Philosophie d'Aristote

Aristo or Ariston of Chios (Greek: Ἀρίστων ὁ Χίος; fl. c. 260 BC) was a Stoic philosopher and colleague of Zeno of Citium. He outlined a system of Stoic philosophy that was, in many ways, closer to earlier Cynic philosophy. He rejected the logical and physical sides of philosophy endorsed by Zeno and emphasized ethics. Although agreeing with Zeno that Virtue was the supreme good, he rejected the idea that morally indifferent things such as health and wealth could be ranked according to whether they are naturally preferred. An important philosopher in his day, his views were eventually marginalized by Zeno's successors. He is not to be confused with Aristo of Ceos, a Peripatetic philosopher of the late 3rd century BC.

Contents

1 Life

2 Philosophy

2.1 Logic

2.2 Physics

2.3 Ethics

3 Legacy

4 References

5 Notes

6 External links

Life

Aristo, son of Miltiades, was born on the island of Chios sometime around 300 BC.[1] He came to Athens where he attended the lectures of Zeno of Citium, and also, for a time, the lectures of Polemo,[2] (the head of the Academy from 314 to 269 BC). Although he was a member of Zeno's circle he soon departed from Zeno's teachings, largely rejecting the two non-ethical parts of Stoic philosophy - physics and logic - endorsed by Zeno.

A man of persuasive eloquence, he was such a good speaker that he was called the Siren. He was also called Phalanthus, from his baldness. He set up his own school in the Cynosarges gymnasium[3] (a place associated with Cynic philosophy) and attracted many pupils, so much so that when he was accused of exposing the dignity of philosophy by his freedom to all-comers, he answered, that "he wished that Nature had given understanding to wild beasts, that they too might be capable of being his hearers."[4] His followers called themselves Aristonians and included the scientist Eratosthenes[5] and the Stoics: Apollophanes, Diphilus, and Miltiades.[3][5]

He engaged in much debate with Arcesilaus, the leader of the Academy, defending Stoic epistemology against Arcesilaus's skeptical views.[2] On one occasion he accused Arcesilaus of being: "Plato in front, Pyrrho in back, and Diodorus in the middle."[6] meaning that he regarded Arcesilaus as being a chimera of three quite different philosophers.

In his old age, he apparently lapsed from the Stoic ideal, and would at times indulge in pleasure.[5] It is not known when he died,[7] but he is supposed to have died from sunstroke on account of his baldness.[8]

Philosophy

Zeno divided philosophy into three parts: Logic (which was a very wide subject including rhetoric, grammar, and the theories of perception and thought); Physics (including not just science, but the divine nature of the universe as well); and Ethics, the end goal of which was to achieve happiness through the right way of living according to Nature. It is impossible to describe in full Aristo's philosophical system because none of his writings survived intact, but from the fragments preserved by later writers, it is clear that Aristo was heavily influenced by earlier Cynic philosophy:

Logic

Aristo regarded Logic as unimportant saying that it had nothing to do with us.[3] "Dialectic reasonings," he said, "were like cobwebs, artificially constructed, but otherwise useless."[3] It is unlikely that he rejected all Logic, and it is notable that Zeno, too, compared the skills of dialecticians "to right measures that do not measure wheat or anything else worthwhile but chaff and dung."[9] According to Stephen Menn Aristo recognized the need to add somehow disposed in relation to something to the Stoic Categories.[citation needed]

Physics

Aristo also rejected Physics saying that it was beyond us.[3] This is reflected in his views concerning God:

Aristo holds that no form of God is conceivable, and denies him sensation, and is in a state of complete uncertainty as to whether he is, or is not, animate.[10]

This was in marked opposition to Zeno to whom "the universe was animate and possessed of reason."[11] He did, however, agree with Zeno that Nature was comprehensible, arguing against the Academics. He once asked an Academic "Do you not even see the man who is sitting next to you?", and when the Academic replied, "I do not," Aristo said: "Who then has blinded you; who has robbed you of your eyes?"[12]

Ethics

For Aristo, Ethics was the only true branch of philosophy, but he also limited this category, removing its practical side: advice concerning individual actions was largely useless:

He holds that it does not sink into the mind, having in it nothing but old wives' precepts, and that the greatest benefit is derived from the actual dogmas of philosophy and from the definition of the Supreme Good. When a man has gained a complete understanding of this definition and has thoroughly learned it, he can frame for himself a precept directing what is to be done in a given case.[13]

For Aristo, only the sage makes flawless decisions and does not need advice, for everybody else with clouded minds, advice is ineffective:

For precepts will be of no avail while the mind is clouded with error; only when the cloud is dispersed will it be clear what one's duty is in each case. Otherwise, you will merely be showing the sick man what he ought to do if he were well, instead of making him well.[14]

The purpose of life was to seek the Supreme Good, and here Aristo set up a challenge to Zeno. While agreeing with Zeno that Virtue was the supreme good, he totally rejected the idea that external advantages (health, wealth, etc.), although morally "indifferent", could be ranked in terms of whether they are naturally preferred or not:

Aristo of Chios denied that health and everything similar to it is a preferred indifferent. For to call it a preferred indifferent is equivalent to judging it a good, and different practically in name alone. For without exception things indifferent

...