+Joseph Mikolash War... Pretty much it.

+Joseph Mikolash technology and whrong style of education !!!

Christianity

^ Dude, Thomas Aquinas championed Aristotle and spread his ideas everywhere in Christendom. What happened was materialism, which all decadent civilizations fall prey to.

Aristotle lived before the age of discovery. Sure there are wars by that time but it wasn't that full blown because civillizations are yet to meet one another. When almost all of them knew one another, they saw each other as strangers, and thus, enemies. We weren't very open-minded then. Stronger civilizations were looking for a way to become more powerful, and thus they feed off weaker civilizations. War ensued. Greeks like Aristotle were the paragons of their time, but note that they are speaking from a Greek's viewpoint. There are a lot of philosophies out there. If you read Rumi and learn Sufi's philosophy you'll find that they see life in a different way. You can just imagine how those clashing ideas confused our society. But the best part is, as we got to know one another we learned more perspectives. We are able to extend these learnings to higher questions about life. If Aristotle spent his life learning what constitutes a good life, Enlightenment philosophers examined freedom and addressed the issues of state, religion, and so on. Modern philosophers delved into questions of the nature of our existence. And that is just Western philosophy. These ideas came from the ancient times because they were the questions that we asked during that time. In the modern era we are addressing different, and much harder issues now.

And suddenly you like virtue ethics*

João Dowsley Exactly

Matthew the word succint alway's remind me of Seinfeld😂

@@hmm2928 k

A relativist.

+Alexander Rittenhouse thats the dude

His Dudeness, Duder or if you prefer...El Duderinio !

Plato: Your senses can deceive you, there is world beyond that is better... Aristotle: Ok Boomer!

Haha

+Queen Proserpina Good is only what people label it. Most of thier ideas were brought from the east where the original philosophers were.

how was it?XD

good luck :)

Problem, however: How to get legislators who embody phronesis (05:17). If they don't know what they're doing, the laws will have the OPPOSITE effect. Thus, an argument for the minimal state, imho.

+Mimzy Spire Why not fulfill whatever pleasures you desire that are within your means and do not cause suffering to others? And any desires that cause sufficient suffering to others may as well be destructive to one's self as suffering begets suffering in a community, and all communities are connected these days. So I guess practice ignoring such destructive desires until it's conditioned into your mind to be ignored automatically. Takes effort and time though. That way you can marginally improve the meaning and satisfaction of your life. I don't think any human being can be perfectly well and good, but that means everyone can work on living more well and doing more good.

No, because even the most vicious of man have the need to be socially recognized and legitimately loved, even if this fact is buried under diverse layers of psychological denial. The only thing closer to this a vicious man can attain comes from other fellow vicious man, who can share some kind of interest with him, but cannot satisfy his virtuous self needs. He can even corrupt a good lot of people, but without a minimal amount of virtuosity their lives will fall into primitive madness. Take gangsters for instance. A gangster is a vicious parasite who lives solely because the work of the virtuous people around him. He's obsessed with luxury and lives in a hedonistic way because he ignores or omits the virtues of productive work and self-fulfillment. He cannot provide to himself the things he wants, so he takes them trough violence from those who can. Eventually one of two things will happen to him: either he screws up in some way that get him punished by society or some other person, or succeeds destroying the source of his unearned distractions.

It's a still frame of his hand and a pen with a program that runs that frame over a computer generated drawing.

+Appleblade I consider his treatment of the top intellectual virtue to be sufficient in that "science" to Aristotle (who was himself a scientist) was simply regarded as the empirical methodology of philosophy. As an empiricist Aristotle believed in evidence based reasoning as a means to truth. Verifying claims based on evidence is rooted in philosophy; science began as an aspect of philosophical methods. This is why science, long before we used that term, was called "natural philosophy."

+peroz1000 follow the school of life channel

+poposisa Thanks, I already do that.

+poposisa This video is actually better than the one they did on Aristotle.

I dont like the mic tho.

+poposisa Me neither!

+Joacim Christiansen Read some of Aristotle's books?

The point of the video isn't about the meaning of life, but about living a good life and that by being virtuous in character can help achieve that good life and in a way gives meaning to person's life.

You day moan ia

I have a feeling that's not how the Greeks would have been inclined to pronounce it.

Its pronounced EPHDEMONIA

Irrelevant

+Durim Miziraj this is correct

so is Aristotle’s view of Rhetoric?

+sam carey Capitalism creates an environment where the self-labeled altruistic poor deal with the decisions of those who control the most/more resources. I don't believe this is the reason the poor and lower-middle class have such poor character. Capitalism creates an environment where the very best rise to the top while the those who aren't the best either remain behind with excuses or keep climbing. It's the ones that give up and make excuses that have poor character. I believe the character of those who fail in a capitalist society would likely not be much different with a social/environmental paradigm shift. I am of the opinion they would likely not excel in any society. That which is deemed right and wrong has changed throughout history. It is very far from automatically defined by our individual reasoning.

+sam carey Capitalism, Socialism, Communism....Those are all just different ways of allocating resources among individuals in a collective, nation, household, ect.... and only impact the means and capabilities of the individual, but do not dictate the choices of the individual in action or inaction. Just as genetics is only an influence on choice as is environment. The individual can decide to give up their free will to be controlled by any of these influences, or can retain their free will and only listen to such influences like survival instincts, social pressure, personal desires as advisers in the decision making process. And ultimately action or inaction is taken without a certainty of results. No one can be completely sure of the outcome of their actions because of countless variables outside of an individual's control. So action or inaction should be considered on the basis of the choice itself rather than the possible result. Seeking pleasure could result in social condemnation, seeking wealth could result unsatisfying paranoia, seeking anything could result in some form of suffering. Personally, I've only come up with continuously showing kindness (both to others and myself) as an action that seems to provide the most benefit with the least negative outcomes.

+Philisophosensation Well, in ancient Greece the home was very well constucted and people could not imagine it being otherwise. So slaves and women could by no means be seen as citizens. That was their reality and you have to take it into consideration. If you read Protagoras or the republic you'll see that corporal punishment, a concept which today's western world is highly unacceptable, was not only seen as normal but also as necessary. So, it is clear that when examining a persons view who have to consider the society that they lived in. Note, however, that in Plato's Kalipolis there were no slaves.

So following that thought through to its logical conclusion then, one should always place fear of consequence before before right action. Spoken like a true patriot. Good thing these guys didn't preach ethics... Here's a little weekend research project for you. Maybe look into logical contradictions. Then come back with an actual argument and we can have an informed debate.

I never said that they accepted slavery because they feared the consequences. i said that they didn't view slavery as something unethical or abnormal like we do today.

Nadia Z- I wasn't actually attacking your position. I thought that would be obvious by my reply as it doesn't relate to your position. Sorry for the confusion. Though I see your point of view, I disagree that it validates what the people of that time did. At this point we cross the line into opinion unfortunately. Thanks for taking the time to reply as an intellect.

+Philisophosensation By your rational, you would make every human being born before slavery was abolished a monster. However, it's clear in today's world slavery still exists. How would you end it? Persuasion or military means? I imagine, that you, just like Aristotle, lack the power to really make a difference. Does that make you monster too? For your information, I'm in favour of slavery. I'm Scottish Australian and we have been slaves/indebted servants for hundreds of years. It helped us to better ourselves until we were more rational human beings. Some humans are still Neanderthals. Is it not right and just to force them to become more rational? Or is it right and just to allow them to continue with the destruction of their countries and society?

+Geomoist Dasher He didn't

It's made with VideoScribe.

ТTThis moооovie is now avаilable to wаtcch herеееe => twitter.com/18ce0c0e51f05f1f7/status/795841385446285312 РHILOSOРHY Тhe Good Life AAАristоtle HD