>>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 false idol, but everything is of a design. We hear "nature's design" or even "a pattern in science" when these people speak of such. This so-called God bears no moral guidance unlike other gods.
Of course, the question arises concerning what is morality from religion and this is in many ways cultural, but in modern Western and Middle Eastern society, morality is a Abrahamic one and while some key differences exist between the two such as punishment, the original basis for morality and along with it law (for what would be law without morality, other than an arbitration). In the East, it takes root in the common belief systems there: Shintoism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc. They have a common root.
Of course, there are such things as atheistic/agnostic laws and these are the ones that many conservatively minded individuals look upon with disdain. Their existence bears no morality and bears no respect to any of the Gods that are believed in. They often conflate the laws with what can be done than what should be done in a society. That is the ultimate rift between the two when it comes to morality and righteousness. I guess I do concede that Plato is correct on justice in a sense, especially for that time when religion and virtue were one.
Excuse me for I might sound simple-minded. My only encounter with philosophy, as I have told you was a session of debate. I prefer to deliberate than to debate, but they both are necessary.
I will conclude by saying that religion is not a social construct, it is something very natural in existence, at least from observation and reason. That is why I align myself more with the Cynics than the Platonists.