 All right, let's do Aristotle. So as you know, Aristotle is Greek philosopher, probably the greatest philosopher ever in all of human history. And there is, I think today, today is the 21st, July 21st, 2020, in the Wall Street, in the New York Times, there is an op-ed by a philosophy professor, Mrs., Miss, no, Agnes Calotte, Agnes Calotte. She's a philosophy professor, I'm not sure where. And the title of her piece is Should We Cancel? Aristotle. And she starts out by the piece by saying, look, I mean, clearly, Aristotle was pro-slavery. He believes the slaves were less than human. But even more than that, Aristotle believed that women were less than human. The women should not be, should not have a vote and should not own property, should not be treated equally. He did not believe in any kind of equality before the law, equality of rights. And he believed that people, he was racist and he was sexist. And I don't even know if slave Aristotle meant a race. I doubt it. So I doubt that it was an issue of race. I think it was more an issue of stature, of status. He even believed that workers, people who worked with their hands were not the equal of everybody else, right? Oh, Greg says, Agnes is at the University of Chicago. So, wow, that's a good school. And therefore, she says, you would think that we would wanna cancel Aristotle. She says it's not just Aristotle. She mentions that cons and hum were racist, made racist comments, not that they were racist, made racist comments. And Frege, who I don't know, made anti-Semitic ones. And Wittgenstein was racingly a fund about his sexism. And those are the examples that she gives. And she says, should this be? She says, should this be a basis for canceling them? And her focus is primarily on Aristotle. And, you know, I'm reading this and I'm thinking, well, she's gonna say yes. She's kind of leading us to the idea that we should be canceling Aristotle. And whoa, this is gonna be, this is gonna be horrific, right? But she doesn't, you know, to her credit, she doesn't. And so she says, actually no, I don't think they should be canceled. And in particular, she says, I don't think Aristotle should be canceled. I think Aristotle has real value. There's some really interesting things about value. Now, I'm not an Aristotle scholar and I'm not gonna comment on Aristotle, but it seems to me from the piece that she way underestimates how valuable Aristotle is. I mean, the scope of logic and the father of science and his ethics are far more meaningful and deep and interesting and important than the credit she gives them. She kind of brushes it off in a certain respect. She says, you know, we could use some of the Aristotelian ethics in terms of excellence is veneration of excellence. But she says, no, we shouldn't. And actually, we should teach Aristotle and teach his others, not because necessarily, somewhat because they have some positive values. But more importantly, she says, we shouldn't judge them. And this is, you know, I'm interpreting what she's saying because at some point, and I have to admit, at some point in my view, she turns to philosopher speak, which makes it difficult for me to follow. So we might have to have Greg on to explain exactly what she's saying. But my sense is she's arguing for tolerance. And she doesn't really argue very well for tolerance, but she argues for tolerance on the one hand. And the other hand, she argues for taking context into account, which I think is a good argument. She says, in a sense, she's saying, again, she doesn't say it clearly. So I'm not sure this is her argument. But in a sense, she's saying, you've got to take the context of their life. You've got to take the context of the time for which they're coming. She describes aliens coming to Earth. And she says, if aliens showed up and said, we believe blacks are inferior to whites, then I would disagree with them, but I wouldn't cancel them in a sense. I would listen to them. I would, because they come from a different context. They come from something else. They don't know what we've lived. They don't have an experience. I want to know what they have to say, and I debate it. And she says, reading Aristotle today in the context in which we live today is almost like he's an alien. He's coming from a completely different world, completely different context, and we should debate it. We should argue it. We should listen. Now, there's a certain sense in which she's right. In a certain sense is which she's not, right? Listening to other ideas that you disagree with, particularly ideas that come from a different part of history, or from a different universe, like an alien's, not a different universe, a different planet system, like aliens. But at some point, once the context has been established, I think it's important that some ideas be dismissed. Some ideas, I hate using the left's terminology, so I'm not gonna say should be canceled, but some ideas should not be tolerated. Evil generally should not be tolerated. I am not tolerant of racists. I'm not tolerant of communists. I'm not tolerant of Nazis. I don't wanna be in the same room with them. I will not get on a stage with them. If I meet one, I will get angry. I'm not tolerant of them. There's a certain, I think, in any respectable society, respectable culture, and this is the argument I tried to make the other day about cancer culture. There's a certain sense in which canceling people is right. By the way, James, thank you. That is incredibly generous, I really appreciate it. That canceling is right. It's the right thing to do. There's certain words that are not acceptable anymore. You don't say the n-word. And I think that's fine, given the history. I mean, I think it's fine not to say it. And if you say it, you better know what you're saying and there better be a context, right? But certainly the ideas, certain ideas like racism should not be tolerated. Now, I agree completely. Aristotle needs to be taken within the context. It needs to be studied within the context of the history and of human knowledge at the time. And those ideas need to be dismissed as well. And then you go on to study other ideas that are right in Aristotle's case, right? And because there's value there, because they're good ideas, because they're right ideas, you should be studied. But imagine if Aristotle was just the racist. Imagine there's another thinker, and I don't know if one, there is just horrible. Everything they say is evil and wrong. Then no, there's no point in studying them unless within a context of some historical speciality. So it's, there is such a thing as intolerant, as not tolerating certain ideas, not tolerating certain people. And certain ideas, particularly in the world we live in today, mean immorality. They represent immorality, certain ideas, like if you're a communist, you're an evil bastard. You're a bad person. Because there's no way you can ignore the evidence. There's no way you can ignore the evidence of what the communist did. And the same thing about a Nazi. If you're a Nazi today, you're an evil person. It's the ideas reflect on your own morality, accepting certain ideas. Is constitutes an immorality? Because it constitutes evasion. Now again, you can say, okay, he's 16 years old, he hasn't studied anything, he doesn't know anything. Fine, at a certain young age, you can give people a pass. But at some point, no more. I think I've told the story of the communist. I've told the story at least once. I'm sitting at a, I'm sitting in the studio in the green room of the John Stossel show at Fox a few years ago. And, you know, I'm surrounded by a bunch of, you know, libertarian intellectuals, typically. The kind of people who show up on John Stossel. Somebody says, I sound like a self-righteous Marxist. I'm self-righteous. I don't see nuance, complexity, or context in racism, Nazism, or communism. I mean, I see some nuance in religion, but certainly not in racism, communism, Nazism. There's no nuance. You're evil if you hold those ideas. And I'm self-righteous, I'm a self-righteous objectivist. I do not tolerate evil. So I'm sitting there surrounded by kind of the usual people who would be at a John Stossel show. And a guy walks in and somebody says, oh, he's a communist. And everybody's like chatting with him, how's it going, how you doing? You know, everybody's treating him nicely and as if they're all pals. And it turns out, I think I was debating him on the Stossel show without even knowing it, but I came right after him. I can't even remember. But anyway, everybody's treating him like he's a normal guy. And I'm like, really, he's a communist? And I said, yeah, yeah, he comes from a long line of Jewish kind of leftists, New York left communists. And he's a communist. Considered as a self-communist. And I just got so angry. And I just started laying into this guy, you know, and everybody else, nobody would take him on. Everybody was like polite and nice and friendly and everything. And I was like, you're not friendly with a communist. You can't do that. You can't just shake a communist hand and pretend everything's fine. He holds an anti-life genocidal ideology. And I said to the guys, if a Nazi, if somebody walked in and said, I'm a Nazi, would you treat him like a normal human being? And they all said, well, of course not. And why do you treat communists like normal human beings? They're not. So, yeah, so we ended up, I ended up yelling, getting angry at the guy and condemning him and blaming him for hundreds of millions, for a hundred million deaths. And he was defending himself. And the people came out literally from the ward, from the makeup room, everybody. And they literally put chairs around me going after this guy in the stausel thing. And then I think we, I can't sure if we landed up on camera together separately, I can't remember. But I have no patience for that. And yes, I'm intolerant. And I'm, what did he call me? He called me something Marxist. Anyway, so I'm self-righteous. I don't know why self-righteous Marxist. And then he says, I sound like I'm religious. Well, am I religious or am I Marxist? Decide. You wanna have me being, I'm just self-righteous. It doesn't have to be religious and it doesn't have to be Marxist, actually, believe in that there is a truth out there. There's right or wrong, there's good and evil. And one has to take a stand. And if you don't take a stand on the side of good, then you're taking a stand by default on the side of evil. So, you know, you're either gonna fight or by default you're helping the bad guy's win. What we need today, what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes, that should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But at least the people who are liking it, you know, I wanna see a thumbs up, there you go. Start liking it, I wanna see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at youronbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or Subscribestar or locals. And show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one, all of those, please. Not sure when the next.