Plato and Aristotle both probably can be blamed or credited with almost everything that's happened since they were alive. IMO

Or the way we treat many animals and plants. Still lots to improve with feminism, racism, classism and things we can't even see are wrong. — Manuel

Last week I was at a church discussion group for which the the topic was racial discrimination. Someone asked the question, "Why do people practice discrimination in housing--discouraging blacks from becoming their neighbors?"

People like to group themselves by similarity of race, class, culture, politics, sexual preference... The church at which the discussion took place exemplifies this grouping--Northern European, "middle class", well educated, Lutheran. Likely we evolved this tendency to 'stick to our own kind'. Is that a bug or is it a feature? I think the latter.

Urban dwellers tend to prefer the variety of the city--racial, class, politics, foodways, etc--but they also tend to maintain boundaries of race, class, culture, and so on. Hence, different kinds of neighborhoods. Some people prefer suburban environments where demographics are homogeneous.

I've always preferred the city (because I grew up in a very small town), but I think the suburban are wrongly criticized for being monotonous, boring, all-the-same, racist enclaves, and so on. 25% of the US population lives in suburbs. 40% of blacks live in suburbs. They like where they live. Are 80,000,000 Americans wrong? I don't think so. (There was a musical, "Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong). 31% of Americans live in large cities. They aren't wrong either. Different strokes for different folks.

Concentrations of similar people, be they blacks, whites, asians, gays, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists, singles, and so forth provide the necessary demographic density to build up particular cultures. Similar people who are too widely scattered have difficulty doing that.

Aristotle became an authority. Splendid!

Aristotle became the authority! Bummer!

:up:

Likely we evolved this tendency to 'stick to our own kind'. Is that a bug or is it a feature? I think the latter. — Bitter Crank

In a cosmopolitan milieu, I suspect it's more of a bug than not (an ever-present, atavistic anxiety in spite of the cultural and material benefits). Still, the insights expressed are spot-on. :up:

:up:

Plato and Aristotle both probably can be blamed or credited with almost everything that's happened since they were alive. IMO — John McMannis

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
Don't forget Socrates...he is part of this cult of personalities!
Enjoy your stay! :flower:

Why do you think Aristotle made humanity too dependent on magnanimous men from-which one would derive some privileged status over your brothers and sisters — Shawn

Good question. And aptly phrased.

However, before we ask why someone did something, I think we should first try to establish that they actually did what they are being accused of.

The funny thing is that the people who demonize Plato and Aristotle are often the very same people who glorify real dictators like Lenin and Stalin. In his The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, Russell writes:

I believe that Communism is necessary to the world … Regarded as a splendid attempt, without which ultimate success would have been very improbable, Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind ...

Moreover, what self-styled modern “progressives” conveniently forget is that Ancient Greece was arguably far more democratic than the despotic systems of other cultures of the time like Egypt, Persia, and India.

And, of course, without Plato and Aristotle, there wouldn’t be philosophers like Bertrand Russell to criticize them .... :smile:

People like to group themselves by similarity of race, class, culture, politics, sexual preference... — Bitter Crank

Correct. Not every preference of association is an "act of discrimination". Otherwise, every time people associate with others of the same race, class, culture, religion, etc., they could be accused of committing a "crime".

By that logic, your church group would have to either (a) invite equal numbers of atheists, Muslims, Hare Krishnas, etc., or (b) disband and disperse ....

This church is not diverse. But then, it's a liturgical Lutheran church, and most Lutherans (never mind Hare Krishnas) do not like liturgical worship--chanting the psalms, singing the Eurcharist liturgy, etc. It's all in the Lutheran Book of Worship--more honored by Lutherans in the breach than in the observance.

Officially, we desire diversity. Just about every church does--officially. But not really, and that's OK. The benefit of diversity for diversity's sake is slight. Neighborhoods that operate like concentration camps (the ghettos) are bad too. But just moving people out of the ghetto to dilute the demographics of both the ghetto and the suburb probably doesn't accomplish much. It is thought (by some reformers) that poor children perform in school better IF they and their families live amongst people who value and perform education, have regular jobs, mow their lawn, and so forth.

I've read some of the research, and it sounds plausible--which isn't the same thing as likely. Whether it works or not clearly would depend on a cluster of disparate factors. It all gets very complicated very fast, at best. At worst, the project blows up.

The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism — Apollodorus

Russell wrote that in 1920, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution.

I've been Reading Richard Overy's The Twilight Years: The Paradox of Britain between the Wars. At that time, between WWI and WWII, there was a lot of doubt in various circles about the future of capitalism. A lot of people, following Marx and others, thought that Capitalism was bad, and on its last legs. If it was doomed, it still wasn't clear when, exactly, it would collapse. Many of these people thought that socialism was the natural and humane successor to capitalism. It was difficult for intellectuals (including economists) to decide what, exactly was going on. Clearly, what was happening was not good -- especially after 1929.

Some feared that the conclusion of capitalism would not be socialism, but barbarism. Especially in the 1930s, that must have seems increasingly likely.

Bolshevism deserves the gratitude and admiration of all the progressive part of mankind ...

A lot of British progressives were at least pro-socialist and some were pro-Bolshevik, or pro-communist. This was still early in the future USSR's revolutionary history. On the other hand, the state of capitalism which was in front of their eyes was not good. Rising unemployment, underemployment, and poverty were ruining many lives. it didn't seem like the ruling class (where the wealth was) were competent to deal with the problems at hand. Indeed, many economic advisors were not sure what should/could be done.

Faulkner's aphorism that "The past is never dead. It's not even past" seems truer as I get older. No, I don't think our situation is like the 1920s or 1930s. But in the face of global warming and rampant viral infections, one has to wonder whether the existing establishment is up to the task of governing effectively. It's clearer in 2022 than it was in 1932 what we should be doing -- but we don't seem to be able to do it (cut CO2 emissions significantly now--something we should have done 30 years ago).

But just moving people out of the ghetto to dilute the demographics of both the ghetto and the suburb probably doesn't accomplish much. — Bitter Crank

I think the term "ghetto" can be misleading as it evokes the image of people being forced by the state to live exclusively in a designated area.

"Ghettos" do not always emerge under state pressure. In most cases, they seem to develop naturally, as a result of people of the same ethnic or religious background tending to live in areas inhabited by people from the same background, especially where there are places of worship, schools, stores, restaurants, etc. that facilitate cultural and ethnic continuation.

Diversity can also give rise to tensions and these tensions can be exploited by political groups and foreign powers for their own divisive agendas.

In fact, it is not unheard-of for minorities living in a particular area to demand a degree of autonomy or even independence from the host society.

If diversity causes or contributes to the fragmentation of society, it cannot be claimed that there are only positive aspects to it.

In the ancient world there was considerably more social stratification, and the hoi polloi were held in low regard. (I wonder if you see echoes of that in Heidegger's conception of 'das man'? Is that the element in Heidegger that is said to be proto-fascist?) — Wayfarer

The hoi polloi dealt with and were bound by, and a part of, the immutable, changing, practical word. Therefore, the unchanging, perfect truth, good, etc., was inaccessible to them. Plato and Aristotle were convinced the world in which we live is imperfect, and there must be something underlying it or transcending it which was perfect. Only the perfect was truly significant; only its contemplation was worthy.

As for Heidegger, I thought his concept of das man derived from the fact he'd constantly yell "You da man!" whenever he saw Hitler or some higher-ranking Nazi. But I could be wrong.

:smirk:

Plato and Aristotle both probably can be blamed or credited with almost everything that's happened since they were alive. — John McMannis

And another thing. Why didn't Euclid invent calculus?

As for Heidegger, I thought his concept of das man derived from the fact he'd constantly yell "You da man!" whenever he saw Hitler or some higher-ranking Nazi. But I could be wrong. — Ciceronianus

That's a good one! "Jude Man!" How come he is considered by some one of the greatest philosophers? Sure, the works and politics should not be convoluted. Considering Heidegger I can't separate them though. Heidrich, Heinz, Heil, Heidegger... They all belong to the same nazi bunch, as far as I'm concerned, no matter their degree of "philosophical intelligence".

I'm well known in this forum as being inclined to mock and disparage Heidegger at every opportunity, and this inclination has, I fear, made some angry. The general approach of his admirers has been to distinguish the man from the philosopher, something I find difficult to do. I think him a loathsome person, and that may make me disposed to reject his work. So, I'm probably not his most impartial critic.

But what I've been able to read, and (I think) understand, of his work seems to me unremarkable, and Romantic, mystic and peculiarly nationalistic. Deutschland seem to him uber alles indeed--Germans if they aren't the Master Race are destined to save humanity. It has to do with their "Being" I think. This may account for his seemingly worshipful attitude towards Hitler.

:up:

I agree 100% and stand on your side! I have read some stuff of him. About "Dasein"... And he discovered: "The human body is essentially something other than an animal organism"... Damned! How long did he take to find that out? When he saw a naked woman for the first time at age 30?

I had the idea that 'das man' was about the tyranny of popular opinion. The dominance of popular opinion is one of the characteristics of liberal democracy that is at odds with the traditionalist idea of wisdom that Aristotelianism typifies. Something like mob rule albeit mediated and harnessed by the instruments of technology and capitalism.