That's a poor way of framing his beliefs about this. The correct framing is more like “Virtue and being a Good Human Being is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.”

Happiness should stem from being a good human being; happiness itself is not the origin of virtue or purpose.

If personal sacrifice brings genuine well-being to your family or community, that could be a very virtuous and rewarding thing to do, and as such, should make you content and satisfied with your actions and their outcomes. That's how you find eudaemonia; that state of 'happiness' he's describing. While you haven't sought out your immediate personal happiness or gratification, you can still feel good in a morally derivative, intellectual manner (which could also make you genuinely happy or content, too). The bible is big on this theme, as well.

Humans are political animals to Aristotle, and our prosociality and duty to others was crucial to how we measured ourselves and our obligations to society. Personal happiness in a contemporary, conventional sense wasn't very important in that scope. Our ability to be satisfied with, and take gratification from, our service to others was a major part of how you'd derive that contentedness and eudaimonic state of mind.

It seems important to make that distinction, because most people's interpretation of that quote (I don't think it's an actual quote) would be relatively hedonic or epicurean. Everything you do should be in the pursuit of feeling good.

The first section is simple but profound: all beings strive for the good for themselves, so we have a starting point to address the good of each and possibly all even across fundamental differences.

> he has some pretty messed up and weird views

They do, but by insisting on rationalizing any view rather than leaving it as a religious given, he sets the stage for destroying bias. Remember, Aristotle trained Alexander, and Alexander's military was successful because they embraced rather than destroying the people conquered (if they didn't fight back), and they even lost a fair bit of his Greek ways.

What’s an example?

edit: whoa, I didn't realize how racist this guy was. He could be classified as a eugenicist I suppose.

He also believed in spontaneous generation (fair, without technology we have now it would be really confusing to understand where all kinds of things come from).

Seemed to believe infinity was impossible yet also that the heavens are infinite. Maybe he distinguished between the earthly and heavenly planes, but still seemed to think they were similarly constructed from elements.

The list goes on.

Also, he was referring to people performing labour, not people adhering to spiritual belief or ideological systems.

I see what you mean, but I don't think this means what he believed was true. I see it as categorically different. People adhering to beliefs without critical thought vs being forced into labour due to their 'nature' are very different matters.

many people are meant to be slaves is also a fact -- it is not like everyone is gifted cerebrally, or even blessed to be in an environment where, by the time they are adults, have been shown a good formula for life; so consequently a section of the society is destined to be just slaves, it just needs the presence of a manipulator.

Aristotle, being an endless questioning guy he was, might have figured this out, although i'm not sure.

I think you're committing a naturalistic fallacy, and I don't agree at all that people are ever meant to be slaves.

The most I can agree to is that "some humans are born into slavery due to chance". This is factual. That people are meant to be slaves is not a fact. Perhaps we have a language barrier here.

These are unfortunately still all too common beliefs. The latter has mostly been folded into racial essentialism and racial realist beliefs, because slavery is no longer legal (13th amendment loophole notwithstanding) and you can still find people arguing women are intellectually inferior and incapable of rational thought.

The whole anti-DEI movement is based on the premise that non-whites and women categorically don't deserve the same status in the workforce as white men, and the only reason they have "equality" is due to anti-white racism.

In his defense (sorry if defending him offends here), women probably did, at the time, often have fewer teeth due to worse dental care.

An original source for this. I wonder if wisdom teeth affected this count? It’s so odd of a claim

Aristotle has flaws, that's all.

I love his work on happiness. On the academic side of Philosophy, I believe his conception stands alongside what is typically called "Hedonism" as one of the two major schools of thought, obviously with modern takes and twists. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on "Happiness" if you're interested.

"It is characteristic of such knowledge [ethics] that it should be deficient in “exactness,” in precision of statement, and closeness of logical concatenation. We must not look for a mathematics of conduct. The subject-matter of Human Conduct is not governed by necessary and uniform laws. But this does not mean that it is subject to no laws."

"[T]he man of education will seek exactness so far in each subject as the nature of the thing admits, it being plainly much the same absurdity to put up with a mathematician who tries to persuade instead of proving, and to demand strict demonstrative reasoning of a Rhetorician."

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/8438/8438-h/8438-h.htm

On Marcus Aurelius: he's often recommended mindlessly (especially in tech circles). I actually to suggest to read him last. He does have valuable things to say, but he's the most depressive of the Big Three Stoics. You can better appreciate Aurelius if you've already digested some Socratic dialogues and Epictetus. One of the top-most Stoicism scholars (A. A. Long) describes Marcus Aurelius this way: "a melancholy emperor, who was hardly a card-carrying Stoic".

FWIW, here's[1] my recommended reading order and top English translations from five years ago. Cut out the cheap rehashes by people such as Ryan Holiday and stick to the originals. A bonus note[2] on the Roman gem, Cicero, from six years ago.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22990579

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24638573

https://sourcelibrary.org/book/chuang-tzu-mystic-moralist-an...

Technically the words are that of Durant but the core idea is Aristotle.

he's quiet possibly referring to happiness as a relationship (with family, friends, colleagues, citizens etc) rather than just by oneself / isolation / individual. he famously said "man by nature is a political animal" (or social if you prefer)

The classic example that's a bit wrong is a glass of water half empty or half full.

The true optimist doesn't see it as half full, he sees it as full. Half with water, half with air (being grateful for the air as well.)

The neutral person sees it as half full, and the depressive sees it as half empty.

Aristotle never said this. It's Will Durant.

https://medium.com/the-mission/my-favourite-quote-of-all-tim...

https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/s2n3s/source...

This invalidates the post for me, it takes it from academic research to fanboy posting.

Edit:

Between the misattributions, fabricated quotes, listicle format, thin explanatory paragraphs, and use of “delve” (posted Nov 2024 - during ChatGPT’s Delve Era), this is a pretty embarrassing thing for a Liberal Arts college to post.

Philosophy is not about clever observations! They are developing systems and arguments you have to actually read to understand.

What a cool way to convey the benefits of having strong friendships.

Entertaining an idea is understanding it. And, there is some research to show that understanding an idea is believing it. Hence, understanding an idea and not believing it is very effortful.

[1] https://bear.warrington.ufl.edu/brenner/mar7588/Papers/gilbe...

https://archive.org/details/religionpursuito0000lowe/page/n5...

Along the same lines: "Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence." -- Robert Frost

apparently not, actually:

"The earliest that this quotation appears in print is in Religion and the Pursuit of Truth (1959) by Lowell Bennion."

or

"First attributed to Aristotle in Lowell L. Bennion, Religion and the Pursuit of Truth (1959). Unfound as such.

Sometimes thought (though I feel it's a bit of a stretch) a misinterpretation of Nicomachean Ethics 1.3.4 (1094b): "For it is the mark of an educated person to search for the same kind of clarity in each topic to the extent that the nature of the matter accepts it.""

  The aim of the wise is not to secure pleasure, but to avoid pain.

  We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.

  It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

cf. Why people that are often right change their minds often, https://fs.blog/some-advice-from-jeff-bezos/

I agree it’s still interesting that major religions were not founded at the time of the early philosophers — maybe it’s because religion as we conceive of it today depends on a type of bureaucracy that wasn’t achievable in the classical era?