3 ms·

> 2400 years ago Aristotle found out how to be happy. Citation needed > First of all, what makes a thing a good thing? A good thing fulfils its unique functio

by vasco 2y ago

> 2400 years ago Aristotle found out how to be happy. Citation needed > First of all, what makes a thing a good thing? A good thing fulfils its unique function. Something can be good or even the best without being unique, in fact we can only say things are good relatively to other things in a similar category, otherwise we cannot know. Good or bad only makes sense by comparison and uniqueness is rarely the factor. > what is unique about humans: We have a soul that thinks and feels Have you ever interacted with a dog for more than 30 seconds? Philosophers are very good at telling others how to be happy while living miserable lives.

pavlovsgods 2y ago
May we stand judged by our own actions and words and not by SEO posts portraying them :p Aristotle is well worth reading for someone interested in philosophy, but he himself did not claim to have discovered how to be happy (he thought of himself as explicating and systematizing what everyone thinks about happiness), his notion of telos (poorly translated as 'function') is not subject to your rightly raised objection, and, though he did believe that humans are distinguished from non-human animals by possession of a rational faculty, he thought we shared with non-human animals the capacity to feel.
marginalia_nu 2y ago
You're splitting hairs and attacking choices of words that were not made by Aristotle, but the author in trying to summarize Aristotle. You need to put away this sort of sophistry if you want to engage with philosophy. Like > > what is unique about humans: We have a soul that thinks and feels > Have you ever interacted with a dog for more than 30 seconds? You're engaging with half a sentence. The important part is thinks. Aristotle and Plato broke down the human soul into three parts. A hungry part that we share with plants, animals and other humans, an emotional part that we share with animals, and a rational "thinking" part that humans alone possess (though later thinkers like Pico della Mirandola suggest we share it with the angels). https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm
- vasco 2y ago
  Dogs think. Someone not having this basic knowledge of the world is surprising. And I've read plenty of philosophy and engage with it just fine. I think it's perfectly fine to break apart the basic premises of something because you avoid wasting the time reading the conclusions. And in fact my criticism is to the author, not to Aristotle or Plato, although I don't agree with all that I've read that they wrote they were much smarter than me. I just have been able to read way more than them.
  - marginalia_nu 2y ago
    > Dogs think. This is certainly an assertion, given it's hard, bordering on impossible to to demonstrate that other humans think.
    - vasco 2y ago
      If your definition of "think" doesn't directly describe the cognitive processes that happen when humans process and react from the inputs they get, then what does the word mean to you? If you don't agree that humans think, then I think we just need another word. But that other word, applies to both humans and dogs and many other living things.
      - marginalia_nu 2y ago
        In this context I'm trying to capture something like reasoning, λόγος. Philosophy is also not about what we think is true, but what statements we can defend. Solipsism is a notoriously difficult position to attack, even if we do not subscribe to it.
        mannykannot 2y ago
        While solipsism itself is a difficult (and arguably pointless) position to attack, it has been my experience that arguments invoking it are often vulnerable to the charge of doing so inconsistently.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by vasco 2y ago

pavlovsgods 2y ago

May we stand judged by our own actions and words and not by SEO posts portraying them :p Aristotle is well worth reading for someone interested in philosophy, but he himself did not claim to have discovered how to be happy (he thought of himself as explicating and systematizing what everyone thinks about happiness), his notion of telos (poorly translated as 'function') is not subject to your rightly raised objection, and, though he did believe that humans are distinguished from non-human animals by possession of a rational faculty, he thought we shared with non-human animals the capacity to feel.

marginalia_nu 2y ago

You're splitting hairs and attacking choices of words that were not made by Aristotle, but the author in trying to summarize Aristotle. You need to put away this sort of sophistry if you want to engage with philosophy. Like > > what is unique about humans: We have a soul that thinks and feels > Have you ever interacted with a dog for more than 30 seconds? You're engaging with half a sentence. The important part is thinks. Aristotle and Plato broke down the human soul into three parts. A hungry part that we share with plants, animals and other humans, an emotional part that we share with animals, and a rational "thinking" part that humans alone possess (though later thinkers like Pico della Mirandola suggest we share it with the angels). https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/psyche.htm

vasco 2y ago
Dogs think. Someone not having this basic knowledge of the world is surprising. And I've read plenty of philosophy and engage with it just fine. I think it's perfectly fine to break apart the basic premises of something because you avoid wasting the time reading the conclusions. And in fact my criticism is to the author, not to Aristotle or Plato, although I don't agree with all that I've read that they wrote they were much smarter than me. I just have been able to read way more than them.
- marginalia_nu 2y ago
  > Dogs think. This is certainly an assertion, given it's hard, bordering on impossible to to demonstrate that other humans think.
  - vasco 2y ago
    If your definition of "think" doesn't directly describe the cognitive processes that happen when humans process and react from the inputs they get, then what does the word mean to you? If you don't agree that humans think, then I think we just need another word. But that other word, applies to both humans and dogs and many other living things.
    - marginalia_nu 2y ago
      In this context I'm trying to capture something like reasoning, λόγος. Philosophy is also not about what we think is true, but what statements we can defend. Solipsism is a notoriously difficult position to attack, even if we do not subscribe to it.
      - mannykannot 2y ago
        While solipsism itself is a difficult (and arguably pointless) position to attack, it has been my experience that arguments invoking it are often vulnerable to the charge of doing so inconsistently.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]