From Athens to Turtle Island: Indigenous Thought and Neo-Aristotelianism

• In Event: Poster Session: Foundations of Political Theory

Abstract

The work of Indigenous thinkers to offer alternatives to colonial modernity makes one thing clear: even as resistance remains a key priority, Indigenous ideas cannot be reduced to any immanent critique of colonialism. As Dene scholar Glen Coulthard affirms (by quoting another), Indigenous thinking is committed to “recapturing the essence of precolonial Indigenous culture,” a conviction based on “a spirituality that exists outside of historical time.” Yet so much of the contemporary Western philosophy concerned with (and compared to) Indigenous thinking, from various strains of critical theory to post-structuralism, is skeptical that we can say anything about that which transcends historical time, or is concerned with a sort of multicultural “fusion of horizons.” This leaves us with a question: are there any fundamental similarities between contemporary Indigenous thought and Western philosophy? In this paper, I suggest that there are. I argue that there are deep similarities between Indigenous thought and neo-Aristotelian philosophy in the realms of metaphysics, ethics, and politics.

Beginning with metaphysics, I suggest that both Indigenous and neo-Aristotelian thinkers share a common approach to understanding the foundations of reality. Both hold that nature is fundamentally purposive, that beings have immaterial essences, spirits, or souls, and that the human mind has the capacity to understand—at least in part—how the world actually is. In the realm of ethics, I argue that neo-Aristotelian and Indigenous philosophy contend that there is a natural basis to morality. This is to say that goodness, morality, and normativity, are not principles confined to human affairs but rather persist throughout the world. Ethical action for humans, then, is best held not in abstract, deontological rules, but in the practise of certain values or virtues that are achieved by habituation. Finally, I compare Indigenous and neo-Aristotelian philosophy on their approaches to politics. I begin by suggesting that for both, political legitimacy is not the result of a sovereign “founding” or “beginning” and then instantiated in institutional rules and conventions. Instead, political communities arise out of smaller and more basic natural human groupings. For both, the political realm is not a place unto its own, governed by “political” principles and convention alone. Politics, and political judgement, exists within a broader sphere of ethics and metaphysics. For Indigenous and neo-Aristotelian philosophy, nature can provide certain guidance and limits to political action.

Why is identifying these similarities important? For starters, doing so throws into relief many of the fundamental disagreements between Indigenous thought and the dominating logics of colonialism—especially on the subject of normative nature and genuine political authority. In Canada and the United States, particularly, the starting point for Indigenous thought is a recognition of genuine Indigenous sovereignty over land, sovereignty that exists independent of the authority of the colonial states. In pointing to the ways in which Indigenous political thought depends upon its understanding of the normativity of nature, I show why this standoff over sovereignty is unlikely to be resolved as long as colonial states refuse to engage with Indigenous resistance on these terms. Further, in comparing Indigenous thought to the active field of contemporary Aristotelian philosophy, I indicate new ways that both fields can break out from where they are now. Indigenous concerns, generally speaking, are considered to be solely the purview of those agitating for decolonization, while neo-Aristotelian thinking is largely confined to esoteric debates in certain parts of the academy. In showing their similarities, I show how Indigenous thought is more than a cry against unjust conditions, and how neo-Aristotelian thinking has implications beyond esoteric philosophic debates.

Author

• Samuel Piccolo