man is born for citizenship
i guess i've been taught to love aristotle because of the effect he had on literature but byjesus i can't stand the nicomachean ethics. funny, because its a topic i'd be interested in but he - the greeks! - are so bent on concrete definitions of such variable things, creating a certain perception of the world and calling it a "good upbringing". this is part of columbia's dichotomy: rooting itself in such greek thought, the "good-by-greek-definition" education, but it is still the place where i have learned so much about the varying world around me. and this is why we need the literature of expats, breaking conventional symbols and connotations.
one swallow does not make a summer
both aristotle and plato (and just about any philosophical "great thinker") seem to belittle the passionate and appetitive in favour of reason based on the premise that animals can feel emotion/instinct but cannot reason. i enjoy the irony of this arrogant mindframe, because when the plane starts to fall, we all die in the end. and we live in a world of "perverted reason", in which people a) refuse to use reason (basing all thought on, say, religious texts, political doctrine, manifestos, the like) b) [possibly as a backlash to the previous] refuse to acknowledge the limits of reason.
after all, in literary history, periods of heavy reason brought about heavy war, injustice, class hierarchies and the like. whilst periods of romantic thought were fueled by revolution, indulgence, and innovation.
i admit that, on the spectrum, i lie slightly on the side of instinct and romantic thought (possibly because i prize innovation, and SHOCK! above all). this however, does not mean that i abandon reason. in fact, i feel like my existence is burdened by my natural instinct to reason. and the decisions i make based on reason alone turn out to be dead-faced and WRONG! here: it is a delicate balance and constant tug-of-war. but i do feel people need to acknowledge the importance of instinct and emotion.
but there are things i love about aristotle's method:
1. i like that he stresses relative and variable methods of analytical thought instead of a uniform way of questioning everything.
2. i like that he attempts to connect philosophical thought to the real world through focusing on action, and considering the popular perception
3. i like that he emphasizes both knowledge and choice (but not that these should be a derivative of the "right" education/upbringing)
1 comment:
I was going to ask you about that. the value of literature. that is why my philosophy course on 'Philosophy and Literature' is so intriguing. I want to see how a modern 21st century philosopher talks about philosophy and/of/as literature.
I just got out of a class where the professor condemned students who don't read enough of their literature which is true. who gives a shit about mody dick, great expectations or crime and punishment anymore?
but one thing I love about his ramble in defence of literature. he said that if we ever try to look for something real, solid, true and absolute from literature, don't bother. I think the vagueness of literature teaches us in one sense to be concious of the vagueness of life, conflict of ideas and views. how anything could be possible. the very core of literature embraces the uncertainty of life and the world.
the power/influence of emotion and instinct - evident in the French Revolution. whatever came out of it, the -isms, the ideas, the passion and love for human liberation and condition. a good mixture with 'rational' thinking that good can come out of it. special creatures aren't we all?
you could make a philosopher. you list the things you like and not like about arisotle :)
Post a Comment