Happiness according to Aristotle is leading a life of virtue

>Happiness according to Aristotle is leading a life of virtue
>Virtue can be taught to man through laws
>Good laws can only be made in the best constitution
>The best kind of constitution will be explained in the 8 political books and the athenian constitution
Thank you based Ari, I can't wait to get to the bottom of this shitshow now that I have read ten whole books without reaching a conclusion on how to find the happiness we were seeking.

Attached: u7e.png (537x373, 217K)

>>Virtue can be taught to man through laws
Wrong. Virtue must be a choice, or it's not virtuous.

Did i miss out something? Where does it say that? IIRC according to him virtues are character traits.

>reading Arisbottle's Niggamachean Effix for basic Catholic Church Dogma instead of rewatching Neon Genesis Evangelion

But isn't Aristotle's views on politics completely contingent on the people? At least that's what i got from the politics, it wasn't one size fits all. One constitution/political structuring works well for one set of people but not others ect

Cope I'm not even a christcuck, just really sticking to the Greeks whose 3/4 of literature i have already consumed.

Aristotle didn’t expound his philisophy for midwits like you. You’re probably a natural slave who exists to serve the master class of society and help virtuous Übermenschen like Aristotle live the life of leisure to compose such brilliant works

>without reaching a conclusion on how to find the happiness we were seeking.
Isn't that what the Nicomachean Ethics is for?

You get virtue by habit.

That said, I think Epictetus' Discourses is better than the Nicomachean Ethics as an "Ethics Textbook"

Attached: 0dd4d95e0fe5bf1a7e946bcc650f94429f8359ea_hq.gif (450x250, 974K)

Aristotle's philosophy is synthetic. If you read only part of his words you will not understand things properly. The reason why these laws are Good is that they bring virtue, which in turn (and this is the most important part) allows men to achieve his ultimate (formal) end: the contemplation and imitation of the divine. It is not the laws or virtue that, by themselves, bring happiness, but it is achieving the formal end (which they help and are, in a sense, required) that will bring happiness.

Spoken like a true stormfag nazi LARPer.

>muh nazi boogieman
That’s literally what Aristotle believed, read Politics, midwit. There are those who rule and those who are ruled, there are natural masters and natural slaves, and the latter are living instruments who belong totally to the master. This relationship is beneficial to both parties. The good life can only be achieved through leisure and the cultivation or virtue, which is why there are slaves and menial workers.

>Aristotle believed in the ideology of his age
No shit, nearly every ancient thinker would be considered batshit crazy by today's standards. Just because what's written inside a book helps you stroke your 2 inches whitoid midwit pee pee at night it doesn't give one any reason to agree with it.

Yikes you can’t even take a jab at OP for complaining. Sort yourself out, user

I'm not the one you are arguing with and this is not related to his point about Aristotle, but solely about your post:

>nearly every ancient thinker would be considered batshit crazy by today's standards
In your opinion, whenever an Ancient Thinker has a belief that is at odds with current popular beliefs, he is the one who is wrong?

Yes, because most of whatever the ancients thought is incompatible with modern reality, and if we followed what people like Homer wrote down like a sacred text we'd be in a society where a perennial state of war was glorified and pointless dogmas based on superstitions became the law. Go outside sometimes.

>homer glorified war
OH NO NO

>whatever the ancients thought is incompatible with modern reality,
Lol

>implying it deplores war or glorifies peace
>implying war isn't romanticized in the Iliad
you've probably only watched the shitty hollywood movies if you actually think that

Before anything, I have to remind you that I asked the question of "are ancient philosophers always wrong when they disagree with the popular opinon of today"?


>Yes, because most of whatever the ancients thought is incompatible with modern reality,
Why?

>and if we followed what people like Homer wrote down like a sacred text we'd be in a society where a perennial state of war was glorified
Did Aristotle glorify a perennial state of war? Or Epicurus? Or Marcus Aurelius? But suppose for a moment that they did. Why would they be wrong?

> and pointless dogmas based on superstitions became the law.
This has nothing to do with the question,

Because they're 2000 years apart from us maybe?
I never said Aristotle glorified war, but Homer clearly does in his poems
>Why would they be wrong?
This is how i know you're a fucking retard who doesn't know shit about war. Imagine being as warped as to actually laud the murdering of countless innocents.
>This has nothing to do with the question.
Yes it has, try to live as your ancestors would and make a live human sacrifice to Zeus while you're at it.

>make a live human sacrifice to Zeus
You know nothing about Greece.

>Because they're 2000 years apart from us maybe?
I can't see why that would be the case. Does that make them a different species of animals?

>I never said Aristotle glorified war, but Homer clearly does in his poems
Let's suppose Homer glorified war. Does that make Aristotle wrong?
And are you sure that the glorification of war is really that unpopular nowadays?

>This is how i know you're a fucking retard who doesn't know shit about war. Imagine being as warped as to actually laud the murdering of countless innocents.
user, you didn't answer the question.

>Yes it has, try to live as your ancestors would and make a live human sacrifice to Zeus while you're at it.
It hasn't. The question is "Are the ancients always wrong when they disagree with modern people"?

>Themistocles sacrificing Persians to Dyonisus doesn't count
alright illiterate cunt

But let's think about a concrete example:

Ancient philosophers like Aristotle and Epictetus would argue against a promiscuous lifestyle. They would likely say it is a bad idea to have sex with tons of people. Right now, the popular opinion is that promiscuity is good. That you should have tons of sex with tons of people.

Are Aristotle and Epictetus wrong because they lived long ago?

>implying war isn't romanticized in the Iliad
Yes.

>I can't see why that would be the case. Does that make them a different species of animals?
Would you still murder someone for wearing different fabrics according to Leviticus nowadays? I could list countless instances of superstitious bullshit that would make no sense in our society, but you'd still suck it up because muh tradishuns are more important than reality, and because you're most likely an inbred wigger who came from /pol/ to shit up this board.
>Let's suppose Homer glorified war. Does that make Aristotle wrong?
Yes, slavery has no place in our society.
>It hasn't. The question is "Are the ancients always wrong when they disagree with modern people"?
Most of what they said is wrong by today's standards.

You've never read the Iliad.

>You've never read the Iliad.
Wrong.

Worst take i've seen today baka.

>Ancient philosophers like Aristotle and Epictetus would argue against a promiscuous lifestyle. They would likely say it is a bad idea to have sex with tons of people. Right now, the popular opinion is that promiscuity is good. That you should have tons of sex with tons of people.
It turns out a fairly good share of them were sex-deprived incels like you. Socrates reiterated his immense cope that philosophers only lived to reach the afterlife, which is exactly how the virgin losers of this board are coping, by living a shit life with the convinction of being rewarded sometimes later.

>Would you still murder someone for wearing different fabrics according to Leviticus nowadays? I could list countless instances of superstitious bullshit that would make no sense in our society, but you'd still suck it up because muh tradishuns are more important than reality,
You didn't answer my question. The question was "does the fact that someone was born 2000 years ago make his opinion wrong or irrrelevant"?

>Yes, slavery has no place in our society.
You didn't answer my question. Supposing Homer glorified war, would that make someone else wrong in everything he believed?

>Most of what they said is wrong by today's standards.
Again, how are you sure that today's standards are correct and that they were wrong?

>and because you're most likely an inbred wigger who came from /pol/ to shit up this board.
I wonder who is shitting up this board with crappy arguments.

>You didn't answer my question. The question was "does the fact that someone was born 2000 years ago make his opinion wrong or irrrelevant"?
Yes, it does. There's an abysmal difference between the ancients' and our society.
No, it doesn't make everything he says wrong but most of it.
>Again, how are you sure that today's standards are correct and that they were wrong?
Why the fuck would you glorify war in the first place? Have you ever been on the battlefield? Do you know a lot of soldiers end up killing themselves or become psychologically scarred forever? I bet a self-righteous faggot like you wouldn't last ten minutes in the middle of a war. You're shitting up this board by making it look like a mental hospital, get off your high horse and stop fantasizing about murdering innocents.

You are illiterate.

You get it from guidance from friends who are more virtuous than you

Attached: D3wOAA0WwAEMo8o.jpg (958x1200, 119K)

So ultimately you are just a faggot who can't understand the urge to indulge in a blood frenzy and that is your whole argument?

go on a blood frenzy and post results then, faggot. Tell us if you find it pleasing as in your autistic genocidal fantasies if you aren't getting plowed by five niggers in a jail cell afterwards.

>Yes, it does. There's an abysmal difference between the ancients' and our society.
>No, it doesn't make everything he says wrong but most of it.
Why would the differences in our society and their society make them wrong or irrelevant?


>Why the fuck would you glorify war in the first place? Have you ever been on the battlefield? Do you know a lot of soldiers end up killing themselves or become psychologically scarred forever? I bet a self-righteous faggot like you wouldn't last ten minutes in the middle of a war. You're shitting up this board by making it look like a mental hospital, get off your high horse and stop fantasizing about murdering innocents.
You are trying to escape again.
I didn't say we should glorify war. The question is "Are the ancients always wrong when they disagree with modern people"?