The main problem with Aristotle is that, being a nerd, he thinks you get virtue from reading books, and not from punching stuff.
This is what Aristotle had to say about camels, in case you were curious:
The male camel declines intercourse with its mother; if his keeper tries compulsion, he evinces disinclination. On one occasion, when intercourse was being declined by the young male, the keeper covered over the mother and put the young male to her; but, when after the intercourse the wrapping had been removed, though the operation was completed and could not be revoked, still by and by he bit his keeper to death. A story goes that the king of Scythia had a highly-bred mare, and that all her foals were splendid; that wishing to mate the best of the young males with the mother, he had him brought to the stall for the purpose; that the young horse declined; that, after the mother’s head had been concealed in a wrapper he, in ignorance, had intercourse; and that, when immediately afterwards the wrapper was removed and the head of the mare was rendered visible, the young horse ran way and hurled himself down a precipice.
The male camel declines intercourse with its mother; if his keeper tries compulsion, he evinces disinclination. On one occasion, when intercourse was being declined by the young male, the keeper covered over the mother and put the young male to her; but, when after the intercourse the wrapping had been removed, though the operation was completed and could not be revoked, still by and by he bit his keeper to death. A story goes that the king of Scythia had a highly-bred mare, and that all her foals were splendid; that wishing to mate the best of the young males with the mother, he had him brought to the stall for the purpose; that the young horse declined; that, after the mother’s head had been concealed in a wrapper he, in ignorance, had intercourse; and that, when immediately afterwards the wrapper was removed and the head of the mare was rendered visible, the young horse ran way and hurled himself down a precipice.
They ended up going with the guy who told them it was their moral obligation to make as much money as possible so they could give a bit back to charity after, for uh...altruism or something.
In The Conquest of Bread, Peter Kropotkin makes the argument that all technological progress more or less belongs to everyone.
We simply find ourselves existing in the modern world that inherits the efforts of billions of people to make it livable for us, spanning tens of thousands of years. The very land we live on has been cultivated by our ancestors to make it suitable to farming. Technology created in the past is handed to us to work this land. The crops we grow have been selectively bred for thousands of years to feed us. Animals like sheep and cows exist, which are nothing like their natural selves, having their DNA altered by the long slow efforts of our fore bearers. All this work belongs to all of us, but often the capitalist comes in at the last moment to buy the land, buy the animals, and patent the last 0.0001% of technological improvement to some contraption. From this ownership they are allowed to control everything.
For modern technology, the process has been somewhat shorter (although you can argue that scientific and philosophical thinkers for the last couple thousand years have been necessary to develop any technology, i.e. without Aristotle's labor there would be no Super Nintendo). However the same situation has occurred, literally billions of man-hours have been spent just on the software side to create operating systems which are free and open and given to capitalists (such as the Linux kernel and ecosystem). All of this work, as well as the scientific work to create the hardware, represents 99.9999% of the work to create something like OpenAI, and it belongs to all of us. From this, they spend a small amount of money to create a system, and in their case they also train their model off the additional billions of hours of man-hours in writing text, producing knowledge, and creating art, and then they seize control of the output of this work, and use it exclusively for private gain.
Anyway, I could go on, but the gist of it is that Kropotkin thinks this is bad. Some people would call this a bad system.
We simply find ourselves existing in the modern world that inherits the efforts of billions of people to make it livable for us, spanning tens of thousands of years. The very land we live on has been cultivated by our ancestors to make it suitable to farming. Technology created in the past is handed to us to work this land. The crops we grow have been selectively bred for thousands of years to feed us. Animals like sheep and cows exist, which are nothing like their natural selves, having their DNA altered by the long slow efforts of our fore bearers. All this work belongs to all of us, but often the capitalist comes in at the last moment to buy the land, buy the animals, and patent the last 0.0001% of technological improvement to some contraption. From this ownership they are allowed to control everything.
For modern technology, the process has been somewhat shorter (although you can argue that scientific and philosophical thinkers for the last couple thousand years have been necessary to develop any technology, i.e. without Aristotle's labor there would be no Super Nintendo). However the same situation has occurred, literally billions of man-hours have been spent just on the software side to create operating systems which are free and open and given to capitalists (such as the Linux kernel and ecosystem). All of this work, as well as the scientific work to create the hardware, represents 99.9999% of the work to create something like OpenAI, and it belongs to all of us. From this, they spend a small amount of money to create a system, and in their case they also train their model off the additional billions of hours of man-hours in writing text, producing knowledge, and creating art, and then they seize control of the output of this work, and use it exclusively for private gain.
Anyway, I could go on, but the gist of it is that Kropotkin thinks this is bad. Some people would call this a bad system.
"Oh yeah and another thing, not a big fan of the English language, or the lack of Trial by Combat in deciding our differences!"
SMBC did an even more accurate version but I didn't want to copy them too much.
They were making a big mistake though, because they didn't realize that in a securlar society you can actually wear even sillier hats.
The Christian authorities in Holland censored Spinoza several times, sometimes even ahead of time before they had read his new work. Apparently once it was because they heard he had an "irrefutable proof that God didn't exist", which is pretty funny because if true, it would be pointless to censor, and instead you should reorganize society into some kind of Democracy, like Spinoza wanted. But people in charge tend to not want to do that, regardless of the truth. Amazing, I know.
I heard that fact (which is more like a rumor, we hardly know the exact reasons he was censored for the most part, but it was usually along those lines) on Rev Left Radio, which just put out a great episode on Spinoza.
I heard that fact (which is more like a rumor, we hardly know the exact reasons he was censored for the most part, but it was usually along those lines) on Rev Left Radio, which just put out a great episode on Spinoza.
"Is that your absolute free decision though, or are you just saying that because of societal expectations?"
"Oh it's authentic. Also I've authentically called the cops just fyi."
"Oh it's authentic. Also I've authentically called the cops just fyi."
Despite popular imagination, people like Sartre never really talk about "the meaning of life". In fact he only mentions it once as far as I can tell, where "meaning" is used as "interpretation", making the point that we interpret our own lives in the same way we interpret novels - after the fact. So if we die halfway through a project, our interpretation might be totally different, so we shouldn't really be too worried about it, in a sense. What matters is our freedom and the decisions we actually make.
Oh and also he was a huge pervert.
Oh and also he was a huge pervert.