Aristotle's Insight: How Science Fails to Grasp the Essence of Politics 

Very well said!

Yes indeed! It was on Plato's Dialogues. In any case, than your for your great words. I really don't know why so few follow our channel either hahaha ;-)

A book that you might want to read is "The Spartan Regime" by Paul A. Rahe (a.co/d/9HchDMT). There, you will read about the institution of Sparta, the character of its people, and how it was viewed by other Greeks (which is not always what we think it is). There are also mentions of Tyrtaeus as well, and we have an episode dedicated to him.

But have we really learned ? :-)

Από τα καλύτερα σχόλια που έχουμε πάρει τον τελευταίο καιρό! Ευχαριστώ παρά πολύ και … spread the word που λένε :-)

Ευχαριστώ, ότι μπορείς να κάνεις για να μας βοηθήσεις προς αυτό, σ' ευχαριστούμε εκ των προτέρων.

@@AncientGreeceRevisited Μακαρι να μπορουσα να βοηθησω φιλε το αξιζεις πραγματικα! Τα video podcasts που κανεις ειναι μια καλη ιδεα ισως καμια αλλη συνεργασια με τον archaeostoryteller η τον mythologist. Η και με αλλα καναλια του εξωτερικου.

It’s my favorite! And yes, it has its history :-)

It’s not reduction, as you correctly say, but the belief that “the smaller explains the higher” that is at fault. Look at how human desires are explained today I’m contract to the ancient world. Modern economics, fashioned after the scientific method (a statement that does NOT imply that economics are an exact science) acknowledges only what Plato called “epithymetic” desires: food, shelter, and sex. “Thymos” on the other hand, often translated as “spiritedness” to emphasize its connection with the “spirit” rather than body, nurtures “higher” desires, like the desire for everlasting honor (the Homeric “kleos”) along with the great words and deeds that bring it about. Notice how today, most people are willing to accept that this “thymetic” part is but an “outgrowth” of the epithymetic, ie. that our desire for honor is but a covert desire for sex, since the most prominent members of a human (as in fact a chimpanzee) society, get more mates! It’s a constant explaining of the higher from the lower, There are, of course, exceptions. You can read a book called “The Soul’s Code” by James Hillman for an alternative view!

😂💪

Thank you very much! Hope you enjoy our other videos as well!

@@AncientGreeceRevisited yes, i will explore your past catalogue. Thanks.

Καλησπέρα, έχουμε 2 βίντεο για τον Επίκουρο, από τα πρώτα επεισόδια που κάναμε.

@@AncientGreeceRevisited Χάριν σοι ἔχω

Modern science has itself an ontology, one first described by Descartes. In his view, all that “really” exists is matter (res extensa), while forms are “in your own mind” (res cogita). The City, Aristotle tells us, is a Form, and that is why it’s so hard for “political science” to understand it today.

@@AncientGreeceRevisited I read my yesterday's comment and saw that it is not clear enough. I am a natural scientist with degrees. After mainly modeling, I turned to philosophy a few years ago. I know that on some level of abstraction the philosophy in all natural sciences is the same. I may see that this is not the case in social (political) sciences. I see misuse of word science in the media and internet. lt will be useful to discuss and fix situation. However, the language for communication between scientists and the public doesn't exist. There are few objective conditions for this. One is that the level of modern philosophy does not follow the development of mathematics, physics, natural sciences, art, music, theater and so on. There was a point in the nineteen century when philosophy lost its part named natural philosophy which began to be a science.

@@borisshmagin8925 Excellent response! I commend you on the switch to philosophy, it's a case that I have been encountering more and more since we've started this channel. Actually, Socrates might have been one such individual: as he explains in the Phaedo, he started off as a "natural philosopher" in the tradition of Thales and the pre-Socratic. His switch has been since name "Socrate's Second Sailing" Now, as for your last comment, I wouldn't know exactly, but I sense you are correct. It's really sad. The philosopher Allan Watts (although he did not like this term) said something beautiful about just that. A philosopher-doctor, he said, and he might have said philosopher-scientist, is not someone who's added two areas of knowledge together. Philosophy works in a different dimension, so that when you add it to science, you see things in 3D! Thank you for your comment.

@@AncientGreeceRevisited Thank you for the kind words. About 3D knowledge talks Wolfgang Smith and he has very interesting other concepts.

I couldn’t stop thinking about the post. Missing point in my comments is the title. Title has to be the shortest form for the message inside the post. There is more than one message. One is on the front picture “Politics Against Science” and under the picture “Aristotle's Insight: How Science Fails to Grasp the Essence of Politics”. There is an expression in the transcript at 1:53 "... the surrender of politics to science ...". Is this also a message too? I watched the show again. It is a well made essay with an attempt to look and describe “what is going around” and then approach the message from a few directions. The description of directions is good, however, I don’t think the message is in the text. From ancient times philosophy crowns the culture of humans, being the most abstract and formal knowledge. It was this way after “the natural philosophy” became “the science”. The scientists wrote books on topics from philosophy (look for example at “Where is Science Going?” by Max Planck. Translated and edited by James Murphy. Pp. 234. (London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1933. The book includes “Prologue by Albert Einstein” and “Epilogue: A Socratic Dialogue. Planck - Einstein - Murphy). Philosophers had discussions with physics (look for example at works of Henry Bergson). We don’t see these kinds of discussions anymore. There is an explanation - the appearance of “the Third Culture” (look for example at “Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution” by John Brockman, 1996. Touchstone Books. 416 P.). For Philosophy to become “the crown of human knowledge” again the concepts of modern science, including mathematics and computer sciences have to be philosophically shaped and included. The change in Philosophy will be made mainly by scientists working as philosophers on their own concepts. This will bring Philosophy to a higher level of education in every major. Then the public including the politicians may be educated. Science is a call not an earning of living, there is no way to teach science - only learn it. I’ll say the message: Philosophy has to rise itself to become “the crown of human knowledge” again.

There is no connection,Islam preached orthodoxy and dogmatism and green thought created free minds and open inquiry

@@legatron7299 Many greek books were translated in arabic and studied in islamic world

@legatron You should look into reading some works by Ibn Sina.

@@ibrahimyusuf6811 I don’t deny the greatness of many philosophers and inventors and mathematicians of the Muslim world from the 9th century up until the the Mongols obliterated you and the Spaniards retook their lands from you.But the issue remains,Islam is considered the final word of God,you have ludicrous oppressive measures for apostasy,homosexuality,sex relations etc.You have a book which you consider the Word of god and anything contrary to that is blasphemy.The Greeks NEVER had this,they had NO dogma and no religion that juxtaposed them with others.And for that you are intolerant,dogmatic and fanatic in your approach to life,I am sorry to say

​@@legatron7299 Muslim scholars re-introduced Greek science, art and philosophy into Europe after the Church had basically erased all that crucial tradition. If you judge Islam by some of its most shallow and literal interpretations that are sadly popular today, you may come to your conclusions, but if you study the history of Islamic science and philosophy, you will discover a totally different scenario. Peace!

All societies are ruled by an elite. Ours more than any other ;-)