I have taught Aristotle in every course every semester since 1994. I am not canceling Aristotle nor do I advocate canceling Aristotle.
There you go. Just out of curiosity, whom else do you draw upon (without knowing the subject of your course of course) in teaching political science? There's such a broad spectrum in history. One thing that stood out for instance was about Roman politics - and how brutal it was. The alliances and mechanizations were truly marvelous and brutal. Make the wrong alliance and you, your family, your friend's family, and your dog were likely to be assassinated if your side ended up on the losing end.
I always use Aristotle, I almost always use J.S. Mill's "On Liberty," and I almost always end up using Feinberg's 4 volumes on harm. Other than that it's quite a mix.
I usually don't but people in general company are paranoid of coded references, which is somewhat fair because there have been many. I remember the good ol days where you break silence with a dirty joke or an obnoxiously loud fart. Anyways, back to being in quarantine....
As far I am concerned Aristotle has already been "cancelled" by society. Probably one of the philosophers who did the most damage and delayed the progress of humankind the most in human history. I have personally no time or find any worth in studying or admiring what anyone has to say who justifies that I am a lesser human just because I was born a woman. Thats not only about Aristotle but Wittgenstein ,Confucious and others too. There is no need for enmity with someone who provided justifications for the abuse of women for thousands of years. I just drop all these in the garbage because I have limited time in this world, and it is better spent studying someones' others works.
There arent any statues of him? Really? He probably has more statues than any american civil war hero.
I am sure there are, I just don't know of any. Probably in some Greek American park or building. I honestly think statues are pretty stupid. Maybe the lesson here is that instead of idolizing men of the past, we should recognize that all people are imperfect. And instead of creating statues to people who are imperfect, maybe we should create sculpture towards the ideas and accomplishments that we appreciate from them. Hakeem had it right.
A statue of his head should be located in many universities and museums and on top of many desks and libraries. He has been one of the historic persons most loved to be statued, even if it was based on copies from copies from copies. That's because he has been so famous and beloved and widely read and that's why he has made so much damage in the history of humankind with his words. Afterall you are as powerful as you are read and famous. Noone is perfect. But when this human imperfection leads to abuse of half the human population then thats not just a simple flaw, is it? I take everyone in the context of his times thats why I dont hate him. But I sure as hell dont admire him either, will not spend any effort or time studying him and wouldnt want any statue of him near me either. Thank god we dont live 2500 years ago. There are many philosphers who have blessed us with their works since then to study and admire.
Do I think his ideas should be studied? Yes - absolutely 100%. I studied him and read his books in college and found them to be intellectually stimulating - although I disagreed with much of his philosophy, he did have interesting takes on politics. Should he be celebrated with statues and beloved? Why? Maybe he contributed a lot to Western Civ, but I think there were more interesting philosophers out there. I think western civ is rooted in overly rigid dichotomies. Western Civ is based on an inherent superiority of Western culture and Aristotle's writings reflect that. You are free to love him and celebrate him. I for one, don't have to and I think that's the point. There's a difference between studying the man's ideas, and worshiping them and by extension, him.
Which eastern ancient philosophy preached about women being decision makers and having equal rights as men?
One can study whatever one likes. I am against censorship. If someone wants to study that or even Mein Kampf they should be free to do so. I also admire ancient and old philosophers and writers because of the brilliance of their mind and the work they have left behind. I am not against honouring them and building them statues - Aristotle is not one of them. I dont see why we should put everything in the same basket. So noone of the past should be honoured?
Viewing history through the lens of our modern mores is a slippery slope, and I typically loathe the usual slippery slope argument. Does that mean we need to celebrate the Columbus or Cortez or Confederate types? Nope, that's what museums and books are for.
Women in early Buddhism The founder of Buddhism, Gautama Buddha, permitted women to join his monastic community and fully participate in it, although there were certain provisos or garudhammas. As Susan Murcott comments, "The nun's sangha was a radical experiment for its time." Buddhism, unlike many other early religions/ societies, does not consider women inferior to men. The Buddha emphasized the fruitful role women can (and, according to Buddha) should play as a wife and mother. In family affairs, the woman was considered a capable substitute for her husband if he were indisposed. I’m not sure what you’re asking for but I can find more things like this I’m sure. This took seconds.
As a wife and as a mother? No thats exactly not what I was looking for. As a wife and as a mother has been told by a myriad other ancient philosophers. Know your place woman..take care of your man and children. How about being a leader and a tribe chief? Decision maker? Merchant ?
But thats not about the person as a historic figure. It is about the person as a philosopher whose works are being studied and celebrated till today. There is a huge difference between the two.
