[lbo-talk] Switching Sides

[Chuck Grimes]

> Ian said:
>
> Quoting Aristotle's POLITICS:
>
> But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for
> whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all
> slavery a violation of nature?
>
> There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of
> reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a
> thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth,
> some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.
>
> http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance_arc/las_casas/Aristotle-slavery.html

It gets worse. We find this hierarchy is based on a value system of 
contribution to the social order... Now these are not proven qualities, but 
given. Not only given but timeless, unchanging states of status.

I was just going over old A-hole a couple of days ago. It struck me that 
Aristotle's universe was constructed against a rival which was (I think) 
also popular in the period. The Pythagoreans believed that all was in flux. 
Recalling my favorite passage of Ovid, behold night succedes the day and 
believe me nothing ever dies. All things change, form into form, persued, 
persuing in the great cycle of endless metamorphosis.

The consequence of these oppositions is Aristotle's world can not evolve and 
in the last account can not have a meaningful content laden history.

I got into these thoughts while reading a few essays of Robinson's on 
historical materialism and its attack on the sciences.

Nevermind.

CG