Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Thought is divided

Expand Messages
  • Herman
    Hi Jim, ... Well, yes, but not reasonably. Aristotle believed that it lay in the nature of slaves to be slaves, and that the possibility for freedom was
    Message 1 of 68 , Apr 6 2:36 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Jim,

      On 6 April 2010 22:43, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
      > Hi Polly,
      >
      > Recall, Irvin wrote this:
      >
      > "Aristotle might emphasize that freedom is the ability to acquire those dispositions necessary for virtue."
      >
      > This account of freedom says nothing about the existence of slaves in a society. So even if Aristotle did mean his account of freedom to apply only to free men and women in a society where slavery existed, I can take Aristotle's account of freedom and say it is a viable definition of freedom, which can justifiably be applied to all human beings here and now.
      >

      Well, yes, but not reasonably. Aristotle believed that it lay in "the
      nature" of slaves to be slaves, and that the possibility for freedom
      was limited to the elite. So your notion of freedom is quite
      different, unless you believe that if Aristotle arrived on the scene
      today that he would not spy anyone who was servile by nature. (He'd
      best get his eyes checked if that was the case).

      Polly




      > Jim
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
      >
      > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Herman
      Hi Jim, ... Well, yes, but not reasonably. Aristotle believed that it lay in the nature of slaves to be slaves, and that the possibility for freedom was
      Message 68 of 68 , Apr 6 2:36 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Jim,

        On 6 April 2010 22:43, Jim <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
        > Hi Polly,
        >
        > Recall, Irvin wrote this:
        >
        > "Aristotle might emphasize that freedom is the ability to acquire those dispositions necessary for virtue."
        >
        > This account of freedom says nothing about the existence of slaves in a society. So even if Aristotle did mean his account of freedom to apply only to free men and women in a society where slavery existed, I can take Aristotle's account of freedom and say it is a viable definition of freedom, which can justifiably be applied to all human beings here and now.
        >

        Well, yes, but not reasonably. Aristotle believed that it lay in "the
        nature" of slaves to be slaves, and that the possibility for freedom
        was limited to the elite. So your notion of freedom is quite
        different, unless you believe that if Aristotle arrived on the scene
        today that he would not spy anyone who was servile by nature. (He'd
        best get his eyes checked if that was the case).

        Polly




        > Jim
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!
        >
        > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.