Although I'm a Philosophy major in my senior year, I must confess that I am only in my second semester of the study of Philosophy. I have almost 200 credit hours and am just a smidgen short of a 4.0 GPA, but the majority of those 200 credit hours are General Ed courses and classes that apply to my former major of (ugh!) Business Administration.
With that said, today was the first time -ever- that I have read anything by that Pillar of Philosophy, Aristotle. Of course I have heard of him over the years, and especially in the last two semesters I've endured countless references to him and his writings, but for the most part I have been totally unaware of anything significant he said or did beyond the abstract "Father of Philosophy" title that he and Plato have monopolized.
So ... today I finally cracked open my first volume of Aristotle in the form of the Nicomachean Ethics.
And I'm in love.
Based on his reputation (and my experience of more contemporary Philosophers who have furthered his ideas) I had expected a dry, hard-to-read, pompous, pedantic and overly-intellectual read. Much to my delight, he writes clearly, reasons easily and makes some really practical points.
My favorite statement of those I read today is: "Choice is the starting point of action ... The starting point of choice, however, is desire and reasoning directed toward some end ... Now thought alone moves nothing; only thought which is directed to some end and concerned with action can do so ..."
One thing that bothers me about Philosophers as a stereotype is their propensity to analyze, dissect, discuss and argue everything down to the most specific of details (whether one is using the singular or plural meaning of the word "the" in his/her thesis, for example). And they sit there in their armchairs posturing as the pinnacle of wisdom to their devoted followers seated at their feet. And then that's all they ever do. Sit and dissect. Sit and analyze. Sit and argue. Maybe write something once in a while ...
Lame.
I'm reminded of a blog post my exceptionally brilliant sister wrote in which she wonders when people are gonna actually DO something. Her post is concerned more with the idea of social movements than with Pillsbury-Soft-Armchair-Philosophers, but her point resonates still... You can read it here: http://beerconomist.blogspot.com/2011/09/best-last-paragraphs-to-book-ever.html
I am also reminded of another correlating idea. Although I "chose out of it" 25 years ago, I was raised in the Mormon (LDS) religion. A common mantra repeated therein is "Faith without works is dead." As in: you can trust and believe all you want, but nothin's gonna HAPPEN if you don't do a little sumpin' about it.
So, uh, what to do ... what to do ... what to do ...
What are YOU gonna do?
With that said, today was the first time -ever- that I have read anything by that Pillar of Philosophy, Aristotle. Of course I have heard of him over the years, and especially in the last two semesters I've endured countless references to him and his writings, but for the most part I have been totally unaware of anything significant he said or did beyond the abstract "Father of Philosophy" title that he and Plato have monopolized.
So ... today I finally cracked open my first volume of Aristotle in the form of the Nicomachean Ethics.
And I'm in love.
Based on his reputation (and my experience of more contemporary Philosophers who have furthered his ideas) I had expected a dry, hard-to-read, pompous, pedantic and overly-intellectual read. Much to my delight, he writes clearly, reasons easily and makes some really practical points.
My favorite statement of those I read today is: "Choice is the starting point of action ... The starting point of choice, however, is desire and reasoning directed toward some end ... Now thought alone moves nothing; only thought which is directed to some end and concerned with action can do so ..."
One thing that bothers me about Philosophers as a stereotype is their propensity to analyze, dissect, discuss and argue everything down to the most specific of details (whether one is using the singular or plural meaning of the word "the" in his/her thesis, for example). And they sit there in their armchairs posturing as the pinnacle of wisdom to their devoted followers seated at their feet. And then that's all they ever do. Sit and dissect. Sit and analyze. Sit and argue. Maybe write something once in a while ...
Lame.
I'm reminded of a blog post my exceptionally brilliant sister wrote in which she wonders when people are gonna actually DO something. Her post is concerned more with the idea of social movements than with Pillsbury-Soft-Armchair-Philosophers, but her point resonates still... You can read it here: http://beerconomist.blogspot.com/2011/09/best-last-paragraphs-to-book-ever.html
I am also reminded of another correlating idea. Although I "chose out of it" 25 years ago, I was raised in the Mormon (LDS) religion. A common mantra repeated therein is "Faith without works is dead." As in: you can trust and believe all you want, but nothin's gonna HAPPEN if you don't do a little sumpin' about it.
So, uh, what to do ... what to do ... what to do ...
What are YOU gonna do?
God, I'm hungry for dust! Bring it!
ReplyDeleteI've been amazed in my life, watching things unfurl, how "making things happen" usually just boils down to someone taking a step in a direction, then another, then another. It seems so ridiculously, and yet is so profoundly effective. The more I "think" about stuff, the harder DOING it becomes.
(If course, DOING without thinking at all carries its own perils... everything in moderation/balance, right?)