Aristotle, the Macedonian?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Traveller
    Banned
    • Sep 2008
    • 177

    #31
    Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
    Spartan, my dear friend:

    I respect your opinions and look forward to your posts. We have different views on this subject and that is okay.

    I understand your argument; an older friend of mine, a Cypriot Greek, told me the same thing; and I have read the same information as you.

    My problem with the theory of a migration from the north is that it is not (for me) logical. I mean, if we start with the assumption that life began or evolved in the south, whether africa or south west asia, or thereabouts, and start with the premise that the earliest recorded civilizations began in south west asia, i.e. mesopotamia, etc, it seems perfectly good sense to argue that Greeks arrived to the Balkans from south west asia and the city states created civilization.

    For the Greeks to have originated in the north is not possible; to argue this would mean that either (a) certain humans originated in the north independent of the south; or (b) migrated from south west asia, bypassed the balkans, went to the north, and then decided to migrate back to the balkans.

    Why not argue that they migrated to the balkans and the islands and stayed thither? And from there they built civilization and culture?
    This issue is solved decades now. All historians agree that Pre hellenic tribes (which later evolved to the first Greeks) arrived in Greece from Asia minor.

    Comment

    • Spartan
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2008
      • 1037

      #32
      Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
      Spartan, my dear friend:

      I respect your opinions and look forward to your posts. We have different views on this subject and that is okay.

      I understand your argument; an older friend of mine, a Cypriot Greek, told me the same thing; and I have read the same information as you.

      My problem with the theory of a migration from the north is that it is not (for me) logical. I mean, if we start with the assumption that life began or evolved in the south, whether africa or south west asia, or thereabouts, and start with the premise that the earliest recorded civilizations began in south west asia, i.e. mesopotamia, etc, it seems perfectly good sense to argue that Greeks arrived to the Balkans from south west asia and the city states created civilization.

      For the Greeks to have originated in the north is not possible; to argue this would mean that either (a) certain humans originated in the north independent of the south; or (b) migrated from south west asia, bypassed the balkans, went to the north, and then decided to migrate back to the balkans.

      Why not argue that they migrated to the balkans and the islands and stayed thither? And from there they built civilization and culture?
      Thank -you for the response Philosopher, I think we've misunderstood each other here. I am not saying that the ancient Greek tribes(Dorians) originated in the north, definitely not. That would mean they would have to be a species other than homo sapiens, as man originated in the south as you say. Im saying they(Dorians) came into the region from the north.
      The example of yours which I bolded is perfectly feasible in my opinion(except the part thats underlined), and is my understanding of these events based on what I have read. Im saying that this tribes route into the Pelloponese was done on land, not the sea. Their migration(as I see it) would have began in Asia minor and then moved west and north to beyond the hellespont, through Thrace and Macedonia(perhaps Epirus as well), and then south into the Pelloponese.

      On a different note-I also believe Mt.Olympus was a big factor in ancient times(specifically pre-800-900bc) in regards to the cultural demographic of the area. It isolated the people north and south from one another, and thus, they evolve seperately and are distinctly different from a cultural standpoint after so many generations apart. The same, to an extent, can be said for the pelloponese, which by land, is only accesible to the north(central Greece) by a strip of land only a few miles in length, and was thus, easily defended from invaders. Of course these have not been big factors, in the last thousand years or so, seeing as man has bridged these obstacles very easily, but in ancient days would have isolated people from each other for long periods of time.
      Last edited by Spartan; 10-13-2008, 07:25 PM.

      Comment

      • Soldier of Macedon
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2008
        • 13670

        #33
        I know that someone else had once brought up a source or two with regard to the origins of Aristotle, in favour of him being Macedonian.

        Does anybody recall? Are we able to get the information put up on this thread?
        In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

        Comment

        • Soldier of Macedon
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2008
          • 13670

          #34
          Here is something cited earlier from Indigen, which demonstrates that Aristotle did not view the Macedonians as Greeks;

          http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...ection%3D1324b

          [1324b] [1] "...... and also among all the non-Hellenic nations that are strong enough to expand at the expense of others, military strength has been held in honor, for example, among the Scythians, Persians, Thracians and Celts. Indeed among some peoples there are even certain laws stimulating military valor; for instance at Carthage, we are told, warriors receive the decoration of armlets of the same number as the campaigns on which they have served; and at one time there was also a law in Macedonia that a man who had never killed an enemy must wear his halter instead of a belt. Among Scythian tribes at a certain festival a cup was carried round from which a man that had not killed an enemy was not allowed to drink. Among the Iberians, a warlike race, they fix small spits1 [20] in the earth round a man's grave corresponding in number to the enemies he has killed. So with other races there are many other practices of a similar kind, some established by law and others by custom...."

          Aristot. Pol. 7.1324b
          In the name of the blood and the sun, the dagger and the gun, Christ protect this soldier, a lion and a Macedonian.

          Comment

          • indigen
            Senior Member
            • May 2009
            • 1558

            #35
            Originally posted by Soldier of Macedon View Post
            I know that someone else had once brought up a source or two with regard to the origins of Aristotle, in favour of him being Macedonian.

            Does anybody recall? Are we able to get the information put up on this thread?
            Aristotol/Aristotle, at the very least, was a Macedonian national and a loyal servant of Macedonian Imperialism.

            ARISTOTLE: THE ART OF RHETORIC

            Published by Penguin Classics, 1991. Translation, Introduction and Notes by Hugh Lawson-Tancred, 1991. ISBN 014-044-5102.

            ARISTOTLE was born at Stageira, in the dominion of the kings of Macedonia, in 384 BC. For twenty years he studied at Athens in the Academy of Plato, on whose death in 347 he left and, some time later, became tutor of the young Alexander the Great. When Alexander succeeded to the throne of Macedonia in 336 Aristotle returned to Athens and established his own school and research institute, the Lyceum, to which his great erudition attracted a large number of scholars. After Alexander's death in 323, anti-Macedonian feelings drove Aristotle out of Athens, and he fled to Chalcis in Euboea, where he died in 322. His writings, which were of extraordinary range, profoundly affected the whole course of ancient and medieval philosophy, and they are still eagerly studied and debated by philosophers today. Very many of them have survived, and among the most famous are the Ethics and the Politics. These are published in the Penguin Classics, together with Aristotle's De Anima.

            HUGH LAWSON-TANCRED was born in 1955. He was educated at Eton and read Literae Humaniores at Balliol College, Oxford. Since 1980 he has taught classical subjects at Mander, Portman, Woodward in London, where he is Head of the Classics Department. He is reading for a Ph.D. in the philosophy of cognitive science at Birkbeck College. He has also translated Aristotle's De Anima for the Penguin Classics.



            The Greatest Philosopher, Aristotole the Macedonian!


            INTRODUCTION

            [page 5] The developments of the 420s paved the way for the full flowering of Attic oratory. Thucydides, writing his history of the Peloponnesian War in the period between his exile in 423 and his death probably soon after the fall of Athens in 404, includes, amid his otherwise sparse narrative, a number of highly wrought and elaborate rhetorical exercises, betraying no little rhetorical training and, despite his claim to be composing a possession for all time, pandering to the contemporary demand for rhetorical elaboration. By the end of the century the wealthy metic Lysias, impoverished by the fall of the city, had taken to the profession of a logographos, a writer of speeches for others to use (Greek practice, unlike Roman, required the litigant to present his own case in court). The emergence around this time of the logographoi is of great significance for the rise of rhetorical theory. Now for the first time there was a class of men whose primary occupation and means of livelihood was the production of effective speeches, often on topics in which they were not directly involved themselves. It was vitally important for them to reflect on how to render their productions convincing, and from this time onwards a secondary industry develops which seeks to supply both professional and amateur speakers with the technical underpinning essential for consistent success. This is the tradition of those composing the 'Arts' of rhetoric, to which Aristotle makes frequent reference in this work and indeed of which it was itself later accepted as the supreme example. The age of the 'Arts' of rhetoric stretches from about 400 to 320 BC and was brought to an end almost as much by the magisterial summary of Aristotle as by the rise of Macedonian power.

            The present work is, then, the masterpiece of one particular literary genre that flourished in the fourth century BC in Greece, that of the rhetorical manual, and it is a remarkable fact that it should have fallen to Aristotle to write it. It is natural enough to experience astonishment at the breadth of Aristotle's achievement. Few men have reached such eminence, or exercised such influence, in so diverse a range of fields. Even if we allow, as we should, that much of the research and indeed many of the ideas that went into the great treatises should be at least in part credited to the scholars of the Lyceum that he founded, it remains remarkable that so much [page 6] should have flowed from the pen of a single man. ...[...]... The reason for the foundation of the [Platos'] Academy, which can be tentatively dated to shortly after 390, when Plato returned from a decade of travel, was not just to promote the general study of philosophy but also to produce a new generation of revolutionaries who would put the new politics into practice in the cities of Greece. Plato was also determined, in his vindication of the memory of Socrates himself as a saint of reason, to expose the absurdities and weaknesses of the whole democratic system of government. An important element in the latter task was the exposure of the absurdity of rhetoric. Though Plato would firmly have rejected Aristophanes' suggestion that Socrates was in any way responsible for the growing obsession with the rhetoric of the late fifth century, he would equally firmly have agreed with his assessment of its disastrous social consequences, and in two dialogues in particular, the Gorgias and the Phaedrus, he sets out his own fundamentally hostile approach to rhetoric. Now it was at the Academy at precisely this time (367) that the seventeen-year-old son of the Macedonian court physician arrived to begin his studies in philosophy.

            [page 7] The question of Aristotle's general relations with Platonism has been the subject of a great deal of discussion since 1923, when Werner Jaeger published his account of the philosopher's gradual evolution away from the Academy. What is perhaps most widely agreed is that for at least the first of the two decades in which Aristotle was a member of the Academy he was a fairly loyal Platonist, his ideas reflecting the changes and developments taking place in Plato's own thought but never opposing his fundamental outlook. It is thus reasonable to suppose that such was also his attitude to rhetoric, and that view is substantiated by what we know of the fragments of the early dialogue the Gryllus, probably written about 360 BC. This, then, produces the puzzle. How can a man who, for a significant phase of his formation, shared his master's opposition to rhetoric have in maturity composed a masterpiece of the formal study of rhetoric? This question can, in fact, be given an historical answer and it reveals the importance of the present work. The answer is in reality relatively uncontroversial. Aristotle cultivated an interest in rhetoric to counterbalance the effectiveness of rhetoric as a form of tertiary education as established by his rival Isocrates.

            The fact that the Athenian elite was much more attracted to the school of Isocrates (436-338 BC) than to the Academy did not fail to make its mark on Aristotle. He had left Athens in the year after the death of Plato, motivated probably both by pique at his non-selection as the successor to the Scholarchy and by fears of rising anti-Macedonian sentiment, and taken himself to the northern Aegean to engage in the foundation of the science of empirical biology. Twelve years later, he returned to Athens, now made safe by the victory of Philip of Macedon at the battle of Chaeroneia, and, perhaps with the direct support of Philip, established his own school, with aims that were clearly distinct from those of both Isocrates and Plato. The hallmark of the new school was to be its catholicity. All branches of learning were to be studied, including those only recently put on the map by Aristotle himself. Evidently, with such a remit the art of rhetoric could be neglected neither on ideological nor on practical grounds, and this too was to be absorbed into the curriculum and given its place in the hierarchy of sciences.


            [page 8] However, although the systematic study of rhetoric was now to be countenanced, this constituted a renunciation of Aristotle's Platonist background and he was at least resolved that it should be studied in a form that emphasized its most general and philosophical aspects; in other words, rhetoric was to be surveyed from the standpoint of philosophy.

            The notion of philosophical rhetoric or of a philosophy of rhetoric may not strike us as extraordinary, but it must have seemed strange to the men of the fourth century, and it is from this combination that both the difficulties and the greatness of the present work are derived. The difficulties are real, but the greatness should also not be missed. For in making the subject of rhetoric safe for philosophy Aristotle was obliged to treat it in a manner that for the first time thoroughly investigated its underpinnings in the other areas of human life in which it plays a role. In other words, the mature Aristotelian approach to rhetoric involved the philosopher in three major topics otherwise not covered in the corpus of his works: the detailed psychology of the emotions, the use of informal reasoning and the aesthetics of prose style. Whereas previous exponents of the art of rhetorical theory had concentrated on what were in effect only tricks and devices for ad hoc success, Aristotle sought to grasp the very roots of persuasion itself, which required him to ponder the nature of character and emotion and also the method of demonstration in the absence of deductive certainty. Thus persuasiveness becomes for the first time a fully systematic and even scientific exercise; it can indeed be taught, but only by a deep grasp of some of the most central features of human nature. Thus the study of rhetoric, instead of being a philosophical outcast, transcends its humble and practical origins to become an important component in the general study of man. ..[...]...

            [page 25]...The fact is that Aristotle's account of anger is very much geared to the rather hierarchic society in which he lives. Aristotle is certainly no egalitarian and he will not have imbibed either from his early upbringing in Pella or from the society of the Academy, or yet from the friendship with Hermias and the years on Assos, any particularly enlightened attitudes to his social inferiors. Amongst his own pupils, he will no doubt have been accorded a kingly status, and in his dealings with the political forces he may well have enjoyed a prestige comparable to that of a Renaissance cardinal. .....

            .... [page51]....Within five years of the death of Aristotle, Athens had come under the mild tyranny of Demetrius of Phalerum, and the great democratic experiment, which had been so rich in both triumph and disaster, finally came to an end. Aristotle cannot be entirely absolved from blame for this. Although, in the Politics, he advocates a limited democracy such as had long been the ideal of the Athenian upper classes, yet he was in practice a loyal servant of Macedonian imperialism, in the name of which the Lyceum was very probably founded in 335 BC, and there is no reason to suppose that any influence he may ever have enjoyed over the young Alexander was exercised in the interests of democracy, however limited. Moreover, Demetrius was himself a product of Aristotle's Peripatetic School, now under the leadership of the founder's friend, pupil and successor, Theophrastus. Whatever the responsibility of the Lyceum may have been for the corrosion of democratic values at the end of the fourth century, it is clear that the collapse of open constitutions was profoundly inimical to the development of the art of oratory.

            For fair use only.

            Comment

            • indigen
              Senior Member
              • May 2009
              • 1558

              #36
              Aristotle of Macedonia
              384-322 B.C.
              Macedonian philosopher
              In short, the habits we form from childhood make no small difference, but rather they make all the difference. -- Aristotle

              Birth to age 19: 384-365 BC

              Aristotle was born in 384 BC in the city of Stagira [Macedonia]..... He was the son of Nichomachus, who became the court physician to the Macedonian royal family. One of his likely playmates was the king's son, Phillip.
              Put two and two together and the conclusion is inescapable - Aristotle's formative stage was in Macedonia and in a Macedonian environment.

              Comment

              • TRAVOLTA
                Member
                • Nov 2009
                • 504

                #37
                The story of the Greek people : an elementary history of Greece

                "Seek another empire, my son," he said, "for that
                which I shall leave you is not worthy of you."
                Philip had provided tutors for his son, but he saw now that
                he had a boy to deal with who would not be satisfied with any
                ordinary teachers. The most famous philosopher of the day Aristotle,
                was Ar'is-tot-le. He was a Macedonian, but had long been a stu- tury'B.Cc.n
                dent in the school of Plato in Athens. To him Philip sent the
                following letter: —
                "Be informed that I have a son, and that I am thankful to the gods, not so
                much for his birth as that he was born in the same age with you; for if you will
                undertake the charge of his education, I assure myself that he will become
                worthy of his father, and of the kingdom which he will inherit."
                So it was that Aristotle became the teacher of the boy Alex-
                He becomes ander, and remained with him for at least three years, and pos-
                of Alexander sikly untu" ne became king. Philip gave him a princely reward,
                for he rebuilt the philosopher's birthplace, the city of Sta-gi'ra,
                which he had once destroyed, and brought back the inhabitants,
                who had either fled or been sold as slaves. Aristotle liked to talk
                with his pupils while they were walking about together; so for
                a schoolroom Philip made ready a large and beautiful garden
                with seats of stone and cool, shady paths. Alexander not only
                liked philosophy, but he enjoyed reading the old plays and his-
                tories, and used to send long distances for them


                page:223-224

                Comment

                • George S.
                  Senior Member
                  • Aug 2009
                  • 10116

                  #38
                  He was Macedonian .He was banished from Athens for being macedonian.
                  "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
                  GOTSE DELCEV

                  Comment

                  • SirGeorge8600
                    Member
                    • Jun 2011
                    • 117

                    #39
                    Aristotle or Alexander?

                    Is it just me, or is the youth and almost every nationalist in Macedonia/Greece concerned with their blood stained heroes? What ever happened to the glorious philosophers? I always wonder why Macedonians don't bloat about their intellect Aristotle who contributed SO much to philosophy and the sciences. No offense, but from a utilitarian perspective it seems Aristotle has the upper whim. Same thing in Greece...a nationalist prefers the Persian-ass kicking Leonidas over the glorious Plato, Socrates, Sophocles, and others. Is it just me for being a book-worm or is nationalism in the Balkans intellectually degrading?

                    I also think it's funny how Greeks and Macedonians argue over Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates indirectly when if they were here today they'd be a trio laughing at us all for our 'ethnic nationalistic pride'. Is it possible David Hume was right? That philosophers are outcasts whom are sought after their deaths by the few rational and philosophical but never convene to the masses?

                    <- this smiley is bad-ass...had to include it.

                    Comment

                    • Delodephius
                      Member
                      • Sep 2008
                      • 736

                      #40
                      You're not the only book-worm. I love to read so much that after my job in the library I opened my own bookstore.

                      I personally prefer Plato over Aristotle, and the Stoics over Plato. But I also study a lot of eastern philosophy, namely Daoism, Confucianism, Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. I'm not a big fan of Buddhism however.

                      The purpose of the educational system is indoctrination and a preparation for servitude to the state by glorifying ancient warriors and generals, instead of teaching children how to think for themselves when they reach adulthood and learn through the examples of the philosophers, particularly ancient philosophers who were more keen on thinking about how to live a good life and live by virtue. By emphasizing ancient hatreds and taking glutinous, irrational and warmongering savages as heroes no wonder we get nations whose citizens think that the best solution to peace is to destroy all their neighbours, as if they would personally benefit from their annihilation, since their leaders persuaded them that their neighbours are the cause of even their most basic problems. They're in essence doing what the power-holders want them to do, and that is secure their own position in power or a prospect of one.
                      अयं निज: परो वेति गणना लघुचेतसाम्।
                      उदारमनसानां तु वसुधैव कुटुंबकम्॥
                      This is mine or (somebody) else’s (is the way) narrow minded people count.
                      But for broad minded people, (whole) earth is (like their) family.

                      Comment

                      • Zarni
                        Banned
                        • May 2011
                        • 672

                        #41
                        Oh yes critical thinking missing from youth today

                        I read everyday couldnt imagine my world without it

                        Comment

                        • Delodephius
                          Member
                          • Sep 2008
                          • 736

                          #42
                          I wasn't talking about critical thinking, just thinking, because many people don't do even that.
                          Last edited by Delodephius; 06-26-2011, 05:31 PM.
                          अयं निज: परो वेति गणना लघुचेतसाम्।
                          उदारमनसानां तु वसुधैव कुटुंबकम्॥
                          This is mine or (somebody) else’s (is the way) narrow minded people count.
                          But for broad minded people, (whole) earth is (like their) family.

                          Comment

                          • George S.
                            Senior Member
                            • Aug 2009
                            • 10116

                            #43
                            people follow idiologies dogmas like sheep.Some people have been indoctrinated from childhood to hate people state driven hate.As someone mentioned the youth of today doesn't question things much but expect things to be given to them on a platter.People don't even know how to think & analyze problems & offer solutions.
                            "Ido not want an uprising of people that would leave me at the first failure, I want revolution with citizens able to bear all the temptations to a prolonged struggle, what, because of the fierce political conditions, will be our guide or cattle to the slaughterhouse"
                            GOTSE DELCEV

                            Comment

                            • Zarni
                              Banned
                              • May 2011
                              • 672

                              #44
                              I wasn't talking about critical thinking, just thinking, because most people don't do even that.

                              Yes you are right and accountablity for actions too

                              And depending on your personality critical thinking can occur every day if that is the type of person you are
                              Last edited by Zarni; 06-26-2011, 05:39 PM.

                              Comment

                              • Zarni
                                Banned
                                • May 2011
                                • 672

                                #45
                                It is said that a persons "attitude" is set in stone in the first 7 years of life

                                I cant accept that but was curious what you all think about attitudes if the human brain is plastic even in Adulthood why are attitudes so hard to change

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X