Thank you very much. I was going through the book as you were speaking. Your explanation on some of these things really enriches the material. Again, thank you
I like to examine the relationships i have to determine the type. Then i might try to distence myself if i feel the friendship is more negative than posotive, even if it is my fault. And if i feel the friendship has potential to be great, i will try to continually improve apon it so it might be life long.
@@owlnyc666 Well, to begin, these arguments made by Aristotle were directly exclusively towards men's relationships during this period of time (300-400ish BC). In addition, if you read the actual text, you'll see he's actually quite sexist and asserts a balance between mens roles and women's roles (which is predominant through much of recorded history and even today). Further, and more importantly, the relationships discussed seem to address Friendships and "friends", with the only mention of pleasure relations as being temporary. Today, we consider marriage to be forever, and how Aristotle addresses the idea of "complete" friendships, they are without intimacy we would expect in erotic/pleasurable Friendships - and especially not todays definition of marriage.
@@InversePacman I do think it is fair to say that he was patriarchal. But so were most Greek philosophers at that time. Although he acknowledges particular attributes and roles of women; he retains the misogynistic distinction between genders and this idea that women are inferior by nature thus cannot contribute to the society. I believe he divided "friends" into three basic categories. There were friends of pleasure which could be other men and are temporary. There are friends of convivence such as fellow workers. And there are deeper friends. Those are men who share your virtues and values. I would firmly agree that he would not share today's definition of marriage i.e. "same sex marriage".
Timocracy=Republic?🤔🤔🤔 Everbody can do as they please=Democracy???🤔 Tyranny no friends, Democracy more friends. Friend in monrorachy and aristocracy???😏
Thank you very much. I was going through the book as you were speaking. Your explanation on some of these things really enriches the material. Again, thank you
I like to examine the relationships i have to determine the type. Then i might try to distence myself if i feel the friendship is more negative than posotive, even if it is my fault. And if i feel the friendship has potential to be great, i will try to continually improve apon it so it might be life long.
I am curious as to how it is decided in same sex marriage who is husband and who is wife.
lol what. I don't think that's the right question.
@@InversePacman Why not?
@@owlnyc666 Well, to begin, these arguments made by Aristotle were directly exclusively towards men's relationships during this period of time (300-400ish BC). In addition, if you read the actual text, you'll see he's actually quite sexist and asserts a balance between mens roles and women's roles (which is predominant through much of recorded history and even today). Further, and more importantly, the relationships discussed seem to address Friendships and "friends", with the only mention of pleasure relations as being temporary. Today, we consider marriage to be forever, and how Aristotle addresses the idea of "complete" friendships, they are without intimacy we would expect in erotic/pleasurable Friendships - and especially not todays definition of marriage.
@@InversePacman I do think it is fair to say that he was patriarchal. But so were most Greek philosophers at that time. Although he acknowledges particular attributes and roles of women; he retains the misogynistic distinction between genders and this idea that women are inferior by nature thus cannot contribute to the society. I believe he divided "friends" into three basic categories. There were friends of pleasure which could be other men and are temporary. There are friends of convivence such as fellow workers. And there are deeper friends. Those are men who share your virtues and values. I would firmly agree that he would not share today's definition of marriage i.e. "same sex marriage".
Facebook friends are???How much would you lend each type friend, utility, erotic,and "true "?🤔
Timocracy=Republic?🤔🤔🤔 Everbody can do as they please=Democracy???🤔 Tyranny no friends, Democracy more friends. Friend in monrorachy and aristocracy???😏