Mundus vult decipi
The world wants to be decieved
Why Aristotle is good but wrong at the same time.
I am not a Thomist so bear with me. Aristotles idea of virtous living is hitting the mean. This is good, i kinda like this defn. He also presupposes that we start with a tabula rasa (blank state) "Again, we possess certain capacities by nature, but we are not born good or bad by nature..." (This is bad) He states that seeking after pleasure is what we are naturally inclined to do. He then calls this seeking unchecked bad. So we have a contradiction. We are naturally inclined to do something bad according to him, we are born with this nature, therefore we are born bad. So his statement quoted above is a contradiction. He says we are born neutral, but then argues from the presupposition that we are born with bad inclinations.
Also it is my belief that Aristitoles rejection of an objective good, leads him to make his own view the very same thing. By that rejection he sets up his own standard, and leaves the door open for situational ethics, and relativism.
Therse my dislike of Aristotle. Could I baptise it? Change a few things to make it better? How about if I change it to we are born inclined to badness (evil), since this badness is comprehensive, something outside of myself must intervene. When I have been freed by this "otherness", I can now be free from my natural inclination and choose to hit the mean (do virtue). The Aristotelian idea that virtue must be linked to action is a good idea for those of us who are Augustinian/Reformed. Perhaps we can like Thomas Aquinas baptize his thoughts if we start from a correct epistemology and metaphysic.
Also, lol, my Philosophy professor when he found out that I was Augustinian said "hopefull we can cure you of that", my respose "im quite happy being Augustinian" So by being Augustinian I have reached the eudaimonia (flourishing). And since two contradictory thought systems cannot both be right, for the sake of contradiction, all yall must become Augustinian.
| 
