No one attributes it to Aristotle.
And Aristotle had a very thorough discussion of ethics, still taught today in universities.
Bad faith of the agnostic
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
And Aristotle had a very thorough discussion of ethics, still taught today in universities.
Blackwater Lunchbreak
Verified User
Like Plato, he regards the ethical virtues (justice, courage, temperance and so on) as complex rational, emotional and social skills. But he rejects Plato’s idea that to be completely virtuous one must acquire, through a training in the sciences, mathematics, and philosophy, an understanding of what goodness is. What we need, in order to live well, is a proper appreciation of the way in which such goods as friendship, pleasure, virtue, honor and wealth fit together as a whole. In order to apply that general understanding to particular cases, we must acquire, through proper upbringing and habits, the ability to see, on each occasion, which course of action is best supported by reasons. Therefore practical wisdom, as he conceives it, cannot be acquired solely by learning general rules. We must also acquire, through practice, those deliberative, emotional, and social skills that enable us to put our general understanding of well-being into practice in ways that are suitable to each occasion.
aristotle = bullshitter.
ZenMode
Well-known member
It doesn't really matter who is treated to. It was written hundreds of years before Jesus was even born.
Jesus wasn't a ethical and moral trailblazer. He just ended up being the most popular. People long before him were talking about the importance of not killing or enslaving other people, not taking things that aren't yours, treating others as you want to be treated, etc.
He may have been a trailblazer as far as the Jews are concerned, because they're God was a homicidal, vengeful maniac but that's about it. I guess I should have said that the original form of Jesus, God, was a homicidal, vengeful maniac.
Last edited:
If a person isn't convinced either way, it isn't their fault that they are intelligent, reasonable, and sane.
Making the decision to acknowledge you do not know something...is not "being unable to make a decision."
You seem to think that guessing one way or the other is superior to simply acnknowledging the truth. THAT is the major fault of atheists and theists...a thing they share in common.
It requires a blind guess...that atheists and theist seem to be proud of making.
Hey, I can make a blind guess also. I acknowledge, though, that it wouldn't mean shit.
I don't really care about Jesus. I have no interest in Jewish religion.
ZenMode
Well-known member
I was talking more "bigger picture" than just the follies of religion. We, as humans with functional brains, have no conscience control over what we are convinced by and, therefore, believe. I currently have no interest in learning to speak Chinese, so there is basically no chance that I'm going to put in the time, money and effort to learn Chinese. If I read an article tomorrow that completely change my views on that, and suddenly learning Chinese was among the most important things in my life, I would have no control over that.
In the history of philosophy, I have never heard anyone say that.
Okay, okay...I am tired of having the atheists here being bothered so much by agnostics who are unwilling or unable to make a decision on the question of whether there are any gods* or not...so for the nonce I will take a position.
I will use the coin my wife and I call, Mr. Coin. We use Mr. Coin to make decisions in our NFL pools when we disagree on a game bet.
HEADS: There is at least one god...TAILS: There are no gods. (I assure you that I am making the toss and being honest in the result.)
The Toss...........result: HEADS.
So, for the duration, I am making the decision the atheists deem so important, moral, and ethical...to be: There is at least one god.
I hope that means they will hold me in much higher regard.
For the purposes of this exercise, when I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.
I will use the coin my wife and I call, Mr. Coin. We use Mr. Coin to make decisions in our NFL pools when we disagree on a game bet.
HEADS: There is at least one god...TAILS: There are no gods. (I assure you that I am making the toss and being honest in the result.)
The Toss...........result: HEADS.
So, for the duration, I am making the decision the atheists deem so important, moral, and ethical...to be: There is at least one god.
I hope that means they will hold me in much higher regard.
For the purposes of this exercise, when I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.
Being able to refrain from commiting murder, rape, theft is such a low ethical bar, clearing it should not even earn one a pat on the back. That is an ethical bar that barely clears the ground.
What was unique in the ancient world about the Hebrew Bible and the gospels of the New Testament was an abiding, wide ranging, and paramount concern with social justice, with the welfare of the poor, sick, and oppressed.
I've read Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Confucius, Bhudda, Laozi, the Bhagavad Gita and while there is a lot of wisdom about personal self fulfillment and cultivation of virtue, there is no wide ranging and abiding ideology concerning social justice and social inequality the way it is presented in the prophets of the OT and in the NT.
That's not to say any of these ancient texts are superior to the others. I think my personal favorite is the Dhammapada. But it is not correct to say everyone had pretty much exactly the same program concerning the purpose of a just and authentic life.
Plato talked about justice all the time.
Aristotle discussed justice in his Politics.
ZenMode
Well-known member
I haven't either. I was making a biological/neurological statement, not a philosophical one.
Buddhist teachings, which are somewhat philosophical in nature, have been teaching that concept, whether they really know it or not, for a long time. They do not believe in a separate self so, they are indirectly acknowledging the fact that we don't have control over our beliefs because there is no separate self to control them.
I don't know many Buddhists, but I do not believe this is a tenet.
What attributes does this god have? Are the other gods equal or are they lesser gods?
Blackwater Lunchbreak
Verified User
You got one significant quote?
Did you even read what I wrote? I wrote social justice. Not the kind of justice Socrates was discussing in the Republic.
Plato envisioned a three tiered society based on heirachy and a program of eugenics. Plato and Aristotle were aristocrats who probably never saw a leper or talked to a poor person. Social justice for the poor, sick, and oppressed was not an abiding part of their intellectual program. An abiding concept of Social justice is what makes the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament unique among ancient literature.
Plato and Aristotle had different strengths.
We are not going to start making the argument that Plato, Jesus, the Hebrew prophets, Bhudda, Aristotle were basically all exactly the same. It's just not true, and it's intellectually lazy to hang one's hat on that argument
I didn't say anything about a god. I said that my blind guess is that there is at least one god.
The only attributes I assigned were that IT (or they) is/are responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.
How is "social justice" distinct from "justice?"
ZenMode
Well-known member
You should read some of the teachings/books by Thich Nhat Hanh.