8 ms·

I think Aristotle had the greatest mind of any human who ever lived. The older I get the more I realize that there are a thousand true and intelligent things y

I think Aristotle had the greatest mind of any human who ever lived. The older I get the more I realize that there are a thousand true and intelligent things you can say about any topic. Magazines, journals, and libraries are full to the brim of intelligent people writing intelligent things. But an extremely minuscule portion of that huge mass is made of writing that gets right to the heart of the matter. And Aristotle is the writer I've encountered the most who constantly gets right to the essence or core of what he's discussing, moving past the trivialities and the unessential to illuminate deep truths in a logical way. It's why a short essay like his Poetics--which in many ways is a limited work for the modern day because it deals wiih a very specific type of ancient literature--is still pored over by modern writers and screenwriters because of the deep dramatic truths it lays out.

tokai 2y ago
On the other hand deification of Aristotle's intellect and thought hampered the development of physics for almost 1500 years.
- hackandthink 2y ago
  You may be interested in: "Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look" My take is that it was hard to find a better theory, the usual explanation of scholastical dogmatism is to shallow. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057 https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057
- samatman 2y ago
  Insofar as that's true, it isn't a fact about Aristotle, it's a fact about the mindset of scholars who came after him.
  - lukan 2y ago
    Well, their mindset evolved at least partly around the question, how far they can go with free thinking, before making the transition to free burning.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- geye1234 2y ago
  This is not (really) true. Well there's an element of truth in it, but only an element. European philosophy was not really Aristotelian until the re-arrival of his work in the 12C, so it's hardly fair to 'blame' him for the lack of scientific development that period. When it did arrive, it was extremely controversial, and it took the genius of Aquinas (and even then, only just) for Aristotle to be accepted in Christian thought. In the 17C, there was a much greater interest in quantitative methods than there had been previously. And some of his physics was obviously found to be wrong. But there was no discovery (and remains no discovery) that falsified broad swathes of his work. The change of interest and focus was far more important in the progress of what we now call science than the supposed rejection of Aristotle. This is described in E.A. Burtt's Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. Pre-modern people were far more interested in living a morally good life (a happy life, in the Aristotelian sense of the word) than they were in controlling nature. That changed in the 17C.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    I think Avicenna also deserves a mention as another way educated people would naturally interact with Aristotelian thought.
    - geye1234 2y ago
      Oh yeah definitely, and Averroes and the other medieval Islamic scholars as well. Absolute intellectual giants.
optimalsolver 2y ago
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.
        2y ago
mykowebhn 2y ago
I agree. Look, for example, at his work on Logic, especially Categories, On Interpretation, and the Prior and Posterior Analytics. Of course, the fields of Philosophical and Mathematical Logic have advanced since Aristotle, especially starting with the work of Frege, but that took approximately 2000 years. And before Aristotle, no work on Logic came close to what Aristotle discovered and developed. Aristotle's work on Logic was sui generis and hardly any advancement in logic occurred until Frege 2000 years later. I feel his work in Logic alone makes him one of the greatest minds who ever lived. That doesn't take into account his contributions in other areas of philosophy, which were also significant.

tokai 2y ago

On the other hand deification of Aristotle's intellect and thought hampered the development of physics for almost 1500 years.

hackandthink 2y ago
You may be interested in: "Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look" My take is that it was hard to find a better theory, the usual explanation of scholastical dogmatism is to shallow. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057 https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057
samatman 2y ago
Insofar as that's true, it isn't a fact about Aristotle, it's a fact about the mindset of scholars who came after him.
- lukan 2y ago
  Well, their mindset evolved at least partly around the question, how far they can go with free thinking, before making the transition to free burning.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
geye1234 2y ago
This is not (really) true. Well there's an element of truth in it, but only an element. European philosophy was not really Aristotelian until the re-arrival of his work in the 12C, so it's hardly fair to 'blame' him for the lack of scientific development that period. When it did arrive, it was extremely controversial, and it took the genius of Aquinas (and even then, only just) for Aristotle to be accepted in Christian thought. In the 17C, there was a much greater interest in quantitative methods than there had been previously. And some of his physics was obviously found to be wrong. But there was no discovery (and remains no discovery) that falsified broad swathes of his work. The change of interest and focus was far more important in the progress of what we now call science than the supposed rejection of Aristotle. This is described in E.A. Burtt's Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. Pre-modern people were far more interested in living a morally good life (a happy life, in the Aristotelian sense of the word) than they were in controlling nature. That changed in the 17C.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  I think Avicenna also deserves a mention as another way educated people would naturally interact with Aristotelian thought.
  - geye1234 2y ago
    Oh yeah definitely, and Averroes and the other medieval Islamic scholars as well. Absolute intellectual giants.

optimalsolver 2y ago

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.
      - 2y ago

mykowebhn 2y ago

I agree. Look, for example, at his work on Logic, especially Categories, On Interpretation, and the Prior and Posterior Analytics. Of course, the fields of Philosophical and Mathematical Logic have advanced since Aristotle, especially starting with the work of Frege, but that took approximately 2000 years. And before Aristotle, no work on Logic came close to what Aristotle discovered and developed. Aristotle's work on Logic was sui generis and hardly any advancement in logic occurred until Frege 2000 years later. I feel his work in Logic alone makes him one of the greatest minds who ever lived. That doesn't take into account his contributions in other areas of philosophy, which were also significant.