"Should We Cancel Aristotle?": https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage @Sweet Lou 4 2 , I do not believe we should cancel Aristotle. Should We Cancel Aristotle? He defended slavery and opposed the notion of human equality. But he is not our enemy. By Agnes Callard Ms. Callard is a philosopher and professor. July 21, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET The Greek philosopher Aristotle did not merely condone slavery, he defended it; he did not merely defend it, but defended it as beneficial to the slave. His view was that some people are, by nature, unable to pursue their own good, and best suited to be “living tools” for use by other people: “The slave is a part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame.” Aristotle’s anti-liberalism does not stop there. He believed that women were incapable of authoritative decision making. And he decreed that manual laborers, despite being neither slaves nor women, were nonetheless prohibited from citizenship or education in his ideal city. Of course Aristotle is not alone: Kant and Hume made racist comments, Frege made anti-Semitic ones, and Wittgenstein was bracingly upfront about his sexism. Should readers set aside or ignore such remarks, focusing attention on valuable ideas to be found elsewhere in their work? This pick-and-choose strategy may work in the case of Kant, Hume, Frege and Wittgenstein, on the grounds that their core philosophical contributions are unrelated to their prejudices, but I do not think it applies so well to Aristotle: His inegalitarianism runs deep. Aristotle thought that the value or worth of a human being — his virtue — was something that he acquired in growing up. It follows that people who can’t (women, slaves) or simply don’t (manual laborers) acquire that virtue have no grounds for demanding equal respect or recognition with those who do. As I read him, Aristotle not only did not believe in the conception of intrinsic human dignity that grounds our modern commitment to human rights, he has a philosophy that cannot be squared with it. Aristotle’s inegalitarianism is less like Kant and Hume’s racism and more like Descartes’s views on nonhuman animals: The fact that Descartes characterizes nonhuman animals as soulless automata is a direct consequence of his rationalist dualism. His comments on animals cannot be treated as “stray remarks.” If cancellation is removal from a position of prominence on the basis of an ideological crime, it might appear that there is a case to be made for canceling Aristotle. He has much prominence: Thousands of years after his death, his ethical works continue to be taught as part of the basic philosophy curriculum offered in colleges and universities around the world. And Aristotle’s mistake was serious enough that he comes off badly even when compared to the various “bad guys” of history who sought to justify the exclusion of certain groups — women, Black people, Jews, gays, atheists — from the sheltering umbrella of human dignity. Because Aristotle went so far as to think there was no umbrella. Yet I would defend Aristotle, and his place on philosophy syllabuses, by pointing to the benefits of engaging with him. He can help us identify the grounds of our own egalitarian commitments; and his ethical system may capture truths — for instance, about the importance of aiming for extraordinary excellence — that we have yet to incorporate into our own And I want to go a step further, and make an even stronger claim on behalf of Aristotle. It is not only that the benefits of reading Aristotle counteract the costs, but that there are no costs. In fact we have no reason at all to cancel Aristotle. Aristotle is simply not our enemy. I, like Aristotle, am a philosopher, and we philosophers must countenance the possibility of radical disagreement on the most fundamental questions. Philosophers hold up as an ideal the aim of never treating our interlocutor as a hostile combatant. But if someone puts forward views that directly contradict your moral sensibilities, how can you avoid hostility? The answer is to take him literally — which is to say, read his words purely as vehicles for the contents of his beliefs. There is a kind of speech that it would be a mistake to take literally, because its function is some kind of messaging. Advertising and political oratory are examples of messaging, as is much that falls under the rubric of “making a statement,” like boycotting, protesting or publicly apologizing. Such words exist to perform some extra-communicative task; in messaging speech, some aim other than truth-seeking is always at play. One way to turn literal speech into messaging is to attach a list of names: a petition is an example of nonliteral speech, because more people believing something does not make it more true. Whereas literal speech employs systematically truth-directed methods of persuasion — argument and evidence — messaging exerts some kind of nonrational pressure on its recipient. For example, a public apology can often exert social pressure on the injured party to forgive, or at any rate to perform a show of forgiveness. Messaging is often situated within some kind of power struggle. In a highly charged political climate, more and more speech becomes magnetically attracted into messaging; one can hardly say anything without arousing suspicion that one is making a move in the game, one that might call for a countermove. For example, the words “Black lives matter” and “All lives matter” have been implicated in our political power struggle in such a way as to prevent anyone familiar with that struggle from using, or hearing, them literally. But if an alien from outer space, unfamiliar with this context, came to us and said either phrase, it would be hard to imagine that anyone would find it objectionable; the context in which we now use those phrases would be removed. In fact, I can imagine circumstances under which an alien could say women are inferior to men without arousing offense in me. Suppose this alien had no gender on their planet, and drew the conclusion of female inferiority from time spent observing ours. As long as the alien spoke to me respectfully, I would not only be willing to hear them out but even interested to learn their argument. I read Aristotle as such an “alien.” His approach to ethics was empirical — that is, it was based on observation — and when he looked around him he saw a world of slavery and of the subjugation of women and manual laborers, a situation he then inscribed into his ethical theory. When I read him, I see that view of the world — and that’s all. I do not read an evil intent or ulterior motive behind his words; I do not interpret them as a mark of his bad character, or as attempting to convey a dangerous message that I might need to combat or silence in order to protect the vulnerable. Of course in one sense it is hard to imagine a more dangerous idea than the one that he articulated and argued for — but dangerousness, I have been arguing, is less a matter of literal content than messaging context. What makes speech truly free is the possibility of disagreement without enmity, and this is less a matter of what we can say, than how we can say it. “Cancel culture” is merely the logical extension of what we might call “messaging culture,” in which every speech act is classified as friend or foe, in which literal content can barely be communicated, and in which very little faith exists as to the rational faculties of those being spoken to. In such a context, even the cry for “free speech” invites a nonliteral interpretation, as being nothing but the most efficient way for its advocates to acquire or consolidate power. I will admit that Aristotle’s vast temporal distance from us makes it artificially easy to treat him as an “alien.” One of the reasons I gravitate to the study of ancient ethics is precisely that it is difficult to entangle those authors in contemporary power struggles. When we turn to disagreement on highly charged contemporary ethical questions, such as debates about gender identity, we find suspicion, second-guessing of motives, petitioning — the hallmarks of messaging culture — even among philosophers. I do not claim that the possibility of friendly disagreement with Aristotle offers any direct guidance on how to improve our much more difficult disagreements with our contemporaries, but I do think considering the case of Aristotle reveals something about what the target of such improvements would be. What we want, when we want free speech, is the freedom to speak literally. Agnes Callard (@AgnesCallard), an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago and the author of “Aspiration: The Agency of Becoming,” writes about public philosophy at The Point magazine.
Interesting article. I think, when studying history and learning it in school, almost nothing should be "cancelled." Maybe put disclaimers on certain aspects so that all truths are laid bare, but studying and learning should be where we find out about our human past and hopefully learn from the mistakes (Those who do not learn history...blah, blah, blah). I would hope that the presidency of Trump (and really, the state of the presidency this century) would be a focal point in political science classes and should be studied to determine why our country has become so partisan and what the effects of it are. Hopefully, students don't try to "cancel" it and use it as a learning opportunity for the future. When I was coming up in the military, my mantra was to take something from each of the people leading me, whether good or bad, and hopefully use that in the future when I was leading others. Trust me, even the worst bosses can help you learn something about the future you and help you shape your vision (mainly, I don't want to be like that guy/gal).
This author has the "cancel-culture" mentality herself. She wants to pass a verdict on the man as an entirety. But that's a dumb way. There is a very basic principle that's existed for thousands of years and was not invented by the red team or blue team: when you look at the world, or a person, try to find the most meaning that you can. This is Augustine's way of interpreting the Bible. You know, Lot's daughters got him drunk and BOTH daughters got pregnant by their father on the same night, but we don't throw out the whole Bible for that. There's good stuff in there too. But cancelers will be attacking the Bible for incest, and Moses committing murder, and women not being allowed in the temple during their period, and so on. Aristotle posited logos, ethos, pathos, and kairos as fundamental to argumentation. The idea of debate and argumentation as an engine for truth (and our binary political system) goes all the way back to him and Plato. People can't figure out if he's a red or blue guy I guess.
How do you even cancel Aristotle? Go burn all historical books reference to him? Go destroy the internet? I don't fully understand what this "cancelling" debate is all about, but the implication that it's powerful enough to alter history is a joke.
This article really doesn't make any sense. How do you cancel Aristotle? The entire "Statues" argument has to do with nationalist glorification. Who we identify with and have represent our ideals as a country. Do we want to have statues of Robert E. Lee glorified in cities with people of color walking the streets of those very same cities? Of course not. Should Robert E. Lee be erased from history.... no of course not. The Civil War should be remembered. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it... etc. etc. Aristotle should absolutely still be studied. Should he be glorified.... well probably not. The Greeks believe in Pagan gods and we are mostly monotheistic in Western civilization currently. There's very little cultural and societal identification to the Greeks, and their philosophers nowadays so there's really nothing to "Cancel." Just another "Cancel Culture Blah Blah" opinion article. Get over it folks.
Wow, she has a point. Let's not cancel Aristotle. Extrapolating that.....we shouldn't cancel anything. EVER. Like "Archie Bunker's Place." Why cancel it? Racist, yeah, but big-hearted otherwise. Eventually tolerated The Blacks, too. Sure, it was no "All in the Family", and the titular character has been dead for years. But you could keep the show going. Grandkids. Graveside visits. Now I'm woke! Thanks, op-ed!
Didn't read the article but sure, cancel it all. Philosophers are just the first iteration of the Joe Rogan podcast.
This actually isn't a piece advocating "cancelling Aristotle" From the whole piece it is actually a critique on Cancel Culture and the importance of not viewing things through current political or ideological lenses. From the op/ed: "It is not only that the benefits of reading Aristotle counteract the costs, but that there are no costs. In fact we have no reason at all to cancel Aristotle. Aristotle is simply not our enemy. ... I read Aristotle as such an “alien.” His approach to ethics was empirical — that is, it was based on observation — and when he looked around him he saw a world of slavery and of the subjugation of women and manual laborers, a situation he then inscribed into his ethical theory. When I read him, I see that view of the world — and that’s all. I do not read an evil intent or ulterior motive behind his words; I do not interpret them as a mark of his bad character, or as attempting to convey a dangerous message that I might need to combat or silence in order to protect the vulnerable. "
Aristotle lived almost 2,500 years ago.......... not 150 years ago like the Confederacy. FWIW I don't think the majority of people want to "cancel" any figures...... what Jefferson did is still relevant, same with Washington and many others..... however their achievements need to be measured with their flaws. Also tearing down statues that celebrate or venerate someone is not the same as wanting history erased. No doubt there are some extremists that would go as far as to remove Washington from the history books, they are the extreme minority........ what most people want is a more balanced perspective. How often do we address history from the perspective of women or minorities? Go listen to the old recordings of white men speaking about the 1940's-1950's and compare that to what women and black people say about the same period....
@Os Trigonum What does it even mean to "cancel Aristotle?" Last time I checked, there aren't any statues for him. Ultimately it's up to people to name things or build statues to the people they revere. Which people get honored or not should be based on what the public and leaders feel. I personally don't care for statues but definite think celebrating people who were traitors to the USA always seemed a bit odd.
Kind of related question. If you are reading some old book, written in the 1920s by Joe Smith or whatever, and you find a part in the book that you like... Can you just say "I like what Joe Smith said about X?" Or do you have to qualify it with "Look I don't agree with Joe Smith on EVERYTHING he said in his life or even EVERYTHING in this book, but..." I ask because I feel the need to qualify such statements - and I do IRL, but I also feel that's stupid. Shouldn't it be assumed that one can agree with a single idea without 100% diving in to completely agreement on every other idea? Dr Seuss, for example. He did some bad, racist ****. But he's got some good books, too! So can one say "I like Oh, The Places You'll Go" or should I qualify it with "He's a racist piece of **** but I like the message behind "Oh, The Places You'll Go?" I feel like it should be assumed that the first version of this statement implies only what it actually says. Anyway this post is more serving as a Haymitch therapy session than a political debate point. I'm just curious if others go out of their way to qualify benign statements like I do.
I'm not familiar with it as when I went to college there were no such complaints. And our reading lists were pretty diverse already. Dead white guys, dead black guys, dead brown guys, even some dead women. But a lot of dead people that's for sure.
