Speaking of ancestors, I think it is unfortunate that so many are unaware of what they found to be true about happiness, and what happiness is, and what it isn't. I am not impressed by evolutionary psychology and its superficial and half-baked just-so stories. Biology and psychology can give us hints and signs about things which are then folded into any sound account of the human person, but it is just that: information that enters into a fuller account. Very often, we don't even have that. We have unsophisticated intellectual dilettantism and amateur dabbling.
We must first determine what happiness is before it makes sense to talk about how to achieve it. Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and others in the Western tradition have much to say about it [0]. They also have much to say about how to attain it. It make sense to start there.
Aristotle wrote very widely. From the first description of octopus mating behavior to the first stab at formal logic ever, there are probably a lot of topics where he was wrong, but also a lot of other ones where he was right, where debate is still open or where his position was refined.
That his scripture was treated as canon by the christian church and not subjected to further scientific inquiry is one of the foundational stories of the modern science. That story is certainly not wrong though it lacks nuance. It is also where Aristotle’s bad rep is mostly from.
Aristotle‘s position on many topics is simply the first one uttered as far as we know. It is interesting because it is the start of a conversation, not because it is right or wrong.
Gross. This guy is pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and deeply embedded in religion, yet identifies as a "philosopher". He's the opposite of what we should be listening to.
That’s a very bigoted way to define „philosopher“. Philosopher’s job is not to tell things that you want to hear. Philosopher’s job is to challenge you.
The far bigger real world harm is new age snake oil peddlers telling people they are too fragile and weak to be happy so long as there are others out there thinking and saying mean things.
Suggesting to read challenging stuff is „gaslighting“? It's not. Just in case - reading does not mean agreeing with what you read.
I've no issues reading „harmful“ material. In fact, I specifically try to read stuff that is written either by people I don't approve or includes views I don't approve.
Please don't go into „real world harm“ territory. Unless you want to discuss at which point fetus/newborn killing brings „real world harm“. Coming from a very different background, you guys have some crazy views that seem to clash with modern science. But that's fine, such is the price for cultural diversity :|
We must first determine what happiness is before it makes sense to talk about how to achieve it. Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and others in the Western tradition have much to say about it [0]. They also have much to say about how to attain it. It make sense to start there.
[0] https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/How-and-How-Not-to-Be...