Aristotle’s View on the Necessity and Danger of Money

Aristotle's View on the Necessity and Risk of Money Aristotle is widely regarded as a father of pragmatic economic philosophy. His views on moral economic behavior, housing economy, trade economy and market thinking can be seen in Aristotle's economics, political science, political science, and economics. In these readings, we reveal philosophical thinking about Aristotle's money. We learned that in the ancient Greece he believed that money is dangerous and necessary.

I quote these stories and encourage me to think about the subject of money and value. Perhaps the longest money definition comes from the famous Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC). Aristotle believes that money balances goods and services. In his money definition, Aristotle explains how to incorporate money into society as a means of meeting the requirement that all items must equal each other (for example, an apple is worth two Oranges Case). We think that the apple is worth two dollars, and then Orange follows the value of one dollar and everything else must be equal). According to his theory, the four main functions are as follows.

First of all, please pay attention to Aristotle's solution. There is no doubt that Aristotle does not need everything to happen. He accepts (19a 23 - 5) "What should not be, should not not be, it should not be, it is not so" But he continued "But not everything it should be not. "So what's his solution?" There should be multiple perspectives here. (Aristotle, Classification and Interpretation, 137-42). In one way, he refused to change from truth to necessity. This may indeed be the right move, but in the following Aristotle will actually provide another solution. Dod solution ". According to this view his solution is to deny that relating to what is inevitable is necessary when affirmation or denial is true or wrong is there.

It is noteworthy that Aristotle's qualification is "universal or mostly". Obviously, he says that in some cases the conclusion is universal, inevitable, and in other cases I would like to say so. , It only lasts in most cases. At first glance, this seems to be inconsistent, as nonessential reasoning is no longer an inference anymore. However, in a discussion of possible premises, it is controversial that the "most cases" formula is qualified to infer itself ("In most cases this is the case and In most cases it follows that. "Status")) or conclusions only ("This is inevitable for most cases, it will necessarily happen in most cases"). If the previous explanation is correct, Aristotle admits that some rhythms are not deductive in the definition of this rhythm. But if the latter explains (there is concurrent An.Post).