>
>
> My specialization in grad school was Aristotle and his relationship to
> Heidegger, so I have bizarrely strong feelings about this. Plus, which is
> rare for people who make claims about ancient philosophy, I actually read
> Greek (don't even get me started on my parallel rant about silly "Leninists"
> who don't read Russian and "Maoists" who don't know Chinese).
>
> Aristotle's world was completely different from ours, and the questions he
> posed were also completely different from ours. Aristotle does not have an
> epistemology (the closest thing to one is not in the logical works, but in
> Peri Psukhes, a work that influenced Heidegger enormously BTW, sections of
> Sein und Zeit basically being rewordings of it). He does not have a "theory
> of knowledge" or an "ethics." He is not a "rationalist," since, like,
> Athenian Greeks had no idea of "reason" or "ratio," which are Roman and
> post-Roman concepts. "Logos" is not "reason." "Reason" is about deducing
> stuff. "Logos" (from "legein," "to gather") is the ability to articulate the
> structure of the world as it presents itself. This is why logos deals with
> doxa (the way the world presents itself, especially to "the wise"), whereas
> "reason" does not. Arisototle over and over again makes arguments based on
> the premise that "people believe this to be true, therefore there must be
> some truth in it," which is absurd for a modern person who believes in a
> subject/object dichotomy (there is no "subject" in Aristotle).
>
> PS. Aristotle translators: "eudaimonia" does not mean "happiness."
> Happiness is a feeling. Eudaimonia is the state of being a good person, the
> kind of person other people look up to. You can be the happiest slave in the
> universe and you will not be eudaimon.
>
> Rant over.
>
>
"Happiness?" No its not a feeling... its a cultural norm. Synonyms are:
"Success". "Luck" etc...
Beware!