"Aristotle human"

Aristotle says, "For the whole must be of necessity be prior to the part; for if the whole [body] is destroyed there will not be a foot or a foot or a hand, unless in the sense that the term is similar (as when one speaks of a hand made of stone), but the thing itself will be defective. Everything is defined by itself and its power, and if it is no longer the same in these respects it should not be spoken of in the same way, but only as something similarly termed."

Aristotle is saying that without the body, the hand is not a hand. He continues on to say that humans without cities are not humans. If they can survive without cities, Aristotle says, then they are either beast or god.

I agree with Aristotle that a hand is not a hand without a body attached, but I think that a human can be human without a city. Monks aside, plenty of people prefer to be away from too many people. Some people like to live in the country, miles away from any city with only their close family, farm animals, and spaced out neighbors. Aristotle would count this establishment as a village, but plenty of people are perfectly happy with not living in a city and being an "Aristotle human."

~Hannah

Comments

By the way, I fixed it so only members of the blog can post comments. :D

Prior to Man Himself

Aristotle claims that, "The city is prior by nature to the household and to each of us. For the whole must of necessity be prior to the part: for if the whole [body] is destroyed there will not be a foot or a hand..." This statement is very confusing, therefore, I tried to understand it by breaking it down.

"The city is prior by nature to the household and to each of us." This mean the city naturally came before the household or even us. We must remember that we are not talking about a real city filled with houses, but a city by definition. One that is self-sufficient and with people who are living well and performing what they were made to do.

"For the whole must of necessity be prior to the part: for if the whole [body] is destroyed there will not be a foot or a hand." In other word, the city is the body and the households and villages are the hands and feet. No body, no feet. Therefore, all households and villages have sprung off of cities, slowly growing and become a city themselves.

What about the first city? That was the garden of Edan. God had provided Adam and Eve with everything they needed, making them self-sufficient, had given Adam Eve, making them living well, and they had time to do what man was supposed to do, love God and, according to Aristotle, think. After they were thrown out, they were still growing on their experiences, making them a hand to the body.

Overall, Aristotle was right when he said the City was prior to the household, and even humans, because of God and the Garden of Edan.

Slight Confusion

While reading the essay, I agreed with most of the topics and suggestions. Since these were the things we had previously discussed in class, I already had a thorough understanding of them. However, I was confused by the ninth paragraph. Although the main point, the love between a subject and his/her ruler, was clear in the beginning, I became lost in the middle with the strange transition. Instead of keeping to the story, it ran off into another field. Normally, this is fine for me, but the way it transitioned was startling. Starting with the rapid fire questions, then moving on to the long list of strange names, the paragraph befuddled me.

Nevertheless, I agree with the purpose of that paragraph. The difference between loyalty and love between a subject and his/her ruler was confused, not only in that time, but also in the story. It seemed to me that the daughters of Lear, excluding Cordelia for clarity, should have loved Lear more than his earls and dukes. However, it was the other way around. This subtle change of devotion caused a bigger rend that made the confusion in the play more severe.

Define: Lowest Point

In the essay, it states that Lear's lowest point is when Cordelia sees her father after he banishes her. He wakes up, after recovering from his madness and and the two talk. Lear is sad and apologetic, fully realizing that he has done Cordelia a great wrong and not expecting her forgiveness. He is a broken man with no home, no hope, and a past wrought with mistakes. But his daughter forgives him, renews their father/daughter bond and the Lear finally learns the true meaning of love.

Some people might argue that this is not Lear's lowest point. Lear's fit of madness and rage against the storm is arguably pretty low. He bellows at nature, curses his daughters, and slowly begins to slip into his crazed state of mind. Others might say that Lear is at his lowest in the beginning. Lear was the haughty, vain, self-absorbed king who only wanted to hear how much his daughters loved him. He saw love as a measurement of words, and not really as a feeling or emotion. This haughty ignorance is pretty low.

So it all depends on how one defines "lowest point." The essay suggested that his lowest point was his lowest emotional point. He was broken and miserable, and very sorry. Another low point was his physical low point. He was homeless and crazy. The third low point was his when he was so misguided. Although he may have felt fatherly affection for his daughters, he did not know the true meaning of love, and was still very wound up in his own image.


~Hannah

P.S. It was a really great essay, and I loved reading it! :)