Aristotle: The Right-Wing Misogynist

 Greetings,

Through some research and reading in to philosophy it has come to my attention that Aristotle had misogynistic and right-wing tendencies in his political and social thought. He rejected Plato's thought of his Republic, which mind you contains questionable thoughts on the lines of eugenics (no really, it does), describing the flaws in Plato's idea of the perfect society and governmental form. These tendencies need to be discussed in some detail, exposed to the light of discovery so people may understand the flaws of this so-called "great man" of philosophy.

Of Government

"Aristotle was honestly conservative because of the turmoil and disaster that had come out of Athenian democracy." (Durant, 1957: 63) This points toward Aristotle being directed toward the more conservative side of politics as a result of the failures he has seen in the "birth-place of democracy". His reaction to this situation was to reject the Republic of Plato, "Aristotle fights the realism of Plato about universals, and idealism of Plato about government." (Durant, 1957: 64). His view is that maybe Plato's ideal of his communistic society may have worked in the distant past with smaller communities, the problem is that it doesn't work with larger societies with wider divisions of labour.

"where the division of labor into unequally important functions elicits and enlarges the naatural inequality of men, communism breaks down because it provides no adequate incentive for the exertion of superior abilities. The stimulus of gain is necessary to arduous work; and the stimulus of ownership is necessary to proper industry, husbandry and care." (Durant, 1957:64)

All that has been demonstrated so far is that Aristotle is not in favour of Plato's model and that he is not in favour of democracy, or communism for that matter. His political feelings on the matter are further explained in the same text, based upon the problem of the "average" human being, and more important that there are those who are "below average".

How far right?

"Because the people are so easily misled, and so fickle in their views, the ballot should be limited to the intelligent. What we need is a combination of aristocracy and democracy." (Durant, 1957:70). His method would limit the ballot to a selection of the population. His aristocracy is one based on education, the ones who vote are the educated. Only those who have been prepared for the task will be allowed to vote, "the human average, is nearer to the beast than to the god. The great majority of men are natural dunces and sluggards;" (Durant, 1957:65). His politics are hard-hitting and pointed toward an elite making the decisions, at least they will be an educated elite; and it is likely that these will primarily be men.

Of Relationships

"Woman is to man as the slave to the master, the manual to the mental worker, the barbarian to the Greek. Woman is an unfinished man, left standing on a lower step in the scale of development. The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; the one rules and the other is ruled; and this principle extends, of necessity, to all mankind." (Durant, 1957:66)

The woman, according to Aristotle is definitively subservient to the man. The one serving the other as is described above. Once again, he attacks Plato's ideas of making woman more like the man so they can do the same sort of things, "rather dissimilarity should be increased; nothing is so attractive as the different." (Durant, 1957:66). Aristotle would not have his women changed to men but kept the same as they are because they are more attractive that way; this is for the purposes of marriage, of course. This reflects his more conservative views.

Of Marriage

"As if to give the male an indispensable advantage, he advises him to defer marriage till the vicinity of thirty-seven, and then to marry a lass of some twenty years." (Durant, 1957:66). The marriage of teens which occurred in the Middle Ages is certainly not a practice advised by Aristotle. Indeed he discusses the importance of waiting until they are of a suitable age before marrying. "The union off male and female when too young is bad for the creation of children; ... Health is more important than love." (Durant, 1957:67). His focus is on the production of off-spring and population control, not the relationship between man and woman, and the former he regards as a matter for the state, along with education.

How will you react?

Had most of these ideas been intimated by some contemporary person of influence, or celebrity today, then all of their books would be burned, CDs ceremoniously smashed and burned, and  products boycotted. However this is Aristotle, from which we get the "Aristotelian logic" among other important thoughts and axioms. His definitive leanings toward the right of politics, they could be explained as being "a part of his culture" or "a part of his time", as could his feelings about the opposite sex. The same were actually used by later generations, as is evident in some medieval cultures; many of his thoughts are still influencing the way we think and the way do things now.

When a book is read it is the expression of an individual's thoughts. The reader then has the option of accepting those thoughts, whole, in part, or not at all. The same could be said of a person's music. You don't have to like an entire album; you don't even have to like the person who produces the music to like it. The important thing here is that there needs to be a separation of the individual from the product.

If you dig deep enough, you will find skeletons in anyone's closet. 

How you react to that skeleton when it is exposed is up to you. Remember that many of the writers of the past were living in vastly different times to our own, this needs to be taken into account when you read their material. Remember, everyone is human and makes mistakes, and has quirks to their character. Is it necessary to burn books and destroy items when a person is "found out"? If this is so, then we are going to run out of books fast, because there are a lot of historical writers that should be first on the chopping block, and a lot that will have to be "excused" because they are "useful"...

One final thought, when does this lead toward censorship?

Cheers,

Henry.

Bibliography

Durant, W. (1957) The Story of Philosophy (2nd edition), Simon and Schuster, New York, p63 

On Forbearance

 Greetings,

What is forbearance? Why is he rattling on about it? Why is it so important? Yes, these questions I will answer, or at least I will give you my answers to these questions. I think it is one of those words that is not used anymore, it has gone out of circulation. So, it is a concept that we don't think about anymore. It is one that I have come across in parts of my reading and I think it is one we should consider. This question of forbearance is of importance for our associations with others.

What is Forbearance?

"the quality of being patient and being able to forgive someone or control yourself in a difficult situation" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/forbearance)

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines forbearance above. It is the quality of being patient with someone else's issues, or about having some self-control in a difficult situation. The definition is applied either to the effect upon another person or upon the self. The "formal" definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary applies primarily to the self, and primarily concerns self-control.

"the quality of someone who is patient and able to deal with a difficult person or situation without becoming angry" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forbearance)

The focus of forbearance from the definitions above would seem to be on self-control, but primarily in dealing with a difficult person or a difficult situation. Here it is expected that the common expectation of patience and self-control are expressed in forbearance, and if we take this as part of its prime expression then we gain understanding. 

Asked, But Not Given

There is often the situation that a person will beg a person's forgiveness because they have been forgetful and forgotten to bring something, or do something for the other. Yet when it comes to another situation, the same person who was forgiven is impatient with the other person and cannot give the same patience, the same forgiveness, the same forbearance as they were given. The situation is also seen when a person with an illness does a bad thing, they expect forgiveness because of their illness.

“Why forbearance. - You suffer, and demand that we should be forbearing towards you when as a result of your suffering you do wrong to things and to men! But what does our forbearance matter! You, however, ought to be more cautious for your own sake! What a fine way of compensating for your suffering it is to go on and destroy your own judgment! Your revenge rebounds upon you yourself when you defame something; it is your own eye you dim, not that of another: you accustom yourself to seeing distortedly!” Nietzsche, F. (1997) Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Translated by R. J. Hollingdale) p.134:214

Nietzsche would argue that the person with the illness should be more careful, more wary in the situation because they know they have the illness. He argues that by allowing their illness to run rampant, letting it have its way, it destroys their judgement. You begin to see in a distorted fashion, everything is viewed askew, primarily about the things the person can be excused for rather than the things that should be countered, avoided or simply dealt with in a more healthy fashion. Learning from these incidences and applying the learning is a start. 

In another case an individual would have no forbearance for those who act the same, even though they do it themselves. There has to be a line, where the excuses stop and a person takes responsibility for their actions and their situation. A person has to question is whether it is right that forbearance is given.

Is it Right?

Why should a person be given forbearance? How have they earned the right? Is a person given forbearance because they had or have no control at the time, or because the individual who gives it does have control at the time? If it is the latter, then the better for the individual who gives than the one who receives, for the giver certainly is the stronger. What of the question of reciprocity? A person who is given forbearance; in equal measure, should they not also be tolerant and patient with others?

The reciprocity is often not seen. Some are excused while others are not, the same occurs with many parts of our world with many parts of our culture that has developed. People expect to be excused because that is the way they have learned, or that is the way they were brought up, or for other reasons and that is fine according to some. Yet others claim the same, and their methods, their ways of doing things have to be changed, there is no forbearance at all. For some, "they need time to learn", so there is some consideration expected. For others, they are expected to have learned, or to learn it quickly.

Forbearance, like self-control, and patience to which it is intimately related to need to be learned by all; they need to be used by all; for the benefit of all. This is the only way it is going to work. 

What you expect, you should give out to begin with and in return.

Cheers,

Henry.

On Fortitude

 Greetings,

Fortitude seems to be an old word, one that does not come up very often. It is a concept which people have ideas about, but it is not often seen in the modern world, which is unfortunate. There are instances and events where it is expressed, but it should be more generally known. It is a characteristic which can determine the individual who will achieve their goals and the one who will not. To understand a thing a person must first know what's being discussed.

To begin with there needs to be some discussion of definition. The first comes from the Oxford dictionary and states that fortitude is, "courage in pain or adversity." A second definition which gives a little bit more about the subject comes from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and provides not only a definition of the word but a secondary definition not used. "1 : strength of mind that enables a person to encounter danger or bear pain or adversity with courage. 2 obsolete : strength."

Both of these sources point toward fortitude as strength of some description, in one example it is simply strength, in the others it is the strength to face adversity, strength of mind, having the courage to face such adversities and continue onward. This concept of strength which is present in the concept of fortitude comes from its Latin root.

"Fortitude comes from the Latin word fortis, meaning "strong," and in English it has always been used primarily to describe strength of mind. For a time, the word was also used to mean physical strength"

This is, again, sourced from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and accompanies the definition of the word, for those who would read on a little bit further than the definition. It notes that while fortitude has been primarily used to describe strength of mind, as indicated previously, the word has also been used as indicated by its Latin root, to simply describe physical strength. When looking at such things the Latin word "fortitudo" is used to describe: strength, bravery, valour, and courage. 

Fortitude is a characteristic which we see in some people, they strive despite the odds of success, and they are admired for such efforts, so they should be. A person who works to better themselves should be encouraged to do so. A person who seeks to fulfil a goal they have set themselves should be encouraged to push onward to that goal. 

Too often in our modern world we see a person strive, and others who have chosen not to strive, to remain settled, complacent, comfortable, not willing to risk what they have. The settled ones try to cut those who strive down, trying to bring them back. A person who stands out from the rest because they have chosen to do good things, to push their limits, to improve themselves, is criticised, shown how they are leaving others behind, shown how they stand out as if it is a bad thing rather than encouraged. Sometimes this is called the "tall poppy" syndrome. It is because they are envious of the success, they are envious of the fortitude of these individuals.

How often do we see that people look for the easy way out? They look for they easy road to take. How much easier is it to stay at home rather than travel? How often do we decide not to attend things because it might be bad weather? The lack of fortitude is evident in many places, even in what is praised by society; avoiding taxes, short-cutting jobs, finding an easy way rather than the proper way. These little things reduce our fortitude encourage us to give up and find the easy way out.

The individual with fortitude will push through the difficulties, will choose to take the road that takes them to their destination regardless of how it looks, regardless of how windy or bumpy it might be. For the individual with fortitude the journey to the destination is as fulfilling as reaching the destination, and they will push through the difficulties, whatever they may be. 

Do you strive for your goals, or sit complacently, sitting comfortably? Do you encourage or do you discourage? Do you have fortitude? 

Cheers,

Henry.

It's the Journey Not the Destination

 Greetings,

I am going to get a little philosophical during this one, and I ask the reader to bear with me. I hope to identify something which has been rattling around in my mind for a little while that I think needs to be said. It identifies a problem in our fast-food, instant-solution, must have it now, culture which has developed over the more recent decades. People simply do not appreciate the benefits of simple things such as good long walks or drives to no particular destination. Nor do they appreciate stories which could have been solved with quick fixes.

Let me present a meme which I found using Google Image search, there is a link attached to the image for those of you who are interested, and in part the page to which it is linked demonstrates a lot of what I am discussing here. I could argue the point with many of their 25, but I will pick one that will cover much of it:

There are many memes and videos on YouTube and other places showing how the Lord of the Rings trilogy could have been shortened through the use of the eagles. Gandalf the Grey could have simply called one, allowed Frodo to mount the eagle, they could have flown over Mount Doom, tossed the ring in and presto, doom of the world averted. The life of Boromir would have been saved as a result, along with a long cast of other characters.

Now the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and I am not including the Hobbit, for those who want to pick at that point is some 481,103 words long. It is a rather long read, and it does have its points where there is slow going and a little hard to read. The movies by Peter Jackson, 3 hours plus, depending on which version you watch, are an epic watch in themselves, and they miss parts of the story out. So maybe a shortened version would be nice, but who would be the person to pick which bits you would take out, and then stand against all the complaints that would inevitably follow.

But, would the crisis have truly totally been averted? Sauron may have given agency and instruction to Saurman to build his army of Uruk-hai, but the threat was still present, threatening Rohan. What about the attacks that were already occurring here? What about the threat of the hill tribes? What about the jealousy that already existed between Rohan and Gondor? We have seen in our world how jealousy leads to war, why should we think that the Men of the West would be any different?

What about the development of characters along the way? Gandalf would have remained "the Grey" never having slain the Balrog. Aragorn would not become King, the world of men would remain disunited, separate, squabbling among one another, prime victims for any other crisis that may come along to threaten Middle Earth, and there is always a next crisis. If history has told us anything, there is always another crisis just below the horizon.

I mean, there is also the development of other characters to consider. Frodo had the hardest journey of all, and the prime focus is always on him and his resistance to the One Ring. There is also the split personality of Gollum which is contended with, these often overshadow the development of other characters. The growing friendship between two individuals who formerly would not have considered each other friends at all in Legolas and Gimli. Then there is the growing courage, or the realisation of his true courage in Samwise Gamgee, who follows Frodo to the bitter end, who realises his love for the simple life, and courage in all things. There is also the development of Pippin Took, who starts as a fool and develops courage and responsibility by the end, and his friend Merriadoc Brandibuck who discovers courage in the end fighting for those he loves. All of these things would not have happened if the journey had not taken place, if each event in their lives had not taken place.

In the immortal words of the band Tism, "Its the horse not the horseshit." The horseshit in this case truly is the destination, the result. It may be good for fertiliser, again another journey, but I think more people are interested in the horse. We must look at stories, like Lord of the Rings, and the Hobbit, and others as taking us on a journey. We follow the characters through their trials and tribulations, watching them develop and grow. If we were only interested in the destination, we would only read the last chapter of each novel that we pick up, but we don't we take the book in hand and read each chapter in turn.

It bothers me a little that there are so many of the memes and YouTube clips showing how the Lord of the Rings could have been ended more quickly. I think that the people who present these memes and videos have missed the point of the story, they do not understand the greater qualities of the story that has been presented before them. The greater depth of character that is shown in the characters within the story and how they develop along the way. I think that they are too addicted in seeing the result as soon as possible missing the point of the journey.

Appreciate the journey that the author or director takes you on, watch as the characters go through different circumstances and develop. Think about the journeys that you have been on and how they have changed you. Take time to enjoy the journey that you are on, every journey that you participate in, each one is a chance to develop your character and to learn something about yourself. Don't be too eager for the destination, you may miss something special in between.

Cheers,

Henry.