>>220158From On Sleep, Section 3.
Aristotle follows his standard format, brings up previous points, states observations and draws conclusions. The issue I have specifically is that his argument comes across as being a non sequitur based on the information given, where he says sleep is a form of concentration, in which the hot matter draws in and the body cools down. He makes no concession towards common illness, such as fever, which would entail a visible warmness, even during rest. While I know this was not common knowledge, infants are also warmer. I do not know how much warmer, or if this would have actually been noticeable by touch, so I cannot hold that against Aristotle.
So many of his studies are easy enough to fault, but yet, there is no counterargument. At least no recorded counterargument. No concession is made either and this comes up repeatedly when discussing the natural world and human sensations. I am not going to pick on his studies on animals, as it is easy to do so with a modern lens.
I know this is more scientific then philosophical but the connection between science and philosphy is a core idea of Aristotle. You know, for someone who sought to figure out philosophy by observation of the natural world, he does leave very large gaps.
I could focus on his discourse on the elements too, but I feel that this is too much of a low hanging fruit to discuss, especially with the modern lens.
The truth is, as per my definition, what is righteous. I understand that righteousness alters from person to person, but righteousness, in the traditional sense, is concrete, in that what was righteous all came from one source: religion. I understand that we live in a world where religion is not universal, but religion all seemingly has a common root. For example, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all known as Abrahamic faiths. More properly, I should say that Christianity and Islam take root in Judaism, so please excuse my somewhat incorrect conjecture. Similarly, the religions of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Canaan, Ugarit, Mesopotamia, India, etc. all have a common root in religion.
Without religion, there is no morality, even for those who have no personal faith. It must be argued that those of no personal faith still heed to a god, one of no name, no face, but a presence of sorts. In a sense, this could be a fals
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.