Sunday's Thoughts
by Alice-Alexandra-Sofia
 

 

Page_3 Philosophy: Aristotle

 

Introduction

Logic and Ethics

Concept of Good

Theological Assumptions

Concept of Man

Politics

Conclusive Remarks

 

=======================================

 

 

Introduction

 

Before analysis of the Aristotle’s philosophical legacy some introduction might be proper, which would delineate the foundation of his reasoning and the source of his logic.

Everything and all is about knowledge: a civilization, empire, state, any other creation of men – all of them exist because somehow, at a particular time–space–complexity point, a particular pattern of knowledge creation–accumulation–consuming–transfer has been embodied into the material structures and interconnections

among the people

among the people and their establishments

among the people’s establishments.

 

Life of a human mind*1* is creation of knowledge, would it be the knowledge sustaining own survival or the knowledge intended for the others or the knowledge needed for arrangement and maintenance of social, protective, educational, and other institutions.

In general, existence of the human mind might be seen as the incessant execution of the same cycle, which consists from three phases/states:

 

choice between two realities:

life or death

↓                                ↑

creation of knowledge,         →     transfer/communication of knowledge,
which carries life or death                        which carries life or death

 

At each moment of existence, the mind–creator has to choose between the good and the evil; the results of the choice are unambiguous and defined by the very nature of human mind: evolution/life or anti–evolution/death.

Evolution (or development–optimization) is the achievement and actualization of the maximal potential intended by the original design; evolution might be considered as the materialized summary of the words, actions, processes, which the mind associates with the good – life, truth, happiness, health, and prosperity. The foundation of evolution is the Law of God that defines two correlated systems: the nature of man and the nature of the world given into the dominion of man. This Law is conveyed by the Christian teachings. The logic or the way of reasoning, which serves the evolution, is known as human wisdom*2*.

Anti–evolution is degeneration of human mind, corruption of men and destruction of their establishments – social, religious, political, and other systems. Anti–evolution might be seen as the time–space–complexity settings/universe (or super complex system/reality) accommodating the processes associates with the evil: perversion of the nature, degeneration, collapse, disintegration, and death. The heathenism*3* provides the theological, philosophical, and logical foundation of anti–evolution.  

Anti–evolution has also another definition – transformation of man–creation of God into the beast and dehumanization (annihilation of humaneness). Within the reality of anti–evolution, the knowledge is created with the logic of simplification described with the law of inadequate complexity*4*.

Although the choices made in the Past reveal a general inclination of a particular mind (for instance, to create knowledge of life/evolution or knowledge of death/anti–evolution) and the most probable destiny of its creations, there is no possibility to precisely predict the mind’s next choice.

For example, Ezekiel the prophet conveys the words of God, which make understandable that there is no fixed destiny–fate–future. Each mind at each moment of existence might change its Future: the past righteousness will not save the righteous man who turned to iniquities, and the iniquities committed in the Past do not prevent a transgressor from coming back to life if he turns to God and keeps His commandments and begins to act in justice and mercy {Ezekiel 18:20–24}.

The words of Lord God Jesus Christ reveal the essence of evolution:

–– "My Father works until now, and I work” {John 5:17}; God constantly creates, sustains, and directs the Universe toward perfection as the achievement and actualization of the ultimate–highest potency of good {see also Revelation 21:1–5, 10–27; 22:1–6 – the final act of creation of the new perfect world in which God dwells with His creations}

–– “Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect” {Matthew 5:48}.

Therefore, the essence of the Universe might be seen as the constant transformation of the divine energy at the different levels of complexity. Each transformation either creates or sustains life: life is actualization of the divine energy of creation for achievement of the highest power–potency–perfection at a particular time–space–complexity point/setting. The levels of complexity, at which the transformations of the divine energy are conducted, define the difference among creations of God.

A human being has a particular role within the world created by God: human beings must labor as the tenants at the vineyard and bring the fruits of their work to the Owner. The Holy Scriptures disclose the meaning of labor of man:

–– Isaiah the Prophet names Israel, which was given the Law to keep and to make it the reality of own existence, “the vineyard of the Lord of hosts” {Isaiah 5:7}

–– God refers to Own mission as to the coming of the Son of the Owner, Who has to remind the unfaithful tenants of their duty to bring the fruits of the vineyard to the Owner; He tells His followers that His Law–will of God is the only foundation on which men can build his life and his world and through which man enters the Kingdom of God {Matthew 7:21–27; 21:33–39; Mark 12:1–8; Luke 20:9–17}

 –– St. Peter and St. Paul the Apostle write about the only foundation – Lord God Jesus Christ, the Word–God – on which the life of a human being should be built and about the final test with the Fire that would disclose the ultimate essence and worthiness of labor – of the entire human life {1 Peter 2:4–8; 1 Corinthians 3:9–15; Ephesians 2:19–22; also, see Luke 12:49; Deuteronomy 4:24; 30:8–20; Malachi 3:1–3}. Definitely, the meaning and worth of human labor is not in the material structures, which dissipated in the Past, exist now, will be created and perish in the Future, before or with the end of this world: nothing of earthly valuables man can take into the next phase of life.

The words of God conveyed by the Holy Scriptures lead to the inference that the main purpose of human mind defined as “labor of man” is fulfillment of the will–Law of God. The fruits of labor include

 

1/ the transfer of the Love of God (the divine energy of creation) into the world given into the dominion of man

2/ abilities to sustain existence and development of other creations of God

3/ development of the qualities, which prepare a human being for the eternity with God;
firstly, the ability to recognize and to accomplish the will of God.

 

A human being transfers the knowledge and love of God into the world through creation of thoughts–knowledge and then, by embodiment of the created knowledge into words, actions, material structures, and establishments (e.g., books, buildings, empires, etc.), which should sustain normal human life and optimization–development of the world given into dominion of men.

Consequently, the legacy of any human mind should be judged by the essence of knowledge brought into the world and the consequences of embodiment of this knowledge.

European nations received the works of Aristotle (384–322 B.C.) as the loot along with the earthly riches and leprosy, which the papal Crusaders brought in Europe from the Middle East after they pillaged temples, palaces, and houses and plundered everything they could: the sacred vessels from the Constantinople’s Christian temples, gold, jewels, ancient manuscripts, and other treasures from the palaces and houses of sacked Constantinople and Arabian cities.

With time, the influence of Aristotle’s assumptions on the Western religions, philosophical doctrines, social life, ethics, politics, and sciences became so profound that the current Western civilization might be rightly named the Aristotelian civilization.

Aristotle spent almost 20 years in the Plato’s Academy (in the beginning as a pupil, then, as a teacher). In 342 B.C., he returned to the court of Macedonian king and became a tutor of king’s son, Alexander. Alexander’s empire extended the Greek world into Egypt, Persia, and up to the part of India.

Later, Aristotle returned to Athens and founded his own philosophical school. He fled Athens in 323 B.C., because of charges of impiety, and died in exile, on the island of Euboea.

Aristotle lived and created his knowledge within the heathen world: the realm of anti–evolution, the world of dissipating matter and collapsing establishments, the world in which humans are the substitutes for animals and slavery is the universal divinely established order, yet, Aristotle did not follow the Plato’s philosophical and theological convictions literally; his outlook differs also.

Plato attempted to think by the essences and categories – by the thoughts of gods of his imaginary world; the Aristotle’s mind operated within the boundaries and limits of the material world determined with the events, phenomena, and processes, which might be confirmed by practice, activities, observations, and experiments.

Plato’s imaginary philosophy intends to embrace the cosmos and to explain human life with myths and utopia; Aristotle’s theological and philosophical speculations have the very definite practical end, which he calls “the best for men.”

Aristotle applied the Plato’s fantasies toward the daily life, for the practical tasks; for instance, such as

–– the arrangement of the human society into self–sufficient establishments

–– organization of slave–owning household and polis – city/state

–– stability of the social and political order.

The Aristotle’s assumptions include deification of the matter; he introduced the perverted concept of morality by association of the virtues with physical pain or pleasure, and induced the worship to the establishments of men. He asserted slavery as the universal pattern and natural order of the society/state, and declared divine origin of the state. The Aristotle’s doctrine became the foundation for political theology and ideologies of the totalitarian states.

In general, it might be said that

 

if Plato described the idol

Aristotle materialized the Plato’s idol into the constructions/institutions,
which enslave and destroy men.

 

Some researchers do not consider Aristotle as philosopher because of

a/ Aristotle’s simplified irrational assertions asserted as the philosophical and theological concepts, for instance, vision of God as the “First Motor/Mover” or just as the principle of movement

b/ Aristotle’s apparent inability to comprehend the obvious essence of philosophical concepts.

For them, Aristotle is “a physicist” who practiced “sophistry” and was obsessed with vainglory [Sherrard 123–125], who had the “prosaic and pragmatic” intellect and the mind, which orders life by the logic of material experience [Bryant 336].

Tertullian (A.D. second century) also has quite definite opinion: “wretched Aristotle” is the author of “the dialectic art,” which is “inflexible in arguments... damaging even to itself, always reconsidering everything, so that it never treats thoroughly if anything at all” [Tertullian VII 45]. In general, Tertullian points out two main properties of the Aristotle’s method: inconsistency and destructive irrelevance of arguments intended to disclose or justify Aristotle’s assertions.

If to recall that contemporary philosophy identifies dialectic with “the conscience of thought” and “the grammar of understanding” [Edman 313], Aristotle’s inconsistency should warn those who study his doctrines that there cannot be a rational core in his assertions.

However, Roger Bacon (1210/1215?–1294; a Catholic theologian and member of the Franciscan order) reiterates the Aristotle’s assertion that it is possible to access all methods of inquiry through dialectic [Bacon §22 53].

To the contrary, Petrus Ramus (or Pierre de la Ramée, 1515–1572; the Protestant, victim of the St. Bartholomew Night’s massacre) writes that Aristotle is a “source of errors”: he violated the art of dialectic and became the first of those who corrupted the truth of the ancient philosophers. Natural dialectic (Petrus Ramus defines natural dialectic as the mind and reason, the virtue of judgment and knowledge of truth) is the ability to distinguish the image and picture of nature. Yet, neither Aristotle’s works nor the commentaries of his followers have the dialectical art: all is “one continuous chaos” [Ramus 177–179, 182, 189].

Yet, the main danger of Aristotle’s doctrine is not in absence of rational reasoning and the art of dialectic. Aristotle’s practical inferences and recommendations concerning political and social arrangements conceal the fact that all his guidelines and observations are created within the framework provided by the mythical serpentine theology – the Orphic doctrine*5*, and, therefore, offer false knowledge and spread misconceptions of the slave–owner who in the same time is a slave of own ignorance.

Whatever doctrines, rules of interpretations, and sets of assumptions called “true knowledge” a human mind invents and employs for self–identification and expression of own essence and vision of the surrounding world, the truth is that theology is the only true foundation of human mind and the basis for reasoning: would it be heathenism, any other religion, or Christianity – the essence is either true God or something other placed at the place of true God.

Only one factor determines the difference among human minds – the core: who is accepted as God – the true God–Creator, or idol, serpent, beast, human being with the access to the power of coercion, idea, belief that there is no gods at all, eternal indestructible matter, etc.

Around the core – God, the mind builds its universe, the reality of own existence –

 

creates philosophies, arts, politics, systems of values

embodies them into social, political, religious, and other establishments

arranges conditions of life for itself and for the others
who are under its authority or might be influenced.

 

Aristotle’s mind, outlook, and logic of reasoning are shaped by the heathenism and reflect conditions of life in which he was brought up. He lived in times when humans along with animals were sold and bought at markets, sacrificed to idols (idols frequently were made after images of beasts and reptiles), and treated as animals. Such treatment of “human chattel” and human sacrifices were the rules by which the ancient heathen society lived.

Consequently, Aristotle’s thinking reflects the unique settings of his times and his conditions of life, and his works reveal the life of a particular human mind born and destined to accomplish its way of cognition within a particular world – time–space–complexity settings.

he Aristotle’s world is the heathenism as

a/ the complete enslavement of human body, mind, and soul

b/ foundation, which sustains perversion and degeneration of human nature

c/ bestialization of man.

The works of Aristotle also serve as an additional illustration of the utter incompatibility of the heathenism and Christianity:

 

the heathenism

casts a human mind down, at the level of animals or even deeper,
because it demands human sacrifice to the idols invented by human imagination,
treats human beings as animals and slaves,
and deifies man who has the access to the power of coercion,
which is employed to enslave other human beings and to sacrifice them to the idols

 

Christianity

lifts a human being up
by giving a human being the ultimate freedom and authority of a child of God,
by recognizing the image and likeness of God and the very presence of the Holy Spirit of God
within a human being who is the temple of the Living God
destined to dwell with God through the eternity.

 

Therefore, the danger of acceptance of the heathen philosophy rests in a possibility of acceptance of general outlook of the heathen mind that, for instance, thinks only by categories of the matter, accepts false as truth, worships idols and other figments of human imagination, seeks virtue in corruption, and perceives all beings as animals and slaves deprived of the faculty of deliberation and unworthy of freedom and knowledge of truth. The heathen philosophy might lead the mind to acceptance of slavery and bestiality as the natural mode of human existence and to lust for the absolute power over the others. For such a mind, domination over the others might become the only meaning or the only purpose of own existence.

The works of Aristotle provide the insight into the mental processes of man that identifies himself with his bestial deity, and believes that the only human features he has is a body/ structured matter/ flesh in a form of a human body.

So, through Aristotle’s politics and practical down–to–earth observations and recommendations, the outlook of slave–owner and the Orphism*5*, became the foundation of the political, social, and religious establishments of the Western civilization. Aristotle, who was trained by Plato the heathen philosopher and follower of the Orphic doctrine, became an interpreter of Plato’ “sublime” theology of the serpent–worshipers for rulers and politicians.

 

 

Logic and Ethics

 

Aristotle’s logic of reasoning is derivative of the Orphic doctrine, especially the concept of man as an animal–embodiment of one of the forms, which are contained within the Orphic “absolute divine” animal – cosmic serpent/beast. 

Aristotle asserts that “it is possible to prove truth by falsehood, as it is clear from Analytics.” Analytics is his work in which he describes the syllogism: “A man is a stone, but a stone is an animal, therefore a man is an animal” [Eudemian Ethics I.vi.6].

According to his logic, two false statements (a man is a stone, and stone is an animal) produce the true statement that man is an animal.

Yet, false does not have the inner logical structure – reflection of true reality, which would be similar to the inner logical structure of truth. The false cannot serve as the confirmation of the truth. False might be likened to the putrefied corpse of the logical structures of reason, because false gives as much knowledge of the actuality as the decomposed cadaver gives knowledge of life. Besides, man is not an animal, and the false produces only the false: no one should expect good fruits from a bad tree as well as the pearls of wisdom from the mind that worships the Orphic serpent and exalts the beast above man.

The following summary of arguments concerning the meaning of good (a through d) illustrates Aristotle’s logic, reveals the essence of his ethics, and allow conclusion concerning actual worth of his intellectual legacy:  

a/ Aristotle asserts that when Plato considered virtues in the framework of the Ideal Good, “this was wrong, because inappropriate” – human virtues and the Ideal Good have nothing in common. The good of gods, or the Absolute Good, must not be taken into consideration, when the subject is the good of men. The Ideal Good is separate and independent, and as such, it cannot dwell in all things. When the nature of thing is good, it means that the thing is desirable “for its own sake” [Magna Moralia I.i.8, 13]

b/ moral virtue has nothing common with the Ideal Good, being, truth, reason, or science; virtues are “concerned with” pleasures and pains; they are the means of control of feelings and affections. The dignity of man (man according to Aristotle’s interpretation) is related to the social contacts; dignity of men is moderation and keeping the intermediate position. However, while anyone can draw a circle, “to find the centre of a given circle is difficult.” Likewise, it is easy to be angry or indifferent, and it is difficult to achieve the middle state and become “dignified man.” The moral character determines man’s position toward other men; therefore, moral character is the foundation and subject of social or political science [Magna Moralia I.i.1–3, 7–8, 27;  I.vi.1, I.viii.2, I.ix.5–6, I.xi.5, I.xxviii.1–2]

c/  every science and every faculty exists for a good end, and the best faculty provides the best of ends. The good of man in the society and the best of goods are social life and actions [Magna Moralia I.i.9–10]

d/  in the process of investigation, comparison with the obscure things must be avoided; “plain things” should be used for clarification, and objects of sense should be used to clarify the objects of intellect, because “the former are plainer than the latter.” It means that consideration of good should not start with the study of Ideal Good. As soon as the social science’s subject is the good of men, Ideal Good must not be subject of consideration: the good of things can be investigated “without reference to the Ideal” [Magna Moralia I.i.21–26].

The referred above texts lead to the following conclusions (1 through 5).

1/ Aristotle discards the Plato’s vision of the perfect nature of gods [Plato Epinomis 985a] as the main ideal of man, which includes such properties as absence of pain and pleasure, all–knowing, and concentration on thinking.

Aristotle separates the good of gods from the good of men and excludes “obscure” Ideal Good from consideration: he is dealing with men, not with gods. At this stage, he sets new boundaries for a human being as it is defined by the Orphism: man is a physical and social animal.

(Orphic doctrine considers man as one of many kinds of animals whose forms–essences are contained in “absolute divine” animal – serpent of the cosmic egg – see posting Philosophy: the Beginning, folder Philosophy, Page_1).

To survive, animals have to join in flock/herd/pack and to live in the flock/herd/pack. So, to survive, men must establish the association or alliance of men – community, society, state and to live for sake of their association. Within the boundaries of flock, herd, community, society, polis, state, an animal/man exists as the subordinate and secondary part of the main wholeness – the flock/ herd/ pack/ society. While survival and the good of the society becomes the main priority, the good of a person vanishes; only the good of herd or the “common good” of a community exists. Hence, the ability to fit the herd and to be integrated into the herd (or the degree of development of the gregarious instinct) determines the value of Aristotelian man.

So, firstly, Aristotle places the social animal/man at his “natural place” within the “natural” container–association/society in accordance with the theological doctrine, which places a form of man within the deified serpent/beast–container of all forms of living beings.

2/ According to Aristotle, the main criterion of the good, with which the social life of men should be evaluated, is the intermediate position between the opposite feelings, affections, therefore, the maintenance of the balanced and stable social order through the ultimate uniformity of behavior within the established boundaries.

3/ Aristotle shifts focus of the consciousness

 

from

the incomprehensible for him and non–perceivable by his senses Ideal Good

into

the physical, measurable, and definite daily life,
which is the sum total of individual actions and intercommunications
of members of the particular slave–owning society/herd of animals/men.

 

4/ Aristotle asserts the material corporeal world of things as the good of men in the society.

5/ Aristotle changes the meaning of virtues from knowledge (the property of the mind) to sensory perception – pain and pleasure (the properties of the body/matter) and makes the practical inference concerning possibilities to conduct the social control of the society through the things, which can cause pain and pleasure.

The summary of the referred above Aristotle’s assertions comes to

a/ destruction of the ancient Greek man–centered philosophical system with intellectual, spiritual, and ethical values based on the Absolute Good

b/ introduction of the new doctrine – materialism, which considers a human being/individual/person as a part of the human herd that exists within the material world, lives by the material values, and whose good is defined by material values that can be measured, distributed, consumed, etc.

Aristotle justifies his inferences and recommendations with

1/ the statement: “this was wrong, because inappropriate”

2/ the assertion that an object of the human intellect is the discernible material world; the intellect serves cognition of material properties of things

3/ with drawing a circle, which has to illustrate the reason, why the goodness is rare in men

4/ the “virtuous” reasoning, that, for Aristotle, is a point of view acceptable by the Athenian market where humans being are evaluated by their suitability to serve bodily needs of the other beings (e.g., physical strength of laborer at the fields, skills of a cook) who assumed the right to own slaves, priced, and sold.

However, there is no convincing explanation, why it is inappropriate; then, the instant question arises: what are the Aristotle’s criteria of appropriate – inappropriate? The Aristotle’s recommendation to confirm the objects of the intellect with the senses contradicts the Plato–Socrates’ assumption that pure unadulterated thought cognizes the essences of things. Geometrical exercises are suitable only for the material things; they have no capacity of explanation of the work of reasoning: this example reveals the actual foundation of Aristotle’s logic of simplification: the inadequate complexity of consideration.

The essence of Aristotle’s “art of dialectic,” which, strangely, was accepted and enthusiastically applied by many generations of philosophers and thinkers, also cannot be substantiated, even with the common sense: he snatches a part from the whole reality (for instance, he separates man from his roots and the source of existence), introduces new – his own – criteria of judgment, and builds a new construction by closing the surrounding void with irrational images, which should regulate the life of his construction. The result is the distorted and simplified reflection of the world where the phantasms take the place of the reality.

Therefore, the danger of Aristotle’s speculations concerning the reality and practical good is that they disguise the inherited from Plato imaginary world, which Aristotle attempts to transform into the reality of existence. Only the subject of fantasies distinguishes the teacher from the pupil: Plato plays with the imaginary world of gods, Aristotle plays with the polis/state and other real establishments of men.

Aristotle explains his method of analysis as the consequent division of the whole into the smallest or elementary parts [Politics I.1.1252a18]. In the contemporary terms, his method might be defined as simplification.

However, complexity and simplicity are not compatible: the very method of division/dissection of the wholeness with the purpose to infer the features of the wholeness from the features of its components becomes the main source of false assumptions. In addition, Aristotle not only dissects the wholeness into non–representative pieces, which are not capable of conveying the meanings and the features of the wholeness; he then, puts the simplified similarities (his own interpretations and assumptions) at the place of the pieces of the wholeness. Such a practice instantly results in absurdity of the inferences.

For instance, Aristotle

a/ takes the concept, which he is not able to explain or cognize himself

b/ substitutes something known, material, cognizable, and provable through senses for the unavailable for his comprehension key/core word/idea

c/ attempts to disclose the essence of his assertions/arguments through the simple well known things or elementary definitions (similarly to his attempts to disclose the functions of things through the forms of things), perhaps, with the objective to eliminate possibility of false or mistake, because, as he argues, truth and false are in thoughts, not in things; moreover, “with regard to simple concepts and ‘whats’ falsity and truth do not exist even in thought” [Metaphysics VI.4.25–29]

d/ selects the supporting arguments from geometry, physics, etc.; for instance, the notion of voluntary actions of man as “the first principle” is supported by the description of a triangle’s angles [Eudemian Ethics II.vi.1–11]

e/ adds own opinion as the axiom or judgment of the higher authority; for instance, “this was wrong, because inappropriate” [Magna Moralia I.i.8]

f/ builds his construction around the new – irrelevant – core and replaces the original notion by own concoction of philosophical terms with arithmetic and other pieces of elementary knowledge inappropriate for the application to the generalized philosophical concepts.

In summary, the essence of Aristotelian analysis is the logic of simplification (or the logic of death*6*). In attempt to comprehend the essence of the entirety, he employs dissection–dissolution–breakdown of the complex system–wholeness–entirety into the parts, pieces, subsystems, sub–processes, etc. This process might be likened to the process of disintegration. The separation of the part/event/phenomenon from all its connections (especially, when it is followed with disregard of such “nuisance parameters” as the cohesive power and the place within the totality of the life–maintaining processes) leads to the programmed by the very process of analysis failure to adequately comprehend the subject of consideration*4*,*7*

The deeds of the Aristotle’s pupil – Alexander of Macedonia – illustrate the practical consequences of the Aristotle’s lessons within the very environment where the Aristotle’s outlook came to existence and to which the Aristotle’s outlook was tailored.

Alexander of Macedonia inherited the “divine” madness from his mother who was the Initiated of orgiastic rites of Dionysus [Graves 1:105, 114; Plato Phaedrus 244a, c, 265a–b; Plutarch 253–254; Vergil 6:51–58, 84–89]. Also, as any learned Greek, he knew the Homer’s works by heart and during his military campaigns carried The Iliad  with him.

Nobody can prove that the crimes of gods and self–deification consistent with the Aristotle’s universal slavery pattern have not inspired the ruthless assassinations, slaying of the prisoners of war, pillage, and other crimes committed by Alexander. Eventually, he executed Aristotle’s nephew [who took the place in the line of many friends and loyal servants murdered by Alexander himself or according to his order – in: Curtius 240–241; Justinus 60–62, 68; Paulus Orosius 100–101; Plutarch 259–260, 306–307].

Plutarch (A.D. 46–120) refers to “some writers” who asserted that Aristotle advised to assassinate Alexander of Macedonia [Plutarch §77 333], yet, nobody today can confirm or disprove such allegation. Nobody can explain what had happened between two Macedonians –

 –– the teacher Aristotle who pretended to be a philosopher, and whose slavish and irrational physical–mechanical–arithmetical–mythical speculations erroneously had been associated with Greek philosophy, thus defamed it in the eyes of anyone who understands the difference between free man–creation of God and social animal–property of the society/community/state

–– the pupil Alexander who pretended to be a god, and who was perceived by many as the learned Greek illuminated with the mysterious knowledge of the Initiated and as a creator of the new civilized world. Yet, he assembled his “new world” (which after his death disintegrated as the house of cards) from the devastated nations, which he conquered with the power of weapon, mass slaughter, and fear of death, and which he robbed and enslaved.

One common trait unifies both: the false knowledge.

Aristotle produced the false, and Alexander of Macedonia consumed it. He even rebuked Aristotle for publishing his doctrines, which according to the ancient tradition should be conveyed to the Initiated by word of mouth only:  publication deprives him (Alexander) of the advantage over the others [Plutarch Alexander §7 259].  

So, what is this “knowledge” which Alexander wanted only for himself?

Seemingly, Aristotle had difficulties with reconciliation of the Plato’s imagination with the practicality of daily life, yet, the Aristotle’s doctrine is the practical advancement on the way of destruction, which Plato began. In fact, Aristotle diligently elaborated the Plato’s imaginary philosophy for the levels of the practical activities – management and security of the society and state, common religion, household, etc. With such main criterion as the feasibility of implementation, he selected those Plato’s concepts, which he found suitable for his purposes, and almost literally followed them. He made the Plato’s notions [Republic, Law] concerning property, laws, society, and the state digestible for the generations of theologians, philosophers, researchers, and political leaders.

Even in his critique of the Plato’s ideas/forms, Aristotle asserts practical uselessness: ideas/forms contribute nothing to sensible things, they do not cause any change in sensible things, and they do not disclose any knowledge concerning sensible things; to name the forms as the patterns “is to use empty phrases and poetical metaphors” [Metaphysics XIII.v.1–4]. This critique reveals the essence of the Aristotle’s doctrine better than some other assertions.

In particular, Plato considered the ideas/forms as the only true knowledge and differentiated opinion and knowledge [Plato Meno, Theaetetus, Timaeus, and Republic]: while the “sensible world” is the subject of an opinion, “the intelligible world” is the subject of knowledge. Consequently, the difference between the intellectual and sensory cognition determines the difference between two worlds – the world of consummated divine philosopher who knows, and the world of all the others (the mob–beast) who believe and construct opinions. Therefore, when Aristotle discards the Plato’s ideas/forms, he changes the very structure of the Plato’s world: the divine philosopher becomes the impracticable phantasm; only natural sciences (which Plato considered as the doctrine of probable) are endowed with the ability to provide reliable knowledge about gods, and the discernible sensible knowledge becomes the only ground for actions. 

In another text, when Aristotle criticizes the Plato’s ideas of commonality of women and children, he focuses his attention not in the ethical consequences or inadmissibility of Plato’s plan because it is based on perversion of the human nature. Aristotle considers the practical detriment of the common use of women and termination of the traditional family tides: the children, as any common possession, would be neglected, ignorance concerning relatives might result in increase of crimes, and the spirit of friendship might decrease. Therefore, the Plato’s plan might bring the results, which are opposite to the initial objectives, for instance, the disassociation of the citizens instead of the unity of the citizens [Politics II.1.1260b; II.3.1261b; II.4.1262a].

The activity–oriented approach makes the Aristotle’s doctrine (centered on a herd of men, who live within the material world) much more dangerous than the Plato’s theoretical three–dimensional interconnected construction (gods––Universe––man), because the false primary assumptions have instant implication through the Aristotle’s practicable recommendations.

However, the Plato and Aristotle’s doctrines have the same theological and social foundation. The only distinguishing feature is the level of consideration – they reflect different surfaces of the same imaginary shared world:

––  one surface (Plato) is lifted up to the deities of the imaginary world in attempt to describe the entire Universe, which accommodates life of man, and, in particular, life of human intelligence beyond the visible and discernible matter

––  another surface (Aristotle) is turned down to the Earth, to the material limits of existence where everything is measured, evaluated by its practical use, and where everything should serve survival of the visible matter arranged into the strictly pragmatic pieces, for instance, such as a mortal body of a slave used for the convenience of the salve–owner.

It could be no reason today even to mention irrational and obsolete Aristotle’s constructions, yet, the Aristotle’s logic still sustains contemporary philosophy, ethics, and some religions (for instance, the official doctrine of the papal church of Rome – political theology), and the Aristotle’s method, embraced by medieval Catholic theologians and philosophers, still is in use in political theology and contemporary sciences (e.g., modeling based on the logic of simplification*7*).

Two facts explain the vast range of opinions concerning Aristotle’s works, as well as Aristotle’s contradictive statements and inconsistencies noticed by many researchers:

1/ atheism, rejection of the official Greek gods, or the open introduction of new deities unaccepted by the state were the crime punishable by death (e.g., execution of Socrates, the teacher of the Aristotle’s teacher): Aristotle had to conceal his atheistic–materialistic approach and to pay at least some reverence to the official deities. Yet, his actual outlook might be inferred from the following remark: “People make the lives of their gods in the likeness of their own”; likewise, they fashion images of their gods [Politics I.2.1252b]

2/ the pupils of Greek philosophical schools, the Initiated, learnt the art to disguise own thoughts in order to keep the ignorant mob out of the realm of the specific – sacred for the philosophers – knowledge.

Consequently, within different philosophical systems, the commonly known categories (e.g., “god,” “good,” “virtue”) carried different meanings, which only the Initiated could recognize. Thus, when Aristotle or other Greek heathen philosopher applies the term “god,” it is not necessary means the reference to deity; it might be the physical principle, Alexander of Macedonia, or the coded name, which expresses the essence of secret doctrine. Many concepts of ancient Greek philosophers created within the framework of shared artificial worlds have double meaning and should not be evaluated only by their explicit wording.

 

 

Concept of Good

 

Some researchers stress the connection of the Aristotle’s concept of good with his teleological orientation. In particular, they ascribe to Aristotle the vision of the final cause as completion and perfection of a thing, which naturally works to actualize the wholeness or essence: the good denotes fullness of actualization of the thing’s nature. From such a point of view, effect of worms, which eat out the inner part of a tree and destroy its life, is neither good nor natural end for the tree [e.g., Ward 29–30, 33]. However, eating out the tree is good for the worms because they maintain their existence.

The notion of the good of one being, which begets the destruction and death of another being, leads into the logical trap. In general, the very definition of good means that there is no bad, evil, or destructive processes correlated with the thing, state, or phenomenon defined as good. Aristotle’s teleology introduces the specific meaning of good: the good and existence of one thing might be achieved through death and destruction of another thing.  Aristotle correlates the good with the evil that is the logical absurd for any life–oriented philosophy, yet, this absurd is consistent with the ancient doctrine of transmutation of the good and the evil.

The doctrine of transmutation keeps the mind within the inescapable inferno of the evil, because the logical essence of this doctrine is the assumption that everything starts with evil, passes through the cycle of transformations (including temporal stages identified as the good) and returns to the evil.

Many generations of the philosophers and thinkers rejected the doctrine of transmutation of the good and the evil as the worst kind of perversion of the philosophical thought, which would lead to dehumanization of man; nevertheless, through the Aristotle’s works, it entered Western philosophy and Aquinas’ political theology and made the contribution into the worst heresies and misinterpretations of the Christian teachings.

For the proper evaluation of significance of the doctrine of transmutation, it would be enough to take into consideration that the Aristotle’s common good was accepted by Thomas Aquinas as the blueprint for the “perfect communities” of the papal subjects; this concept allowed the papacy to actualize own good with such evil as killing–execution of the different minded and heretics and deprivation of property of the Jews and non–Catholics who did not wish to convert into Catholicism. Therefore, the common good of the papal communities (e.g., maintenance of the papal hierarchy, preservation of the papal faith – Catholicism, and enrichment of the Catholics who appropriated the wealth of the exiled and executed opponents of the Catholicism) was sustained with murders, robbery, and crimes against humanity justified by heathen philosophy.

The Aristotle’s own practicable inferences from the concept of “the evil good” allowed him to transform the morality of man into the subject of the political and social sciences, and to reduce the Plato’s immortal soul/intelligence to a trained by pain and pleasure body of a social animal or – in a case of a slave – to the animated property, which along with domestic animals serves the bodily needs of its owner. An additional aspect of the Aristotle’s practical orientation is revealed by the following definition: slaves are the “servants in the sphere of action,” or the “instruments, which are prior to other instruments,” or the property/part, which belongs entirely to its owner/ master/ the whole [Politics I.4.1253b–1254a; I.5.1254b].  

The referred above Aristotle’s logical escapades have the very definite consequences; one of them is that the good of man comes under supremacy of economics and politics. Although economics and politics determine parameters of the lowest levels of the hierarchy supporting material existence of the society, Aristotle elevates them at the level that defines the good and the evil of men. As a result, some contemporary researchers recognize Aristotle as the founding father of the political religion. In the political religion, politics, as “the source of morality and law” and the plans of men, takes the place of the laws of God [Rushdoony 220], and the state or other form of ruling establishment, which determines the politics, becomes the main deity. Deification of the state or other controlling structures made the political religion the most dangerous and destructive form of the heathenism.

The destructive potential and advancement of the political religion might be illustrated with the following two examples:

1/ Thomas Aquinas elaborated the Aristotle’s political religion into political theology, which became the official doctrine of the papal church of Rome

2/ the political religion reached its logical completion in communist and fascist ideologies embodied into the totalitarian states of the twentieth century.

The following postulates (1 through 10) illustrate the meanings of the Aristotle’s concept of good and its impact on the morality, ethics, and social life.

1) For anyone “it is proper” in all matters to observe “the ruling factor,” as for a slave to live “with reference to the rule of master” [Eudemian Ethics VIII.iii.14–15].

Aristotle perceives the world as an embodiment of the universal ‘master–→slave’ pattern: humans are slaves of gods; therefore, slavery must be the natural foundation of any human society and establishment. The vision of the deity as a slave–owner has brought Aristotle to the idea of separation of the good of men from the good of gods, because that what is good for the master is not accessible for his slave.  Such separation resulted in substitution of the practicable material good of the society for the Absolute Good: the good material, discernible, verifiable, and understandable by men took the place of the Absolute good.

2) The “Ideal Good” is separate and independent from the common good, which is inherent for all things. Things are good when they are “eligible or desirable.” All is measured by the availability for practical use: goodness itself is “the sort of disposition.” Actions are a greater good than the attitude and disposition: “activity is a more desirable thing than goodness.” The ideal good is not practicable; the Absolute Good that is not practicable should not be sought after. The Absolute Good is good when it is the End (result) “practicable for man”: the good in things must be considered without the reference to the Ideal (Absolute) Good; only significance for men is the measure of the good. Such practicable good “comes under the supreme of all the practical sciences, which is Politics and Economics and Wisdom”: the morality is the subject of social or political science because social life and action are the best amenities, and the society is the best of men [Eudemian Ethics I.viii.19–20; II.i.4, 24; II.xi.11; VIII.i.7;  Magna Moralia I.i.1–3, 10–13, 26].

The predecessors of Plato and Aristotle created theological and philosophical doctrines, where God – Ideal (or Absolute) Good is the source of life, source of origin of the Universe and everything it contains, the source and the main object of knowledge, and the highest moral criterion for judgment concerning the good of men. The ideal good became the three–dimensional unity:



the primal cause of the Universe

the man’s main object of knowledge

the man’s main standard of behavior (virtue).

 

The ancient Greek philosophy, which kept the remnants of true knowledge of God, described the Absolute Good as the source of creation of the Universe, intelligence, and the life of men. It penetrates all structures of the Universe and sustains life of all creations. A human being cannot be separated from the Absolute Good because it is the essence of the Intelligence, therefore, the essence of the human nature, the highest human ideal, and the highest moral value. Therefore, as soon as the Absolute–Ideal Good is the main object of cognition and cognition is the life of reason, everything might be expressed in the terms of good and knowledge, even the virtues are the kind of knowledge (knowledge of the good). In summary, the Absolute/Ideal Good, Intelligence, and knowledge are linked in the inner structure of the Universe and the framework of existence of men.

To the contrary, gods and the Ideal Good are not the Aristotle’s reality: he is not able to sense or to experience the Ideal Good, as well as to confirm existence of gods. Therefore, he needs to re–define the highest standards according to his reality with the practical objectives: to determine how to govern the social life of men and how to stipulate the criteria for judgment of men according to the social–political order, which Aristotle elevated to the rank of “common good” of the society. The Aristotle’s remark concerning impracticability of the Absolute Good completes the separation of the realm of gods from the realm of men. 

In general, the ability to discard the imaginary world of heathen deities could signify the extraordinary abilities of reasoning. However, along with his gods, Aristotle discards the traditional divine attribute – the Absolute Good – as impracticable for men, thus he cuts off the living beings–creations of the Absolute Good from their creator and the source of their life. He rejects the Absolute Good of gods as the highest value of men and elevates the αγορα (market) at the level of the highest good: in the Aristotelian world, all must be judged by suitability for practical use.

While Plato only mentions the necessity to know how to use the result as the natural finishing point of cognition [e.g., Plato Euthydemus 289a–b], Aristotle presents the end of an action as the main criterion of the good.

In the end of the nineteenth century, Nietzsche reconciled the Plato’s vision of man with the Aristotle’s practical virtues in the following assertions, which later were embodied into Nazi ideology: the will to achieve the end and to use the means to achieve it becomes the high morality and then, virtues must be justified economically and to become the “machine–like virtues” because man must be “an infallible machine” for the state [Nietzsche (1910) §880, §888 316, 321–322; italic in the original].

There is an opinion that an idea exists within a philosophical system, and reconstruction of the idea allows decoding of the implicit rules of the philosophical system, which accommodates creation and existence of the idea [Birdwhistell 224]; consequently, it might be inferred that

a/ Aristotle discarded the Absolute Good as irrelevant to the life of men, because the idea of good cannot be born and exist within the slave–owning society based on the Orphic serpentine theology

b/ misinterpretation of the meaning of good by philosophy and sciences signifies the latent processes of decay within the society or political establishment; the specifics reveal closeness of the apparent phase of disintegration.

The Aristotle’s attitude to the Absolute Good illustrates his pattern of thinking: he disregards the natural complexity of the considered phenomena, muddles up and displaces the levels of consideration.

For instance, he uses the practicable good of the particular social establishment to determine the meanings of the morality, morals, ethics, and laws and “evaluates” this practicable good with economics and politics.

Normally, theology and its derivative – morality – determine the morals, ethics, and laws of societies/states, including admissibility of particular philosophy and its derivatives – politics and particular economics (economics and politics are the practical derivatives of philosophy, which also has the roots in theology). The derivatives of philosophy are intended to embody the particular theology into the particular establishments of men by regulating the human activities – behavior, and that is at the end–point of theology (the lower levels of complexity are the levels of the temporal structures of the matter assembled to sustain life within the world of the matter).

In the Aristotle’s political model (see sub–chapter Politics further), the state measures the morality, ethics, and the laws with economics and politics. The state fashions virtues of man after the common good of the society, and the common good of the society reflects the purposes and needs of the state.

Such a practice might be consistent with the Aristotle’s arithmetical ethics, physical theology, and geometrical philosophy, yet it is the absolute philosophical and logical nonsense detected by many free–thinking philosophers and researchers (for instance, Tertullian); nevertheless, this practice was embraced by those who recognized an opportunity of gaining political power through deceit and lofty words of philosophical and democratic slogans.

3) No one science should “predicate goodness of its end,” because a physician does not proclaim that health is the good thing, and the universal (Absolute) Good should not be a subject of single science. Social science, as any other single science, must not consider the Absolute Good; its subject is “the best that is the best for men” [Magna Moralia I.i.14–23].  

In traditional Greek philosophy, the Absolute/Ideal Good is the cause of all things within the Universe, the main object of cognition, and the main standard–virtue, therefore, the essence of existence of men and the property of all creations of the Intelligence. Consequently, the sciences should study the particular measure of good dispensed by the Intelligence into specific things, relations, and properties within the material world, and provide recommendations how to employ this measured particular good for the particular good of men. Separation of the Absolute Good from the material things–creations of the Absolute Good, from the sciences as the means to create knowledge, and from the virtues as derivatives of the Absolute Good, completed the disconnection of the Aristotelian world from the Intelligence and Absolute Good. The focus of science was switched from the good of man to purposes of men’s establishments. Later, the Aristotle’s assumption that no science should refer to the Ideal Good became the Max Weber’s concept of ethical neutrality of sciences, and the results of sciences based on the Aristotle’s concept can be evaluated with the results of sciences in Nazi Germany (e.g., design of the concentration camps, inhumane experiments on the prisoners of war, genocide, and other fruits of the Aristotle–Weber’s ethics).

4) Wisdom is not a scientific knowledge; it is “another kind of cognition.” Knowledge has two meanings: knowledge itself, and knowledge how to use it. The assumptions, which cannot be proved with certainty, should not be made: the observed facts must serve as evidence for the rational argument, and the plain objects of senses must illustrate the obscure objects of the intellect [Eudemian Ethics I. vi.1, 6; I.viii.15; VIII.i.7; Magna Moralia I.i.21]. 

Obviously, Aristotle disputes the Plato’s definition of the wisdom as science of sciences. The general foundation of the Plato’s interpretation of wisdom is adequate to truth (if to suspend the inquiry into the meaning of Plato’s wisdom and its theological source): wisdom–knowledge maintains temporary life of a mortal body, as well as the eternal life of the immortal soul. Plato considers the knowledge–wisdom as the necessary condition of survival within two main dimensions: the world of the matter and the realm of the divine.

According to Aristotle, only proved knowledge must be considered and the matter discernible by senses should exemplify the intellect: as soon as the mind cannot support knowledge of gods with the sensory perception, the knowledge of gods cannot be real. Consequently, for Aristotle, the subject of theology must be just a fruit of imagination; his main deity is the perceivable matter.

5) Contrary to Socrates and Plato, moral virtue has nothing in common with the ideal good, being, truth, reason, or science. If man understands the nature of justice, his understanding does not instantly make him just, therefore, the virtues in the Socrates’ context “are useless.” (Obviously, Aristotle attempts to disprove the Socrates’ assertion that justice is knowledge [Plato Hippias Minor 375e].)  Moral goodness is the “middle state and is entirely concerned with pleasures and pains”: virtue does not exist apart from pleasure. Therefore, virtues are “concerned with” pleasures and pains, and as such, virtue is a “just mean or moderation” – the mean to control feelings and affections. The dignity of man is a “position midway Self–Sufficiency and Easy Complaisance,” and it (man’s dignity) is related to the social contacts [Eudemian Ethics II.v.11; II.x.30; Magna Moralia I.i.7–8, 26;  I.vi.1, I.viii.2, I.xi.5, I.xxviii.1, II.vii.24–25].

To confirm his opinion, Aristotle provides an example: to draw a circle is easy, to find the center of a circle is difficult. The same with all human affections: it is easy to experience the opposite feelings (in his example – anger or indifference); to keep them in the middle is difficult, and such difficulty is the reason, why goodness is rare. Thus, Aristotle elevates mediocrity to the universal ideal, because in the Aristotle’s interpretation,

– the Socrates’ temperance as the result of self–cognition, the beginning of wisdom, and the basis of σοφροσυνη (the classic concept of Greek pre–Orphic philosophy), becomes “a mean betwixt intemperance... and insensibility”

– the Protagoras’ measure of all things becomes the Aristotle’s “dignified man at intermediate position” [Magna Moralia I.ix.1, 5–6].

Another detail: something becomes “good thing” because it is the purpose/the object of desire of all. It means that the good of the community does not depend from the Absolute Good. In the Aristotle’s version, the desirability of a thing makes its good for the community. An instant practical inference: when all members of a social group (made after the Aristotelian unified community) desire to live under the constant narcotic influence, the drugs (that is self–destruction) become a good thing.

Therefore, speaking of the good and of the desirability of things, Aristotle attempts to justify three concepts, from which he builds the foundation of his moral doctrine and the theory of state [Magna Moralia I.ix.6; Politics V.8]:

a/ a political animal/man is an animal by nature that can be made “virtuous” (suitable for social life) with such means as pains and pleasures

b/  the community determines the meaning of its good according to the desires of its members

c/ every social animal/man must hold the middle position concerning his affections, feelings, etc.; the self–moderation should make him suitable for the gregarious/social life. Because the “praiseworthy men” keep the middle, the society should promote its values with the control of accumulation of the private wealth, of quantity of children, friends, and, in total, must watch over every member of the society. The objective of such total supervision is to prevent any superiority: the equality of members of the society is the main condition of the political and social stability.

The Aristotle’s concept of moral goodness illustrates more deeply his logical reasoning, which Tertullian described as inconsistency and destructive irrelevance of arguments to the actual meaning of the considered concept. For instance, Aristotle makes three interconnected assertions:

a/ the logic and reason prove that

–– the opposites are mutually destructive

–– extremities are opposites for each other and for the mean

–– the mean is the opposite of the extremities (with such noticeable wording as “the equal is greater than the less and less than the greater”)

b/ “deficiency and excess are pain,” thus, the moral goodness and badness both are dealing with excesses and deficiencies: goodness with pleasures, and badness with pains

c/ moral goodness has to be “a middle state” whose subjects are the “certain means”; the best state is the middle state; the virtues are the middle states and the mean or moderation of feelings or affections” [Eudemian Ethics II.iii.2–3; II.v.11; Magna Moralia I.ix.5–6; II.vii.5].

Apparently, Aristotle’s assertions have the root in the Plato’s interpretation of the ancient concept of the Middle Way. In particular, Plato assumed that goodness is the intermediate between good and bad; therefore, similarity with goodness is “never destructive”: while bad is manifestation of the destruction and corruption, goodness secures preservation and profit [Plato Republic 608e–609b].

The inappropriateness of comparison of the moral goodness and the middle state between the opposites discloses the main inconsistency of the referred above theoretical construction. All Aristotle’s supportive arguments belong to the realm of the sensible perception and consider the practicable end – “the best of man,” which Aristotle defines through sensual perception. Yet, Aristotle applies the results of such material observations toward the abstract categories, which are the subject of philosophy and logic. Such replacement of the levels of complexity makes all arguments irrelevant, even if, following Aristotle, to assume that one “opposite” is able to have two “opposites.”

In particular, there is no such thing as the middle state between the good and the evil: even indifference – that, according to Aristotle’s construction, could be the only logically possible middle between good and evil – becomes the evil if it makes people indifferent to the needs of the others. For instance, at each moment of existence, when the mind makes any decision, it inevitably makes the only available choice: the good or the evil, because there is nothing in between, and it cannot be if to consider the actuality of existence of mankind. If the mind refuses to choose between the good and the evil, it chooses passivity, which facilitates advancement of the evil; therefore, passivity is the evil.

Consequently, within the Aristotle’s world, the mind acts against own nature, therefore, against the Absolute Good, because the human nature is the likeness to the Absolute Good.

Consequently, all constructions built on the Aristotelian arithmetical “goodness” promote and justify accomplishment of evil, yet evil is perversion of the human nature, which activates the laws of disintegration: none of Aristotelian–based establishments has brought prosperity and happiness.

In particular, could it be a justifiable middle state between

–– Christianity and heathenism

–– the Inquisition and its victim

–– a prisoner of soviet concentration/forced labor camp and Stalin in Kremlin?

Only one thing can exist between the Aristotelian opposites: the pool of the possibilities of the evil accommodated in the state of passivity/indifference, which would make existence of the opposites of good (e.g., the Inquisition, communism, Nazism) the actuality that itself is the evil. Such thing embodies the Aristotle’s arithmetical “moral goodness”: the herd of social virtuous/standard animals who (in their virtuous desire to achieve pleasure and to avoid pain) tolerate and support any action of their herdsmen, including slaughter of own brethren, and obediently wait their turn to be slaughtered, yet, believe that their destiny might be different and they would live happily in the observable Future.

The irrational concept of moral goodness as the middle state between the opposites not only results in development of the social indifference; it prepares the ground for possibility to justify any crime. Moreover, it makes possible to exercise absolute uncontrollable power over the society that explains the significance of the Aristotle’s doctrine for the generations of rulers–seekers of the absolute power and their servants – philosophers and philosophizing theologians who covered their assertions with the authority of ancient heathen.

Starting with Alexander of Macedonia, the creators of empires and other establishments (especially those intended to conquer the world) enthusiastically accept the Aristotelian “philosophy” as the guide for actions. Yet, three historical facts illustrate the actual value of the Aristotle’s doctrine: each of such political establishments or empires

 

survived only until it was able to extract and consume
resources, wealth, and lives of their victims

did not achieve the full range of their purposes

became the slaughter–house for the different–minded or disobedient persons
who did not accept the herded way of existence as appropriate for a human being.

 

 

In general, the referred above assertions and conclusions of Aristotle evoke the image of the owner of herd, who strives to produce the animals with average standard properties appropriate for the establishments in which the moral goodness is at the level of the middle state (between pleasure and pain) of the trained animal whose averaged features perfectly fit for the limited space of the animal–pen.

However, observations of the Nature do not confirm appropriateness of the Aristotelian morality for the wild life alike: animals have more compassion to one another than the Aristotle’s creatures – social animals/men have toward their fellows and their animated property–slaves. Men have to treat animals with contempt and believe that they are devoid of reason because men build for them slaughter–houses, consume their flesh, and condemn them to the inhumane experiments and tortures in medical and other establishments. Yet, there are some texts in the Scriptures, which disclose the depth of inhumanity, with which humans treat animals: God desires mercy, not sacrifice; the righteous man is merciful to his cattle, and when the Earth would be filled with the knowledge of God, there would be no butchery, and all the creation will be free from the slavery of corruption and suffering {Proverbs 12:10; Isaiah 11:6–9; Hosea 6:7; Romans 8:19–22}.

The concept of moral goodness as the middle state became the foothold for other Aristotle’s social and political notions.

For the ancients, the Middle Way (“the Middle Way” is a philosophical construction derived from the concept of transmutation of the mutually destructive opposites) was the means to sustain the virtuous living within the constantly changing world where the good could become the evil and the evil could be recognized as the good. Aristotle with his geometrical–arithmetical speculations discarded the original meaning of the good and virtue and focused the attention of the rulers on the necessity to stabilize the social–political order by averaging of men and making the human society after the herd of social animals amassed by their similarity and incapable of revolt against its owners.

In general, the concept of an average social animal embodies degeneration of society and perversion of the human nature; its implementation could originate the assertion that the process of “human socialization” is inseparable from “denaturalization” of men [Arnopoulus 312].

There is another inconsistency of the Aristotle’s doctrine. According to his basic assumption, the equality of citizens prevents revolts and assures the society’s stability. From the other side, his speculations about different kinds of citizens and about the necessity to provide the comfort life for the society’s elite, which by the natural law is intended for leisure or “freedom from the necessity of labor” [Politics II.9.1269a], places inequality into the society’s foundation, that makes all Aristotelian social constructions hypocritical parody of democracy.

6) Pleasure is “an encouragement to performance,” the “restoration” to the true or proper nature, therefore, “a good thing just because it is the aim of all.” To the contrary, pain accompanies the deeds committed involuntarily, under compulsion, and if man experiences pain while he is doing the good things, he himself is not good [Magna Moralia II.vii.16, 20, 23–25]. 

This assertion – moral goodness–virtue is “concerned with” pleasures and pains – is the essence of Aristotle’s ethics. As soon as for Aristotle, pleasure is the restoration to the true nature, all Aristotle’s ethical concepts, definitions, and considerations are based on the assumption that the good of men is the life–supporting processes of the matter–body. Consequently, when Aristotle suggests that the citizens should be trained by pleasures and pains (as the citizens train their slaves), he embodies materialism into the actual foundation of the social and political life:

a/ he introduces obedience as the condition of physical survival

b/ he measures the good by physical sensation

c/ he prepares the basis for extending his “universal” ‘master→slave’ pattern onto the citizens who initially supposed to be the freemen.

Later, Ignatius of Loyola and Friedrich Nietzsche developed the Aristotle’s ethics into the advanced means of perversion of the human nature:

– Loyola employed self–inflicted pain as the main method of stimulating of imagination and training in unreserved obedience for the Jesuits and other subjects of the papal hierarchy

– Nietzsche introduced the concept of the state as the means to achieve “great ecstasy” of pain, which he asserted as the aim and reward for the followers of the Dionysian cult of death and madness (Nietzsche’s version of the Dionysian cult provided the foundation for the Nazi’s neo–heathenism).

In general, physical pain and pleasure are the means by which the matter–body communicates with the mind; they serve physical preservation–survival. By pain, a body indicates dangerous conditions or disease; by pleasure, a body indicates that it lives in conformity with its nature. Pain experienced according to the will of the others (superiors or owners) becomes the means to change the nature. The assumption that if man experiences pain while he is doing the good things, he himself is not good, instantly points out the danger of the whole construction: what is the meaning of “doing the good things”? A normal human being experiences pain when the actions threaten existence and spiritual or physical well–being: pain is the natural feature, which signifies unnatural and, therefore, dangerous condition. Consequently, when a human being experiences pain because of defiance or conflict with an establishment, it means that either this human being is unnatural for the establishment or the establishment is unnatural for the human being.

For example, in the Plato’s perfect Republic, a guardian has to put to death unwanted children who must not be brought up because the rulers did not authorize sex between their parents. If the guardian unexpectedly feels pity for the innocent beings that have to be assassinated for the sake of the laws of the “perfect community” and his awakened conscience tortures him – does it mean that the guardian is not good, or his pain indicates the inhumanity of the establishment, where he exists? If the guardian begins to question the nature of the establishment, the very foundation of the “perfect” arrangement might disintegrate. Consequently, the guardian armed with Aristotle’s physical ethics would not have any doubt: the pain means that the guardian commits act incompatible with the good of the community he serves.

Consequently, Nietzsche

a/ proclaimed that only immoral men can be the strongest power

b/ demanded to annihilate morality, which he defined as “humbug” and sign of imperfection.

The Nietzsche’s assertion was materialized in much greater scale. If the guardians had the task to regulate/improve only population of own communities, the Nietzsche’s supermen–immoralists planned to undertake the task of improvement of mankind through annihilation of “declining” races [Nietzsche (1910) §727, §749, §862 188, 204, 297].

In the philosophical doctrines of Aristotle’s predecessors, virtue, as the ethical category, characterizes the conditions, features, or potency of the soul/mind. The Aristotle’s interpretation of virtues confirms the shift

 

from the Socrates–Plato’s concept of man as the immortal soul within a mortal body

to the concept of man as a body of the animated (living) matter.

 

Such a shift is the logical completion of the concept of deified eternal indestructible matter, which is the core of Aristotle’s theological constructions.

7) Thinking is the purpose–oriented cyclic process: the result of actions is the beginning of thinking; the conclusion of thinking is the beginning for actions. The choice of action is based upon opinion, and freedom of choice is based upon knowledge [Eudemian Ethics  II.ix.2–3; II.x.15; II.xi.6].

The summary: thinking exists for the sake of achievement of some purposes, and the achieved results trigger new cycle of thinking processes. The choice of man is free when he supports his choice with the proved substantiated sensory knowledge. As soon as pains and pleasures determine moral goodness and virtues, only material factors, sensual perception, pleasures and pains govern the choice of man. Such determination makes man – in addition to political/social – also a physical animal and transfers all ethical considerations, as well as the focus of the reason, into the realm of the matter.

8) To reach the complete satisfaction, man should seek the complete end of every activity. According to the universal law, the complete end is “a higher good than the means.” The complete end, or the final objective – “the best of human goods,” is happiness or the summary of good things. As soon as wisdom “by itself is not a thing complete,” wisdom should be excluded from the “sum total” – the best, which should be sought [Magna Moralia I.ii.6–11].

For Socrates, the completeness and the final objective of existence was the perfection of the human intellect – wisdom. The meaning of Aristotle’s happiness confirms that the practicable good (measured and evaluated by the sensory perception and discernible material practical results) has been elevated to the rank of wisdom and to the rank of the greatest good of man. Aristotle’s material happiness is consistent with his gregarious concept of the common good: it presupposes possibility to influence behavior of the social animals through things, which could cause pain and pleasure. Besides, if the result is the common good, nobody should care by which means this good is obtained: for the good of the society, any action is permissible. This Aristotle’s notion sustained, for instance, the most inhumane Aquinas’ recommendations concerning the policies of the papal church of Rome toward its subjects and opponents, for instance, such as mandatory execution of the relapsed heretics.

9) A slave is “an animate article of property,” which is “entirely without faculty of deliberation.” Along with domestic animals, the slave provides “bodily assistance in satisfying essential needs”; therefore, he should receive food as compensation for labor and be allowed to beget children – the hostages of the slave’s fidelity. The slavery “is both beneficial and just” for the “natural slave,” because of his own nature and soul, which are different from those of freeman.  A slave is a part of his master–owner: both have “an identical interest” or “a community of interest”; their relation is similar to relation of soul and body, and the “little goodness” of the slave rests in his relation to the master–owner and in fulfillment of his duties. Some human beings are “intended by nature to be ruled by others” as some animals exist for benefit for the others; therefore, war is “a natural mode of acquisition” as hunting is; it must be practiced by the heads of households and statesmen: war becomes just when those who are intended for service refuse to obey the nature.  The barbarians are the same as the slaves “by nature.” The best slaves come from the moderate races that are “neither wholly spiritless nor yet overbold” [Oeconomica I.v. 3, 5, 6; Politics I.2. 1252b, I.4. 1253b, I.5. 1254b; I.6.1255b; I.8. 1256b; I.13.1260a].

There is an opinion: any philosophical or ethical doctrine should be considered within the historical context, with understanding of connections between the time and the level of advancement of the human values. About thirty years separate the year of Socrates’ death (399 B.C.) from the year when Aristotle entered the Plato’s Academy (367 B.C.). The Athenian society had not changed its slavery–based economy:  in relation to slavery, the historical settings at Socrates’ Athens and in Aristotle’s Athens are almost identical. However, if for Socrates, slavery is the death of reason, for Aristotle, slavery is a natural law and the natural foundation of social order: free citizen–master owns his parts–slaves, the community owns its parts–citizens, and the Polis/state has the natural right to subjugate the barbarian nations because they are slaves by their nature. Definitely, only personality determines philosophy, neither the time nor historical setting is decisive. There is no possibility to assume that man, who refers to the others in such a way as the “greatest philosopher” and “physicist” Aristotle has, would comprehend another morality or ethics within another time or under other conditions.

For instance, the Aristotle’s concept of slave–human chattel, which is the means to provide for the bodily needs of his master–owner, received the ultimate completion in the nineteenth century, when Nietzsche declared that the vast majority of the population is entitled to exist only because they are used for “service and general utility” [Nietzsche (1997) §61 43]. Then, similarly to Aristotle, Adolf Hitler assumed the role of the judge of other nations and portrayed the Future of the German super–race as of the master of all other nations [Hitler (1940a) 4–5]. The basic concepts of the Nazi ideology – deification of the state, cult of the dictator–Fuhrer as an embodiment of the deified state, racial superiority of the Germans and their right to use other nations as the slaves – have their roots in two main Aristotelian concepts: a man as the natural part/property/slave of the community/state and the slave as the natural means to serve the needs of his master–owner. 

10) Any act committed “with some kind of thought” has to be considered as the voluntary: all acts committed with knowledge – “not in ignorance” – are voluntary, and purposive choice is the consequence of the “deliberative opinion” – desire of things, which are “within one’s power.” People act willingly because they know about “the penalty threatened.” Therefore, persuasion becomes the opposite of the necessity and force, and actions under persuasion become voluntary. Man acts unwillingly when “the circumstances do not rest with himself” and he is under compulsion to act to avoid “some greater and more painful evil,” for example to be killed by another man [Eudemian Ethics II.vii.2–4; II.viii.1–9, 18; II.ix.3, II.x.15, 17]. 

For Aristotle, the meaning of freedom is consistent with slavery as the natural order of the Universe.

Socrates associates compulsion and resistance with error and ignorance; for him, the wisdom (as the perception of the movement and change of the Universe) and knowledge (as the following to the movement of the Universe) are “the most powerful elements,” which determine behavior of people [Plato Cratylus 420d; Protagoras 352b–d]. Aristotle eliminates resistance from consideration: the decisive knowledge is the knowledge of pain and threatened penalty; persuasion results in the voluntary choice of actions.

For example, if a slave knows which kind of suffering awaits him and his child (Aristotle considered a child of a slave to be the pledge of the slave’s fidelity and obedience to his owner) for an attempt to escape (to free himself from slavery), the knowledge of threatened penalty becomes the persuasive factor, and the necessity to submit himself to the power of his master becomes a voluntary purposive choice. According to Aristotle, this choice is free because it has been made not in ignorance and it has been made willingly.  

The application of this construction simplifies the Plato’s vision of the cosmos: the ideal Universe with the beings, who possess the wisdom to perceive its movement and change, has gone; the reality of physical pain becomes the framework for existence of men. Such construction not only facilitates deprivation of the freedom to act in accordance with man’s own free will and according man’s own necessities; the knowledge of penalties for disobedience becomes the factor, which regulates the behavior, and coercion is the force, which transforms assemblage of social animals/men into the perfect community. The ruler, who constructs comprehensive net of the common necessities/conditions of existence within the self–sufficient community, comes to possession with the absolute power over his subjects, who, nevertheless, might be allowed to continue to consider themselves as free people.

Later, the Aristotle’s concept became the slogan of communist ideology: “freedom is the recognized necessity”; also, its influence might be traced in the Augustine’s Compelle Intrare, which provided the theoretical foundation for the papal Inquisition.

 

 

Theological Assumptions

 

The Aristotle’s theological legacy is deification of the matter and the peculiar perception of deities. Aristotle elevates the matter at the level of deity and justifies the deification with the following assertions (a through c):

a/  The world is eternal; it has neither beginning nor end; it contains infinite time and embraces “it in itself”: the world was not created and cannot be destroyed [Heavens II.i].

 This assertion modifies the Plato’s concept of the cosmos, which, once created, would last forever. In fact, Aristotle follows the concepts of Empedocles (nothing comes into existence from nothing, and that what exists would not be destroyed) and Xenophanes (the cosmos was not created; it is eternal and would not vanish) [Aristotle On Melissus 975b; Xenophanes of Colophon Fragments A37]. Materialism of Aristotle is inconsistent with the Christian concept of creation.

b/ The world is made from four elements, which are not eternal because they are opposite and destructive of each other, and pass into each other in incessant motion [Heavens II.iii]

Therefore, Aristotle modifies the Plato’s notion that all four elements have the same invisible, formless, “all–embracing,” and intelligible substance [Plato Timaeus 49–51]. Then, the concept of transmutation of the mutually destructive opposites prompts two Aristotle’s far–reaching assertions:

–– the concept of intermediate position as the basis of goodness

–– the moderate obedient behavior as an assurance of social stability and order become the main criteria of praiseworthiness of men’s actions.

These assertions flow from the ancient concept of the Middle Way; they also reveal how Aristotle interprets the Plato’s idea that “the cause of disequilibrium is inequality” [Plato Timaeus 57–58].

However, according to Xenophanes (Xenophanes’ ideas are the main source of Plato and Aristotle’s fantasies concerning the nature of the Universe), the eternal cannot perceive or to be joined with anything temporal [Xenophanes of Colophon Fragments A34], similarly, the eternal can neither be created from nor contain the “not eternal” elements. It means that, according to the Aristotle’s own logic, the eternal world cannot consist from the perishable or mutually destructive elements; therefore, the Aristotle’s idea of the eternal matter/cosmos is logical absurd.

c/ Immortal god is in eternal motion, his activity is eternal life; since, the heaven has the circular body, which “by nature” has circular eternal motion, the heaven is of the nature of god – a divine body [Heavens II.iii].

This assertion is recitation of the Plato’s idea of the heaven/world/universe as the visible, living, uniquely created and immortal god, with the “fixed stars” – living, divine, eternal, and forwardly rotating [Plato Timaeus 40a–b, 92c]. However in other works, Aristotle, following Xenophanes who envisioned god as eternally motionless [Xenophanes of Colophon Fragments A36], asserts that god – “prime motor” or “prime mover” – is unmovable [Physics VIII.vi.258b; VIII.ix.266a] that contradicts the previous assertion.

Inconsistency of assertions usually signifies the fallacy of primary assumptions (or, simply, lies).

The following chain of statements and arguments (from 1 through 5) reveals the Aristotle’s comprehension of the Universe as the physical model, which explains the foundation of Aristotelian cosmos and perception of life:

1. Change is the movement: anything moves/changes, and “everything moves by changing its place” [Physics V.i.224a; On Melissus 976b].

Evidently, Aristotle almost literally repeats Socrates [e.g., Plato Theaetetus 182a, c, e]. Then, the movement is transition between two points: the starting point and the targeted point–objective of movement.

For Plato, the change constantly generates the Universe and the Universe itself is in constant change: existing cosmos is the stream where all things are changing as if they are streams, or the process of constant transformation–evolution, where the discernible movement is only an insignificant part of the complex process. To the contrary, even discussing infinity, void, Chaos, unity, Aristotle demonstrates the simplified mechanical vision and operates with the elementary physical categories [e.g., On Melissus].

However, if the Plato–Aristotle’s cosmos/Universe is god, it neither moves nor changes because the Plato–Aristotle’s god is immovable and unchangeable; therefore, the deification of the Universe logically contradicts to the vision of the change as the source of life.

2. “All goals of movement” are unmovable forms, unmovable conditions, and unmovable place [Physics V.i.224b].

So, as soon as some movement reaches the goal, it reaches an unmovable form, condition, or a point of space. It means that either the goal of movement is unreachable or the natural end of each movement is the motionlessness.

The centuries later, the inference from the Aristotle’s mechanical vision of the Universe produced the idea of entropy with prediction of energy death, when any movement within the Universe would stop.

3.  Genesis and perishing are not a movement: genesis is not a movement, because there is nothing to move before its existence, and perishing is not a movement, because its opposite is genesis. Therefore, only three types of movement exist: qualitative, quantitative, and local. If a thing moves, it must be kept in motion by something – by the inner or outer force or by an agent. Movement within the Universe is eternal; it never began, and it will never end. There are three categories of things within the Universe: a/ always in motion, b/ always in rest, c/ neither in motion nor in rest [Physics V.i.224a–b, 225b; VII.i.241b; VIII.vi.258b, 260a; VIII.iii].

Logically, within the Universe, which is in the constant movement and change, the state of rest or motionless is relative (only in relations to other things, for instance, those which move in the same speed and in the same direction). Thus, Aristotle’s categories of things in the constant rest and in neither in motion nor in rest within the constantly moving and changing Universe are the irrational constructions.

4.  The “prime motor”– the source of the everlasting movement within the Universe – is

 –– whether singular or plural

–– in a uniform and constant relation to all things, which are in motion

–– not divisible, without parts

–– not dimensional [Physics VIII.vi. 258b; VIII.x.267b].

The initial argument contains a definition of the prime motor as “whether singular or plural” [Physics VIII.vi. 258b] that immediately points out the inconsistency of the entire construction.

For example, if each prime motor is not dimensional and if this prime motor is in a uniform and constant relation to all things, how Aristotle could determine, is it one motor or many?

If there are many prime motors, there is no uniform and constant relation to all things, because, if there are many prime motors, each motor should have its own meaning of uniform and constant relation, which originates its own world inaccessible or indiscernible with the things, which have another type of uniform and constant relation. Besides, if the prime motor keeps a uniform and constant relation to all moving things, there is no discernible change within such Universe, and movement itself does not have any sense or meaning.

The Aristotelian notion of the deity as the “prime motor” illustrates absurdity of application of physics for explanation and elaboration of philosophical concept. Obviously, the Aristotle’s speculations are intended to re–tell the Plato’s assertion that “the Maker” made only one Universe [Plato Timaeus 31 a–b] with the only comprehensible for Aristotle language – the language of natural science (in this particular case – physics), thus to provide the kind of material proof of philosophy. Yet, they disclose incompatibility of the levels of consideration, therefore, irrationality of inconsistent reasoning.

When Aristotle became the recognized co–author of the papal official doctrine – Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology, the assumption “whether singular or plural” was intentionally disregarded. For instance, one of the ideas, for which Giordano Bruno paid with his life, is his assertion of existence of many worlds, which probably could be controlled by many deities, although the Bruno’s assertion logically follows from the Aristotle’s physical “theology.”

In his description of the life–supporting processes of the Universe, Aristotle substitutes the familiar and understandable physical “movement” for the obscure for him philosophical “change”; such substitution apparently creates an opportunity to use the objects of sense to clarify “the objects of intellect” [e.g., Magna Moralia I.i.21–26]. However, existence of the “not dimensional prime motor” cannot be confirmed with the Aristotle’s own methods [Eudemian Ethics I.vii.15; I.viii.19–20; II.ix.4; Magna Moralia I.i.21–26], because “the prime motor” – as the Aristotle’s addition to the realm of Greek gods – is not available for prove and substantiation, and its non–provable properties cannot be connected with politics and economics. Therefore, according to Aristotle’s own assertions, the very idea of  “the prime motor” is of no value for the “best of men.”

5.  The Universe, as each god, is motionless, because it is self–stabilized and it is contained in itself. Consequently, the Earth “is in fact motionless” and stays in center because it also “stabilizes itself” [Physics III.v. 205b].

By the way, if something is motionless, does it need self–stabilizing, and how it can stabilize itself in a center, if it is motionless?

Such vision of the Earth coincides with the Aristotle’s concept of deity as motionless “prime motor” and illustrates how physics produces the theological notion (in fact, nonsense).

The Aristotle’s concept of deified Earth – motionless self–stabilizing god in the center of the Universe – is an absurd idea incompatible with Christianity. However, Thomas Aquinas and other Catholic theologians accepted this construction and made it the article of the papal faith. The history of astronomy reflects the struggle of the papal hierarchy against any modification of the Aristotelian motionless Earth–center of the Universe.

For example, in 1616, Jesuit prelate Cardinal Bellarmine proclaimed the Nicolaus Copernicus’ model of the Universe violation of the Holy Scriptures. It is not possible to confirm with the text of the Scriptures the discovery of the papal prelate (who supposed to be learned and especially, well acquainted with the Scriptures) that the Scriptures describe the Earth as the Aristotelian motionless “god”–center of the Universe. Obviously, Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmine confused the Bible with the Aristotle’s writings.  Yet, in 1663, the Inquisition under the threat of inhumane torture compelled Galileo Galilei to withdraw his defense of the Copernicus’ model [Trager 223, 232].  

 

 

Concept of Man

 

Introducing the concept of supremacy of the community over its members, Aristotle begins with an assertion that the perfect community is the self–sufficient association, which exists for the sake of good life. The best of men and the self–sufficiency of their association becomes the ultimate good, and this ultimate good equates the perfect community with the establishment of the nature:

–– man by his nature is a “political animal in a higher degree than bees or other gregarious animals”

–– by the very own nature, the Polis (city/state) is prior to the family and to the person because the whole is prior to its part; the hierarchy of the whole includes household as a part of a city, freeman as a part of community, and a slave as a part of his master; the Polis has natural supremacy over man, and the good of each whole – city, community, slave–owner – is prior to the good of its parts [Politics I.2.1252b–1253a; I.13.1260b].  

Then, Aristotle constructs the logical chain of arguments, which leads to the assertion of the “general principle” – superiority of the ruler over inferiority of the ruled – for all people:

––  the Polis has the natural supremacy over man and the good of each whole – city, community, slave–owner – is prior to the good of its parts; the Polis has natural supremacy over man and the good of each whole – city, community, slave–owner – is prior to the good of its parts;  the soul governs the body as the master, reason rules as a monarch or statesman, the reverse relation (when a body controls the soul/reason) is always unfavorable; therefore, it is natural for a body to be governed by the soul

–– similarly, man dominates over the animals; the domestic animals benefit from authority of man because man protects them from the natural predators (if to describe breeding and the organized slaughter stipulated by the needs of men as “protection”)

–– similarly, those humans who are slaves by nature (whose best is to provide bodily service and who differ from the others as body differs from a soul, or as animals differ from a man) benefit from becoming the property of master; therefore, for the slaves by nature, slavery is “both beneficial and just.” Slaves must be acquired by hunting or war; such war is just, because it is the “natural mode of acquisition” of wild animals and slaves who are slaves by nature [Politics I.5.1254b; I.8.1256b].

The first argument elevates the connection between a master and a slave at the level of the natural wholeness of the soul and body. The second argument appeals to the common reasoning: no man would reject the idea of man’s dominion over the realm of animals (besides the Orphic initiated, of course, but the Aristotle’s social animals/property of the Polis are not the Initiated ones). The third argument extends two previous assertions to the sphere of interconnection among men/nations. The third assertion establishes the “natural” division of mankind into two types: masters and slaves. Consequently, slavery becomes the natural, thus, beneficial order of the Universe, or the general principle, which describes the “natural” circle of the absolute authority–––slavery/unreserved submission:

 

“human soul/body → human beings/animals → humans–masters/humans–slaves.”

 

The statement that a human being might be a “slave by nature” cannot be made by the naturally reasonable mind. Only perversion and corruption of the heathen idol–worshiper’s mind could accept the idea of natural slavery of some human beings and the idea of the natural superiority of other human beings. Probably, the ancient snake–worshipers admitted existence of different intermediate types of animals similar to human beings (e.g., humanoids), which could be embodiments of the intermediary forms among the main human form and forms of animals, with which their “absolute” beast/serpent was filled.

Furthermore, the definition of slavery as the natural order of the Universe allows using any means available – philosophical speculations, arms, political associations, and other means of control and coercion – to make own vision of the cosmos mandatory for all others and consequently gain access to the sovereign power. The Aristotle’s concept of slaves by nature culminated in the Nietzsche–Hitler’s concept of the German “super–race” destined to rule “the inferior races.”

The Aristotelian ideal of the common good of the perfect community concludes the evolution of the concept of man in the Greek heathen philosophy:

 

man as intelligent being connected with the Creator (pre–Platonic philosophers)

man as slave by nature (Plato and Aristotle).




In particular,

a/ Anaxagoras (500–428 B.C.) and Protagoras (480–410 B.C.) contemplated man as the measure of all things and the human mind as the ordering and containing principle of all things. The Universe had the man–centered structure, the Absolute Good as the source of life sustained the pre–Plato’s cosmos, and all aspirations of men were directed to the acquisition of the greatest good:

                                                                                  

God(s)–→Man

|           |

Absolute Good–→ Good of Man

 

b/ according to Plato (427–347 B.C.), atheists have to be destroyed because of the necessity to prevent wrath of gods, and happiness of some members of the perfect community (e.g., guardians) must be sacrificed for the sake of the community (that is for the sake of safety of the divine philosophers–rulers and slave–owners). The good of the divine philosopher/slave–owner, who is protected by the whole community under supervision of the Guardians and Nocturnal Council, became the actual center of the Plato’s Universe:

 

Gods–→Divine Philosopher–→Perfect Community

                                                                                                                                  |                                  |                            |

Absolute Good–→Good of the Divine Philosopher–→Common Good of the Community

 

c/ Aristotle’s materialistic mind envisions the structure of the Universe differently: the Absolute Good becomes the abstract useless idea disconnected from the common good of the self–sufficient/perfect community, which owns its members as its members own their animated property–slaves and domestic animals. Logically, the common good of such a community ascends to the level previously occupied with the Absolute Good. The Aristotle’s vision of the Universe re–makes the Plato’s construction by disassociating of the world of men from the imaginary realm of gods and substitution of the discernible material good (that is good because it is desirable by all animals/men) for the abstract ideal good. His cosmos shrinks to the practicable material establishment:

                                                                                  

Perfect Community–→Slaves of the Community.

 

The Aristotle’s concept of supremacy of good of the perfect community/state over the good of gregarious political animal/man that is the part/property of the community/state reflects needs of the heathen slave–owning society and its strategy of survival. Although the Aristotle’s perfect/self–sufficient community consists from freemen (women, slaves, and animals did not have a share in creation of the common good and privileges of citizens), he uses only one pattern for description of the natural order of the cosmos:

freeman is a part of community

a slave is a part of his master

the whole dominates over the part

the goodness of the whole determines the goodness of a part

men must observe their “ruling factor”– gods – as the slaves observe the rules of their masters

[Politics I.2.1253a; I.6.1255b; I.13.1260b; Eudemian Ethics VIII.iii.14–15].

 

Each “part” of the Aristotle’s world is embedded into the net of the ‘master→slave’ relations and without its consent (the Aristotle’s slaves possess neither “faculty of deliberation” [Politics I.13.1260a] nor the right to speak to their owners) might be sacrificed for the sake of the good of the whole.

Such a vision prompts the instant question concerning the nature, properties, abilities, and range of the authority of the center/ruler of this net. Apparently, none of the “embedded” objects would fit; something extraordinary is needed that stands above the typical pattern and all the others, and whose master cannot be found among other men; for example, such “divine” person as Aristotle’s pupil Alexander of Macedonia, or a similarly deified ruler.

There is only one general inference, which could be made after analysis of Aristotle’s theological, ethical, and social assertions: with the acceptance of the Aristotle’s vision of the world, any of his followers inevitably accepts the heathenism, and the structure of any state/society built in consistency with the Aristotle’s design comes to the arrangement of the slave–house under the absolute power of the perceivable/discernible deity materialized in the human or any other form.

The manifestations and functions of such deities sometimes shift to the abstracts, for instance, such as particular social, political, religious, or other establishments. However, the essence always is the same: the figments of imagination materialized into the images, idols, or into the seemingly abstract ideas, which nevertheless, consume lives of real men and take the place of God.

Obviously, the primary concern of all Aristotle’s speculations is survival of the polis/state or any other association of men, as for Plato, it was the necessity to protect slave–owners from their “animated property.” The main flaws of the doctrine, which doom to destruction all establishments created after Aristotle’s design, are the wrong starting assumptions: contrary to Aristotle,

a/ Man is neither a bee nor a gregarious animal.

For a Christian, man is the being created in the image and after likeness of God and intended to dominate the world, including the realm of animals {Genesis 1:26–31}. Therefore, for a Christian, the Aristotelian concept of man is sacrilegious, because

 

it dethrones the image and likeness of God as the essence of man

it elevates the animated matter to the rank of deity

it divides mankind into the natural freemen and natural slaves,
whom Aristotle places at the level of domesticated animals
.

 

b/ Man is the whole, not his establishment: man is prior to any of his establishments, including all associations he makes with the purpose to protect himself, his family, and his manner of living. The good of man is prior to the good of any of his establishments, because man is the whole, and he creates his establishments – parts of his world – to protect his own good. Even if free man sacrifices own life or happiness for the sake of the others or for the sake of own establishments – communities, societies, states, etc., he acts according to his own comprehension of the good or lays down his life for his brethren as the act of the supreme love according to the commandment of Lord God Jesus Christ, the Word–God {John 15:12–13}. He makes the free choice consistent with his own vision of his mission, manner of life, and desire to live or to die as he wishes.

By accepting the absurd of Aristotle’s speculations, people create the irrational imaginary worlds of false gods, where the figments of imagination rule and the establishments of men subjugate their creators. The false gods make the submission mandatory and comprehensive. Consequently, the will of the small group or a person who deceives the others with the pretense to know the thoughts of gods or to stay at the place of God becomes “the divine law” for other members of the establishment.

c/  The world created for life cannot exist without reason, especially without the “faculty of deliberation.” Slavery as the death of reason corrupts and ruins any world, putrefies any virtue and ethics, makes creativity impossible, and establishes irrational ideals of such “little goodnesses” as, for instance, the absolute obedience of a papal subject (e.g., monk, nun) to “the superior,” self–denial in a pursuit of the good of the master, and complete fulfillment of duties, including bodily service to the needs of the master [which are in fact, identical to Aristotle’s “little goodness” of slaves, which keeps them from falling short of the duties toward the master – Politics I.13.1260.a.33].

Any establishment founded on slavery is abomination to God because it distorts the human nature and corrupts the world created by God; as anything with the distorted nature, it activates the laws of disintegration, and its very existence is the anti–evolution – the process of degeneration and perversion of the humans and decay/disintegration of the human establishments.

According to another Aristotle’s definition, man is the compound, and “to consider whether the compound is better than its constituent goods is absurd.” As soon as he already made man the part of the whole, Aristotle asserts the highest criterion of judgment that is the good of the society, or the “common good,” and emphasizes the necessity to evaluate men by their suitability for the common good of the society [Magna Moralia I.ii.9; Politics I.2.1253].

In fact, the common good of the Aristotelian community – the faceless sum–total of the privileges of the slave–owners – takes the place of the Absolute or Ideal Good – creator and the source of life of the Universe. This transaction not only opens the way for unconditional supremacy of the good of community over the good of its members. The community arranged according to the ‘master–→slave’ pattern takes the place of gods; therefore, slavery logically becomes the natural foundation of life and the only way of survival for the community’s members–parts. The question is what the new deity promises to the people.

For instance, if a society accepts such practices as cannibalism or euthanasia of aged members for the sake of the good of the society (e.g., to save the scarce resources of the society for young members who are able to wage war as the natural mode of acquisition of new slaves or additional resources), participation in cannibal rituals and euthanasia of aged parents become praiseworthy social behavior, therefore, the necessary condition of survival and prosperity within the society.

The history reveals the deadly potential of the Aristotelian establishments; for instance, the papal communities governed by Aristotle–Aquinas’ political theology not only tolerated existence of the Inquisition, tortures and burning of heretics at the stakes; they provided the informers and assistance for the Inquisition, and plundered the wealth of the victims (heretics) who they betrayed into the hands of the Inquisitors.

As soon as for Aristotle the Ideal Good and its derivatives – human virtues (e.g., pity, mercy, love) do not exist and the main concern of the Aristotelian virtues is pain and pleasure (e.g., full stomach), within any society, which follows the Aristotelian political doctrine, only the remnants of knowledge of God and mercy of God might prevent cannibalism, murder of the aged, or the similar pursuit of “the common good.”

The Aristotle’s concepts provide the foundation for the typical process of idolization or assassination of the human spirit. Because of the ability to materialize the thought, man embodies figments of imagination into discernible material structures, deifies own creations, worships them, and subdues himself to the figments of own imagination: men bow down and sacrifice children and brethren to the work of their hands {Isaiah 2:8–9; 44:9–19; Jeremiah 19:4–5}. Men’s association/establishment becomes a new idol, which deprives man of God, and confines him within the world of the matter.

From the philosophical point of view, the Aristotle’s doctrine contradicts the human–oriented part of Greek heathen philosophy. However, the very fact of existence of the Aristotelian dialectics illustrates the process of degeneration of human reasoning sustained by the heathenism, and Aristotle’s doctrine is the natural advancement at the way of dehumanization. For instance, it disregards the concepts:

a/ the intelligent Universe of pre–Orphic philosophers, which is created and sustained by the Intelligence that can be connected only with a human soul

Indeed, if man becomes a gregarious animal guided by the Plato’s “sublime” theology of snake–worshipers, and if he is enslaved by his own establishment, which places him at the level of human chattel, it is evident that he has nothing in common with the Intelligence that cannot be connected with animals

b/ dominance of the immortal soul over the mortal body and good and wisdom as the main virtues and main purposes of life

If man becomes a gregarious animal and slave/property of his own establishment, and if he connects virtue with the physical sensation, it is evident that his material temporal existence prevails over the eternal destiny of his soul

c/ a human soul as the cause and ordering and containing principle of all things and man as the measure of all things.

From a practical point of view, Aristotle’s concept of man provides some kind of the acid test for detection of true nature of any establishment, whichever slogans and “democratic” terminology it uses:

1/ if the common good of the men’s association dominates over the good of man, it is evident that the men’s establishment became the measure of all things and in fact, took the place of man

2/ if the needs of the political/social association became the main cause of all activities of men, it is evident that the good of the establishment supplanted the good of the person

3/ if the good of the establishment supplanted the good of a person, and if the needs of the establishment prevail over the needs of a person, such establishment is based on Aristotelian doctrine rooted in Plato’s theology – the Orphism*5*. Therefore, the essence of such establishment is heathenism inseparable of enslaving of men, denigration, degeneration, and perversion of the human nature.

 

 

Politics

 

The theory of a political system began with the Aristotle’s Polis [Politics]. All Aristotle’s assertions have the same foundation – the specific image of the Universe as an embodiment of the ‘master→slave’ pattern and the concept of social animal/man as the part/subject/property of his own establishment – polis, community, and state. Aristotle’s ethical, economical, physical, metaphysical, and other speculations became the practical guide for rulers of the political, religious, and social associations of men (starting with a rural community, and finishing with an empire) intended to serve the good of a few with the use of life and resources of many.

Aristotle describes the Polis as the perfect self–sufficient purposeful wholeness, which he compares with a living being that has a soul and a body. It has the same end–purpose, qualities, and criteria of good as its parts–citizens; in addition, it has a specific device – a political organization, through which it provides its parts–citizens with the best of men and happiness [Politics III.4.1276b; VII.1.1323b; VII.2.1324a–1325b; VII.13–14; VIII.1.1337a; etc.].

Such an animated establishment continues the concept of animated matter and, in conformity with the theological traditions of the heathen societies, has the logical ground for deification. However, the very definition reveals the main flaw of the Aristotle’s constructions: his political association cannot be self–sufficient. It can be neither perfect nor capable of achieving its purposes. The misleading definition and other logical and practical inconsistencies deceived many rulers and condemned to destruction their “perfect” establishments created after the Aristotle’s figments of imagination. The following Aristotle’s assertions disclose the actual meaning of his theory of political association:

 a/ a Polis (city) is the natural plurality, the political association, which consists from a number of citizens–freemen capable of maintaining self–sufficient existence of the city

b/ over–unification leads to the destruction of the city, because self–sufficiency rests in the plurality. Therefore, to provide for own self–sufficient and perfect existence, the city must have such parts as military force, “a propertied class,” priests, deliberative groups of citizens, and the group, which must decide the city’s issues and determine “what the public interest is”

c/ the city must possess farmers (“slaves or barbarian serfs”) and artisans, who supply the necessary food, crafts, and especially the arms, with which the military class should subdue the disobedient and protect the Polis from external threats. The farm–workers – property of the citizens – and other laborers, who serve the Polis, are not the parts of the establishment: any class, which is not “‘producer of goodness,” must have no share in the city [Politics II.2.1261a; II.5.1263b; III.1.1274b–1275a; III.6.1279a; VII.8.1328b; VII.9.1328a–1329a].

According to the system–defining criteria, the main purpose of subsystems is maintenance of the system. Any self–sufficient system exists by the virtue of its subsystems, without which the life–maintaining processes are not possible. To survive within the real world, the Aristotle’s city has to utilize its life–supporting subsystems (such life–supporting systems in Aristotelian Police include groups of people unified with the common purposes, manner of life, and the place at the system’s hierarchy), which provide food and satisfy all needs of the citizens. Yet, Aristotle does not recognize them as the vital parts. The irrationality of such construction results in transposition of the purposes and inefficient planning and control of life–maintaining processes that ultimately would lead to the system’s disintegration, often, through the same social instability or revolution against which Aristotle strives to protect his “perfect” community/state/polis.

Other noticeable notions (1 through 3) illustrate the meaning of the practicable good; they include “producer of goodness” and the political organization as the means to achieve happiness of citizens.

1. The perfect city is an “association of equals,” which exists to attain the greatest happiness and goodness. Happiness, as the highest good, is “a state of activity,” or “perfect practice of goodness,” and particular actions are the purpose of men. The common principle underlies all actions: “the best is the most desirable.” Consequently, the sovereign power, which makes possible to practice the best activities, is “the highest of all goods,” and the best–constituted city is the one, which is able to achieve the greatest happiness. Citizens should perform military, deliberative, and priestly functions. The citizens must neither have “the ignoble and inimical” life of mechanics and shopkeepers nor be farmers: they must have leisure to grow in goodness and pursue the political activities [Politics VII.3.1325a–b; VII.8.1328a; VII.9.1328b–1329a].

Thus, Aristotle attributes the meaning of the greatest good to the sovereign power; for him, the participation in political activities and the possibility to grow in “goodness” through a political organization result in achievement of happiness.  In general, Aristotle’s city–state is the structure (only structure, not the self–sufficient system) designed for accumulation of the political power and for the training of those who must serve the ruler; in his turn, the ruler is supposed to achieve the greatest happiness by realizing a possibility to act and to exercise the sovereign power through the political organization.

2. If the Greeks, who are situated in the intermediate geographical position, achieve the political unity, they would govern “every other people,” because they have the spirit, the intellect, which keep them free, and “the highest political development.” The education should prepare citizens both for war and for leisure: many cities collapsed as soon as they established empires because they were not prepared for leisure, and because the habit to fight makes their citizens willing to conquer their own city. The military training pursued three objectives:

 

a/ to prevent enslaving of the citizens

(self–defense)

b/ to maintain leadership

(maintenance of political stability)

c/ to enslave “those who naturally deserve to be slaves”

(expansion of influence and power)

[Politics I.8.1256b; VII.7.1327b; VII.8.1328b; VII.14.1333b].

 

The Aristotelian Polis became the blueprint of the political system/establishment (state, empire) designed as the structure–parasite, which would consume the resources of the conquered, accumulate wealth, and dominate through enslaving the others. However, the history does not confirm viability of such a construction.

For example,

a/ the empire of Aristotle’s pupil – Alexander of Macedonia – has fallen to pieces, the competing kingdoms, which became the ground for the fast expansion of the Roman Empire

b/ after the centuries of plunder and enslaving of other nations, the Roman Empire also disintegrated

c/ ultimately, the Aristotle’s model of the perfect city–parasite, whose population exists by consuming the slave labor, had found the complete embodiment in the Hitler’s model of the Great German race of supermen–masters of all the other nations, which would exist by consuming resources and labor of the inferior nations. Yet, the “great Nazi German” was defeated by the same “inferior nations” she plundered and attempted to enslave.

Delusion, imagination, and access to the force of coercion obviously do not provide sufficient basis for the world dominion; something else is needed. Perhaps this something is too intangible, imperceptible, or inconsistent with the physical metaphysics, materialistic logic, arithmetical ethics, and “practicable good” to be discovered and applied by Aristotle. From the practical point of view, one of such subtleties at the Aristotle’s time could be inadequate preparation: citizens of the “self–sufficient” cities–units were not trained for the system–empire. They were not prepared to envision the empire as something different from the conglomerate of the units–communities, which exist by appropriation of the resources of the neighbors considered as the “slaves by nature” and subdued by the military force.

For the contemporary world, the possible explanation could be found in the theory of the evolution: enslaving and robbery of the others hinder development of the others and decelerate the evolution; therefore, the self–appointed masters–robbers–parasites have to be annihilated along with their establishments.

3. The best things of the city – happiness, justice, wisdom, goodness, and the way of life – are the same as those of its citizens. “The legislator” must implant the knowledge of the best things in the minds of citizens, who are the parts of the city and belong to the city. The knowledge and purpose produce the goodness of the city. The political organization is the best when it enables any citizen “to be at his best and to live happily” and provides the city with the greatest opportunities to achieve happiness [Politics VII.1.1323b; VII.2–3; VII.13.1331b–1332a; VII.14.1333b; VIII.1.1337a].

It should not be forgotten that when Aristotle describes citizens as the parts of the city, which belong to the city, he applies the universal for him ‘master→slave’ pattern. Simultaneously, he declares that the citizens have the same ideals, purposes, and criteria of judgment as the city to which they belong. Such construction is irrational and inconsistent with the Aristotle’s definition of a slave as animated property deprived of faculty of deliberation and without a share in the city.

For instance, Aristotle provides the following arguments [Politics I.4.1253b–1254a; I.6.1255b; III.1.1274b; VII.14:1333b; VIII.1.1337a]:

 

the term “article of property” has the same meaning as the term “part”

the city is the single whole, formed by a certain quantity of different parts/compounds/citizens

a part “belongs entirely” to the whole similarly to an article of property,
as the slave “belongs entirely” to his master

each man who “is not his own man, but another’s” is the slave by his own nature,
“an article of property,” and an instrument for purposeful actions

a citizen, as a part of the city, belongs to the city, not just to himself

the part–slave and the whole–master have common interests as the body and soul have

individuals/citizens/parts and the community/city/whole have the common interests:
the same things are the best for both.

 

This line of arguments prompts two inferences:

1/ if the citizens are the slaves of the city, instruments of the city, or the city’s animated articles of property, they do not possess the faculty of deliberation and have no right to speak to their master (the city); as all slaves, they do not have freedom to live as they like. Consequently, Aristotle’s references to the free citizens, justice, wisdom, goodness, etc. are inconsistent with the actual essence of his system, because his “self–sufficient” establishment is a typical slave–owner that exists by consuming life and resources of its slaves

2/ the proclamations of the unity of interests of the city and its property with comparisons with the body, soul, benefits of friendship, appeals to the nature, etc. have the purpose to facilitate persuasion of the citizens to accept interests of the city as their own. 

Therefore, all Aristotle’s speculations concerning justice, wisdom, happiness, free way of life for the citizens–parts–property of the city, and other lofty words have one down–to–earth practicable end: Aristotle attempts to deceive the enslaved population with the imagined freedom because he needs to facilitate management of the citizens and make the sacrifice of citizens to the interest of their master/police/community/state to look as the free, purposeful, and virtuous choice of the victims. It means that in addition to the title of the inventor of a political system, Aristotle should be named also the father of propaganda.

Later, the Nazi and communist governments used the same Aristotle’s method: they promulgated absolute freedom of their subjects, while, in fact, transformed their countries in the most inhumane slave–houses ever existed.

Aristotle’s assertions of existence of the common interests of the city and its parts/citizens are also irrational, because his political system cannot have the same purposes and criteria of evaluation as those of its subsystems. In particular, the greatest good of the city as any of citizens is continuation of existence and political activity. Yet, when for the sake of own survival, the Polis willingly sacrifices any of its parts/citizens, it achieves own greatest good–survival through the greatest evil–death of its part/citizen. Moreover, if the meaning of political activity of the citizens does not coincide with the intentions of the group or “the legislator” who determines the public interest, the city would stop such activity by any means, including execution or exile of its parts/citizens: again, the good of the city is achieved through the evil of its parts.

For instance, to survive, the Aristotelian city has to manage its citizens–part in a specific fashion:

 

to consume their lives and freedom

to fashion, adjust, and make them suitable for the city’s purposes by the common education

to control the population by maintaining the allowable quantity of children
(that is by murdering unsanctioned new–born or inducing abortions)

to deprive of property those who accumulated the greater wealth

to exile those who acquired many friends

to execute or to banish the different–minded

to deprive the parts of any freedom of actions
incompatible with the interests of the establishment

and so on and so forth.

 

Therefore, contrary to Aristotle, the good of the city is not always the good of its parts. Evidently, the ethical and other theoretical speculations disguise the practical purpose: to enslave initially free members of the association established to protect existence and manner of life of freely united men. Aristotle uses the name of philosophy to mask the essence of his guide for the political organization, which is

 

a/ the weapon of destruction of human freedom, morality, and corruption
of the traditional Greek ideals of liberty, good, and happiness

b/ justification for enslaving, robbery, and subjugation of the surrounding nations

c/ the means to arrange the political establishment founded upon the ‘master→slave’ pattern
with the people who grown up to use the slaves but are not prepared to acknowledge that
they themselves are the slaves of their own creations.

 

Many opinion–makers assumed this Aristotle’s methodic of modification of the original doctrine according to his purposes; for instance, when Aquinas’ political theology took place of the Christian teachings, it still was camouflaged with the name of Christianity.

The next noticeable feature of the Aristotle’s construction is the notion of “the legislator” who has two main purposes.

1. The legislator must implant the meaning of goodness in the minds of the citizens; thus, he has to determine the meaning of the greatest good, happiness, etc. suitable for the purposes of the city. It means that the legislator becomes ‘the producer of goodness’ in the literate sense because the good in the Aristotle’s world is not connected with the universal or Absolute Good: Aristotle’s “goodness” is the set of actions, which pursue the definite political purposes. Therefore, the needs of the political association become the laws, the virtues, and the greatest goodness of the city. The Aristotle’s remark that the legislator must implant the meaning of goodness in the minds of the citizens provided the starting point for the political propaganda – programming and re–programming of the consciousness of the mass population in conformity with the needs of the state or other leaders.

2. The legislator has to make all the others to live according to his determinations, which became the laws and virtues of the political establishment.

The Aristotle’s legislator is a master: as anybody who determines the purposes, criteria of good, and the laws, which would maintain existence of the whole system, he belongs to the higher level of the hierarchy, and cannot be an ordinary citizen or a standard part of the system he controls and governs. He has to be a part of the supersystem, which contains the city as the unit for accumulation and expansion of the sovereign power; therefore, if to take into consideration the conditions and level of development of the Aristotle’s world, he should be deified. The deification of the legislator would make the city independent from the slaves, artisans, mechanics (whom Aristotle does not recognize as the life–maintaining foundation of his “self–sufficient” city) because it opens the city toward the realm of deities, thus, it is expected to make it unassailable for the earthly forces.

Consequently, the Polis becomes the unstable structure floating between two centers of the power – the actual realm, from which the city obtains the life–maintaining resources, and the fictional realm, which determines the city’s purposes, meaning of existence, essence of happiness, etc.

Consequently, the political and social stability of such a floating arrangement might be sustained only by the force of coercion and with the oppression of those who must observe the laws and rules of the legislator.

Through the history, the concept of deified legislator received noticeable recognition; it culminated, for instance, in

a/ the infamous hymn to the papal authority: the church must “blindly renounce all judgment of her own” and accept any doctrine issued by the pope; even if the pope had erred, ordered to commit sins, and forbade virtues, the Church must consider sins as the good and virtues as the evil [Jesuit prelate Cardinal Bellarmine ref. and qtd. in: Baybrook 277]

b/  the superman, philosopher, and artist who lives with the death of all gods [Nietzsche (1924) 91]

c/  “a program–maker” whose aims influence development of humankind [Hitler (1940) 283–286].

The structure of the city and the methods intended to preserve its existence illustrate the actual essence of the Aristotle’s declarations about the way of free citizens to live as they like and the very notion of free citizen–part of the city. In particular, the purpose of the city – the association of households, or of the equals – is “good quality of life” or a “perfect” self–sufficient existence (that is the valuable, the best, and the highest life). To survive, all components of the city must desire the continuation of existence. Greatness of the city is measured by its capacity, not by the size of population or territory, because each city, as any other thing, has the specific functions. The perfect city must have not excessive or too little size, otherwise it would become disordered or insufficient, and its citizens would not have a life of leisure. Therefore, the city’s population and territory must be regulated at the level, at which the self–sufficient life might be achieved with the greatest number of citizens [Politics II.9.1270b; III.9.1280a–b; VII.4.1325b–1326b; VII.5.1326b; VII.8.1328a].

These assertions not only apply to the instinct of self–preservation of the citizens; they establish maintenance of the city as the first priority because only the proper maintenance of the city would provide the citizens with the expected benefits: the centralized regulation as the means to maintain the city becomes the condition of existence.

Consequently, to control the population of the city and preserve the definite level of life for the free citizens [Politics VII.16.1335b]:

 

the law should “prevent the rearing of deformed children”

if the exposure of infants
(leaving to die at the allotted places as, for instance, it was practiced in Sparta)
with the purpose to decrease the number of children is not acceptable due to existing customs,
“a limit must be placed on the number of children who are born”

for a child conceived in excess of the fixed limit,
“miscarriage should be induced before sense and life have begun in the embryo.”

 

After all Aristotle’s notions (e.g., man as social animal, the virtue as the arithmetical mean, the political activity as the highest good, and the political organization as the means to secure the greatest happiness), it would be illogical to expect from Aristotle any display of human properties. Similarly, the Aristotle’s “liberality” should be a new ethical category, because it is not possible to combine two incompatible things:  the traditional meaning of liberality and murder of infants or mandatory abortions as the means to control population with the purpose to assure the life of leisure and growth in goodness for existing citizens.

These particular recommendations of Aristotle confirm that free citizens of the Aristotelian perfect city are, in fact, slaves bred for achievement of the sovereign power for their master–owner who does not need unhealthy or incapacitated articles of property. Consequently, the right over the life of their offspring belongs to their master. The assertion that such citizens–slaves might desire continuation of the existence of the city discloses the Aristotle’s comprehension of the slave’s psyche and the essence of the Aristotle’s own morality.

The Aristotelian world existed at the threshold between two epochs: the time of isolated Greek cities–states and the time, when the boundaries of the city–state expanded to all populated lands – the entire cosmos, and the world (global) domination became the actual purpose (e.g., Alexander’s efforts to establish the empire, which would include all populated lands).

The population control could work within the limited space of the city in the dormant condition (or stagnation) and as the means to prove the power of the city over its subjects. However, with the change of orientation and purposes of existence the policies should also be changed because self–sufficiency/perfection of the city–state would obtain another meaning. The population control for the city–warrior becomes not consistent with the purpose to create the world empire: at first, the empire has to replenish human resources depleted by wars, mass executions, and similar needs of the rulers; at second, each inhumane political establishment needs the foundation – the mass of the unreservedly obedient subjects.

In addition, the social and political activities might be more efficiently controlled and directed with the sophisticated policies of impoverishment of the growing population, especially when the rulers need to present the war as the only means of enrichment, thus to make it the object of desire for all citizens.

Since, the ruling group uses the population control only when the establishment has not enough power yet to subdue the surrounding nations, therefore, to extract their resources for own use, and has to wait until it accumulates sufficient material and other assets, including the effective for its time weapon of destruction. Indeed, all political establishments, which intended to conquer the world, always fostered the natural growth of population: sometimes, the preparation to conquer the world might be detected with the population control policy (for example, after they came to the power and terminated the disobedient and unwanted parts of the population and began preparation to the war, governments of Nazi Germany and communist Russia prohibited abortions).

Such political short–sightedness of Aristotle confirms that the “practical intellect” is not sufficient for achievement the absolute power as well as of the world dominion.

The following arguments provide an additional disclosure of the methods, with which Aristotle advised to maintain the political association:

a/ citizens are parts of the city; every citizen belongs to the city, not only to himself; thus, citizenship means to be entitled to sharing in administration of justice and holding/distribution of deliberative or judicial offices

b/ political association exists to accomplish some “actions valuable in themselves” not for the social life; the civic excellence is measured with the contribution to this association, therefore should have the greater share in the city than other equals

c/ the military class, which possesses arms, should have superiority over other classes: it has to subdue the disobedient, to enslave “those who naturally deserve to be slaves,” and to protect the citizens from becoming slaves of other political establishments [Politics II.8.1268a; III.1.1275a–b; III.9.1281a; VII.8.1328b; VII.14.1333b; VIII.1.1337a].

For the part/slave/citizen of the Aristotelian city, to be entitled to something does not guarantee to gain the actual possession of this something.

The claim of the city to possess its parts–citizens presumes actual submission of men to their own establishment. Then, the measure of the civic excellence of the city with the political activity of its citizens/parts provides the ground for the inner–city inequality, thus, becomes the core of the social instability. Consequently, Aristotle considers the military class as the city’s main structure of power, which maintains the social stability through possession of arms and by military force increases the city’s wealth (through acquisition of additional slaves and other property).

Therefore, the promise of the highest Aristotelian good – political activity – disguises the essence: the elite, faceless inhumane deity, which

1/ controls men through their association arranged with the apparent purpose to have safe, valuable, and happy life for its members, and, with the actual purpose to accumulate and exercise the sovereign power (that is to extract the resources for own life in leisure and wealth by enslaving other groups and other nations)

2/ distributes among its obedient subjects the wealth (practicable good) acquired through murder, enslaving, and robbery of the others.

The Aristotle’s writings convey the very definite image of a perfect citizen–part of the perfect city. The qualities and features the city demands from its parts disclose the inner arrangement and consequences of the political association, which, according to Aristotle, is capable of securing the best life for its members.

For instance, the arrangement or composition of the city – its constitution – defines the excellence of citizens: the excellence of citizens is the ability to serve the safety/survival of the city, to maintain and protect the city’s constitution. Excellence of a citizen is not the excellence of a good man. The excellence of a citizen is the virtue, which makes the city the best; therefore, this virtue must be common for all, and it cannot be “practical wisdom”; it must be the “right opinion.” The necessary ingredients of this common virtue of citizenship for masses include an ability to obey well. The rule of a leader is the same as the rule of a master; he is a flute–player who makes use of what his subjects (“flute–makers”) produce: the excellence of any ruler is an ability to rule. To facilitate the function of legislator to guide to the way of goodness, citizens of the perfect city should have the natural intellect and spirit. All other qualities a perfect citizen must acquire through the education: the education makes a unified community, and the city itself must educate its parts [Politics II.5.1263b; III.4.1276b–1277a; III.5.1278a; VII.7.1327b; VII.13.1332b; VIII.2.1337a].

Therefore, the perfect citizens must be made through the political guidance and proper education: the city fashions its subjects according to own needs. The assertion that the common virtue of the citizens must be “the right opinion” has the deep meaning.

In particular,

– Plato divided the society into two opposite groups:

1/ minority of the divine consummated philosophers who are connected with the realm of deities, think with the essences/ideas, and know thoughts of gods, therefore, have knowledge

2/ majority of all others or the mob that believes and constructs opinions and should not have the access to the true knowledge

– Aristotle incorporates the Plato’s notion into the life of his city (later, the acceptance of such notion by medieval theologians formed the concept of “two truth”: the truth of the elite, or philosophy, which begets the truth of many; this truth of many is the religion of mob/masses/crowd): for the majority, one ability becomes the most desirable property – the excellence or the virtue of citizens: this virtue is the ability to be easily programmed (to obey well) with the right opinion received from the legislator and through the mandatory training and participation in the cults of officially accepted deities.  

The following Aristotle’s assertions elaborate the image of a perfect citizen. The judgment of an individual is imperfect. The judgment of the crowd, where the masses (“impure food”) are mixed with “the better class” (“pure food”), makes the decision better than any individual could make (“more nutritious” than only small quantity of the pure food). Besides, the crowd is less liable to corruption. Thus, the will of masses is “the expression of justice.” The same is true concerning the office: anyone trained by the law possesses a good judgment; yet, it is “absurdity” to assume that one individual is better than many [Politics III.11.1281b; III.15.1286a; III.16.1287b; VI.2.1317a].

It means that for Aristotle, a person has no value: the crowd becomes the symbol of the ultimate executive authority. Aristotle presents the crowd–body of citizens as the carrier of justice; however, it should be mixed with the “better class,” which has the function of the center for distribution of the “right opinion.”

This idea was implemented for example, as the notion of the “revolutionary consciousness of the masses”: the bolshevist terrorists agitated the impoverished population of post–1914–war Russia with the myths of liberty, equal justice, distribution of property of the wealthy people to the poor, etc. With the promises–slogans of “Land must belong to the peasants, manufacturing plants – to the laborers, peace – to the nations,” the propagandists “came down into the masses” and began persuasion and brain–washing of the population. They were successful, because the mass populations – peasants and laborers – had been impoverished by the war and unwise governmental politics. They also were deprived of civil freedom, oppressed by government, and forgotten by the Church, which since Peter the First was controlled by government. The efforts of ideological terrorists–propagandists led to the mass delusion – acceptance and materialization of the “right opinion” provided by the Marxism–Bolshevism–Leninism, prompted wide support and even demand of reforms, and eventually, triggered off the revolt – the revolution of 1917.

Only mass delusion, as the consequence of the “right opinion” imposed on the majority of population by the small band of terrorists – bolshevist comrades, made possible establishment of the totalitarian state. Then, the “right opinion” (that is the “revolutionary consciousness of masses”) was maintained with the executions of the opponents, especially the non–programmable free thinkers, wealthy, educated, and religious men who had knowledge and the faculty of deliberation, therefore, could challenge the authority of the bolshevist “masters.”

The overall Aristotle’s attitude about the nature of man underlies his recommendations concerning the methods to manage and to control the perfect citizens: “the wickedness of human beings is insatiable”; they live to satisfy their desires, which are infinite. The cause of the greatest crimes is not necessities; it is superfluities. Therefore, to equalize property and to regulate population is not enough. The best way to preserve the social stability could be the specific training and education, which produce good citizens who are able to moderate their desires: the middle or “the mean” is the best way of life. In addition, “those in the middle” do not follow practices dangerous for the city, such as eagerness to seek offices and eagerness to reject them. Therefore, the city must regulate education by the law; the city must conduct education of its citizens. Neither private institutions nor parents should be allowed to instruct children: the city has the common end, therefore, education must be public because each part of the city must be adjusted to fit the whole [Politics II.7.1267a; III.11.1281b; IV.11.1295a; VIII.1.1337a; VIII.2.1337a].

Since, each survival–oriented state, religious, political, or social establishment monopolizes the public education: it fashions its citizens/members according to own needs, transforms them (or at least, struggles to transform) into the programmable parts, which carry the core of the establishment and reproduce its essence with every social or political action, rituals of worship, etc.

Some researchers even consider the system and contents of education as the reason for establishment or failure of states and empires [e.g., concept of collapse of the British Empire in: Barnett 24–43].

However, the Aristotle’s demand for common/uniform public education for all parts of the city is an irrational construction because each part/class of the city has specific functions. Common education would not be sufficient; moreover, it might undermine the social stability because it does not fit different purposes. Perhaps, Aristotle wrote about partially common education for all – some kind of obedience school, which would prepare each child for becoming the mediocre replaceable part/slave/animal/property of the city.

The next Aristotle’s notion is the logical continuation of his arithmetical ethics: the city must provide the citizens with arithmetical justice: justice means equality for those who are equal and not equality not for all. Justice is the political good: it serves the common good, and its main subject is distribution of equal things to those who are equal. The city does not exist to prevent the specific injustice: slaves and animals share neither in happiness nor in freedom to live in accordance with their own choice. Justice is the attribute of the city, because justice – or determination of what is just – is the arrangement (“an ordering”) of any political association. Justice in the democratic city is the arithmetical equality because the will of majority is the expression of justice. Liberty based of equality maintains the “function of free man” to live as he likes, contrary to the function of slaves do not live as they like. The overall idea of Aristotelian democracy, therefore, might be described with the following features [Politics I.2.1253a; III.9.1280a–b; III.12.1282b; VI.2.1317a]:

 

one citizen is not ruled by another – the majority rules over each citizen

every citizen is entitled to the arithmetical equality
(the same as all the other who are equal to this particular citizen)

the elected officials should not be sovereign.

 

With the notion of arithmetical justice, Aristotle in fact, introduces different justice for different groups of the population. He excludes from his paradise slaves and animals that are not parts/citizens free to live according to their choice: slaves and animals are not entitled to justice. Another noticeable feature of his doctrine is the assertion that the majority rules over each citizen. To evaluate this feature appropriately means to recall that the majority–crowd–mob of the Aristotelian city–state consists from the parts programmed with the right opinion of their master(s), and this “right” opinion is distributed by “the best class.” Even if the process of apparently free election exists, the elected officials do not receive the access to the sovereign power, which remains in the actual possession of the masters of the mob. Therefore, the speculations concerning the rule of the majority and freedom from the rule of another conceal the tyranny.

Aristotle’s idea of democracy, in fact, conveys the needs of the rulers, who control and maintain the lawless slave–owning political association intended to survive by consuming life, happiness, and freedom of the less fortunate slaves “by nature”: the Aristotle’s “perfect” political association – the city – provides the ideal setting for comprehensive corruption of the human nature. The men who compose the slave–owning ruling group, which has the access to the sovereign power, exercise the almost absolute power to use the resources of the city as the means of coercion. Consequently, they impose their vision of the cosmos, their interpretation of the human nature, and their physical “morality” onto all subjects and transform them into own likeness – the “living dead” without freedom of spirit, wisdom, and knowledge of the Absolute good.

Although Aristotle argues that obedience to the law must be observed most carefully, because lawlessness, especially in the minor matters, gradually destroys the whole [Politics V.8.1307b], the notion of different groups/categories of the different meaning/expression of equality with the internal arithmetical justice as the political good undermines the very meaning of the law. 

From such a point of view, Aristotle provides the illogical and contradictory design: any political association with the different classes or groups of population, which are entitled to different justice, and with the equal justice only for the equal parts of a particular group fosters the inequality. However, a society with the different classes or groups of population entitled to different justice cannot be equal; therefore, Aristotle contradicts his own recommendations concerning preservation of the social stability through elimination of inequality.

For instance, in the political establishments arranged after the likeness of Aristotle’s perfect community, “equality” means equal distribution of material things within every group/class of population (which might differ by their actual share of “equality”), and justice becomes an application of a particular law, which reflects the will of the ruler–master and imposes penalties for violations of this will. For Aristotle, actual inequality of the society is the axiom and the natural order. He is concerned with two things:

a/ the maintenance of the intra–group/class’ balance (arithmetical equality of distribution among the equal members of the class)

b/ the “right opinion” of each class about other classes, which demands the maintenance of inter–groups/classes’ balance within the establishment/community as the whole.

The following Aristotle’s declarations (1 through 4) summarize his concept of the social stability.

1. Inequality of citizens is the main reason of instability, fractional conflicts, and revolution. Unequal distribution of property makes revolutionaries from the masses: the city with the numerous poor is full of enemies. Equal distribution of offices makes revolutionaries from educated men. Revolutions occur in the cities where antagonist classes (the rich and the poor) are numerous and balanced, while a middle class is insignificant [Politics II.7.1266b; V.1.1301b; V.4.1304a].

2. The banishing (ostracism) of “men of outstanding influence” or the “policy of leveling” serves the common good in many societies, because it keeps harmony: a choir–master does not accept singers with the voice that is stronger than the others have. The only exception exists: “the natural course,” when the ruler possesses the outstanding qualities; then, all the others willingly obey the charismatic or deified ruler because in such a case, the banishment would look like an attempt “to rule over Zeus” [Politics III.13.1284a–b].

In summary, the Aristotle’s concept of the social stability is based on the arithmetical ethics and justice as the arithmetical distribution: an average or virtuous citizen arranges and maintains average establishment. Those who become above average have to be cast off to prevent inequality (inequality, for instance, might trigger the revolution, because of demand to re–distribute the material goods): only the ruler can naturally surpass his subjects.

Aristotle openly compares the ruler with the main deity in the Greek mythical pantheon to substantiate his declaration about “natural” superiority of the ruler over his subjects. This concept reflects two sides of the typical process of anti–evolution: belittlement of all the ordinary men accomplished with the cult of the mediocrity (degeneration of the intellect) and deification of one (supremacy over the mob). Later, Thomas Aquinas used the same technique of ‘belittlement of all →→ deification of one’ to elevate the pope at the rank of the earthly deity that stands at the place of God, and whose voice, will, and decrees the unreservedly obedient papal subjects must accept as those of God.

3. To prevent inequality as the main cause of the social instability and revolution, every form of government must perform the following actions [Politics V.8.1308b; V.9.1310a]:

 

to enable the laws, which would prevent a possibility to gain superiority
through personal wealth or friends;
any person who nevertheless, has attained such superiority
must be exiled or “lopped off” by other means

to establish the special office, which would supervise private life of citizens
and to determine deviation from the officially accepted manner of life

to bar the officials from using the offices as the means of personal gain

to educate the citizens “in the spirit of their constitution”
and especially concerning the meanings of liberty and justice.

 

The set of such actions, especially, education, would result in perception of the rules of the city as salvation not as slavery, therefore, in social and political stability.

In summary, the city’s social stability must be achieved through three interconnected functions: the total surveillance, education (fashioning–persuasion) of the subjects, and extermination (or exile of those who are unsusceptible to education and persuasion. These functions must produce the uniform herd, which is

a/ divided into the different groups according to the capacity of service

b/ carefully watched concerning deviations from the established standard features/parameters and conditions of existence.

4. While tyrannies “have all been quite short–lived,” to provide for the additional measures to secure the power and social stability, the strategy of tyrant should include the actions, which would break spirit of their subjects, therefore, which would result in the common distrust, and guarantee inability to act; for instance [Politics V.11.1313a–1314a; V.12.1315b],  



“the ‘lopping off’ of the outstanding men”

prevention of development of such qualities as the mutual confidence and “a high spirit”
with the policy of estrangement of people: prohibition of clubs, common meals,
cultural societies, and similar gatherings/associations

measures, which would break the spirit of subjects;
sowing of discord and animosity among friends, different social groups and classes

public rituals, which would put subjects in the position of slaves
and nurture the low opinion about themselves

establishment of the secret police and using the special spies
to watch over public meetings and social gathering of the subjects

impoverishment of the subjects with the purpose
to keep them occupied with their daily necessities
and to prevent them from conspiring against the ruler;
such deliberate impoverishment, for instance, might be realized through
the public works and imposition of excessive taxes

 

Through Aristotle’s politics, averaging and degeneration openly took over the natural processes of human development, which naturally would culminate in advancement, optimization, and ultimately, the evolution of the societies. The Aristotelian perfect city has more common traits with a breeding farm of tamed standardized animals than with the social and political establishment, which exists for the sake of good and happiness of its creators.

Aristotle’s political design became the manual for countless generations of the politicians and rulers, and Aristotle’s advices “shine through” declarations of all totalitarian establishments with which they express their adherence to the democratic ideals. In the same time, Aristotelian political design is identified as the embodiment of the ideals of liberty, equality, and freedom – of all that is named democracy.

For instance, there is an opinion: although the Aristotle’s doctrine exercised influence on Hegel and Marx, the totalitarian states of the twentieth century, which embodied the Marxist ideology, “were about as far removed from Aristotle’s ideal as anything could be” [Stalley xxx].

However, if to study history and to compare the historical actuality with Aristotle’s Politics, it becomes clear that the daily life of ordinary citizens of the totalitarian states almost literally reflects the arrangement of the Aristotelian city*6*.

In general, the Aristotle’s term “democracy” conceals perversion of the ideals of justice and liberty; the essence of the Aristotle’s democratic doctrine is the imaginary world, constructed after the Plato’s inhumane utopia; the legacy of both “philosophers” (Plato and Aristotle) reveals the destructive potential of the heathenism. Only the main theme of the dreams and their consequences for the actuality determine the actual difference between Plato and Aristotle:

–– Plato dreamed about the realm of gods and pretended to enlighten some mortal rulers with the “wisdom of gods” opened to the “divine consummated philosopher”

–– Aristotle dreamed about the earthly power and riches and pretended to enlighten the rulers concerning the nature of men and their establishments.  

 

 

Conclusive Remarks

 

If in the core of Platonism is the fruitless emptiness of the false imaginary world covered with the remnants of the classic human ideals, which any reasonable mind can cast down, into the level of entertainment similar, for instance, to the contemporary science fiction games, Aristotle’s down–to–earth recommendations concerning arrangement of the political establishments became the deadly weapon, which ruined men and their creations. Again, it should iterated, that if Plato described the idol, Aristotle materialized the Plato’s phantasm into the political organization, which enslaves and destroys men.

The greatest Aristotle’s “achievement” is elevation of the physical/arithmetical market– and practice–oriented speculations appropriate for a task–master of the slave–house at the place of philosophy and political science. He described the arrangement of the “perfect”/“self–sustaining” slavery–based political establishment, which exists by consuming life and labor of human beings destined to slavery and deprived of any freedom and chance of happiness. Moreover, he named his slavery–based political establishment democracy – the rule of many, while in actuality, it is the rule of a few – of the elite of slave–owners and opinion–makers.

Aristotle’s concept of “practicable good,” virtues as physical sensation, and arithmetical ethics (following the Middle Way and being as all the others, average, as the main virtues) deprive man from the ideals of humanity and substitute the animated matter for the human spirit.

Although Aristotle’s ethics is compatible neither with the ethics of free man nor with any religious, philosophical, or social doctrine, which admits the idea of freedom and pursues the good of man, the Aristotle’s speculations sill carry the name of philosophy.

The label  philosophy – love of wisdom – disguises death behind the Aristotle’s speculations, which are intended

 

to eliminate the Absolute Good from the life of man

to implement the ‘master–→slave’ pattern at all levels of social and political life

↓       ↑

to enslave the mind
(that is to assassinate the human reason, because slavery is death of reason)

↓        ↑

to deprive the human spirit of freedom

↓    ↑

To alienate human ideals and values
from the political organization created to manage life of the human society

therefore, to corrupt and to pervert the human nature.

 

The overall arrangement of the “perfect” community/city/political association provides the settings for absolute power of the ruler and justification for any criminal activity committed under the slogan of “the common good.”

The overall legacy of Aristotle for the political and other sciences might be summarized with the following inferences.

Aristotle

1/ transferred philosophy from the realm of wisdom as the science of sciences, dearest of purified gold, into the realm of practicable knowledge valued by the suitability for the material needs of gregarious society; such downfall resulted in origin of materialistic and atheistic ideologies and sciences, which sprang from the subsequent separation of philosophy from its root and the only true foundation – theology, and “purification” of natural sciences from theology and philosophy (especially, such derivatives of theology as the ethics, morals, and virtue)

2/ introduced the concept of a social/political animal–man based on the Orphic mythical theology (worship to “absolute divine animal” – the cosmic serpent/beast that contains all forms of beings, including animals and humans), which  

 

a/ equates man and beast

b/ demands human and animal sacrifices

c/ made possible such logical completion and implementation
as mass slaughterhouses for humans: concentration and death camps of the totalitarian states

 

3/ postulated the concept of superiority of the society/polis/city/state over a person, as a whole system is superior over its parts, and elaborated the imaginary world in which slavery is the divinely established order and a human being ceases to be the unique creation – microcosm that is able to accommodate the entire Universe. In the Aristotle’s political system, man becomes an article of property, a human chattel – slave, or the moving matter without faculty of deliberation. Consequently, such a new creature – the Aristotelian animal/man exists within the Aristotelian political system arranged as the herded society. As a part/property of the herded society, man is a social animal driven by gregarious instinct, manageable by desires to avoid pain and experience pleasure. The highest moral and ethical ideals of such an animal are the cult of average – the arithmetic ethics of the middle way. All the referred features of the social animal–man are expected to supports political and social stability through animal–man’s avoidance of destructive consequences of extreme pain and extreme pleasure

4/ designed a destructive political association – the city/state–parasite, which exists and prospers because of the slave labor as the source of leisure and intellectual freedom for the elite – a group of the “producers of goodness” and disseminators of the “right opinions” intended to control the enslaved majority of population.

The core of the Aristotle’s doctrine is materialism or the concept of the deified matter that makes his “practicable knowledge” the means of destruction for any system, which accepts it as the guidance for actions and arrangement of the life–supporting processes.

With the attempts to place the theological and philosophical concepts within the framework of physics, geometry, economics, and politics, Aristotle had created the precedent of the perverted logical thinking – the logic of simplification*7*,*8*, which triggers destruction of all systems in which it is applied. The Aristotle’s method of simplification had devastating influence on development of theology, philosophy, and ethics; it continues to corrupt the social and natural sciences.

For instance, destruction of the Christian Church of Rome began when, following Aristotle, the Western theologians began to apply simplified arguments, definitions, and terms of the limited material world toward the categories with the higher level of complexity and to “discover” the theological concepts with the means of the natural sciences (for instance, to use the simplicity as the adequate description of the complexity).

In sciences, economics, and politics, the intellectual simplification resulted in constructing of the simplified likenesses – models, which do not reflect the actual complexity of the reality, therefore, which as any false knowledge, idea, or concept serve the destruction instead of expected progress and survival. The dangerous part of the Aristotle’s doctrine includes not only physical–geometrical theology and arithmetical ethics, with which Aristotle had

 

instituted the supremacy of the matter over the spirit

shifted the focus from the life of immortal spirit within the mortal matter
to the life and survival of the animated matter

shifted the focus from survival of man
to survival of the political organization,
which enslaves and control man.

 

With the false theological and ethical assumptions, Aristotle provided the basis for justification of any crime committed under the name of democracy and slogans of the common good of the perfect self–sufficient community/state. The Aristotle’s democracy proved to be the most efficient weapon of self–destruction for social and political establishment and the real danger for the evolution of mankind.

The Aristotle’s concept of social animal/man evokes the ancient prediction of the inevitable retribution for men’s deeds. If man who was created to imitate God and to be the creator, keeper, and gardener {Genesis 1:26–30; 2:8–9, 15–16, 19–20} had chosen to pervert own nature and became destroyer, murderer, and butcher, self–destruction and slaughter would chase him incessantly: death and destruction are the loyal subjects, they always come back to those who unleashed them. Acceptance of the Aristotle’s doctrine is just one of the symptoms of the latent until time process, which with each new generation becomes more evident and consumes more human lives: there is a direct way

 

from

the Aristotle’s concept of man as a political/social animal
and slavery as the “general principle” and natural order of the Universe

to

destructive ideologies and cults 
(for instance, such as political theology, Communism, Fascism, and Nazism)
and their embodiment into destructive establishments and practices
(for instance, such as the papal Inquisition,
and concentration camps of the totalitarian states).

 

The Aristotle’s practical recommendations reveal the psychology of a high–ranked slave, for whom slavery is the justifiable and beneficial order of the Universe, and who assumes rights and abilities to own, to train with pain, and to use other inhabitants of the slave–house. The Aristotle’s writings confirm that he accepted servitude as the only way of existence; his assertions reveal the utter perversion of mind, which degenerated until such a degree that it became able

 

to envision the Universe as an embodiment of the ‘master–→slave’ pattern
managed by the main slave–owner/“prime mover”
whose good has nothing in common with the good of his slaves

to perceive human beings as a gregarious social animals
and as somebody’s animated property

to exclude freedom from the very arrangement
of the social and political associations

to design the state as the perfect or self–sufficient slave–house
(with the meanings of perfection and self–sufficiency in Aristotle’s interpretation),
where each piece of “animated property” would

a/ live under the total surveillance

b/ be controlled and motivated by pain and pleasures

c/ be trained by pains and pleasures to restrict material desires
up to some “average” level defined by the owner

d/ have justice – the dues or the means to satisfy the bodily needs
distributed according to the position at the slave–house’s hierarchy

e/ be allowed to have possession of some material goods,
although restricted for prevention of quarrels and animosity,
which could damage the interests of the owner

f/ be deprived of freedom until such a degree that
the political organization would determine
education and reproduction
according to capacity of the slave–house and needs of the owners
.

 

Philosophy (love of wisdom and the art of life) and slavery (the death of reason) are not compatible.

If it is possible to ascribe the name of philosophy to the writing skills combined with an ability to communicate own thoughts at the level of physical–geometrical–arithmetical constructions, it could be said that the Aristotle’s speculations produced the slavish philosophy of the gregarious social animal intended to destroy even the abstract idea of freedom.

If ants and bees could reveal to humans the ideals of ant–hill and bee–hive, undoubtedly, they would disclose the true source of the Aristotle’s vision of the human society.

Aristotle used the name of philosophy as the camouflage for the inhumane concepts, which justify enslaving of men. In the same time, Aristotelian democracy is a logical completion of Plato’s fantasies:

 

Plato embodied his philosophical ideals into the utopia
(the perfect – from his point of view – society)
ruled by the “divine” consummated philosopher
who controls his opposite – the ignorant beast–mob
through the class of guardians;
the guardians protect the “divine” philosopher and his precious knowledge
from the mob/beast,
while the “divine” consummated philosopher
uses the mob/beast to secure for himself the life of leisure and freedom

Aristotle transformed the Plato’s mob – the source of Plato’s fear –

 into

the manageable citizens–slaves deceived with the lofty words about
equal justice, goodness of the city, and privileges of the citizenship of the Police

Aristotle offered the practical recommendations
how to control and use the Plato’s mob–beast effectively
.

 

There is an opinion:  the “activity of philosophy” was reduced from a divine to “bestial activity”; then, the destruction of the boundaries between man and animals, which was accomplished with the dialectical method, reduced man to the level of animal [Saxonhouse x, 128].

 This remark illustrates the beginning of degeneration/anti–evolution: to overcome the obstacles at the way to the absolute power over the other men, one group, which identifies own interests as the interests of the Polis, had to usurp the power over families and reproduction of all the others. Yet, such usurpation of the power would be possible only after downgrading man at the level of gregarious animals; this task was successfully accomplished by the Plato and Aristotle’s utopias and especially, by Aristotle’s philosophy.

The underlying assumption that sustains existence of the establishments made after the Aristotle’s city is that as soon as man descends at the level of animals, he, logically, shares their destiny and should not expect any other treatment, which would differ from his own methods he applies toward animals. Another feature of the reality, in which man becomes a social or other kind of animal, is its infernality and hopelessness: there is no exit and there is no hope for liberation by the means available within the world of the matter.

All concepts and doctrines, which have the Plato–Aristotle’s speculations as the source of origin might be detected because of similar patterns of belittlement and humiliation of man.

The process of degeneration, which started with physical slavery as the foundation of the heathen world, advanced through the Plato–Aristotle’s “perfect” community–state, then, involved re–programming of the conscience of the subjects of the papal hierarchy, then, culminated in the complete enslaving of a human being (body, mind, and conscience) by the political organizations (for instance, such as totalitarian states of the twentieth century).  

A free independent human being–person became such a mortal enemy of each Aristotelian establishment that even some contemporary researchers feel responsibility to please their masters and strive to besmear and ridicule the very notion of individuality; for instance, they identify individualism as the basis for Fascism and Nazism, while in these ideologies there is as much from individualism as in the herd of sheep processed at the slaughterhouse. 

Perhaps the degeneration and its inseparable companion – annihilation became acceptable because human beings within the Aristotelian establishments are not humans any more. The Aristotelian Polis, which today is referred as the “democratic” organization, yet which is embodiment of the Aristotle’s political design*9*, comes to life when human beings transform themselves into the living dead, the social animals, which, in attempt to preserve physical existence or physical comfort at the cages of the hierarchies, give up their God, their conscience, their reasoning, their physical and spiritual freedom – all these start with rejection of God and culminate in the spiritual death.

Almost two thousand years ago, Salathiel (Ezra) the Prophet warned about the danger for the Earth from the wicked thoughts of man. Now the sown wicked thoughts harvested unprecedented by their scales human death and suffering, and the normal human beings (who live in conformity with the human nature and follow the commandments of God) became the rare and endangered species.

If to analyze the history further, one more constant pattern might be detected: the manifest rejection of God and corruption of the morality signify the beginning of the manifest stage of destruction. At this stage, the program of self–annihilation reaches the irreversible phase and people begin to arrange and to enact the political organizations, social and religious establishments, which would carry out their own death sentence.

As it could be inferred from the history, the program of self–annihilation

 

begins with the sets of irrational beliefs imposed on the mass population
brainwashed by atheism, superstitions, hatred, false pride, and corruption

proceeds through total surveillance over thinking and actions, conscience–reprogramming
(historically, followed with mass executions and concentrations camps for
the different–minded or non–programmable free men)

culminates in the utter perversion of human ideals and virtues;
for instance, presumption of own racial/proletarian/religious superiority,
all–permissibility and justification of all crimes against humanity,
which are committed

a/ according to the orders of the leaders,

b/ because of the developed ability of the mass population

to digest and implement any false
presented as the truth by their superiors, rulers, bosses, etc.

 

The most effective programs of self–annihilation are assembled with neo–heathen cults, destructive ideologies embodying dehumanization of man along with deification of the rulers and political establishments, social unrests, inhumane laws, propaganda of hatred, false assertions concerning possibility of “improvement” of human nature through coercion, slavery, or scientific discoveries.

Then, after the slaughter of the majority of social animals is completed, the horrified survivors collect the remnants of sanity and begin to re–think the meaning of human ideals and values; sometimes, they even admit existence of God.

The social or political establishment becomes ready for the Aristotelian democracy at the moment when the following conditions coincide:

 

1/ unavailability of the true knowledge of God or its intentional falsification

2/ the absence of faith and deprivation of the true knowledge of God
has prepared the ground for propaganda, for perversion of human ideals,
and for corruption of the morality

3/ the presence of man or a group with insatiable lust
for dominion, universal recognition, and absolute power/control over the others,

and

the possibility for such man or the group to gain access to the force of coercion,

and

the readiness of the society to accept any such “strong leader” as a new deity

4/ the immorality and corruption of those who willingly accept
the deified leader and impose his delusional dreams on the actuality of the others

5/ the inability of the majority to protect own freedom.

 

The coincidence of these conditions becomes possible only if the true knowledge of God had been rejected and His laws were violated, therefore, nothing is left that would protect the society/establishment from transformation into the Aristotelian slaughterhouse for herds of social animals–men.

The easily detectable historical trends reveal that the current civilization harbors the advanced processes of enslaving and dehumanization of man: the current civilization became the battlefield between two logical realities –

 

the anti–evolution, which accommodates degeneration and perversion of the human nature

and

the evolution sustained by the Christian teachings.

 

For those who are confined within the Aristotelian “democratic” establishments there is no chance to win the battle for preservation of human nature and survival of man. The political, social, and religious establishments–systems, which are founded on the Aristotle’s doctrine, have no possibility of survival: they carry the deadly poison of false theology and philosophy of ancient snake–worshipers, which destroys the human intelligence–reasoning.

Many centuries the Holy Scriptures continue to warn concerning the danger of the idol–worshipers and sinners: they carry the poison of serpents and incurable rage of asps {Deuteronomy 32:31–33; Job 20:4–27; Psalm 57(58):2–4; Isaiah 59:2–5; Romans 3:11–18}. The incurable rage and lethal poison of serpents are the false knowledge, the dream worlds of “other gods” – idols created by corrupted human imagination.

Through political, social, and theological doctrines of Aristotle, the Plato’s “sublime theology” [Thomas Taylor qtd. and ref. in Hall 74] of the Orphic snake–worshipers*5* became the foundation of the political and social order of the empires, states, and nations unified into the Western civilization. The history and the contemporary crisis of the main life–sustaining institutions of the Western civilization illustrate the deadly potential of the ancient poison – heathen philosophy.

 

 

 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

 

Notes:

 

 *1* Concerning Concept of mind, see Folder Systems.       

           

 

 *2*  In the term of the systems logic, wisdom might be defined as abilities to discern, comprehend, create, and maintain the wholeness. The wholeness is the set of fields–conditions–terms–processes, which accommodate the entire cycle of energy transformations, resulting in increase of complexity. Increase of complexity is the essence of evolution. Concerning Concept of wisdom, see Folder Systems.

 

*3*  Concerning the heathenism – see posting Philosophy: the Beginning, folder Philosophy, Page_1.

 

*4* The law of inadequate complexity is one of the main laws that control the processes of anti–evolution; it sustains the concept of collapsing systems. The logic of simplification, which, for instance, makes possible modeling, illustrates the law of inadequate complexity. If to correlate knowledge with the preparedness to act, it might be said that the complexity of knowledge denotes the ability to act with the power, organization, and resources which are adequate to the actuality. To the contrary, simplification might be seen as the consequence of inadequate complexity of description resulting in the insufficient knowledge of the reality, therefore, irrelevant projections, inadequate distribution and use of resources, and failure to achieve the purposes. The law of inadequate complexity allows understanding that a simplified analogy cannot convey the reality of observed phenomenon even within the world of the matter, at the lowest levels of complexity.

For example, the mind itself, with the reasoning, logic, and imagination fuelled with the images of the material world, is not able to create true knowledge concerning the nature of God or His attributes.  The axiom of complexity – as the foundation of the world of the matter – makes meaningless any attempt to impose the laws of the matter (the lowest levels of complexity) on the Spirit – God–Creator {Genesis 1:2, 31; John 4:24}. When the mind creates own images of the “things not seen” {Hebrews 11:1} and assigns the place of the faith to the figments of imagination, and especially, when it fantasizes about God, it switches the focus from eternal invisible non–cognizable God to the temporal manifestations of the discernible/perceivable cognizable (and dissipating) matter: the mind begins to use the energy forms – images or figments of imagination, which it creates itself or assimilates from the material world. This substitution results in

 –– perversion of the life–supporting cycles of energy transformation: instead of the divine creative energy with the highest level of complexity, which mind receives when it observes the Law of God, the mind works with the images created by own imagination; it substitutes the energy of the material world with the lowest levels of complexity for the divine creative energy with the highest level of complexity

–– the degradation or degeneration of the mind: the mind loses an ability to accept and assimilate the energy forms with the previous levels of complexity

–– the mind’s self–confinement within the limits of the temporal material world.

Finally, the progressive deterioration of abilities to create culminates in the failure to achieve the purposes of existence: the mind becomes incapable to actualize the evolution.

           

*5*  Orphism is the theological and philosophical doctrine which sustained cults of shake–worshipers who substituted the arch–enemy of men for true God–Creator and elevated the beast and its forms – animals – over man. The snake–worshipers sacrificed human beings to their bestial gods, practiced cannibal rites, and identified insanity with “possession by gods.”  See postings Philosophy: the Beginning and Philosophy: Plato; folder Philosophy, Pages 1 and 2.

 

*6*  For example, the strategy of bolshevist–communist party in post–1917 Russia, implements precisely the Aristotle’s recommendations for the tyrannies.

In particular, the citizens of the communist Russia lived under the comprehensive surveillance of the secret police, had no right to organize clubs, social groups, or to be engaged in any form of social activity uncontrolled by the government. Public rituals of worship and mandatory praise of “the wisdom” of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, cult of personalities – leaders of the communist party, by which the rulers strived to replace all religions practiced on the territory of pre–1917 Russia, did not leave any place for citizens’ self–respect.

The only freedom available for the citizens was the freedom to choose between apparent submission and concealed opposition, which could result in death in concentration camps, tortures in the mental or other institutions, and execution as “enemy of the nation.” The skills to live unnoticeably and to manifest loyalty to government at allowable time and places might illustrate the meaning of the “apparent submission.”

Citizens had no right to be engaged in any social activity besides the organized by communists mandatory activities at the work place. Such mandatory activities included participation in the meetings with public worship to the official deities, free–of–pay labor on “communist Saturdays,” and learning of the writings of the deified leaders of the party, while reading of the Bible was considered the state crime punishable with decades of confinement in the concentration or labor camps–prisons or the mental institutions.

The first task of the bolshevist–communist party after it usurped power was the “lopping–off” of the outstanding men; it was almost completed in 1920–1930s with the mass executions of wealthy, educated, and religious people.

The government used terror and fear as the effective methods to break the spirit of the citizens: night arrests of the innocent people with the following exile in Siberia or execution became the common reality of life. Each citizen feared that information about his manner of life, actions, and words would be perverted and used by the informers – members or volunteers of the secret police – in their reports, which usually resulted in persecutions and arrests. Extracted during interrogations under torture confessions in non–loyalty, which “substantiated” denunciation provided by the informers, were sufficient evidence against innocent people.

To have friends was the luxury unavailable for the mass population, because almost each third adult or teenager was a secret informer of the secret police. The sense of humor was the crime, as any manifestation of freedom of spirit. Especially severe punishment expected those who allowed themselves a joke or any slightest manifestation of non–reverence to the official deities: there were many cases when people disappeared without trace or had to spend up to twenty years in the concentration/labor camps/prisons for any – even innocent – joke about members or leaders of the communist party.

The property confiscated from the rich people during the revolution and named “the common property of the people,” vanished in the pockets of the bolshevist–communist comrades. All population, which in 1920–1930s had been intentionally stripped of their possessions with the special policies or direct robbery by government officials, had no right to have any private property, worked for the miserable sum of “money,” which was sufficient only to support existence, and lived in poverty and misery. At the same time, the official propaganda praised the bolshevist–communist Russia as the embodiment of the highest ideals – liberty, equality, and brotherhood.

Thus, the actuality of existence in the communist state was indeed the literal embodiment of the Aristotle’s ideal Polis.  

 

*7* See posting Logic of Death, Folder Archive, Page_2_2008.

 

*8* Contemporary logic operates with three levels of consideration: immediacy, proximity, and totality. All subjects of consideration are classified as real or actual, attainable in actuality, and attainable in imagination only, or “beyond the limits of possible” [Rescher 90–92]. Logical consideration has the objective to create a logical system, which is defined as a mathematical model of consequences for some inferential practice [e.g., in: Barwise and Hammer 51].

            However, any mathematical model is just a simplified construction with the insufficient degree of complexity, thus, unfit to convey the adequate reflection of the laws of reason and the laws of the Universe; besides, a model cannot be identified as “a system” because levels of complexity of any model and any system are not compatible. For instance, there is an opinion: science works because the actual world can be modeled with “computable mathematics” [Chorafas 10]. In business, mathematical modeling penetrates each stage of the budgeting, financial analysis, and strategy design; consequently, the health of economics (the current global financial crisis, for instance) illustrates effectiveness of modeling.

            So, how a model represents the real world, and what is the degree of correspondence between the model and the reality, which the model describes, therefore, reflects as the cognizable and predictable? 

The first step of modeling is formalization: the description of the Past – the events, connections, and processes (which are known or are in a state of progress) by mathematical equations.

The second step is to discern the core of event, process, activity that carries the meaning and disclose the essence of the observed phenomenon, which a researcher intends to describe by a mathematical model.

The next step is to describe/identify the essence of the observed phenomenon and its future with the adequate model.

Modeling is simplification, consequently, when a researcher attempts to construct any model, the usual procedures include the following tasks (for example, a statistical model described by A.W.F. Edwards [Edwards 3, 104, 109; italic in the original replaced with underline]):

1/ to identify the set(s) of known characteristics or properties

2/ to attribute values to the known and unknown parameters

3/ to disregard as “a nuisance parameter” those parameters, events, processes, causal connections, and phenomena in which the researcher is not interested

4/ to draw inductive inferences – to arrange the logical or statistical construction–model, which would explain the considered reality.

Therefore, when, in a process of modeling, the researcher is not interested or is not able to attribute digital values to particular phenomena, processes, events, terms, conditions (for instance, the moral values), these particular phenomena, processes, events, terms, conditions are discarded as “a nuisance.”  

The usual basis for technological forecasting – extrapolations, leading indicators, causal models, and probabilistic methods includes mathematics and projection of the past or present events, trends, dynamics, causal connections (when it is possible to express them by mathematical equations and models) in the Future. Therefore, the practical question is due: what expects the society, which builds its future upon the models with the human values disregarded as “a nuisance”?

The model WORLD 2 constructed in 1970s, at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, illustrates the essence and result of modeling applied toward social and political issues. The model WORLD 2 is based on the mathematical equations–estimations of the interactions within population, usage and availability of resources, pollution, industry, and agriculture. The quantitative measures for the mentioned parameters are linked with two points of time, 1900 and 1970 [Bloomfield 12–13].

The model considers mankind from a strictly mathematical point of view. As soon as such “parameters” as value of human life, freedom of development, and ethics had not been mentioned, it seems that they were disregarded as a “nuisance parameter,” in consistency with the usual technique of modeling.  The WORLD 2 includes the following recommendations:

1/ stagnation, or the “equilibrium society” in which the growth of population and industrialization would not be allowed

2/ reducing production of food that would increase the death rate of the population 

3/ reduction of capital investment and usage of natural resources that would restrict the level of consuming

4/ process–reduction and pattern–maintenance (that is the restriction of development and stagnation)

5/ projection of the Present over the Future, therefore, keeping the unchanging fixed structure of a system

6/ transcendence of the order and stability

7/ “pressure and limited good (scarcity)” as the protective mechanisms of the society [Bloomfield 13, 40–41, 44–46, 54–55].

Obviously, the model asserts necessity to control existence, population, and development of the world with process–reduction, fixed structure of society, “pressure and limited good (scarcity)” as the protective mechanisms of human society.

If to interpret  the provided by Brian P. Bloomfield description of the WORLD 2 literally, as the completely adequate to the intentions of the WORLD 2’s creators, it might be inferred:

a/ within the WORLD 2, human beings are downgraded at the level of unwanted animals whose excessive population should be eliminated as the used experimental rats at laboratories or as the Nietzsche’s worn out “subhumans”

b/ the practice to project observations of behavior of laboratory rats and rat’s morality over the human race had been logically completed by the recommendations to deal with the excessive human population as with the excessive population of animals, which served as the model for cognition of humans.

 For example, Professor B.F. Skinner did not discern “essential difference” between man and laboratory animals such as cats, rats, pigeons, and monkeys; consequently, he asserted that humans and rats have no essential difference [Skinner ref. in: von Bertalanffy 119]; American psychologist Edward Tolman (1886–1959) inferred existence of a “cognitive map” from observation of behavior of laboratory rats; subsequently, he offered to apply his discovery “to other organisms as well, including human beings” and described a rats’ cognitive map as the dynamic model and picture of the world within the human mind [Laszlo et al 3–4 ]

c/ the practice of simplification by discarding the human values has provided the WORLD 2 creators with the strategy of annihilation of the part of mankind through artificially imposed starvation and stagnation, that reminds the Stalin’s technique of suppression, when in 1930, he arranged starvation in Ukraine with the purpose to exterminate the population that opposed his regime, and the Hitler’s design for Greece, when Germany exterminated the population at the occupied Greek territories by all means possible: the worst famines in all history of Ukraine and Greece are man–made events.

Some researchers discern the danger of modeling; for instance, Paul Anand concludes that mathematical modeling “is a fallible driver of intellectual progress,” and economics matures when mathematics raises the philosophical questions; however, modeling should not be discarded completely; it could work well as auxiliary tool in forecasting at the lowest levels of complexity [Anand 136].

However, the WORLD 2 is not an extraordinary phenomenon: the animal/bestial approach to human beings penetrates all branches of the social and natural sciences, which traditionally separate themselves from theology and have accepted assertion of neutrality from morality. When the animal/bestial approach becomes the general outlook, application of mathematical methods for social and political forecasts (or for determination of the Future of social or business systems) becomes the clear and present danger to the society.

The very fact that such models and scientific recommendations came to the life immediately prompts the question concerning the true foundation of the contemporary societies.

 

*9* The Note concerning Aristotle’s political design:

 

The heathenism orchestrated the rise and destruction of many civilizations and empires and accumulated the great destructive potential. All establishments sustained by the heathenism have the similar pattern of existence: the apparently insignificant core constructed around a particular myth, concept, or image matures into a social and political establishment – the state–parasite, which initially develops by consuming own components – freedoms, good, happiness, and lives of its citizens. Then, the establishment accommodates the destructive potential, unleashes wars in attempt to acquire additional resources and to achieve the absolute power over the environment, e.g., the world. Then, the establishment vanishes, sometimes, without sufficient external reasons. The remnants are absorbed by other similar establishments, which enter the same cycle of empowerment and disintegration.

Aristotle constructed a model of the destructive political association – the Polis, city/state–parasite, which exists and prospers because of the slave labor as the source of leisure and intellectual freedom for the elite – a group of free citizens. Then, the Aristotelian Polis became the blue–print of the political establishment (state, empire) designed as the structure–parasite, which would consume the resources of the conquered, accumulate wealth, and dominate through enslaving the others.

Although theological, philosophical, and some other assumptions of Aristotle received their share of recognition as irrational and illogical fantasies of the mind nurtured by the mythical theology and slavery, they still compose the foundation of the Western civilization, and the Aristotle’s political design might be discerned in many political, social, and religious establishments, which defined the history during last twenty–four centuries.

For example, the Alexander’s empire disintegrated into the competing kingdoms, and the depletion of the conquered by Macedonian nations prepared the ground for the fast expansion of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire is the next (although slightly modified – in accordance with the original design, which allows any modification concerning the purposes, meanings of the good, and scales) version of the Aristotle’s Polis: the Agora became the Senate; both forms – democracy and dictatorship – strictly followed the Aristotle’s descriptions; prosperity and might were acquired with the methods of Aristotelian Polis – through enslaving the other nations, expropriation and consuming their resources; slavery was the foundation of political, social, and cultural life. The difference was the scale incompatible with the modest Polis: the area for the “natural mode of acquisition” was expanded on the vast territories of Asia, Africa, and Europe. Perhaps, the expansion was a reason for such deviations from the Aristotle’s model as

a/ absence of the population control

b/ acceptance of the Alexander of Macedonia’s methods to equalize his subjects through marriage with “barbarians”

c/ grant of citizenship to the representatives of the loyal groups of the conquered population; for instance, the Roman citizenship could be granted to non–Romans.

After the centuries of plundering and enslaving other nations, the Roman Empire also disintegrated.

In the recent Past, the Aristotle’s blue–print had found the complete embodiment in the Hitler’s vision of the Great German race of supermen–masters of all the other – inferior – nations, which would exist by consuming resources and labor of the inferior nations. The “Greater Germany” was expected to become the “steely core” resting on tires/blocks of nations, each serving the German interests [Hitler (1940a) 4–5] by providing the German supermen with the resources needed for their “radiant bloom.”

Although Hitler in his speeches and writings elevated Nazi Germany at the rank of the master of the world, in fact, the Nazi state was designed after the Aristotelian polis or the parasite–state, which exists by plundering and consuming the resources of other nations, enslaves the lawful owners of the wealth, regulates reproduction of its slaves, and exterminates the unnecessary surplus of population. In the same time, Adolf Hitler was very sensitive to humiliating references to the history of the Germans, especially to the traditional portrayal of the pre–Christian Nordic–German tribes as the barbarians (that is as the same nations, which the Aristotelian Polis was created to enslave and to consume). He wrote that it was the “unbelievable offense” because would they come to the South and receive the resources of “the inferior nations,” their slumbering Aryan “culture–formatting abilities” would become “radiant bloom” as those of the Greeks [Hitler (1940) 594].

Therefore, all what was needed for the development of the Nordic–German–Aryan nation was the resources of the “inferior” nations: the prosperity, cultural “radiant bloom,” and world dominion of the German nation were directly connected with plundering, robbery, and extermination of other nations.

Yet, the Great Nazi Germany was defeated and brought on her knees by the same “inferior nations” she plundered and attempted to enslave.

It looks like the history does not confirm viability of Aristotelian political design.

The Aristotelian framework, which asserts slavery as the natural order of the Universe, while slavery is the death of reason, is not capable to accommodate the logic of reasoning of a free human being. Therefore, all political establishments, which embody the Aristotelian logical reality, and which, through public education, laws, official morals, rules, and personal stimuli, attempt to manage thinking of their subjects–citizens with the officially imposed sets of beliefs, are just different models of a typical slave–house. As any establishment, which enslaves a free human being created in the image and after likeness of free omnipotent God, they contradict the Law of God, thus, are nothing more than the imaginary worlds doomed to destruction. However, until their essence becomes evident, they produce new version of the same Orphic serpentine and mythical theology, create own prophets, establish philosophical and theological authorities, and through realization of their artificial laws incompatible with true human nature, pervert the nature and consume lives of their subjects or citizens. Then, after they reach some level of development and begin to expand the sphere of influence or even to seek the world–wide domination, the collapse begins, and, although the processes of disintegration might be discerned at early stages, the collapse is irreversible.

So, it looks like delusion, imagination, and access to the force of coercion obviously do not provide sufficient basis for survival; something else is needed. Perhaps this something is too intangible, imperceptible, or inconsistent with the Aristotle’s physical metaphysics, materialistic logic, arithmetical ethics, and practicable good to be discovered and applied by Aristotle.

From the practical point of view, at the Aristotle’s time, one of components of this “something else” missed could be the inadequate preparation: citizens of the “self–sufficient” cities–units were not trained for the whole system–empire. They were not prepared to envision the empire as something different from the conglomerate of the units–communities that exist by appropriation of the resources of the neighbors considered as the “slaves by nature” and subdued by the military force.

For the contemporary world, the possible explanation could be found in the theory of the evolution: enslaving and robbery of the others hinder development of the others and decelerate the evolution; therefore, the self–appointed masters–robbers have to be annihilated along with their establishments.

However, there are other reasons; for instance,

1/ Aristotelian design is based on evil, and evil does not sustain life. The history of mankind confirms that the essence of any evil is always the same: it is deprivation of something accepted as the good and as the life–supporting necessities. From such a point of view, the evil might be classified by the degree of detriment and conditionally compared with two types of blood–sucking parasites: one simply consumes blood of its victim (those who deprive the others from material goods or inflict physical harm); another injects own poison into the victim’s body to keep it under control until it consumes all victim’s resources (those who re–program conscience of the victims and make them slaves privileged to serve the needs of the slave–owner). Ultimately, both types of parasites support own existence by depriving other beings of life; the difference is only a degree of the instant impact. However, a/ death of the parasite inevitably follows death of the host, and b/ sometimes, the host invents the counteractive measures and exterminates the parasite

2/ evil determines the fallacy of the design. The Aristotle’s design is based on false theological foundation, which made possible such lethal errors as

a/ the assumption of the universal slavery

b/ the perverted concept of man

c/ logic of simplification.

For instance, the Aristotelian framework, which asserts slavery as the natural order of the Universe, while slavery is the death of reason, is not capable to accommodate the logic of reasoning of a free human being. Therefore, all political establishments, which embody the Aristotelian logical reality, and which, through public education, laws, official morals, rules, and personal stimuli, attempt to manage thinking of their subjects–citizens with the officially imposed sets of beliefs, are just different models of a typical slave–house. As any establishment, which enslaves a free human being created in the image and after likeness of free omnipotent God, they contradict the Law of God, thus, they are doomed to destruction.

Then, the logic of simplification makes inevitable the destruction of all establishments, which would embody the Aristotle’s political design within different times, lands, conditions of existence.

Elimination of the Absolute or Ideal Good from the social and political life of men and the definition of the good of man as the practical end, which Aristotle calls “the best for men,” allows any modification of the purposes and the structures as well as establishment of any meaning of “good”: in the Aristotelian establishment,

– even death becomes the “best” for men, if the legislator decides that the time of mass suicide came

– the sin becomes virtue, and the virtue becomes the crime, if political or social purposes demand change of the meanings of the good and the evil.

The implanted possibility of modifications is the main vulnerability of Aristotelian establishment: any political alliance might take over, assume total control, and then, for instance, modify the terms and conditions of existence within the establishment, formulate another purposes, impose another meanings of good and evil, enact other laws, and so on. In fact, Aristotle’s political organization is a modifiable set of modifiable structures. The ruling group – the one that possesses the power to initiate the set and to control its activities – applies the power of coercion for modification of the sub–structures/parts.

The Aristotle’s establishment is assumed to be a system; for instance,

a/ Aristotle uses the words “whole” for definition of the Polis, and parts of the whole – citizens of the Polis, and attempts to portray Polis as the self–sufficient whole, which in the contemporary terms is referred as a system

b/ some philosophers and politicians use the terms “open society” and “open democracy” for identification of establishments based on the Aristotle’s Polis

c/ the term “democracy” is applied to the establishments, which represent themselves as the “democratic” self–sufficient states (societies, nations) ruled by their parts/citizens.

There is no possibility to create a system with the logic of simplification; for instance, a system cannot be ruled by its parts – such construction is a logical absurd. Any state, which exists by ordering life of its components – subjects, citizens, and subsystems, cannot be ruled by any of its components: democracy as the rule by the people–parts of a system is the myth. The only “democratic” benefits of a state might be the state’s focus on the good of its parts/citizens, yet, the Aristotelian design does not provide for such utopia.

Also, the Aristotle’s establishment cannot be referred as a system, because it is not able to survive: it lacks system–creating, system–maintaining, and system–protective functions as well as the efficient cohesive power and the actual self–sustainability; the only mode of existence is extraction of the resources of the others. For instance, the end–destruction becomes inevitable as soon as

1/ the resources are depleted

2/ the establishment encounters the problems, decision of which demands creative thinking (the slavery–based establishment is evil which is not capable of creation, because slavery is death of reason, and any slavery–based establishment exists by exterminating the human reason)

3/ the inferior groups/nations gain the power to defend themselves

4/ the more powerful “democracy” decides to assimilate the establishment. 

 

 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

     
References:

 

Anand, Paul. Foundations of Rational Choice under Risk.  New York:  Oxford UP, 1993.

Aristotle. "The Eudemian Ethics."  The Athenian Constitution. The Eudemian Ethics. On Virtues and Vices. v. 20. With an English Translation by H. Rackham. Cambridge, Massachusetts:  Harvard UP; London:  William Heinemann, 1971. 23 vols.

Aristotle. "The Magna Moralia." The Metaphysics. v.2. With an English Translation by G. Cyril Armstrong. Cambridge, Massachusetts:  Harvard UP; London:  William Heinemann, 1935. 425–685. 2 vols.

Aristotle. "On Melissus, Xenophanes, and Gorgias." Minor Works by Aristotle. With an Eniglish Transl. by W.S. Hett. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UP; London:  William Heinemann, 1936.  462–507.

Aristotle. The Metaphysics. v.2. With an English Translation by G. Cyril Armstrong. Cambridge, Massachusetts:  Harvard UP; London:  William Heinemann, 1935. 2 vols.

Aristotle. "The Oeconomica." The Metaphysics. v.2. With an English Translation by G. Cyril Armstrong. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UP; London: William Heinemann, 1935. 321–424. 2 vols.

Aristotle. On the Heavens. With an English Translation by W.K.C. Guthrie. Cambridge, Massachusetts:  Harvard UP;  London:  William Heinemann, 1939.

Aristotle. The Physics. With an English translation by Philip H. Wicksteed and Francis M. Cornford. Cambridge, Massachusetts:  Harvard UP; London:  William Heinemann, 1968. 2 vols.

Aristotle. Politics. Trans. Ernest Baker. Revised with an Introduction and Notes by R.F. Stalley. Oxford, England:   Oxford UP, 1995.

Arnopoulus, Paris. Sociophysics:  Chaos and Cosmos in Nature and Culture. Commack, New York:  Nova Science, 1993.

Bacon, Roger. Compendium of the Study of Theology. Ed. and trans. with Introduction and Notes by Thomas S. Maloney. Leiden and New York:  E.J. Brill, 1988.

Barnett, Correlli. The Collapse of British Power. 1972. United Kingdom:  Sutton Publishing, 1997.

Barwise, Jon, and Eric Hammer. "Diagrams and the Concept of Logical System." Logical Reasoning with Diagrams.  Ed. Gerard Allwein and Jon Barwise.  New York & Oxford:  Oxford UP, 1996. 49–78.

Baybrook, Gar.  Heresies of the Christian Church.  Payson, Arizona:  Leaves of Autumn Books, 1998.

von Bertalanffy, Ludwig. Robots, Men and Minds: Psychology in the Modern World. New York: George Braziller, 1967.

Birdwhistell, Anne D. Li Yong (1627–1705) and Epistemological Dimensions of Confucian Philosophy. Stanford, California: Stanford UP, 1996.

Bloomfield, Brian P. Modelling the World: the Social Constructions of Systems Analysts. Oxford, U.K., and New York:  Basil Blackwell, 1986.

Bryant, Joseph M. Moral Codes and Social Structure in Ancient Greece: a Sociology of Greek Ethics from Homer to the Epicureans and Stoics. SUNY series in The Sociology of Culture. Albany, New York:  State University of New York Press, 1996.

Chorafas, Dimitris N. Financial Models and Simulations. New York:  St. Martin’s Press, 1995.

Curtius, Quintus Rufus. The History of Alexander. Trans. John Yardley with an Introduction and Notes by Waldemar Heckel. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:  Penguin Books, 1984.

Edman, Irwin. Four Ways of Philosophy. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1937.

Edwards, A.W.F. Likelihood. London:  Cambridge UP, 1972.

Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths. 1955.  Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England:  Penguin Books, 1986. 2 vols.

Hall, Manly P. The Secret Teachings of All Ages. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2003.

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Editorial Sponsors:  John Chamberlain, et al. New York:  Reynal & Hitchcock, 1940.

Hitler, Adolf. My World of Tomorrow. New York:  Polish Information Center, 1940 (a).

Justinus, Marcus Junianus. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Books 11–12:  Alexander The Great. Trans and Appendices by J. C. Yardley. Commentary by Waldemar Heckel. New York: Oxford UP, 1997.

Laszlo, Ervin, et al. Changing Visions. Human Cognitive Maps:  Past, Present, and Future. Westport, Connecticut:  Praeger, 1996.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Will to Power. v. 15. Trans. Anthony M. Ludovici. Edinburgh & London:  T.N. Foulis, 1910. 18 vols.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spake Zarathustra:  A Book for All and None. Introduction by Mrs. Elizabeth Förster–Nietzsche. Trans. Thomas Common. New York:  Macmillan, 1924.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Trans. Helen Zimmern. Edinburgh & London:  T.N. Foulis, 1909–1913. Dover Thrift Editions. Mineola, N.Y.:  Dover, 1997.

Paulus Orosius.  The Seven Books of History against the Pagans. The Fathers of the Church. v. 50. Trans. Roy J. Deferrari. Washington, D.C.:  Catholic University of America Press, 1964.

Plato. Complete Works. Edited with Introduction and Notes by John M. Cooper.  Associated Editor D.S. Hutchinson. Indianapolis, Indiana:  Hackett Publishing, 1997.

Plutarch. "Alexander." The Age of Alexander: Nine Greek Lives by Plutarch. Trans.  and  annotated  by  Ian Scott–Kilvert.  Introduction by G.T. Griffith.  Harmondsworth,  Middlesex, England:  Penguin Books, 1973.  252–334.

Ramus, Petrus. "Thoughts about Aristotle." Renaissance Philosophy. Vol.II: The Transalpine Thinkers. Ed., trans., and introd. by Herman Shapiro and Arturo B. Fallico. New York:  Random House, 1969. 175–189.

Rescher, Nicholas. Forbidden Knowledge, and Other Essays on the Philosophy of Cognition. Episteme:  v. 13. Dordrecht, Holland:  D. Reidel, 1987.

Rushdoony, Rousas John.  The Foundations of Social Order: Studies in The Creeds and Councils in the Early Church.  Nutley, New Jersey:  Presbyterian and Reforming Publishing, 1968.

Savitsky, Alice A. The Invincible Empire. Washington, DC: Aehesia Services, 2003.

Saxonhouse, Arlene W. Fear of Diversity: The Birth of Political Science in Ancient Greek Thought. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Sherrard, Philip. The Greek East and Latin West: A Study in the Christian Tradition. London:  Oxford UP, 1959.

Stalley, R.F. "Introduction." Politics by Aristotle. Trans. Ernest Baker. Revised with an Introduction and Notes by R.F. Stalley. Oxford, England:  Oxford UP, 1995. vii–xxxviii.

Tertullian, Quintius Septimius Florens. "On The “Prescription” of  Heretics." On The Testimony of the Soul. On The "Prescription" of Heretics. Trans. T.Herbert Bindley. New York:  E.S.Gorham, 1914. 31–96.

Trager, James. The People’s Chronology:  A Year–by–Year Record of Human Events from Prehistory to the Present. Rev. ed. A Henry Holt Reference Book. New York:  Henry Holt, 1992.

Vergil (Vergilius, Publius Maro). The Aeneid: An Epic Poem of Rome. Trans. L.R. Lind. Bloomington:  Indiana UP, 1962.

Ward, Spencer A. "Knowledge Structure and Knowledge Synthesis." Knowledge Structure and Use: Implications for Synthesis and Interpretation. Eds. Spencer A. Ward and Linda J. Reed. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:  Temple  UP,  1983.  21–44.

Xenophanes of Colophon. Fragments. A Text and Translation with a Commentary by J.H. Lesher. Toronto, Canada:  University of Toronto Press, 1992.

 

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Posted August 10, 2011

Original post November 9, 2008

 

==========================================================

 

Copyright (c)2010 Sunday's Thoughts & JustHost.com