"One who is unable to live in a community, or does not need to because he is self-sufficient, is no part of the polis [city], and is therefore either a beast or a god." -Aristotle [unattributed]Aristotle ( 384–March 7 322 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher, who studied with Plato and taught Alexander the Great. He wrote books on many subjects, including physics, poetry, zoology, logic, rhetoric, government, and biology. Aristotle, along with Plato and Socrates, is generally considered one of the most influential of ancient Greek philosophers. They transformed Presocratic Greek philosophy into the foundations of Western philosophy as we know it. (From Wikipedia)
When we talk about people being self suficient, the common thought is on a physical level. They have shelter, they have food, they have themselves. I believe that in itself is not too hard to achieve if we are willing to live a basic, non material life. The interesting reflection is at what point do we become self sufficient emotionally and spiritiually. I would comment that it is virtually impossible to achieve that, thus Aristoltle's sumation that only a god or beast can achieve that state. A god does not need spiritual or emotional sustanance, they create it themselves (apparently!!), and I assume a beast has no idea of their emotional/spiritual being.
ReplyDeleteI always like to think of my self as a god, beast just sounds so....... degrading. :)
ReplyDeletei heard (or read) a quote the other day that basically said that man was never meant to be alone, that's why solitary confinement is the worst kind of punishment. could this be because man is neither god or beast?
ReplyDeleteI agree. I work in an autistic school, and their main problem is the fact that they have no concept of 'the other' so to speak, and see their world as merely a place full of objects that satisfy or hamper their pleasure. They lack an understanding of society, and that is their main, if only 'fault' (so to speak).
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying they're beasts, I'm just saying that it's their 'unsociability' that makes them difficult.
There's also the fact that God himself is an image of relationship...
Peebody: I don't think Aristotle is using "Beasts" as a put down term - like we might, just descriptive of what makes humans human.
ReplyDeleteDr Dan: Good point
I don't think community means needing to be extroverted, and in everyone's face all the time. Aristotle also believed in solitude as a core charactersitic of maturity
I disagree with the posted philosophy. Indeed there are very unique situations in which one is neither man or beast. A more artistic example is one who ventures away from his or her community in fear of something within it. While one day he or she may return, so that time they wish to be alone.
ReplyDeleteDoes this make them a beast?
Life would be so sad in isolation. I definitely believe that we were made to live in community and in relationship with each other, and with God. Life would be so empty without relationships. How can one be self sufficient, there would be no point, no purpose. How do we even define ourselves if not in a context of others? This is not to say that solitude is a bad thing, I think it's necessary to stay grounded, but not as a lifestyle. I love people too much anyway!
ReplyDelete*gives everyone a hug*
i don't think the aristotle was refering to having time away - it was more about true and complete isolation. that's how i read it anyway. interesting to note that someone who has zero connection with the people around them (no empathy, no feeling of responsibility) may act however he/she pleases towards them with no feelings of remorse, this is also the definition for a sociopath.
ReplyDeleteI think that's what I was getting at with my post.
ReplyDeleteI do not consider my 'sociopath' autistic kids beasts in one sense of the word, but I'm wondering whether Aristotle might have considered them so in his sense of the word.
A person who has no consideration for others, no empathy, responsibility (gj Wire) or social conscience is, in a way, a 'beast'.
But what of the 'god' part?
ReplyDeleteSurely a god who creates other sentient beings cannot be described as not living in community or being self sufficient, or else he would not create them, but live by him/herself in isolation.
Simply: a god who doesn't need anyone else would not create anyone else.
Then there's the fact that our God is one of three parts in Himself.
Dboy, you think to much.
ReplyDeleteMore power to ya Dboy!
ReplyDeleteBrain... can't... handle... philosophy... :P
ReplyDeleteThe issue with community is that it costs - a lot, if you're willing to be honest. Your "neighbour" always gets in a fix at the worst possible time for you... Murphy's Law.
ReplyDeleteThat's why living in community is a measure of your love of others. Will you put their needs first? Are there times when that is not appropriate?
If you do put yourself out, is your motive pure? What is a pure motive anyway?
I can't cope with mushy talk about community - let's talk about where the rubber hits the road and be real.
Gee I sound like a beast, but I swear I'm only saying this because I often find myself weighing up the needs of one or another against demands already on my plate.
Community is complicated...but we were created to flourish in it... be challenged by it... grow in it.
i think the 'god' bit is about imagining a being so aloof and self-sufficient, self absorbed even narcisistic that they are 'gods'. without need, without ties.
ReplyDeleteanon - i'd be interested to know who you are, but i think you're right, community costs.
Mushy or not, community is unavoidably divine!
ReplyDeletePart and parcel of the fabric of the creation.
Love is nothing if it has no target for expression.
Love is an ACT involving the lover and the loved - it cannot exist in solitude.
"Love" as a noun? Think about it - can it really be understood apart from it's action?
This, if you think about it, is testimony to the eternal existence of The Son.
Beast or a god?
The term beast is used for a being without the capacity for love.
The term "a god" is used for a being (presumably) without the requirement of love.
Humans weren't meant to be alone... solitary... whatever.
ReplyDeleteThat's why children who are born to neglectful parents have problems thriving. Human touch is proven to be more than just "beneficial."
So, I agree.
I think; therefore, I am.
ReplyDeleteI shop; therefore, I am.
I sing; therefore, I am.
I grump; therefore, I am.
By george! I think she's got it! ;-)
Sorry. Just love getting all philosophical.
Haha :)
ReplyDeleteNice work there, TZ!!
The term beast is used for a being without the capacity for love.
The term "a god" is used for a being (presumably) without the requirement of love.
What a beautiful definition of the terms used in the original quote.
Therefore, community is a search for genuine love?
Love your work Ma'am!
ReplyDeletehey dboy!
ReplyDeleteRather than "community [being] a search for genuine love," I think it more accurate to say that community is the RESULT of the interaction between people.
And what about love? ...
The QUALITY of that community is proportional to the love/giving of the shareholders.
Who are you tz? Well said.
ReplyDeleteA beast is one who has no need to know who anonymous commenters are... think about that!
ReplyDeleteI guess what I was saying was that the desire of human nature for community is the ourworking of the desire for love (which includes acceptance, shared experience and group identification).
ReplyDeleteI don't think "community is a search for genuine love" and "community is the RESULT of the interaction between people" are mutually exclusive statements - they can both be true at the same time.
One is commenting on the motivation behind community, and the other is commenting on its makeup, or definition.
:)
Yes, dboy!
ReplyDeleteOf course you are right!
I don't mean to defend my own opinion at the expense of yours.
The initial question was very brief, but your last response clarified it very well.
Well done - great blog - great input!
Ludicrousity!
You want to know who I am?
I am TZ!
(only the wise revhead knows my true identity)
I'm new to this blog thing, I notice that you all have a "profile". Would I need to start my own blog to have this?
Yeah, but then you can leave it and not use it if you like.
ReplyDeleteThanks, I'm a blogger now!
ReplyDeleteNice!
ReplyDeleteWelcome to the world of blog! Mind your step :)
Hi! Just want to say what a nice site. Bye, see you soon.
ReplyDelete»
I find some information here.
ReplyDelete