ethics, while EN stands for Latin Ethica Nicomachea.  Both refer to the same book, yet Latin observes a different word order from English.  Why the Latin title?  Many of Aristotle’s treatises have a Latin name, some of which are more popular than the English title, such as De Anima (On the Soul) while other times the English name is the only one most people are familiar with, e.g. Parts of Animals (De Partibus Animalium). 

References   [ + ]

1. ↑ See Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Opinions of Famous Philosophers, Book V, Aristotle, for more (though perhaps dubious) information on the biography of Aristotle
2. ↑ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἀγαθὸν ψυχῆς ἐνέργεια γίνεται κατ’ ἀρετήν… ἔτι δ’ ἐν βίῳ τελείῳ.