There is something deep in the American consciousness that revolts against the concept of “the well born man” as Aristotle puts it (II.15.20). This of course is almost humorously ironic when you look at it in the perspective of how deep and prominent our prejudices were in the past and, regretfully, still are in many cases, but is a serious issue to consider when examining Aristotle's ideas of character. When looking at these concepts, however, we must keep in mind that the very idea of all men (and women) being equal is an incredibly new one. We only have to look at the philosophy of Imperialism that gripped the western world hardly even a century ago to see just how deep rooted the idea of ancestry and race superiority were. Aristotle, writing well over two millenniums ago, naturally has a drastically different outlook from our modern perspective.
This may give us something of a pass from having to classify the hero of our story as a bigot or any other such term that is entirely pointless to label a dead man with, but does form a curious position in his argument on character. It is from lineage that Aristotle argues man takes some of the shape of his character. A “good birth implies ancestral distinction (II.15.19)” but not necessarily being born from nobility or wealth, as to Aristotle most of the well-born “are poor creatures(II.15.24). This is a very nuanced stance that Aristotle is taking. While he is arguing that lineage and birth are important parts of developing character, he breaks from the traditional position of connecting good birth to only those who are wealthy or of distinguished noble stock. This is very progressive of Aristotle, but at the same time problematic as it leaves open the question of just what does it mean to come “of a fine stock(II.15.24).” As ambiguous as it may be, this concept of birth and ancestry playing a role in the shaping of character, according to Aristotle making them become more ambitious, is not something I personally support.
While this could certainly be interpreted as a kind of proto-genetics, I would instead argue that these character traits are born not from breeding, but rather from the environments in which the products of this “fine stock” are raised. It is the same for Aristotle's further arguments in the chapter, of generations having a “varying yield(II.15.26)” in which occasional bursts of exceptional men are produced and then later subside, as Aristotle rightly puts it, when “decadence sets in(II.15.28).” This decay is not the product of their birth, but the environments in which they are raised and the expectations placed upon them by those around them.
These arguments against Aristotle's positions may seem painfully simple or common sense, but like I said earlier, we have the benefit of nearly 2500 years of science and psychology on our side, shaping our own positions on the subject. And finally, we have to be careful not to be terribly overbearing with the sheer amount of our smugness and self righteousness when looking at a concept that is, through no fault of the author, now “outdated.”
Good point, and it somewhat resembles a nature verse nurture debate. I agree that Aristotle's ideas of "stock" are indeed "outdated". In reading about the earth producing "varying yield" I, for some reason, thought of Tom Brokaw's The Greatest Generation, and the current label of our generation as 'Generation Lost'. It seems to echo your thought of "This decay is not the product of their birth, but the environments in which they are raised".
ReplyDeleteYou make good points and I agree with your take on Aristotle. Your comments make me think of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. Where a person has different motivations based upon where they are in the hierarchy. Those at the bottom are driven by basic needs--survival--where to obtain food and water. as people move up the pyramid their needs and motivations change. Those at the highest level are considered self-actualizing, whereby they are more concerned with personal growth, fulfilling their potential, and philosophizing (like Aristotle)... It (Maslow's) is a really cool concept. My point is, Aristotle may have seemed progressive to a point, but he was still so detached that he failed to consider that there were probably a great deal of men at the bottom of the pyramid who had the capacity to be great; they were just too busy trying to survive.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to read Aristotle in our own context. Even knowing what we know about his culture, putting ourselves in his shoes, we still have 21st-century baggage pulling at us & it's easy to wonder on occasion what Aristotle was smoking.
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way when reading works from any other historical period-- I want to read it as it was written, without stopping to ask, "What??" every five lines. It takes conscious effort to put a postmodern brain into the target era, but it's so necessary for understanding.
I had the same question when reading about "good-birth." It seemed to me that he didn't choose the wealthy as producing these "better" offspring because if you already think you are better than everyone else (having wealth), then you cannot produce an offspring of "good-birth." He also said that after a line of "good-birth" children goes on for about four or so times, they cannot be well-born anymore due to "decadence." He says "now and then, where the stock is good, exceptional men are produced for a while, and then decadence sets in."
ReplyDeleteSeems like once you realize you are "badass" enough times, then you start to become an asshole.
Suzi's comment made me wonder: how was the well-born man, who were allegedly "poor creatures", supposed to "add to the pile"? Like Suzi said, people at the bottom of the pyramid had to spend their time trying to survive, so I find it unlikely that appealing to this group's "ambitions" would have been very effective.
ReplyDeleteAlso, maybe it's just me but isn't it a little odd that Aristotle uses wealthy men (with the exception of Socrates) in his example of stock degrading over time? Even though Aristotle was trying to make a distinction between nobility and good-birth, I think it's strange that he would use mostly people of high social standing in his example.