Dozer:
But it makes him part of European tradition. What I was getting at was that if you want to sort Aristoteles into any line of tradition, one cannot proclaim him a "world philosopher", but necessarily needs to show links between his Greek/Macedonian origin and the region we now call Europe that began to take shape in the days of the Roman empire.
One need not proclaim Aristotle European. In fact, if you did historians of philosophy would be puzzled. Aside from the lingo, Aristotle is not, was not, and can never European. I am not Pequot because I live in land that used to be Pequot land, any more than I am a member of the United Federation of Planets that may come into existence. Aristotle is rightly labeled by philosophical historians as an Ancient Greek philosopher.
The fact that Islam philosophers and libraries have been the ones to keep Aristoteles' works over the centuries and made them available for Europes new thinkers does not sever the lines of tradition between Aristoteles and what we now call Europe.
It is not merely that they "kept" the books for us Europeans. Aristotlean thought had a deep and abiding impact on Islamic thought and ethics. They were not merely caretakers--Aristotle actively influenced them and they influenced us. To say he is "merely" a European thinker is incorrect.
If, for example, Aristoteles had been Indian or Japanese, I believe we now would not hold his works in such a high esteem, because we would know less about it and probably not talk about it. It might even never have reached the culture that both modern Europe and the USA have come from. I know this kind of projection is fruitless, but I want to get the point across that not even the greatest philosopher is independent of his surroundings and the "scientific community" that is existing or taking shape around him - very much like today, I might add.
First, as you said, this speculation is fruitless. There is just no way to know. But what we CAN and DO know is his influence now. Aristotle's influence, in my opinion, is broader and deeper than anyone else in human history. Our conception of knowledge is shaped largely by Aristotle's conception of academic disciplines. To say that this broad of an influence is SOLELY the result of colonialism is not only impossible to prove, but it is really reductionistic. I know that system history and political correctness poo-poo these sorts of thoughts, but Aristotle has been uniquely important to human knowledge. The cycle of what is in vogue academically may change, and political correctness will undoubtedly be corrected for, but whatever the temperment Aristotle's contributions and the contributions of the other Five Guys have been appreciated for quite some time.
Second, no one is independent of their surroundings, but this is to a certain point a tautology or background noise. It is ALWAYS true of everyone, no matter what they did. If this is something that is always true it has to cancel things out to a certain degree. If all historical figures operated under this same contextuality and Aristotle STILL stands out, something special must have been present. The idea that our time or his time makes us uniquely and somehow unfairly or overly receptive to his type of contribution might be true, but Aristotle's contributions have been making impacts for centuries in radically different epochs. At some point you have to give up this contextuality, colonialism, oppression argument and say he has made a lasting contribution that is as ahistorical as possible.
Puck the Cat:
When I made my original post stating that it was "Eurocentric" to list the five you did as the only great philosophical geniuses (which, it turned out, wasn't what you said, but was what I was responding to) I didn't mean that all the people you listed were from Europe, but that the people you listed were all ones that reflected a preoccupation (on your part) with the Western/European mode of thought.
The guys on the list were not just philosophical geniuses and some of them had nothing to do with philosophy at all, like Mozart.
Basically, I would say that Aristotle wasn't European in the sense that Marx wasn't a Marxist. Marx would probably never have identified himself as a Marxist but after he died a large group of people influenced by his writing became identified that way. Aristotle might never have said he was European, but the group that was most influenced by his thought has just that label.
First, Marx was quite the egomaniac. His most famous quote is: "Last words are for people who have not said enough." I think he MIGHT have considered himself a Marxist. Furthermore, this influence = identity argument is total garbage. Is Jesus a European? He is arguably as influential on European culture. Does that make Locke an American? Does that make Muhammad an Indonesian? I think, looking at those anaologies, we see how craptacular that argument is. Aristotle influenced European culture but that does not make him European.
