3 ms·
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 p
by 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 agoI 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 agoEinstein 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.