If you have not read and internalized the Nicomachean Ethics...

If you have not read and internalized the Nicomachean Ethics, you cannot call yourself a preserver of Western civilization.

That is all.

I did.

...

In the simplest parlance, a value is a latent, ever-present desire, to be distinguished from the fleeting, momentary, or incidental desires. When anyone harbors, in their character an enduring desire for something, that is a value, as the term is understood in the social sciences. The object of this desire is then said to 'have value'. So when _everyone_ ought to hold such a desire for something, that desire produces a normative value, a value that everyone _ought_ to have. Many prominent experts agree with me and argue for the reduction of values to desires. (See Peter Railton and Gerald Gaus)

On close analysis, I believe there is only one core value: in agreement with many great philosophers in history (Aristotle, Richard Taylor, Stoicism, Epicureanism, etc.), I find this to be the desire for happiness. I believe that all other values are derived from this, in conjunction with other facts of the universe, and that all normative values are what they are because they must be held and acted upon in order for any human being to have the best chance of achieving a genuine, enduring happiness. When we say “you ought to value X” we mean that, if you do, you will improve your chances of enduring happiness, and if you do not, you will decrease those chances.

By happiness I do not mean mere momentary pleasure or joy, but an abiding contentment, a persistent, underlying sense of reverie that makes life itself worth living, in the absence of which life becomes shallow, unsatisfying, and ultimately meaningless. As David Myers puts it, real happiness means “fulfillment, well-being, and enduring personal joy”. This happiness is rarely possible, and certainly impeded, amidst loneliness, fear, purposelessness, destruction, misery, insanity, or chronic anxiety or stress, among other things. In contrast, happiness is found, secured, and improved amidst love, good friendships, security, purposefulness, creation, joy sanity, and peace.

Thanks for the (you)

Former Thomist here. Nietzchean ethics are better. The primary flaw in Aristolean ethics is the idea of teleology.

>teleology
>flaw
Teleology and natural law are the ultimate truth. Degenerates just don't want to accept it.

Aristotle's teleology as it applies to humans means that you are supposed to develop your judgment to its full fruition because your judgment is what distinguishes you from other animals.

Also Thomism is somewhat a corruption of Aristotle. I mean it gets most of it right and it's fucking awesome that the church adopted it and taught it to millions of impressionable children, but his original ethics are superior if you're not down with Christcuckery.

I've heard Catholic lecturers stumble on Aristotle when he talks about having "sufficient self-regard" when you are supposed to be a humble bitch of god.

No, teleology is a ridiculous concept because

1. There is no such thing as "essence". There is not a fundamental core to all objects that declares it what it is. The Platonic Realm of Forms does not exist, all "ideas/essences" are merely abstractions and language-conventions.

2. Being there is no essence, there is also no telos. There is no fundamental aim for all contingent things.

3. The concept of a telos doesn't even make sense. Due to the IS-OUGHT problem, it is impossible to derive an imperative from a state of affairs. Saying "A shovel is shaped like this, therefore it SHOULD dig" does not necessarily follow.

In short, like all other moral systems, Aristotle is just defining his ideas into reality, not reflecting some universal truth.

No reason to preserve it

Those lecturers are retarded, the Scriptures don't teach that you're supposed to be a bitch. Moses and the prophets routinely got into full on arguments with God.

Jacob literally kicked God's ass, and was REWARDED for it.

>acorn develops into an oak tree unless it's diseased
>male embryo develops into a capable man unless he is diseased
Where's your argument? What's the beef?

>man dies

Man is meant to die, so go kill yourself

I used to think exactly like you. Exactly like you. Then I hit a wall in my thinking on Aristotle. And that wall was the sudden realization that my entire ethical system rested on an axiom.

And that axiom was

"Things have fundamental essences, and eudaimonia is universally desirable"

And yet despite my best efforts, I could not actually prove that axiom. Eventually, I realized why I couldn't. Because its an axiom.

Essences do not exist. They just don't. All this phenomena surrounding us is not neatly divided into little boxes all carrying out a teleological will. We call things by names, and box phenomena with abstractions. Its all convention.

And the idea of eudaimonia as the highest good, as a necessary psychological feature. In short, that men are all SECRETLY aiming for it with their actions, but through reason the wise are better at it, is ridiculous.

I'm tired of thinking up convoluted reasons why a soldier jumping on a grenade or a volunteer working tirelessly in the mud for the poor is secretly seeking happiness, even a deep happiness. The reality is that they seek something other than wellbeing and flourishing life. They are creating meaning. They are forming goals for themselves.

>preserver of western civilization
Sounds gay

>So when _everyone_ ought to hold such a desire for something, that desire produces a normative value, a value that everyone _ought_ to have.
pish

Diogenes ftw

I am Greek and I read only eucledean geometry. Redpill me on my ancestors please.

Besides the Bible, it is one of the most amazing ethical works ever written. Virtue ethics and his description of the human mind and soul is brilliant.

Answer this OP.

>I could not prove that axiom
>Essences do not exist
>They just don't
Who would respond to this shit?

>Essences do not exist. They just don't.
Given how much of your function is incontrovertibly dictated by your nature, is it such a reach to conclude the remainder is as well?

You didn't choose to have a heart, lungs, brain, cells, etc. and you don't consciously manufacture the "meaning" required to animate them all and keep them pumping.

What if all the deviation from eudaimonia, having good judgment and seeking for healthful outcomes, is just sickness of the mind, like cirrhosis is sickness of the liver? So much does have a demonstrable essence that wishes to unfold.

Also obeying Aristotle's ethics don't preclude soldiers jumping on grenades or volunteers working in the mud--quite the contrary, he gives plausible causes for that behavior, both morbid and healthy. All those things can be done as long as they are done with good judgment, in the proper situation, and for the right reasons--and all those things are ultimately up to you, and you can evolve your understanding of when it is appropriate to do them by acquiring more wisdom and experience.

Also, as an aside, I would say Aristotle is light years ahead of other philosophers and pretty much a genius for focusing on "habit" instead of "free will." Our habits create 99% of our experience, not some Sartrean whims where we prove our freeness. Good habits are the girders that create good lives and only Aristotle, as far as I've seen, makes that point clearly. If you found good habits within yourself, you're on autopilot to success.