5 ms·

Great mind? I don't think so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_slavery

cgh 2y ago
This is addressed in the article.
- optimalsolver 2y ago
  Addressed how? Just a meek claim that Artistotle may have been misinterpreted. Meek because the author knowingly can't argue with Aristotle's own stringent defense of the "right kind" of slavery.
  - Boogie_Man 2y ago
    Is the unstated central thrust of your statement that someone who philosophically supported slavery at a time when it was a widespread practice must necessarily be of average or below average intelligence? If so, I'd argue that you're committing two common missteps I see frequently: 1. Conflating intellectual greatness with moral goodness. These are separate categories. 2. Applying current moral standards to a previous time. You must compare him to others if his time. Slavery is unquestionably immoral, and it's perfectly reasonable to argue that someone completing philosophical work to support slavery is committing a moral wrong, but you have to keep in mind the society into which this person was enculturated and the time at which he lived.
    - optimalsolver 2y ago
      >must necessarily be of average or below average intelligence Literally yes. A mind too dense to see he was drafting his arguments in support of whatever happened to be personally convenient. Considering he had to pen this screed in the first place, we can tell his view wasn't the exclusive one.
      - Boogie_Man 2y ago
        Do you feel that Caesar must necessarily have been militarily and politically dense because of the war crimes he committed?
        optimalsolver 2y ago
        Well I'm sure his final thoughts were along the lines that he wasn't the brilliant mastermind he thought he was.
      - jumpoddly 2y ago
        For the sake of recognizing a hill I too would be proud to die on, and so you know there are others who feel the same: I agree with you. I like to think the negative feedback you are receiving is due to the ambiguity, and so, the multitude of definitions for “intelligence” that each of us has. I know I have met people who others have touted as “intelligent” that I thought were too deplorable to be given such an accolade. I am with you, one of my measures of intelligence is how one recognizes the collective fate of all life. Debating such a subject leaves me with too much ire to articulate sufficiently so I will lean on the eloquence of Martin Luther King Jr: > Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.
        optimalsolver 2y ago
        Thanks. It really restores a bit of faith in humanity to know I'm not the only one who views things this way.
        Boogie_Man 2y ago
        There are a few reasons why I believe it's important to separate intelligence from moral goodness The first and most basic is because they are different things, and for the sake of clarity different things should have different words to refer to them. The second is because it allows us to have intelligent conversations about people who are intelligent but morally bad, or who are unintelligent but morally good. The person with an IQ barely above that of the strict definition of mentally retarded (or below, but questions of agency and responsibly arise so we won't use them in our example) who recognizes the humanity in every person and volunteers at the soup kitchen every chance he gets is morally good for doing so. The 180IQ engineer who manages the highly complex train schedule to keep the extermination camps running at capacity is morally bad for doing so. The third is because it allows individuals to recognize that blind respect of intelligence which is unguided by morals or wisdom is a fool's errand. The fourth is because is prevents the moralizing of language from hampering the clarity of language The fifth is because the conflation of intelligence and morality provides an easy pathway to morally wrong positions. If the messaging is that "evil people are dumb!" and an impressionable individual encounters an intelligent person making a persuasive argument for something which is morally wrong, you've robbed them of a framework with which to engage and combat this person's ideas. The sixth and final reason is that modification of language in this way hampers our ability to consider the world independent of our societal preconceived notions. I found the previous comments in this chain ironic because the individual who was calling a great (highly intelligent) philosopher a dunce for being unable to see beyond his cultural ethical norms was doing so from a position which is deeply entrenched in his current cultural and ethical norms, i.e. the inherent evils of slavery, the requirement of strict moral purity, the compulsion to attack every perceived positive characteristic of someone who is morally bad in order to devalue them and their intellectual contributions, and the perception of the world as a pitched battle between good and evil wherein righteous indignation should be one's perpetual state. Now of course I agree with this commentator's ethical preconceptions related to slavery, but that's secondary to the importance of the things I listed above in how I approach Aristotle. I mean no disrespect and I hope this has been helpful in understanding my perspective.
aspenmayer 2y ago
By that metric, Jesus didn’t free the slaves, either, and he said slaves should obey their masters.
- optimalsolver 2y ago
  That would suck if Jesus wasn't some random cult leader.
mbivert 2y ago
Most contemporary people can't freely dispose of their time. Their ability to move in space is restricted likewise. Aren't they essentially [part-time] slaves? That is, by comparison with people who can dispose of themselves freely. Note that I'm assuming an objective/neutral definition of "slavery", and not the usual "slavery=bad thing". Now, we could argue that it's a matter of education, circumstances, etc. But surely you must have met people who would obstinately refuse to listen to reason, entertaining their own misery. At least IME, it's sadly a common trait.
- optimalsolver 2y ago
  So, just to be clear, you believe slavery and employment are just a difference in degree, not a difference in kind?
  - mbivert 2y ago
    At least when defining "slavery" as "restricting people to dispose freely of their time, space (or goods…)", and when considering the way most people on Earth are employed today, yes. Of course, if we define "slavery" as "harsh, senseless, cruel, violent, selfish abuse of other humans", then (I hope in the vast majority of cases), no, contemporary employment and slavery are different in kind. But I do think there are reasons to doubt this second definition to have been systematically accurate. For example, it makes no sense, from a cost-effectiveness point of view, for a slave owner to mistreat his slaves that much: it's in his best interest to make sure they live decently. Or, in a society where slavery is culturally acceptable, hence widespread, many slave owners must not have been this inhumane. I'm not saying it never occurred, merely that there are good reasons to think that it wasn't as systematic as we tend to believe.
    - optimalsolver 2y ago
      > from a cost-effectiveness point of view What's the cost-effectiveness of a master selling one of his female slave's children away from her, which was a regular occurrence?

cgh 2y ago

This is addressed in the article.

optimalsolver 2y ago
Addressed how? Just a meek claim that Artistotle may have been misinterpreted. Meek because the author knowingly can't argue with Aristotle's own stringent defense of the "right kind" of slavery.
- Boogie_Man 2y ago
  Is the unstated central thrust of your statement that someone who philosophically supported slavery at a time when it was a widespread practice must necessarily be of average or below average intelligence? If so, I'd argue that you're committing two common missteps I see frequently: 1. Conflating intellectual greatness with moral goodness. These are separate categories. 2. Applying current moral standards to a previous time. You must compare him to others if his time. Slavery is unquestionably immoral, and it's perfectly reasonable to argue that someone completing philosophical work to support slavery is committing a moral wrong, but you have to keep in mind the society into which this person was enculturated and the time at which he lived.
  - optimalsolver 2y ago
    >must necessarily be of average or below average intelligence Literally yes. A mind too dense to see he was drafting his arguments in support of whatever happened to be personally convenient. Considering he had to pen this screed in the first place, we can tell his view wasn't the exclusive one.
    - Boogie_Man 2y ago
      Do you feel that Caesar must necessarily have been militarily and politically dense because of the war crimes he committed?
      - optimalsolver 2y ago
        Well I'm sure his final thoughts were along the lines that he wasn't the brilliant mastermind he thought he was.
    - jumpoddly 2y ago
      For the sake of recognizing a hill I too would be proud to die on, and so you know there are others who feel the same: I agree with you. I like to think the negative feedback you are receiving is due to the ambiguity, and so, the multitude of definitions for “intelligence” that each of us has. I know I have met people who others have touted as “intelligent” that I thought were too deplorable to be given such an accolade. I am with you, one of my measures of intelligence is how one recognizes the collective fate of all life. Debating such a subject leaves me with too much ire to articulate sufficiently so I will lean on the eloquence of Martin Luther King Jr: > Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.
      - optimalsolver 2y ago
        Thanks. It really restores a bit of faith in humanity to know I'm not the only one who views things this way.
      - Boogie_Man 2y ago
        There are a few reasons why I believe it's important to separate intelligence from moral goodness The first and most basic is because they are different things, and for the sake of clarity different things should have different words to refer to them. The second is because it allows us to have intelligent conversations about people who are intelligent but morally bad, or who are unintelligent but morally good. The person with an IQ barely above that of the strict definition of mentally retarded (or below, but questions of agency and responsibly arise so we won't use them in our example) who recognizes the humanity in every person and volunteers at the soup kitchen every chance he gets is morally good for doing so. The 180IQ engineer who manages the highly complex train schedule to keep the extermination camps running at capacity is morally bad for doing so. The third is because it allows individuals to recognize that blind respect of intelligence which is unguided by morals or wisdom is a fool's errand. The fourth is because is prevents the moralizing of language from hampering the clarity of language The fifth is because the conflation of intelligence and morality provides an easy pathway to morally wrong positions. If the messaging is that "evil people are dumb!" and an impressionable individual encounters an intelligent person making a persuasive argument for something which is morally wrong, you've robbed them of a framework with which to engage and combat this person's ideas. The sixth and final reason is that modification of language in this way hampers our ability to consider the world independent of our societal preconceived notions. I found the previous comments in this chain ironic because the individual who was calling a great (highly intelligent) philosopher a dunce for being unable to see beyond his cultural ethical norms was doing so from a position which is deeply entrenched in his current cultural and ethical norms, i.e. the inherent evils of slavery, the requirement of strict moral purity, the compulsion to attack every perceived positive characteristic of someone who is morally bad in order to devalue them and their intellectual contributions, and the perception of the world as a pitched battle between good and evil wherein righteous indignation should be one's perpetual state. Now of course I agree with this commentator's ethical preconceptions related to slavery, but that's secondary to the importance of the things I listed above in how I approach Aristotle. I mean no disrespect and I hope this has been helpful in understanding my perspective.

aspenmayer 2y ago

By that metric, Jesus didn’t free the slaves, either, and he said slaves should obey their masters.

optimalsolver 2y ago
That would suck if Jesus wasn't some random cult leader.

mbivert 2y ago

Most contemporary people can't freely dispose of their time. Their ability to move in space is restricted likewise. Aren't they essentially [part-time] slaves? That is, by comparison with people who can dispose of themselves freely. Note that I'm assuming an objective/neutral definition of "slavery", and not the usual "slavery=bad thing". Now, we could argue that it's a matter of education, circumstances, etc. But surely you must have met people who would obstinately refuse to listen to reason, entertaining their own misery. At least IME, it's sadly a common trait.

optimalsolver 2y ago
So, just to be clear, you believe slavery and employment are just a difference in degree, not a difference in kind?
- mbivert 2y ago
  At least when defining "slavery" as "restricting people to dispose freely of their time, space (or goods…)", and when considering the way most people on Earth are employed today, yes. Of course, if we define "slavery" as "harsh, senseless, cruel, violent, selfish abuse of other humans", then (I hope in the vast majority of cases), no, contemporary employment and slavery are different in kind. But I do think there are reasons to doubt this second definition to have been systematically accurate. For example, it makes no sense, from a cost-effectiveness point of view, for a slave owner to mistreat his slaves that much: it's in his best interest to make sure they live decently. Or, in a society where slavery is culturally acceptable, hence widespread, many slave owners must not have been this inhumane. I'm not saying it never occurred, merely that there are good reasons to think that it wasn't as systematic as we tend to believe.
  - optimalsolver 2y ago
    > from a cost-effectiveness point of view What's the cost-effectiveness of a master selling one of his female slave's children away from her, which was a regular occurrence?