Aristotle's ethics versus his philosophy of science?

Illyria (Balkans) Forums > - Hellenism - Haimian and Civilization's Alpha & Omega - > Aristotle's ethics versus his philosophy of science?
	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
AAdmin Forum Emperor! Posts: 4237 (1/5/06 1:17 pm) Reply	Aristotle's ethics versus his philosophy of science? Question(1): Aristotle's ethics versus his philosophy of science? In Aristotle's written work (called 'Nicomachean Ethics') Aristotle wrote a masterpiece when it comes to analysis of human morality and the end (purpose/final destination) of human life. The work is a masterpiece that is still used today. His basic idea is that the great(est) thinker or Aristotle shows us that he believes that absolute moral standards do not exist and that analysis of ethics have to be be based on understanding of human psychology while taking into account daily life and human nature. Aristotle's views on science (not including here practical science such as ethics which is concerned with the human good) were based on analytical method (which often viewed as the basis of all modern scientific research). The human good (which is aimed by all men) is identified as happiness, though men argue on the methods or means to achieve it or the mode of life it make take to achieve it. An example where we can see Aristotle's analytical method in action is in his treatment of the tragic protagonist. Basic idea is for author to focus on the most desired response that the public might give (in this case arousing the tragic emotions of 'pity' and 'fear'). This response is to be stimulated by setting conditions right and rationally estimating the desired response from the public or viewers of the play. This is done by choosing a central character between a person being fully bad, person being fully good or one that is in the middle. The downfall of fully bad character would not be viewed as tragic but rather as comical. The downfall of fully good character would be plain hateful. Thus the most desirable choice is choosing a character that is in the middle (of the two extremes) since the downfall of such character could arouse pity (for the defeat of the good side) and fear (for what the bad side might do). For Aristotle science can be fully understood through reasoning. The difference that Aristotle found between ethics (which, grouped with politics, is placed under practical science) and science (assuming we are talking about non-practical science such as theoretical science which includes physics, mathematics, and metaphysics) is in the level of research each requires. Practical science (in being different from theoretical science) such as ethics is not an exact science or it doesn't deal with absolutes. Aristotle states that when it comes to practical science we have to be happy with most closest (possible) approximations rather then absolutes. Therefore let me repeat again that Aristotle believed that ethical knowledge is a kind of knowledge that could not be deemed as certain (such would be the case with for example metaphysics which is certain) but rather a kind of knowledge that can be deemed as general. He also believed that a person had to study in order to become a good person. In other words, he believed that for a person to be viewed as virtuous that such person would not only have to know what virtue is but also to perform it continuously (meaning not just once) if such person was to be regarded as virtuous. Basic idea is, what would be the purpose of studying virtue it was not to be exercised or practised in real life. All science is created from making more complex systems of reasoning. Further, let me simplify and state the difference between practical science such as ethics (where the science part should be taken rather lightly in comparison with say theoretical science which is the actual science in comparison) and actual science such as theoretical science. The difference would be as it would be between dialectic approach (testing opinions for their logical constant - ex. real science or theoretical science) and analytic approach (or deduction from principles that are based on experience and exact observation or, simply put, deductive reasoning). Therefore science (again, not speaking of practical science) is focused on things which are unchanging and static or eternal or data which can not be changed. It deals with knowledge which can be taught. Scientific knowledge is also subject of demonstration and proof. As a result of some of these elements there is the fact that the deductive knowledge is scientific in nature which brings also some similarity between ethics and science (similarities such as it can be taught, demonstrated using deductive reasoning and proof or rather most reasonable assumption can be provided using deductive reasoning . _________ Less Balkanian Dogmatic Paranoia. More Rational Ancient Hellenic Wisdom. Reminder 1: Purpose of Illyria Forums Reminder 2: Rules of the Forums Important 1: Announcements! Important 2: 4 ALL Mods! Yahac's Proposal!

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend

Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image

Topic Control Image

Click to receive email notification of replies

Click to stop receiving email notification of replies

jump to:

- Illyria (Balkans) Forums - - Hellenism - Haimian and Civilization's Alpha & Omega - - Balkan Links (1200+) -

Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2007 ezboard, Inc.