It's just like changing our default branches from master to main, honestly probably not a huge deal to any rationale person, but the cost is negligible so why not?
It's possible to be empathetic and considerate, making minor adjustments (and also not judging those who innocently don't) without being the "woke" police!
It is totally not.
As Ricky Gervais put it beautifully, like it or not, if you categorize the people of the past with the standards of today, you are preparing the people of the (near) future to categorize you about what you say today.
Now imagine that people think of Aristotle as a misogynist, like if it is actually important, he died 2,300 years ago after all and nobody studies Aristotle because "and now let's read about that guy who hated women, because it's something important to learn: women are trash", but
By the 1930s, a new kind of human zoo appeared in America, nude shows masquerading as education. These included the Zoro Garden Nudist Colony at the Pacific International Exposition in San Diego, California (1935–36) and the Sally Rand Nude Ranch at the Golden Gate International Exposition in San Francisco (1939). The former was supposedly a real nudist colony, which used hired performers instead of actual nudists. The latter featured nude women performing in western attire. The Golden Gate fair also featured a "Greenwich Village" show, described in the Official Guide Book as "Model artists' colony and revue theatre."
Or this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo#/media/File:African_...
Sorry if I stand with Aristotle, despite him being a man of his times, and not with 20th century human zoo.
edit: to put it simply, should we talk to German people or everytime they try to say something we should shut them up reminding them that they did the holocaust?
When I disagree with someone from the US, can I use "you are the only people in history to have dropped two atomic bombs on civilians, you are wrong by design!"?
Why Aristotle is problematic, but nobody says "he was a Trump but a lot more intelligent than Trump and actually, now that I think about it, he never said <<grab them by the pussy>>, so Aristotle was less misogynist than Trump"?
Aristotle has never been POTUS.
I understand pushing society forward, so why blame people who have died thousands of years ago for things they are not responsible of today?
Does someone really think that quoting that sentence from Aristotle will plant the seed of misogyny in people's mind?
Is this really the kind of trust we have in each other's intelligence?
I believe people can read the context loud and clear.
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle%27s_views_on_women
> Among women's differences from men were that they were, in his view, more impulsive, more compassionate, more complaining, and more deceptive. He gave the same weight to women's happiness as to men's, and in his Rhetoric stated that society could not be happy unless women were happy too.
And the modern psychology:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20161011-do-men-and-women...
I think you’re really stretching the word “misogyny” when you’re using it for people who accurately describe reality and view male and female well-being as equally important for society.
> Aristotle saw women as subject to men, but as higher than slaves, and lacking authority; he believed the husband should exert political rule over the wife.
Your post is more misleading than mine: you’re hanging your entire opinion on a de-contextualized cherry-picked line and using that to ignore other parts of the philosopher’s work.
Go on, scream about how everyone who disagrees with you is an istaphobe — nobody cares.
Nobody takes what Aristotle thought about women as a profound insight on the nature of life on Earth.
Because not everything he said and thought is of value of course for Christ sake I can't believe I have to explain it to adult functioning people
Think about this: USA saved a lot of nazis and brought them to America to work for them.
One even sent the Apollo on the Moon and was acclaimed as an American hero.
Should we disregard everything the US does? (we probably should, I agree)
I mean, 2,300 years ago all of us would have thought that women were not as useful as men, given that they couldn't do most of the things that kept the people alive, in the society and cities they had built. Of course women were a fundamental part of the life of humans before stratified societies and armies to rule them were invented, but we don't know what the cave men thought of women, we only know they really digged those bulls of theirs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Altamira#/media/File:9...
It's the same think of believing that lions are misogynist, it's simply stupid.
I don't think you really are stupid, so why you act like one?
I did not make the rules.
Yep
> In his work Politics (1254b13–14), Aristotle states "as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject".
> While Aristotle reduced women's roles in society, and promoted the idea that women should receive less food and nourishment than males, he also criticised the results: a woman, he thought, was then more compassionate, more opinionated, more apt to scold and to strike. He stated that women are more prone to despondency, more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, and of having a better memory.
_________
> apparently nobody has ever read the great philosophers.
Yep
You are too, for the standards of 2,300 years in the future, don't worry.
Reducing Aristotle to "that misogynist guy" is exactly what proves that people have become so stupid that cannot go beyond their small minds.
> as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject
at his times this was technically true. (edit: it reflected the scientific beliefs of the time, same way we thought until not long ago that Neanderthal were inferior to Sapiens)
Reminder: Christ had not been invented yet.
Second reminder: the bible says the same things, but the USA president swears on the bible...
I mean, I can understand Aristotle not knowing about civil rights in 300 B.C., what's the excuse for the US?
> He stated that women are more prone to despondency, more void of shame or self-respect, more false of speech, more deceptive, and of having a better memory.
Again, he knew stories about the Minoan society who gave woman a lot of power, worshipped Snake goddesses and it brought their society to ruins (as far as he knew, I don't think he knew about volcanology).
Can you blame the guy?
Like we don't blame Americans for thinking they are better than anybody else and that women should not have the right to abortion and that you should have automatic rifles to defend yourself from government and taxes are theft in 2023.
We know they are centuries behind the rest of the civilized World.
At least Aristotle was a thinker...
I can tell, because I've made posts like this before, and I always regretted it later. Have your angry argument in a journal or text file (Lately I've really liked Markdown with source control). Then revisit it later, and add in the side you're arguing against. Then revise it so that you're actually making a clear point, and remove all the personal insults. Then post it here, because I want to read it. But until then, I have no idea WTF you're on about or why you're so defensive of a very-long-dead philosopher.
edit: welp it's flagged now but they straight up called another poster "stupid."
Where does it says that those men are married to women?
edit: it's not about men, it's about what people do when they are stuck in something that makes them unhappy. And on the observation that many great philosophers where not married and/or not happy.
focusing on the word "men" misses the point entirely. moreover because in many languages other than English, that "men" could be translated literally and it would also mean "people" and it would also be a completely correct interpretation.
edit 2: apparently nobody has ever read the great philosophers.
Since love is a deception practiced by nature, marriage is the attrition of love and must be disillusioning. Only a philosopher can be happy in marriage and philosophers do not marry.
— Arthur Schopenhauer
--
It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages.
— Friedrich Nietzsche (he was a philosopher and apparently had no friends, because he never married)
--
But most of all, dear friends
A man married to the right woman will be happy. A man married to the wrong woman will be a philosopher
— Aristotle
that quote is 2,300 years old!
Was Aristotle misogynistic?
That's the wrong question, it's like asking it T-Rex ate cruelty free meat.
But if you read carefully using your brain to interpret that sentence, instead of your prejudices, what it actually says is that if you make the right choices in life you will be happy, if not, you will be a philosopher, because it was believed that a philosopher had to go through suffering to understand the true meaning of life, in other words you will not be happy.
Triggers are in the eyes of the beholder.