Aristotle’s Great Souled Man

Aristotle’s Great Souled Man

I make notes here on Aristotle’s description of the Great Souled Man.

All of the sources for this post come from Roger Crisp and his article “Aristotle on Greatness of Soul,” which can be found here.  Source text is in blue italics.  

 (1) Risk and danger  (IV.3.1124b6–9):

The great-souled person, because he does not value anything highly, does not enjoy danger. He will avoid trivial dangers, but will face great ones, and, again because of his attitude to goods, will be unsparing even of his own life.

The Magnanimous Man faces great dangers.  Trivial dangers are below him.  He even faces deadly dangers.

 (2) Giving and receiving benefits  (IV.3.1124b9–18):

The great-souled person is inclined to help others readily, but he is ashamed to be a beneficiary, since it is a sign of inferiority. If he is benefited, he will repay with interest, to ensure that his benefactor becomes a beneficiary. He will remember with pleasure benefits he has conferred, but will forget those he has received and feel pain on being reminded of them.

The Magnanimous Man tends to be prepared to help others.  Getting help shames him, since this signals inferiority in reference to the benefactor, so he will repay the debt with interest.  Memories of giving bring him pleasure, but he will forget received gifts because the memory will bring him pain.

 (3) Attitude to others  (IV.3.1124b18–23):

The great-souled person will be proud [megas] in his behavior toward people of distinction, but unassuming toward others. For superiority over the former is difficult and impressive, while over the latter it is easy and vulgar.

He carries himself with pride and honor among honorable men, but becomes unassuming when among common people.  Effort is required to carry himself among the honorable - a worthy task, but impressing the common people is easy, and thus, not a worthy task.

 (4) Level of activity  (IV.3.1124b23–6):

The great-souled person avoids things usually honored, and activities in which others excel. He is slow to act except where there is great honor at stake, and he is inclined to perform only a few actions, though great and renowned ones.

He preserves his effort for only those things involving great honor.  He avoids the usual honor of things thought of as excellent.  

 (5) Openness  (IV.3.1124b26–31):

Because the great-souled person cares little for what people think, he is open in his likes and dislikes. And because he is inclined to look down on people, he speaks and acts openly, except when using irony for the masses.

He speaks his mind about likes and dislikes among the honorable people, since he cares little for what others think.  He will tend to look down on others.  When speaking to the common man, he will speak with irony.

 (6) Independence and self-sufficiency  (IV.3.1124b31–1125a16):

The great-souled person will not depend on another, unless he is a friend, because to do so would be servile. Because nothing matters to him, he is not inclined toward admiration, resentment, gossip, praise of others, or complaining. His possessions are noble rather than useful, because this is consistent with self-sufficiency. Again because nothing matters to him, he will not be rushed: His movements are slow, his voice is deep, and his speech is measured.

He does not depend on others, which would make him a servant.  He only depends on friends.  He does not much admire or complain.  The things he has are symbolic, and not necessarily useful.  He is not in a hurry.  He moves slowly.  He has a deep voice, and he speaks with efficiency.

///

Commentary

This description seems like a fragment.  I am not sure how many ancient texts survived these two millennia, but this feels like a sketch or a draft.  Aristotle, in his greatness, must have written much more on this subject.  Some believe that we have only one-third of his original works.  

Depth of feeling is not one of the traits.  Today, after the Romantic Era from 1820 to 1900, we have a tradition of honoring deep feeling.  Perhaps the ancients thought that this was self-indulgent.

Spirituality is not apparent here.  A man of rituals, with meditation and contemplation, seems not to be one of this type.  Can a great priest be a Great Souled man?  It is perhaps not conceivable with this description.  

Figures that come to mind with this description are Frederick the Great, Napoleon, George Washington, Wellington, Arnold Schwarzenegger (no joke, I read his biography several times), George Patton, Louis XIV, among others.  Jacques Barzun may also be a candidate.

These people tend not to be likable, except to their friends, with the exception of Schwarzenegger, which may turn many off, although he is definitely a Great Man, with no exaggeration on my part.

So, is Aristotle describing a great general?  A soldier?  He is definitely not describing a priest.  For every society, the two leaders that emerge are Priest and Warrior.  This description fits more closely to the warrior type.  

///

Freddy Martini

Notes on The French Attack

The Symbolism

Again, whomever did this made the dates symbolic.  World War I ended on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month: November 11, 1918.  The attacks took place just after Veterans Day - two days after, on Friday the 13th, of all dates!  We Americans shun this type of thing, but he rest of the world is plugged into insinuation and symbols more than we would like to admit.

This will be construed as a taunt, to those who know their history, also.  What was World War I for France?  It was the worst thing to happen to France because most of French men were exterminated during this war, and left them very weak for decades to come - they could not even put up a good fight in World War II because of the mass devastation of World War I twenty years earlier.

So, the leaders of this attack are apparently taunting France into another blood bath to exterminate another generation of Frenchmen.

Multicultural Complications

A strange little fact many people do not know about is that just about every famous and effective Islamic terrorist has roots, and usually spent a lot of time, in France.  Islamic Terrorism is the action of Westernized Muslims out of France.  Thomas Sowell performed tons of research on this subject in his trilogy on Conquests, Race, and Culture.

In the United States, the great multicultural group is mainly hispanics: Spanish, Indian, and Mestizo Catholics, mostly.  The United States was founded as a Protestant nation, and the Catholic Church is very strong here, so, the multicultural question in the United States is not as much of an open warfare question as much as it is in Europe.  In the US, it is mostly a case of everyone trying to get along.

In Europe, with its Catholic and Protestant cultural roots, cannot exactly assimilate a people who cannot conceive a separation between church and state, and a different religion at that.

In the United States, hispanic Catholics can become assimilated within one generation.  In France, we are told, muslims even to the third generation have not yet assimilated in to French culture.  

ISIS

As far as we can tell, this is not a terrorist organization, this is a State.  They have conquered land, and are establishing control over a territory.  These are not frustrated men blowing stuff up, but warriors and kings establishing real power on earth.

France is a secular nation, and will probably have to go to war - in some form  - against this ISIS State.  The only problem is the Faith of the French.  In any war or battle, it is not the men with the biggest guns that win in the long term, but those who have the most Certainty in their Cause.  The Cause does not matter.  It only matters what the nation believes.  Whomever is more Certain will win the war.

The United States was driven out of Iraq after we stayed there for over a decade and overthrew the government and executed their King.  Our enemies had more Certainty and Faith than we did, and we were defeated.  The same thing will happen to France unless they have something we Americans do not have: Absolute Certainty in the Cause - more so than your enemy.

The history of France suggests that they are up for very bloody fights to the death.  The question is do they believe in themselves more than ISIS (or whomever in the hell actually blew up Paris yesterday).

American Military Anecdotes

Anecdotal evidence suggests that in the last five years, the American military has gone through a transformation of morale to the point where we can no longer fight any serious wars.  We could not defeat the forces within Iraq even after trillions were spent.  So, in some estimates, it is doubtful that the US would have the will for a supporting bloody war in support of France - which we are militarily obligated to do as a member of NATO.

Final Thoughts

We are all instinctively in support of France at this moment.  We want to wield the sword and defend the Land of Louis XIV and Napoleon.  But, after time goes by, we will lose our Certainty as we did after the War or Terror, and lose Faith in the Cause.  I hope I am wrong.

We spent trillions thus far, and the heart of the West - Paris - was attacked openly and brazenly.  So, what did we accomplish with the War on Terror beginning in 2001?  Almost nothing.  Paris is the West, and the West is Paris.  When Paris falls, the West falls, and we no longer exist.

Is this the End of the West as we know it?

Let us pray that the French have something we do not have, and are absolutely Certain about it.