3 Answers

  1. First of all, Aristotle laid the foundations of logic that we still use today.

    In ethics, he formulated a concept that defines virtue as the average (for example, courage is the average between cowardice and recklessness, financial prudence is the average between greed and extravagance, etc.).�

    I call the middle of a thing that which is equally distant from both edges, and this [middle] is the same and the same for all. But I call the middle in relation to us that which is neither superfluous nor insufficient, and such a middle is neither the same nor the same for all. So, for example, if ten is a lot and two �is not enough, then six is taken as the middle, because as much as six �is greater than two, it is also less than ten, and this is the middle according to the arithmetic proportion. But this is not the way to understand the middle in relation to us. After all, if there is a lot of food for ten minutes and not enough for two, then the teacher in gymnastic exercises will not prescribe food for six minutes, because this may also be [too] much or [too] little for a given person. For Milo, this is not enough, but for a beginner, it is a lot. So it is with running and wrestling. Therefore, every expert avoids excess and lack, seeking the middle and choosing it for himself, and the middle [not of the thing itself], but [the middle] for us. But if every science succeeds in doing its work in this way, that is to say, if it succeeds in doing its work in this way. aiming for the middle, and it �taking their results (where the custom is to talk about business, �done to perfection, “or to subtract or add,” having in mind that �the excess and lack disastrous for perfection, and the possession of middle �beneficial, and skilled craftsmen, we argue, �work with an eye to this [rule]), and the virtue that, as well �as nature, and more accurate and better art any [wizard] will �perhaps, to get in the middle. I am referring to moral virtue, for it is this virtue that manifests itself in our passions and actions, and here there is an excess, a lack, and a middle ground. So, for example, in fear and courage, in attraction, anger and regret, and in general in pleasure and in suffering, both “more” and “less” are possible, and both are not good. But all this, when it is done in the right circumstances, in relation to the right object, for the right purpose, and in the right way, is the middle and best part of what is proper to virtue. In the same way, there is an excess, a lack, and a middle in actions. Virtue manifests itself in the passions and actions, and in these latter, excess is a misdemeanor, and lack [too] {they will not praise}, while the middle is praiseworthy and successful; both, however, are considered virtues. Virtue, therefore, is a kind of possession of the middle; in any case, it exists in so far as it attains it

    Aristotle emphasized the importance of the active nature of virtue (virtue is determined by the actions that a person performs, and not by his intentions). At the same time, virtue is directly connected by Aristotle with human happiness: one who is virtuous and performs virtuous deeds is happy (“happiness is a certain activity of the soul in the fullness of virtue”). A virtuous act in this sense is performed for its own sake, and not for the sake of additional benefits.

    Just as at the Olympic games the wreaths are not given to the most beautiful and powerful, but to those who participate in the competition (for the winners are among them), so in life the beautiful and good things are achieved by those who do the right things. And even life itself gives them pleasure. �After all, pleasure is experienced in the soul, and yet everyone enjoys what he is called a lover of. For example, to a lover of horses — a horse, to a lover of spectacles-spectacles, and in the same way justice — to a lover of right, and to a lover of virtue-everything in general, according to virtue.

    Finally, Aristotle developed a completely pragmatic political theory, in which he defined the state as the result of a reasonable dialogue between people, people as “political animals” (i.e., animals inclined to build a state), and the goal of the state as the well – being of citizens.

    Nature has instilled in all people the desire for state communion, and ” the first one who organized this communion rendered the greatest benefit to humanity.” The man who has found his end is the most perfect of living beings, and, conversely, the man who lives outside the law and the law is the worst of all, because injustice, which has weapons, is the hardest of all; nature has given man weapons-mental and moral strength,and they can be used in the opposite direction. Therefore, “a person devoid of virtue turns out to be the most impious and savage being,” low in his sexual and gustatory urges. The concept of justice is connected with the idea of the state, since the law, which serves as a measure of justice, is the regulatory norm of political communication.

    For Aristotle, the state is a union of different people (with different ideas, characters, knowledge and skills), united by communication, who jointly solve problems that are more global than they could set and solve alone. In other words, unanimity and uniformity in the state is bad, because it undermines the main advantage of the state, which consists in its ability to unite different people for common goals.

    We can say that these ideas of Aristotle, which, in fact, summed up the experience of classical ancient democracy, laid the foundation for our ideas about a democratic society.

  2. The difference between economics and chrematistics, which has not yet been noted, but is now very relevant. The economy is the real management of the economy, which was recently in our country and was called socialism.. Chrematistics is the current realm of speculators and financial intermediaries..

    More specifically. According to Lenin, socialism is state-monopoly capitalism, but turned to the benefit of the whole people+ the system of civilized co-operatives.

    Chrematistics -profit of intermediaries at the expense of employees. For example-insurers at the expense of doctors, intermediaries from science – at the expense of scientists, bankers – at the expense of taxpayers, etc..

  3. Aristotle was Alexander's ” teacher ” Macedonian and all my life I believed that it is necessary to educate ( give education), what is the correct way? ), the ruler of � country � in �improve � �life �people , at the end � life �he came to the conclusion � � that the form itself should � people

Leave a Reply

Categories