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 

The SCA: A Meritocracy

Greetings

Disclaimer: I speak as an individual member, not as a member of any corporate or organisational body. I am not representing any organisation within or without the Society for Creative Anachronism. Like all of my previous articles, this is my opinion and ideas about the subject.

The SCA

The SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) is an international Medieval and Renaissance recreation organisation, and the only one that I know of that can claim to be an international one. There are satellites of the main group all over the world. Its stated purpose on many of its pamphlets is to "live the period the way it should have been." What does this mean exactly? Well, it means that we focus our attention on all the "good" bits of the period, and there are certain elements of the societies of the period the Society brushes aside.

The Society doesn't do the Inquisition, and up to recently it didn't do the Plague. Certain elements of reality have intruded upon "the game" and have imposed certain elements of the plague upon the game. Within the core of the Society is the chance to show the world a better way.

On the surface, the SCA's traditions seem quaint and medieval, even a little barbaric in certain circumstances. The ruling Crowns (typically a King and Queen) of each Kingdom are chosen by right of arms in a tournament held once every six months. If a person looks below the surface, one finds something more interesting. The individuals who achieve this have to be skilled in their pursuit, have trained to achieve this goal, to become the nominal/titular head of state for this period. The ruling is by right of skill, by ability.

More interestingly, the individuals who hold the real power, the seneschals, think like a president of an organisation, these are selected from among the populace. How? By vote? No, they submit applications, and the best person for the job is selected. This is the case for the SCA, it shows the way as a meritocracy; and has the chance to show the world a better way, a way in which people moved and awarded based on their merits. 

Define "Meritocracy"

To understand exactly what is being spoken about, and to ensure that both author and reader have the same meaning, the term "meritocracy" needs to be defined. There are three different definitions which will be presented, to give a better, more rounded definition. What will be noted with each definition is that success in these systems is based on ability, merit and achievement.

"a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meritocracy)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition is simple and indicates towards individuals being rewarded with increased position and so forth based on their abilities and merits. A meritocracy when examined literally is rule by merit, so this definition goes simply for the source of how individuals attain increased positions.

"a social system, society, or organization in which people get success or power because of their abilities, not because of their money or social position:" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/meritocracy)

The Cambridge Dictionary definition tells both the reason that individuals gain success and power, through their abilities, but also examines the subject from a more current perspective, it could be said, stating that individuals do not gain such successes because of their money or their social position. This makes a comparison between the meritocracy and other systems. The Collins Dictionary definition approaches the definition from a similar approach.

"A meritocracy is a society or social system in which people get status or rewards because of what they achieve, rather than because of their wealth or social status." (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/meritocracy)

The definition does not only focus on the merits of the individual, but also upon their achievements, and this is also important, especially in regard to our current conversation. There is also comment about how the meritocracy does not focus on the individual's wealth or social status as in the previous definition from the Cambridge Dictionary.

Achievement Through Merit

The SCA has a system of awards intended to highlight the achievements of its members. To present these members as having done something for their local groups, and even wider groups, as something which is significant to the group. This award system is prevalent throughout the Society and is based on award recommendations which are sent highlighting what individuals have been seen to be doing. Individuals are awarded and achieve levels of rank on the basis of merit, rather than any wealth or social standing they might hold outside the Society. 

Officer positions are granted on the basis, where there is more than one individual applying for the position, on the basis of merit, what the individual can bring to the office, rather than any social standing the individual might have, so on the basis of merit. This means that the best person to do the job is, or should be, given the position out of a selection of candidates. Evaluation is on the basis of merit and achievement. 

The method describes forms a blue-print which allows the most talented, those with most merit to rise to the top. This means that the individual who works well with others, and achieves things for the group is more likely to achieve awards and officers than the individual who does not have such merits. Such is the idea behind a meritocracy. It is not a perfect system because there are those who must choose between one individual and another for the awarding of officers and awards, but it certainly, in its best form demonstrates fewer flaws than other systems.

System Comparison

In an aristocratic system, there is a family which has a certain blood-line which means they are in power. Power is inherited because of the family blood-line. The only way to come to power in this system is through inheritance, inter-marriage or violent over-throw, replacing one family with another, and history can be examined for examples of such incidences of each type of change of family inheritance. It does not allow for much change in the system, when in a truly autocratic system.

Many hail the greatness of the democratic system where each individual gets a vote. The history of the democratic system does not bear out this egalitarian approach. In Athens, only male citizens had the vote, which is to say, a smaller percentage of the population. It was not until the twentieth century that both sexes had the vote in many of our "civilised" western societies. 

Even now that each citizen, male or female has the ability to vote at elections, votes are often bought by the politicians with promises of things that they will do; sometimes they fulfil their promises sometimes they don't. People are scared into voting one way or another; how often are governments returned in times of crisis even though they are not actually in the interest of many of the people? People are subject to the propaganda of external influences in the media, and their votes pushed in one direction or the other.

Further, one vote every four years does not give the individual much control over what the politicians do in between times. How many citizens are politically-active at any time other than elections? How many petition, write letters to their local members? How qualified are these individuals to represent our interests?

In many ways the modern democratic system is more of an oligarchy, a rule by the few. On what basis? In a democracy any individual has the ability to represent their people, yes? How often do independents actually get voted in? Why? Often because we don't hear about them because they can't afford the advertising campaign. Most of the politicians' previous occupations place them in the upper strata of society, which means they have the money to start with. The rich get richer; they are out of touch with "the people" which is why the laws are out of touch.

Socialism has been heralded as the great evener, the great saviour of society, it will see the playing field levelled. Everyone will have the same access to resources and so forth. If the system is so effective, so perfect, why did it fail in the Soviet Union? It is simple, it did not level the playing field. It did not have everyone as equal, there was no equality of access to resources. There were still "haves" and "have nots". Socialism did not solve the human tendency for greed; people want more, and more than the next person. The Chairman and his Council of Ministers certainly were treated much better than their comrades in the factories.

A Perfect System?

Is the system that I have described previously within the SCA perfect? Most certainly it is not. It has flaws like any other system that is designed and operated by an organisation of human beings. These flaws need to be acknowledged.

The first problem with the awards system is that for an award to be bestowed, recommendations about the individual for the award need to be written, and not enough get written. In many situations this is because everyone expects that someone else will do it. Or, because the individual does no think that they are important enough that their award will count for something. This is not the case, of course, every recommendation letter is read, and every letter is taken into account, regardless of whom it is from.

The next problem is that there is a human being, or a group of human beings who compares the merits and achievements of individuals. They compare this either to a scale, sometimes internal sometimes external, against which the individual needs to match up to gain that award. Opinions are often gained about the individual and their impact. In each instance there are personal influences which can impact the situation, sometimes these are purely personal, sometimes they are the result of external forces, such as rumour and reputation. Each one of these will impact whether or not an individual gains an award. Essentially, it comes down to the decision of two people.  

Ironically, like the more important decisions of our lives, the more important decisions of the SCA come down to a single person, usually a seneschal. It must be noted that officers within the Society make these important decisions all of the time, on their own, because that is within their officer description. 

There is no perfect system, because there are people involved. Even if an entire system were computerised, the system would still be flawed, because a human would have to write the program, and a human would have to input the data.

Humans make decisions based on their experiences and the various impacts upon their lives including their beliefs and values. Sometimes these beliefs and values come into conflict with one another, we can just hope that there is a way that we can mediate these situations for the best outcome. If the SCA is examined as a society within a society it will be noted that there is a particular approach, while there is violence within the society, there is also a certain gentleness. While there is a certain forceful nature of the society, there is also a definitive politeness. The SCA has sometimes been termed as showing "the pre-1600s the way we would've liked it to have been" or words to that effect, as a political experiment it shows a way forward; putting the best people ahead.

For those of my readers who would like to find out more about the SCA, there are some links to follow below:

https://www.sca.org/

https://lochac.sca.org/ (for Australian readers)

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.