NOS is really good at evasion. — frank

Who?

So let me get this straight. The primary voters chose Biden, then Biden said he wasn't going to run. Now you're verklempt over the disappointment the voters must feel about that. Is that correct? — frank

The Trumpsters kvetch but its Meshuggeneh. (That is about the limit of my Yiddish)

Anyone who is honest and paying attention knows that 1) unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary an incumbent president will be the nominee, 2) Biden's performance during the debate is compelling reason to have him step down. Not simply because he was likely to loose but because there is substantive reasons to question whether he is fit and able to be president for the next four years. 3) It is Trumpian conjecture that the primary voters feel that they have been treated unfairly. 4) There is good evidence that Harris enjoys greater voter approval that Biden did before stepping down. Most likely, many primary voters approve of the change. 5) The Trumpsters are pretending that it is a matter of fairness, but the only thing that they really think is unfair is that they spent a lot of time, effort, and money preparing to run against Biden.6) They question Biben's competency and wanted to make it a major campaign issue, but when after the debate more and more Democrats raised concerns and acted on it they cry foul.

The problem with your example is that a knife has more than the function of cutting ... — Bob Ross

Now you are catching on! Just as a knife has more than one function, a natural species does as well.

There is a difference between something that is in a species' nature and what that nature is. You misunderstand what he means for the 'goodness' or 'badness' of a thing to be relative to its nature. What is relative to its nature and what its nature is with regard to its telos is not the same. It is good for birds to fly, but as Icarus learned, not for men to fly. Hubris and violence may be in our species, but that does not mean it is good for us to be hubristic or violent.

Now, it does not become a ‘bad’ or lesser ‘good’ X because one cannot grab it; because we stipulated its sole function is cutting. — Bob Ross

The example is meant to illustrate the problem of postulating an intelligent species with only one function. If intellect is, as Aristotle says in De Anima, the part of the soul by which it knows and understands, then any species that is intelligent must have as part of its nature the capacity to understand. Any species that has a mind, has more than one function. At a minimum, it has the function of thinking, or reasoning. An intelligent species that is not intelligent is a contradiction.

It seems like you are denying that what is good is for a thing to fulfill its nature and instead it is for a thing to fulfill its nature if it is a proper part of the whole. — Bob Ross

That a species is a proper part of the whole is essential for understanding what a species is, that is, for understanding its nature. It is not as if these are two separate things - its nature apart from nature and its nature as part of nature. We can, when discussing such things, make a distinction, but the distinction does not exist in the nature of things.

This doesn’t seem accurate to me; because then a thing could be bad which is fulfilling its nature. — Bob Ross

Right! That is the problem with your devil species. One more once:

It is asking how something bad is good. — Fooloso4

and:

A "devil species" is bad, no matter how good it is at being bad. In fact, the better it is at being bad, the less good is. — Fooloso4

Moreover, the relation of a thing to a bigger whole isn’t necessarily an aspect of its nature: is a part of a rabbit’s nature to get eaten by a fox? — Bob Ross

The whole of nature is not an event in nature. What it is to be a fox or rabbit is not to eat or be eaten by the other. What it means to be your devil species, on the other hand, is as you would have it, to destroy other species. Just as we do not understand foxes and rabbits in terms of eating and being eaten, we cannot understand your devil species in terms solely of destroying and being destroyed.

His campaign specifically wanted to increase his support among blacks from 12% to 20%. I don't think he accomplished that. — frank

This tells us something about him and his campaign. Their bad judgment is one thing. Trump's wild overestimation of his abilities to win people over is quite another. He had some success with the Art of the Schmooze in his business dealings, at least until his reputation caught up with him; but his attempt to dominate a room of journalists as if they must be put in their place and lying to them, shows how out of touch he is. No doubt the Trumpsters will applaud, but they are not the people he wants to convince.

Why did his handlers even let him appear? — Wayfarer

He has no handlers because he cannot be handled. He cannot even control himself.

Suppose someone invents a knife. As a knife it fulfills its function - to cut. As such you might say it is a good knife. It is so "good', in fact, that it can cut through anything, and does. It cuts right through the cutting board, the table, and everything else it comes near, leaving behind a path of death and destruction. Having witnessed this from what is at the moment, a safe distance, would you still say it is a good knife? Now before answering too quickly, consider the other attributes of a good knife, most importantly, how well it handles. This knife literally cannot be handled. It would cut off your hand.

You wish to discuss your species in the context of Aristotelianism but you ignore the context of Aristotelianism in order to discuss your imaginary species. The part, a species, cannot be understood apart from or in abstraction from the whole of which it is a part. The whole is intelligibly prior to the part. This is fundamental to Aristotle's Metaphysics, to the problem of what is first, to the problem of first philosophy.

You are sidestepping the hypothetical. It is akin to if I asked you "if you had $1,000,000,000,000,000, then what would you buy?" — Bob Ross

You are sidestepping Aristotle! It has become increasingly apparent that for you Aristotle is irrelevant. This thread is not a "rejoinder to Aristotelian ethics".

Whether or not such a species would fit well into the “ordered whole” of nature is irrelevant — Bob Ross

Mistake the part for the whole. You insist that:

Since Aristotle is attaching the 'goodness' or 'badness' of a thing relative to its nature, — Bob Ross

but claim that nature, which is the source of species, is irrelevant? You are now reading the Metaphysics and claim to understand Aristotle's points but fail to understand a fundamental point: it is an inquiry into the arche, the source or beginning of things. The question of the goodness of a species cannot abstracted from the question of the goodness of the whole of which it is a part.

You are accepting Aristotle’s concept of ‘goodness’ (as underlined) and then turning around and irrelevantly commenting that it is absurd for such a species to exist as a coherent member of nature—that doesn’t address the hypothetical I have presented. — Bob Ross

The hypothetical you present is incompatible with Aristotle. That is not an irrelevancy. Aristotle was a pretty smart guy. Do you really think that he would not have seen what you see so plainly? It is not that Aristotle failed to consider this hypothetical, it is that such a creature has not place in his understanding of the world.

You would have to demonstrate how the hypothetical (stated above) is inconsistent or incoherent with Aristotle’s concept of ‘good’. — Bob Ross

I have already done that.

I understand the point is that Aristotle thinks that the telos of each species is well-ordered, but I think it doesn’t help his case because of how he defined goodness. — Bob Ross

It is not that the telos of each species is well-ordered, it is that the whole, of which each species is a part is well-ordered. Once again:

Aristotle points out that there are various meanings of good. — Fooloso4

To take one meaning as is it applies to all or the whole leads to your confusion.

quote="Bob Ross;921928"]

Form is the idea of the essence of a thing

If by idea you mean a concept then that is wrong.

the form of a human being is the essence of a human being. — Bob Ross

No. A human being is not a disembodied entity.

If I take your argument seriously (that a human being’s form is fully realized immediately) ... — Bob Ross

The species form "human being" is why the offspring of human beings are human beings, whether they have one arm or two.

You are just going around in circles, trying to distinguish these terms when they are clearly the same. — Bob Ross

Aristotle distinguishes these terms. Aristotle comes to us through Latinized translation. Because of this the meaning of the Greek terms is obscured. See the section Translating Aristotle from the IEP article on Aristotle's Metaphysics and Selections from Joe Sachs's Introduction
to His Translation of Aristotle's Metaphysics, here

Continuing my previous post:

Its form is what it is to be what it is. What differentiates it from other things or kinds.

Aristotle points out that there are various meanings of good. The NE begins by saying that all things aim at some good. A "devil species" is bad, no matter how good it is at being bad. In fact, the better it is at being bad, the less good is.

The good of a thing cannot be determined apart from what it is to be that thing, apart from its telos. In his translation of the Metaphysics Joe Sachs points out:

Aristotle does not say that animals, plants, and the cosmos have purposes but that the are purposes, ends-in-themselves ... Aristotle's "teleology" is nothing but his claim that all natural beings are self-maintaining wholes.

We are back again to the absurd notion that a natural thing's telos, its place is the cosmos is to harm other species. Such a cosmos would not be a well-ordered whole.

The form of a thing is its nature ... — Bob Ross

A things form is inherent to it. It is the being at work (energeia) of a thing If it was not continually being at work staying the same (entelecheia) from its beginning it would cease to be.

It's nature is not separate from nature. It is a part of not apart from nature. To understand the nature of a thing is to understand its place and activity within nature.

Form (eidos) and nature (phusis) are not two terms with the same meaning. In Book V, chapter IV, of the Metaphysics he says:

In one sense, nature means the coming into being of things that are born.

Nature encompasses both form (eidos) and matter (hule).

(i.e., its essence — Bob Ross

'Essence' is an English translation of the Latin 'essentia'. A term coined by Cicero to translate 'ousia'. Literally it is the “the what it was to be” of a thing. Ousia refers to some specific being. Aristotle or Bob Ross.

In short, to realize one's nature is not to realize one's form of being.

Nothing you said addressed anything I said...at all. — Bob Ross

You said:

if what is good is just a thing realizing its form, then there cannot be a further question of “why is it good for a thing to realize its form?”. — Bob Ross

You take what is for Aristotle the question of the Metaphysics, the question of being, and treat it as an answer. Things do not realize their form as if it is something they do not already have, something that they are not already. It's form or eidos is not something that comes after it already is.

Added: This posted before I was done. I continue below.

I've been reading through Aristotle's "Metaphysics", and I think I understand Aristotle's points enough to start tackling this post you made. — Bob Ross

The fact that you think you understand Aristotle's points is probable evidence that you do not. See Book ll.

if what is good is just a thing realizing its form, then there cannot be a further question of “why is it good for a thing to realize its form?”. — Bob Ross

These are two parts of the same question, that is, what is for a thing to be what it? What is the good that each thing seeks? This is a question, not an answer to the question of being . What does it mean for a man to realize his nature? What does this look like? With this last question we begin to get closer to the original sense of eidos, which has been buried under centuries of divergent sedimented meaning.

Only recently I began viewing him in the manner in which he doesn't bend over to the establishment or any secret societies and so on. — Shawn

His choose of Supreme Court nominees was decided by the Federalist Society. His come to Jesus charade was created to get Evangelical backing. His sycophant bowing down to Putin requires bending over to kiss his ass.

he really is the man of the people. — Shawn

He really is not. He is the privileged son of a wealthy, racist, corrupt, real estate swindler (Fred Trump) who joined his father's enterprise to bilk the government and battle one law suit after another. His father gave him what he says was a "small loan". It was at least a million dollars with which he started a series of failed businesses, leaving the contractors to foot the bill. In an earlier skin he was shunned by the "beautiful people" of New York he so desperately wanted to be a member of. He tried to buy his way in, but his ostentatious attempts to display class were regarded as too crass even for them. He was obsessed with and courted the gossip columnists, anonymously feeding them stories about himself. The infamous lawyer Roy Cohn was his mentor.

He is a manufactured image promoted by reality TV. Packaged and sold to the American people. A con man who has conned his way to the top.

At a dinner sponsored by the Heritage Foundation in April 2022 Trump said: “This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.”
NBC News

Some will deny he said this but there is a video of it.

Trump is trying to distance himself from Project 2025. From an interview on Fox News:

It’s a group of very, very conservative people. And they wrote a document that many of the points are fine. Many of the points are absolutely ridiculous.

But during the same interview he also said that he has:

“never seen” the plan and had “nothing to do with” it.

He has never seen it and has nothing to do with it, and yet he knows it has many fine points and many that are absolutely ridiculous. What we do not know, because he has not said, is which of them does he think are the many fine points and which are ridiculous.

Paul Dans has stepped down from his leadership position on the project, but a spokesman for Heritage said the project is not shutting down. In typical fashion, following the criticism of the plan, Trump is now attempting distance himself from the project, many of whose proposals were crafted by people who served in his first administration. Unfortunately for him, either way, the damage has been done.

I expect his opponents will continue to keep this before the public.

At some point his public speaking style changed from that of a fifth grader struggling to do a report on a book he had not read to that of a third rate comic doing borscht belt shtick.

For me, as I've said, the real question is whether there is something to the claim that people become separated from their bodies and whether they're having a third-person experience. — Sam26

Based on the description quoted they do not separate from their bodies.

The evidence, as my argument concludes, is that there is enough consistency and corroboration of the reports to conclude reasonably that consciousness is not dependent on the brain. — Sam26

In the article cited what occurs is dependent on the brain. I suspect that your underlying assumption about the "higher self" underlies your evaluation of the evidence.

There can be significant damage to the brain (e.g. Dr. Eban Alexander's brain damage is significant) and still, people give very lucid descriptions of what's happening around their body and what's happening many miles from their body. — Sam26

As you may know, his account has been criticized. For example:here

You may see things differently, but the Esquire article is pretty damning.

I too question the distinction and relationship being made between consciousness and reality.

That's the reason the Court is now so conservative, because Americans have leaned conservative for several decades. — frank

The reason the Court is now so conservative is because McConnell blocked Obama's nominee and Trump, who lost the popular vote, went with the Federalist Society's recommendations.

According to Politico:

Our research shows the Court took a sharp swerve two years ago — and its decisions now closely mirror the views of the average Republican, not the average American.

According to the Pew Research Center, favorable views of the Supreme Court have fallen to an historic low.

Democracy can be flighty, so it's nice to have built-in drags on the mob. — frank

The Founders worked to prevent a tyranny of the majority, but a tyranny of the minority can be just as dangerous. And when lifetime appointments reflect the will of that minority we are all dragged down by a mob calling itself "patriots" and "the people".

A term limit of 10 or 15 years combined with staggered start dates seems long enough to counteract changing whims.

The idea of 'spirit' is out there already, you know that! — Amity

I do know that, and that is why I don't know what you mean. It is not a term with a single agreed upon meaning. It is used with regard to various concepts and mythologies.

And yes, we don't know what it is to be incorporeal but we have imagination and creativity. — Amity

Right. That is, as I understand it, what Socrates talk of likenesses is about. On the one hand is the question of the relation between the original and proposed image, on the other is the power of the image, of where it might take us.

I don't know about accepting 'truth' from a likeness. — Amity

Many take some mythology of god or gods as the truth, in some cases with a god being the purported source. They might even object to it being called an mythology.

If we accept your suggestion about 'accepting' then where does that leave us...? — Amity

I am not suggesting we accept any likeness as more than a likeness. Without knowledge of the gods we are not able to say that any likeness is like the thing it is said to be a likeness of, but we can consider whether a likeness is a good likeness in so far as where that likeness might take us. Whether it inspires us to be good and do good, to be just, to love. I think Socrates has something like this in mind when he says that the gods are good.

Has any of it taught you how to tell the young both what to do and not do in such terms as they get it? — tim wood

Probably not. I have no answers. The best I might be able to do is give them a sense of phronesis, I cannot impart wisdom but perhaps can help them to appreciate the value of an attitude of thoughtfulness.

So, when Socrates is talking with Phaedrus, he is appealing to 'god' from a shared perspective? Or is he pandering to him? — Amity

I do not think it is from a shared perspective, but I don't think he was pandering. Socratic philosophy begins with an examination of opinions.

When I imagine any god, it is not in corporeal form but spirit. — Amity

Well, the gods are, according to the text, not corporeal. When you say they are 'spirit' I don't know what that means. Are you introducing ideas of your own? Perhaps the problem is that corporal beings do not know what it is to be an incorporeal being.

Why is it important to please them and not ourselves? — Amity

Oh the impiety! Drink the hemlock. If the gods are in charge then it would be best to please them. There are, of course, many problems with this. The Euthyphro addresses the question of what is pleasing to the gods. Socrates puts being just above pleasing the gods or ourselves.

So, is it the gods we should depend on for truth — Amity

Socrates claims that the gods are good in every way (274a), but the poets' myths of the gods does not match this description. If we look at the whole of this paragraph it begins with "likeness to the truth". It is the person who knows the truth who is best equipped in every respect to discover the likenesses. One who knows the truth of the gods who is best equipped to give a true likeness. Without seeing or properly understanding god, however, (246c) mortal man cannot give a true likeness of the gods. We cannot depend on the gods for the truth. Nor can we depend on the claim that the gods are good in every way.

Which likenesses are we to accept as the truth? Or, are we to accept that every likeness is merely a likeness and as such is to a greater or lesser degree unlike the thing it is said to be a likeness of?

An example comes to mind: to build the foundation for a house, you might well look at a book that tells how to do that. — tim wood

Given the connection between books and philosophy in your OP I took the question to be about books that address philosophical issues.

And this all-a-piece with the notion that meditation/study of books, at the expense of all else, is a destructive practice. — tim wood

Yes. I agree. I have spent long periods of my now long life without meditation/study of books. On the other hand, my time with books has been in large part a time with others as a student, a teacher, a friend talking about what we have found in the books we read.

I'm not all that interested in Trump. I'm more interested in what his popularity means for the future. — frank

I agree that eliminating Trump does not eliminate the problem. I don't know if the factions can remain united without him though.

It's not much to do with Trump. He's running with it because it'll work for him. — AmadeusD

It will do for him what he in his incompetency was not able to do in his first term.

Haha, case in bloody point mate. — AmadeusD

? These examples show that he does care to be a dictator. Dictators grab power for their own benefit.

He is unpredictable and cannot be controlled.
— Fooloso4

This is a ridiculous statement and patently untrue. I'll leave it there. — AmadeusD

On almost a daily basis he demonstrates that he is unpredictable. He cannot be controlled because he cannot control himself. By all means leave it there.

I think everyone is taking Trump the person way more seriously than he takes himself. — AmadeusD

There is one thing Trump cares about - Trump.

He's muddling through - not planning a decade-long campaign to be dictator. — AmadeusD

What do you make of Project 2025?

He doesn't care enough. — AmadeusD

Of course he does! He is driven by his ego. He wants unquestioned loyalty. He courts strong-man leaders of other countries. He uses the dictatorial tactics of fear, disinformation, and scapegoating.

... he is clearly not the psychopathic mastermind ... — AmadeusD

This is half true. He is not a mastermind. He has other people doing the thinking for him.

If anything, he is being co-opted for his charisma for genuinely either malicious, or delusional politicians behind him — AmadeusD

He is not. There are some who use his popularity and think they can use him for their own ends, but this is a mistake. He is unpredictable and cannot be controlled.

I think it very much depends on the reader and which books they choose to read. There is an art to writing and an art to reading. Reading can be a way of thinking. When that is the case, although the book has already been written, what is said, although situated in time, need not be limited to that time. The reader is not looking backward but inward. While the book does not change the reader can, and in that way the book changes for that reader. The book that was cast aside in my youth remains ready for when I am ready for it.

According to Ivanhoe and Van Norden (Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy) the term 'nature', xing, as it is used by thinkers of the classical period, is what is paradigmatic of a living thing. Those tendencies that are more likely to be realized in a healthy environment. Confucius emphasized the sacred practices, a set of rites or rituals,li through which the lost golden age could be rebuilt.

In the golden age (c. 1045-771 B.C.E) the early Zhou rulers established and maintained a special relation with Heaven, tian. Without getting into the concept of tian for Confucius or others, there is right practice and wrong practice. Practice in accord with Heaven and practice contrary to it. Humans who are virtuous, ren, have realized or perfected their nature.

From the cited article:

“What has enabled the scientific study of death,” he continues, “is that brain cells do not become irreversibly damaged within minutes of oxygen deprivation when the heart stops. Instead, they ‘die’ over hours of time. This is allowing scientists to objectively study the physiological and mental events that occur in relation to death”.

This is not an OBE. It is something the body experiences as it approaches death. Death is a embodied process not an on/off switch.

I fixed his statement:

We’ll have it fixed so good you won't be able to vote. — Trump

Aristotle was writing about humans. If he had known of a devil species, perhaps he would have written about it. — Leontiskos

Aristotle is not simply writing about humans. He wants to teach them. Would he be able to teach a devil species? I assume such a species would not care or pay any attention to ethics, except perhaps to attempt to undermine it.

I'm puzzling over the word 'god'. — Amity

As well you should be! We should keep in mind that Socrates was sentenced to death for impiety. Much of what Plato has Socrates say in the dialogues reflects what was common opinion. We are not likely to find much that overtly goes against those beliefs.

Translators are not always careful to distinguish the terms 'gods', 'god' and 'a god'. Monotheistic assumptions seem to inform some translations as well as some readers' interpretation. The singular 'god' appears in a few places in the Phaedrus. One notable place:

... without seeing or properly understanding god, we do imagine some living creature possessing a soul and possessing a body which are conjoined for all time. Well, let these matters be arranged and described in whatever manner is pleasing to god ... (246c-d, Horan translation)

Why is the singular used here surrounded by multiple uses of the plural? Perhaps this can be addressed in terms of the famous Socratic "what is X?" questions. "Properly understanding" God means to be able to say what god is. Apparently, this is, according to this passage, something we are unable to do.

Added: As with other 'what is' questions he is looking for what all that is called 'god' has in common and distinguishes it from all else.

Trump is the emperor with no clothes, only he proudly displays his nakedness. — Echarmion

To borrow from Homer: Trump clothes himself in shamelessness.

The demagogue expresses the society’s zeitgeist.

I think this is somewhat misleading. The demagogue taps into the dissatisfaction of some portion of society and promises to fix things. In part he does this by setting up a scapegoat. Eliminate the scapegoat and you eliminate the problem.

Unfortunately, and I think inadvertently, Hedges contributes to the problem when he says such things as:

Biden and the Democratic Party are responsible for this zeitgeist. They orchestrated the deindustrialization of the United States, ensuring that 30 million workers lost their jobs in mass layoffs.

Is there a generally agreed upon cause of deindustrialization? Has it been clearly shown that Biden and the Democratic party are responsible? Why does Hedges blame the Democrats?

Elsewhere he says:

What you really got was the transformation of the Democratic party into the Republican party.

When he blames democrats for becoming republicans I take it he is doing two things. The first is historical analysis. The second is to tell democrats that they have lost their way and need to reorient themselves. But things might look quite different when he places the blame at the feet of the Democratic party. This might be taken and used as a sound bite endorsement of the Republicans.

Trump is not only part of the establishment, he is the Republican wing of the establishment. The Republican Party is Trump. Trump is the Republican Party. Any daylight between then has vanished.

was Socrates literate? — isomorph

In the Phaedo he is putting some of Aesop's writings to verse. It is possible that he was working from memory from what he heard from others reading Aesop aloud, but there is no indication, as far as I am aware, that anyone else was writing down the verses he made for him.

Perhaps more importantly, he was literate in the sense of being able to discuss the writings of others.

There is no 'the good' in Aristotelian ethics and, consequently, there is no universal good which all species are geared towards. — Bob Ross

I will defer to Joe Sachs, a leading scholar and translator of Aristotle:

Aristotle asks about the way the various meanings of the good are organized, but he immediately drops the question, as being more at home in another sort of philosophic inquiry. (1096b, 26-32) It is widely claimed that Aristotle says there is no good itself, or any other form at all of the sort spoken of in Plato's dialogues. This is a misreading of any text of Aristotle to which it is referred. Here in the study of ethics it is a failure to see that the idea of the good is not rejected simply, but only held off as a question that does not arise as first for us. Aristotle praises Plato for understanding that philosophy does not argue from first principles but toward them.(1095a, 31-3)

("Three Little Words")

What Aristotle says in the passage cited from Nicomachean Ethics is:

Perhaps however this question must be dismissed for the present, since a detailed investigation of it belongs more properly to another branch of philosophy. And likewise with the Idea of the Good; for even if the goodness predicated of various in common really is a unity or something existing separately and absolute, it clearly will not be practicable or attainable by man; but the Good which we are now seeking is a good within human reach.

As previous pointed out and regarded by you as not relevant is that ethics is about the human good. The good for nature as a whole transcends the human good or the good of any other species. Its energeia and entelecheia, its "being at work" and "being at work staying itself" are for the sake of itself. It is its own arche and telos. Its own source or beginning and its own end or purpose. Whatever aims for some end or purpose aims for some good.

What happened to Sanders during 2016 was pretty wild. Hands down he would have won, but, the Clinton's wanted it their way and look what we got... — Shawn

It is not at all clear that Bernie would have won. He is a "socialist" and this scares lots of voters. To them the qualification 'democratic' socialist does not matter. Although Clinton won the popular vote, the states in which she lost are the states that are strongly opposed to socialism.

The irony is that many of the same people who oppose socialism because they equate it with government control are if favor of autocracy. The power of the demagogue to persuade the people!

Thank for that. A powerful, factual based ad. I don't know how effective it would be today. The Trumpsters just don't care. They believe he is their savior and either overlook his faults or think it is all liberal lies. Those who are less fanatical may regard it as a trade-off they are willing to accept. Perhaps there are still enough voters who have not made up their mind who might be swayed.

There's a big difference between managing the job for the 5 months and managing the job for 53 more months, should he have been reelected. — BC

This seems so obvious that should not need to be said ... but evidently and unfortunately it does.

This is contrary to Aristotle's understanding of nature

How so? — Bob Ross

The whole of nature and each organism in the hierarchical order of species works toward maintaining that order according to its nature. But it is not just any order, it has as its end, according to Aristotle, the good. A species whose sole purpose is to cause harm can play no role in this well ordered whole.