Skip to main content

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable way to be in today's society. We look at peaceful protestors with more respect than we do at those who fight back against the violence they face either from the public or from law enforcement. For example, we view Martin Luther King's approach to the Civil Rights Movement in high esteem. 

     However, I cannot say that I entirely disagree with Aristotle in that anger needs be expressed "in the right way, at the right time, or with the right persons" (41). These qualifications are greatly important, and I wish Aristotle would have expanded on them, although following Jesus' teachings, I would have likely disagreed with some of Aristotle's descriptions for those qualifications. I aspire to "turn the other cheek" when wrong is done to myself, but when wrong is done to my friends, I aspire to defend them. Part of this stems from my beliefs. I aspire to be like Jesus although I fail in this endeavor far more than I succeed. The other part, in all honesty, is due to fear. I am a passive person because I fear making the person who has done me wrong angry or upset, which can sometimes lead to more wrong done to me. Thus, there is a constant struggle of not having wrong done to me because I choose not to defend myself due to my beliefs or due to fear(with the former being honorable and the latter not so much) or defending myself and disobeying Jesus' commands.


P.S. I commented on Hailey's and Isabelle's posts.

Comments

  1. It doesn't surprise me that is some area Aristotle and Jesus would disagree. I was kind of expecting it. In all honesty though, anger is something that can be very hard to control. What Aristotle is saying about anger though is only human nature. We want to retaliate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jesus' character especially challenges me when it comes to anger. I always wonder how he was able to take the insults and attacks. If my brother insults me, I really have to bite my tongue to keep myself from retaliating, and most times I say something. By the way, I mean my younger brother, not Jackson.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lovers of Wisdom, Not Power—Lily Caswell

In Book VIII of Plato’s Republic, Socrates talks about the possibility of having a well-governed city. However, he also talks about how that particular form of government is impossible to have. A well-governed city becomes a possibility only if you can discover a better way of life for your future rulers than holding office.” (Plato, p 215) Maybe his version of a better life was for those in office to not be lovers of power, since it would then become a fight among rival lovers. Socrates gets to the point that the only rulers who don’t love power are true philosophers. Philosophers are lovers of wisdom and knowledge and not power, ergo they are the perfect rulers. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely, so I’m thinking that maybe the trick to being a good ruler is for you to be a philosophical person who loves wisdom and not power. I commented on Jamie’s and Isabelle’s posts.

How to Make a Clone - Clabo

I found books three and four to be very cringy. I mean, to me the idea of structurally producing good soldiers/guardians through heavy censorship is somewhat inhumane. I feel as if human beings should be allowed to experience every bit of knowledge they can at some point in their lives. To me, it seems as if the guardians are being guarded against information throughout their entire lives so they can solely fulfill the duties they were birthed into.  However, the influence and importance Plato places on poetry and music do make me wonder what it would be like if we had the same values as our military today. What if the United States military invested in the souls of its soldiers and placed within them emotional and intellectual values outside of what they have learned previously. Perhaps the military instills values and principles within soldiers to fulfill the same purpose as the guardians would in Plato's Republic and that is to only be that which the government wants you to be....

Dystopian Origins Uncovered ////// Isabelle Ferguson

  I think that ideas eventually run out of originality and circle back to the original idea. During this week's reading, many of Socrates’ suggestions for a place of perfection reminded me of some novels I’ve read depicting dystopian worlds. Disclaimer: There are spoilers ahead. You have been warned.        To begin, in  The  Giver  by Lois Lowry censorship is a major theme. The novel is centered around a boy who is receiving memories withheld from the population! The government in The Giver is especially careful to censor the memories that may cause strife, anger, fear, sadness, etc. In the adults, this society is cemented. So, the government is especially strict with the youth. Socrates talks about verses to “obliterate” to prevent the descriptions from doing “harm to our future warriors” for the better half of Book III (Plato, page 44). The warriors he speaks of are the youth. He goes on to list the multitude of verses that should be done ...