Episode 07 - Boxing Aristotle
Jeff and Darron discuss two titans of the ancient world, Plato and Aristotle - they discuss reading, and grapple with some of the difficulties of interpreting ancient texts. Jeff tries his best to overcome the intuitive responses of his mind as they try to parse the nuance of a regressive framing that offends our modern sensibilities, and they both attempt to relate to Plato and Aristotle from the novice’s point of view, gleaning what wisdom they can in their attempt to make sense of some of the great thinking that has led us to today.
Notes:
2:00 - See the Ten Year Reading Plan from The Great Conversation Reading Group
3:07 - A Game of Thrones Novel & HBO TV Series
4:34 - Bo Knows Bo, No Direction Home, On The Road
5:58 - The Op-Ed “Skim reading is the new normal. The effect on
society is profound.” by Maryanne Wolf was published by The Guardian in 2018 and posits that “Research surfacing in many parts of the world...cautions that...essential “deep reading” processes may be under threat as we move into digital-based modes of reading.” and furthermore that “a series of studies...indicate that the “new norm” in reading is skimming,” - For a counterpoint see “Is Skim Reading the New Normal?” by Yellowlees Douglas Ph.D. on Psychology Today who points out other studies that indicate technology does not change how we engage with reading - that “It's not the medium but the content and context that determine how we engage with a text. Close reading may be a habit most people leave behind with their education, not an inevitable development of reading a physical page.”
7:55 - See The Republic by Plato, Ethics by Aristotle, and Politics by Aristotle
8:41 - See System I & System II and Thinking Fast & Slow
9:16 - ~2350 years ago
10:13 - “According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Aristotle’s writings tend to present formidable difficulties to his novice readers. To begin, he makes heavy use of unexplained technical terminology and his sentence structure can at times prove frustrating. This helps explain why students who turn to Aristotle after first being exposed to the supple and mellifluous prose on display in Plato’s dialogues often find the experience frustrating.
11:26 - Dunning-Kruger Effect
12:23 - See BI Episode 05 - “It’s Alive!”
13:00 - “The pressing, human questions we have about our lives depend directly on our attitudes toward the universe at a deeper level. For many people, those attitudes are adopted rather informally from the surrounding culture, rather than arising out of rigorous personal reflection. Each new generation of people doesn’t invent the rules of living from scratch; we inherit ideas and values that have evolved over vast stretches of time. At the moment, the dominant image of the world remains one in which human life is cosmically special and significant, something more than mere matter in motion. We need to do better at reconciling how we talk about life’s meaning with what we know about the scientific image of our universe.” - Sean Carroll, from The Big Picture
14:02 - While there’s a lot of fun speculation about who was the last “know it all,” the tales all end up being a bit apocryphal in nature, yet there’s know doubt that Aristotle is good a candidate as any. As prolific a polymath as ever lived, he literally founded many fields of study as well as a school dedicated to their pursuit, inscribed over 200 works, studied physical sciences such as anatomy, astronomy, embryology, geography, geology, meteorology, physics and zoology, Wrote philosophy on aesthetics, ethics, government, metaphysics, politics, economics, psychology, rhetoric and theology, and still managed to find time for education, foreign customs, literature and poetry. For more see “Aristotle The Philosopher Who Knew It All” from Classical Wisdom Weekly
17:21 - The “polis”
17:33 - See “Philosophers Justifying Slavery” from BBC Ethics Guide
20:02 - See The Declaration of Independence - “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”
20:17 - In ancient Athens, slaves were not citizens, and they considerably outnumbered male citizens. Greeks sometimes enslaved other Greeks in wars, but most slaves in Athens were foreigners. Slavery was hereditary, and freeing one’s slaves was rare.This extensive slave underclass gave the citizen elite time for leisure and contemplation, which was important for political participation in the Athenian democracy. For more on Aristotle’s views on slavery and why it was natural and necessary for the good of the state, see the links in the show notes. From today’s vantage point we can firmly say that there’s no such thing as a natural slave, and no morally acceptable justification for slavery, so I guess that sense Aristotle clearly didn’t know it all - a humble reminder to us mere mortals that even the smartest people can be badly misguided and fail to critically examine their own beliefs and society’s customs, and that future generations are likely to be horrified at some of the views we hold and justify today. - For more see “Aristotle’s Defense of Slavery” from 1000-Word Philosophy
21:40 - “Don’t criticize what you can’t understand” from the The Times They Are A-Changin’ by Bob Dylan
22:05 - See “The Work Required To Have An Opinion” from the Farnam Street Blog
22:44 - I think Yo-Yo Ma is a pretty damn good cellist even if I don’t know exactly why (other than it sounds absolutely perfect and beautiful to my ears) - If you want some Yo-Yo Ma base level knowledge I highly recommend checking out this video featuring a beautiful rendition of Bach’s Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major, Prélude
23:13 - Anchoring (cognitive bias)
25:00 - Based on criteria he lays out, Aristotle first rules out some other options as the supreme end, such as a pleasure or honor, before settling on eudaimonia, or happiness. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Scholars in fact dispute whether eudaimonia is best rendered as ‘happiness’ or ‘flourishing’ or ‘living well’ ...eudaimonia is achieved, according to Aristotle, by fully realizing our natures, by actualizing to the highest degree our human capacities, and neither our nature nor our endowment of human capacities is a matter of choice for us. Still, as Aristotle frankly acknowledges, people will consent without hesitation to the suggestion that happiness is our best good—even while differing materially about how they understand what happiness is. So, while seeming to agree, people in fact disagree about the human good. Consequently, it is necessary to reflect on the nature of happiness. Regardless, it seems clear that Aristotle was looking at a concept more akin to Maslow’s self-actualization over a lifetime than to the state of mind associated with moments of happiness experienced throughout our days, or happiness as we commonly understand it today. For more see Aristotle - Happiness and Political Association
25:55 - Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
27:57 - In his Metaphysics, Aristotle states that “Human beings began to do philosophy... as they do now, because of wonder, at first because they wondered about the strange things right in front of them, and then later, advancing little by little, because they came to find greater things puzzling” Human beings philosophize because they find aspects of their experience puzzling. The sorts of puzzles, or aporiai, we encounter in thinking about the universe and our place within it tax our understanding and induce us to philosophize. When encountered with puzzles, such as the ones that typically exist at the end of many of Plato’s Socratic dialogues, Aristotle’s pragmatic method was to begin philosophizing by trusting in his well-trained perceptual and cognitive faculties, looking out at the world, and laying out the the phainomena, or, the things appearing to be the case, and then also collecting the endoxa, or the most credible opinions handed down regarding the specific puzzles that he was investigating. Then he would explore the multiple opinions and see what wisdom could be gleaned, often seeking the middle ground between extreme positions. By employing this method Aristotle was practicing a sort of empirical philosophy, almost scientific in approach, as opposed to purely relying on his own theorizing or logic. For more see Phainomena and the Endoxic Method
29:15 - The History of Political Science
30:20 - See Sam Harris and The Moral Landscape - Harris is a somewhat controversial figure nowadays. He lays out his vision in his 2010 book The Moral Landscape, which among other things argues that science can contribute to our understanding of morality, which has traditionally been the realm of philosophy, and in doing so challenging philosopher David Hume’s conception that it is not possible to derive what “ought” to be simply by describing what “is” as science does. Whether you agree or disagree, like Aristotle, Harris is undoubtedly trying to apply rational and reasoned thinking, and is quite articulate in doing so. Certainly this is an extremely complex topic that merits much deeper conversation.
31:46- See “The Sophists” from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or “Nature of Sophistic Thought” from Encyclopedia Brittanica
32:15 - Thrasymachus and justice as the “advantage of the stronger”
33:21 - See BI Episode 03 - “The Examined Life”
35:51 - According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the difficulty of his task helps to explain why Socrates takes the curious route through the discussion of civic justice and civic happiness. Socrates can assume that a just city is always more successful or happy than an unjust city, furthermore, If Socrates can then explain how a just city is always more successful and happy than an unjust city, by giving an account of civic justice and civic happiness, he will have a model to propose for the relation between personal justice and flourishing. Socrates’ strategy depends on an analogy between a city and a person. There must be some intelligible relation between what makes a city successful and what makes a person successful. For more see “Socrates’ Adopted Strategy”
37:29 - Nature vs Nurture
39:17 - See BI Episode 4 - “Too Cultured”
39:33 - See Key Terms: Auxiliaries, Guardians, Producers - Plato divides his just society into three classes: the producers, the auxiliaries, and the guardians. The auxiliaries are the warriors, responsible for defending the city from invaders, and for keeping the peace at home.They must enforce the convictions of the guardians, and ensure that the producers obey. The guardians are responsible for ruling the city. They are chosen from among the ranks of the auxiliaries, and are also known as philosopher-kings. The producing class is the largest class of society; it is a catch-all group that includes all professions other than warrior and ruler. Farmers and craftsmen are producers, as are merchants, doctors, artists, actors, lawyers, judges, and so forth.
39:40 - See Key Terms: Tripartite Soul, Appetite, Spirit, Reason - According to Plato, the human soul has three parts corresponding to the three classes of society in a just city. Reason lusts after truth and is the source of all of our philosophic desires. In the just man, the entire soul is ruled by reason, and strives to fulfill reason’s desires. Appetite is the largest aspect of our tripartite soul. It is the seat of all our various desires for food, drink, sexual gratification, and other such pleasures. It contains both necessary desires, which should be indulged (such as the desire to eat enough to stay alive), unnecessary desires, which should be limited (such as the desire to eat a ten pound sirloin steak at every meal), and unlawful desires, which should be suppressed at all costs (such as the desire to eat one’s children). Spirit is the source of our honor-loving and victory-loving desires. Spirit is responsible for our feelings of anger and indignation. In a just soul, spirit acts as henchman to reason, ensuring that appetite adheres to reason’s commands.
39:42 - Plato divides his just society into three classes: the producers, the auxiliaries, and the guardians, which he then analogizes to the tripartite soul which comprises the appetite, the spirit, and the reason.
43:49 - See “Freud: Id, Ego, and Superego” at Simply Psychology
44:28 - In his book, The Happiness Hypothesis, psychologist Jonathan Haidt characterizes the human mind as a partnership between separate but connected entities using the metaphor of the rider and the elephant - the rider represents all that is conscious and is the director of actions and executor of thought and long term goals, while the elephant represents all that is automatic, and often acts independently of conscious thought. According to Haidt, our problem is that we overemphasize the power and importance of our conscious verbal thinking and neglect the other components of our mind. In his book, he argues that we must improve our understanding of these divisions and learn to let them operate in harmony, not compete for control. For more see Jonathan Haidt: The Contributions of a Moral Psychologist and The Happiness Hypothesis