4 ms·

The thing I like is the reference to Aristotle. Today, there are some people who are too quick to brand anyone who disagrees with their enlightened views as a "

The thing I like is the reference to Aristotle. Today, there are some people who are too quick to brand anyone who disagrees with their enlightened views as a "moron" or worse. There's no winning hearts and minds that way. It's better to gently point out the mistakes of those who are otherwise worthy of respect, in the hopes that this will spur others towards self-reflection, than to castigate and put people on the defensive. We could use more of that.

wutangson1 12y ago
Great point, even considering that Einstein seems to be taking Aristotle and ancient Greek dogma totally out of context. Perhaps, as was and is a tradition in academic circles, he was advocating that contemporary scientists were in fact better and more enlightened than the Greeks. Or, maybe it was a reaction against Hitler's fascination with the ancient Greeks. Yet, Aristotle did not present a clear belief system on slavery, especially considering that even Socrates dialogue Meno, he makes the case for the equality and infinite capacity of all humankind.
- Locke1689 12y ago
  Meno was written by Plato.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Plato wrote Meno and Aristotle presented a very clear belief system on slavery in Book I, Chapters 3 through 7 of The Politics and in Book 7 of the Nicomachean Ethics. "But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?" "There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html edit - mind you, he also had a tendency to write stuff like: "If a woman looks at a highly polished mirror during the menstrual period, the surface of the mirror becomes like a blood shot cloud", so it isn't as though the slavery thing is a small unfortunate oversight in some otherwise wise philosophy. If you forget for a minute that you are dealing with Aristotle, he is consistently quite considerably bonkers, and seemingly just winging it through a lot of his writing, though there is plenty of genius in there as well.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    It'd be funnier if views like this one weren't well-represented in the modern day: > Such are the power given to women in their families in the hope that they will inform against their husbands, and the license which is allowed to slaves in order that they may betray their masters; for slaves and women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies and also to democracies, since under them they have a good time. Book 5.
  - wutangson1 12y ago
    Yes, Plato is the author of the Dialogues of Socrates. My bad if my last sentence was written unclearly to seems as if Aristotle was a student of Socrates. Yet, I suggest going back to that same link you posted and read all of Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics where Aristotle defines courage and what is the only real justification for war. After reading Book II, by the time you get to Book VII, you may not think Aristotle believed people deserved to be slaves. Also, if Aristotle is bonkers, I'd be glad to know who you think the real man/woman of science is. And I hope the answer isn't Einstein.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      The real man/woman of science is obviously the hermaphroditic god-head at the center of creation. Any fool knows that.
      - wutangson1 12y ago
        hackneyed
        lotsofmangos 12y ago
        Well, I don't care if it is the same tired old response that everyone gives. It is always good to spread the word about the godhead and its holy genitalia, which in both quantity and variety are innumerable in even the largest of Cantor's series of infinite sets.
    - 12y ago
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Socrates' dialogues were documented/written by Plato, not Aristotle. While there was certainly a conception of universal potential in ancient Greek philosophy, I think there was also the comfortable assumption that enslaved peoples were inferior insofar as they had allowed themselves to be enslaved in the first place. You could draw a parallel with the relatively limited role of women in Greek society. I think it's this sort of confirmation bias Einstein was taking aim at.
whistlerbrk 12y ago
You are spot on. When we put people in the defensive they often entrench themselves in their position, sometimes even knowing they are/may be wrong.
huxley 12y ago
I don't think Einstein was being that nice, he was essentially saying that intelligence and education were not guarantees against bigotry and bias. Aristotle proposed in Book 1 of Politics that certain human beings were natural slaves, as different from the free citizens of Athens as human beings were from beasts. He argued that barbarians deserved enslavement because they lacked souls. Back in 1550, Aristotle was marshalled in an important debate on race: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate While much of the debate was around the notion that Spain had the right to conquer the Americas, a major part of Bartolomé de las Casas' debate with Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda centred on the rights of Native Americans. Both men were humanist theologians and well versed in classical works, so Aristotle's idea of Natural Slavery was central to their cases. De las Casas argued that native Americans were worthy of the same rights as European Christians because they were rational human beings with souls, not natural slaves. Years later, De las Casas expanded this idea to a universal statement that no human being regardless of race deserved slavery. Sepúlveda took Aristotle on face value and argued that Native Americans were natural slaves and as such didn't deserve to be treated as rational human beings, he made the odious argument that enslaving them was a paternal response which improved their lives. It's important to note that the debate on the shared humanity of the races and their human rights is an argument that is at least half a millennium old.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jacquesm 12y ago
  I have some hope that in 500 years time we will look back at todays debates and have similar thoughts of how terribly out of touch with reality the debaters seemed to be and how obvious their biases and self-serving arguments were. Thank you for restoring some of my faith in humanity.
- mariodiana 12y ago
  Einstein wrote: "It is clear that [Aristotle] was enmeshed in a traditional prejudice from which, despite his extraordinary intellect, he could not free himself." And your comment on that is that "he was essentially saying that intelligence and education were not guarantees against bigotry and bias." I don't see how any of that conflicts with what I've said. It's human nature -- even for people who realize they're no Einstein or Aristotle -- to believe that they know what they're talking about; and it's also human nature to get defensive, since their self-image is often wrapped up in their outlook. If you invoke Aristotle, you give a person an "out." You allow a person the freedom to examine his beliefs while shielding his fragile self-image from coming apart. He can conclude, "I was wrong, but that's okay. Even Aristotle was wrong." Aristotle and Einstein aside, what I'm getting at is this "Fox News vs MSNBC" divide that we have in this country is not doing any of us any good. We can either appeal to people's sympathies, or brand people as self-satisfied, socially irresponsible, head-in-the-sand enablers of the status quo. I think the first is the better strategy. I also think the tone of Einstein's letter is much, much nearer the first than the second.
lnanek2 12y ago
I think the Aristotle point is a very bad one. People captured in war are flat out inferior to people who won the war or battle. They lost and were enslaved after all. It immediately makes the person arguing for equality have to start falling back on, well, they are really equal in ability it is just they had poor circumstances or luck, trust me even though they lost they are equal! If we had everyone in the country run a race and the fastest were forced to move to the west coast and the slowest forced to move to the east coast and we waited a generation, people would start saying west coast people are fast in general. And they wouldn't be incorrect. So I don't see anything wrong with Aristotle saying the group of people who end up slaves are inferior, they provably are because they've been tested and selected for failure. Saying Greeks are superior to Iranians or some other general pronouncement about ethnicity and attributes may not be correct, the DNA of the human race is mostly the same between ethnicities anyway, but saying Greeks are superior to the group of people they defeated in battle and enslaved in person is a tautology.
- BuckRogers 12y ago
  I don't think one side losing in a war means anything at all about the individuals who participated. An army could have the best soldiers and lose due to the general (not to mention resources among other things including being on an off-day, or just mistakes).. I don't think what you're suggesting is anything but sophism. The same kind Aristotle was using. That said, I do think Aristotle was insightful enough to realize this. Just a guess, but many times when people say stupid things there were social pressures to make these declarations in support of the existing society. What you said, could easily be used in attempt to say American slavery was justified. Most people realize taking advantage of people is in no way a demonstration of superiority. Have you ever made a mistake? Do you crush every mortal that crosses your path? I don't think so.
- dangerlibrary 12y ago
  Einstein's point isn't that the Greeks didn't win, it's that Greek militarily superiority doesn't justify slavery.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  funnily enough, Aristotle said people captured in war as slaves were not true slaves, had the legal right to sue for freedom and that slaves were born slaves. He was completely against might makes right. edit - also, his views on slavery somewhat stretch the definition of what we and most of his contemporaries would necessarily regard as slavery. This being Aristotle. He is still really just excusing the slavery of his time however. He states: "all are not either slaves by nature or freemen by nature, and also that there is in some cases a marked distinction between the two classes, rendering it expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters: the one practicing obedience, the others exercising the authority and lordship which nature intended them to have. The abuse of this authority is injurious to both; for the interests of part and whole, of body and soul, are the same, and the slave is a part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame. Hence, where the relation of master and slave between them is natural they are friends and have a common interest, but where it rests merely on law and force the reverse is true." and also: "And again, no one would ever say he is a slave who is unworthy to be a slave." This would suggest that the easiest way to not be Aristotle's slave would be to tell him to sod off and do his own cleaning, though I suspect the reality may have been different.

wutangson1 12y ago

Great point, even considering that Einstein seems to be taking Aristotle and ancient Greek dogma totally out of context. Perhaps, as was and is a tradition in academic circles, he was advocating that contemporary scientists were in fact better and more enlightened than the Greeks. Or, maybe it was a reaction against Hitler's fascination with the ancient Greeks. Yet, Aristotle did not present a clear belief system on slavery, especially considering that even Socrates dialogue Meno, he makes the case for the equality and infinite capacity of all humankind.

Locke1689 12y ago
Meno was written by Plato.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Plato wrote Meno and Aristotle presented a very clear belief system on slavery in Book I, Chapters 3 through 7 of The Politics and in Book 7 of the Nicomachean Ethics. "But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?" "There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule." http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html edit - mind you, he also had a tendency to write stuff like: "If a woman looks at a highly polished mirror during the menstrual period, the surface of the mirror becomes like a blood shot cloud", so it isn't as though the slavery thing is a small unfortunate oversight in some otherwise wise philosophy. If you forget for a minute that you are dealing with Aristotle, he is consistently quite considerably bonkers, and seemingly just winging it through a lot of his writing, though there is plenty of genius in there as well.
- saraid216 12y ago
  It'd be funnier if views like this one weren't well-represented in the modern day: > Such are the power given to women in their families in the hope that they will inform against their husbands, and the license which is allowed to slaves in order that they may betray their masters; for slaves and women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies and also to democracies, since under them they have a good time. Book 5.
- wutangson1 12y ago
  Yes, Plato is the author of the Dialogues of Socrates. My bad if my last sentence was written unclearly to seems as if Aristotle was a student of Socrates. Yet, I suggest going back to that same link you posted and read all of Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics where Aristotle defines courage and what is the only real justification for war. After reading Book II, by the time you get to Book VII, you may not think Aristotle believed people deserved to be slaves. Also, if Aristotle is bonkers, I'd be glad to know who you think the real man/woman of science is. And I hope the answer isn't Einstein.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    The real man/woman of science is obviously the hermaphroditic god-head at the center of creation. Any fool knows that.
    - wutangson1 12y ago
      hackneyed
      - lotsofmangos 12y ago
        Well, I don't care if it is the same tired old response that everyone gives. It is always good to spread the word about the godhead and its holy genitalia, which in both quantity and variety are innumerable in even the largest of Cantor's series of infinite sets.
  - 12y ago
anigbrowl 12y ago
Socrates' dialogues were documented/written by Plato, not Aristotle. While there was certainly a conception of universal potential in ancient Greek philosophy, I think there was also the comfortable assumption that enslaved peoples were inferior insofar as they had allowed themselves to be enslaved in the first place. You could draw a parallel with the relatively limited role of women in Greek society. I think it's this sort of confirmation bias Einstein was taking aim at.

whistlerbrk 12y ago

You are spot on. When we put people in the defensive they often entrench themselves in their position, sometimes even knowing they are/may be wrong.

huxley 12y ago

I don't think Einstein was being that nice, he was essentially saying that intelligence and education were not guarantees against bigotry and bias. Aristotle proposed in Book 1 of Politics that certain human beings were natural slaves, as different from the free citizens of Athens as human beings were from beasts. He argued that barbarians deserved enslavement because they lacked souls. Back in 1550, Aristotle was marshalled in an important debate on race: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate While much of the debate was around the notion that Spain had the right to conquer the Americas, a major part of Bartolomé de las Casas' debate with Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda centred on the rights of Native Americans. Both men were humanist theologians and well versed in classical works, so Aristotle's idea of Natural Slavery was central to their cases. De las Casas argued that native Americans were worthy of the same rights as European Christians because they were rational human beings with souls, not natural slaves. Years later, De las Casas expanded this idea to a universal statement that no human being regardless of race deserved slavery. Sepúlveda took Aristotle on face value and argued that Native Americans were natural slaves and as such didn't deserve to be treated as rational human beings, he made the odious argument that enslaving them was a paternal response which improved their lives. It's important to note that the debate on the shared humanity of the races and their human rights is an argument that is at least half a millennium old.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 12y ago
I have some hope that in 500 years time we will look back at todays debates and have similar thoughts of how terribly out of touch with reality the debaters seemed to be and how obvious their biases and self-serving arguments were. Thank you for restoring some of my faith in humanity.
mariodiana 12y ago
Einstein wrote: "It is clear that [Aristotle] was enmeshed in a traditional prejudice from which, despite his extraordinary intellect, he could not free himself." And your comment on that is that "he was essentially saying that intelligence and education were not guarantees against bigotry and bias." I don't see how any of that conflicts with what I've said. It's human nature -- even for people who realize they're no Einstein or Aristotle -- to believe that they know what they're talking about; and it's also human nature to get defensive, since their self-image is often wrapped up in their outlook. If you invoke Aristotle, you give a person an "out." You allow a person the freedom to examine his beliefs while shielding his fragile self-image from coming apart. He can conclude, "I was wrong, but that's okay. Even Aristotle was wrong." Aristotle and Einstein aside, what I'm getting at is this "Fox News vs MSNBC" divide that we have in this country is not doing any of us any good. We can either appeal to people's sympathies, or brand people as self-satisfied, socially irresponsible, head-in-the-sand enablers of the status quo. I think the first is the better strategy. I also think the tone of Einstein's letter is much, much nearer the first than the second.

lnanek2 12y ago

I think the Aristotle point is a very bad one. People captured in war are flat out inferior to people who won the war or battle. They lost and were enslaved after all. It immediately makes the person arguing for equality have to start falling back on, well, they are really equal in ability it is just they had poor circumstances or luck, trust me even though they lost they are equal! If we had everyone in the country run a race and the fastest were forced to move to the west coast and the slowest forced to move to the east coast and we waited a generation, people would start saying west coast people are fast in general. And they wouldn't be incorrect. So I don't see anything wrong with Aristotle saying the group of people who end up slaves are inferior, they provably are because they've been tested and selected for failure. Saying Greeks are superior to Iranians or some other general pronouncement about ethnicity and attributes may not be correct, the DNA of the human race is mostly the same between ethnicities anyway, but saying Greeks are superior to the group of people they defeated in battle and enslaved in person is a tautology.

BuckRogers 12y ago
I don't think one side losing in a war means anything at all about the individuals who participated. An army could have the best soldiers and lose due to the general (not to mention resources among other things including being on an off-day, or just mistakes).. I don't think what you're suggesting is anything but sophism. The same kind Aristotle was using. That said, I do think Aristotle was insightful enough to realize this. Just a guess, but many times when people say stupid things there were social pressures to make these declarations in support of the existing society. What you said, could easily be used in attempt to say American slavery was justified. Most people realize taking advantage of people is in no way a demonstration of superiority. Have you ever made a mistake? Do you crush every mortal that crosses your path? I don't think so.
dangerlibrary 12y ago
Einstein's point isn't that the Greeks didn't win, it's that Greek militarily superiority doesn't justify slavery.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
funnily enough, Aristotle said people captured in war as slaves were not true slaves, had the legal right to sue for freedom and that slaves were born slaves. He was completely against might makes right. edit - also, his views on slavery somewhat stretch the definition of what we and most of his contemporaries would necessarily regard as slavery. This being Aristotle. He is still really just excusing the slavery of his time however. He states: "all are not either slaves by nature or freemen by nature, and also that there is in some cases a marked distinction between the two classes, rendering it expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters: the one practicing obedience, the others exercising the authority and lordship which nature intended them to have. The abuse of this authority is injurious to both; for the interests of part and whole, of body and soul, are the same, and the slave is a part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame. Hence, where the relation of master and slave between them is natural they are friends and have a common interest, but where it rests merely on law and force the reverse is true." and also: "And again, no one would ever say he is a slave who is unworthy to be a slave." This would suggest that the easiest way to not be Aristotle's slave would be to tell him to sod off and do his own cleaning, though I suspect the reality may have been different.