In today’s world, where cancel culture frequently holds figures accountable for their controversial views, we might ask: Should Aristotle, one of the most influential thinkers in history, be canceled for his outdated and problematic beliefs?

Some might view him as an effigy of knowledge, while others might view him as an ethical calamity. Aristotle was a scientist, a politician, a mathematician, an economist, and on top of all, a revolutionary ahead of his time in many aspects of life. He took the sword of curiosity and indulged his opinions and thoughts in the most creative ways. Paired with that sword, he intertwined the most complicated subjects into our everyday thoughts. But that sword might have been double-edged. Achievements after achievements. Controversy after controversy. It takes great courage and faith to speak your mind, no matter who’s waiting to judge you for it. That is a sword that you shall not simply yield but carry throughout your entire odyssey.

Funnily enough, Aristotle’s ideas aren't just controversial in our modern age, they stirred debate even in his own time. His willingness to challenge established norms sparked both admiration and resistance. Did Aristotle care about being controversial? Probably not. He seemed to thrive on it, enjoying the clash of conflicting ideas and the opportunity to push intellectual boundaries.

Ultimately, Aristotle sought truth, not ideals. While time and science have disproved many of his metaphysical claims, the spirit behind his inquiries remains admirable. Take his famous rejection of Plato’s Theory of Forms: where Plato saw abstract forms as the truest reality, Aristotle argued that form and matter are inseparable. These divergent views continue to fuel philosophical debate, showing that neither Plato nor Aristotle can be definitively “right.” Their contributions endure because they approached reality from profoundly different, yet equally valuable perspectives. While I concede that many of his beliefs are indefensible, his method of inquiry remains a cornerstone of Western philosophy.

Many of Aristotle's beliefs are considered controversial in the modern age. Aristotle’s belief in “natural slavery” is one of his most troubling ideas. He argued that some people, by nature, are destined to be slaves due to their supposed intellectual inferiority — a view that stands in stark contrast to the modern principles of equality and human rights. He also held that women were inherently inferior to men, describing them as incomplete and naturally subservient. Additionally, his ethnocentric views placed Greeks above other cultures, whom he deemed as "barbarians." Many of these ideas clash with the contemporary values of most modern societies, which incorporate gender equality, and cultural inclusivity. This is why these subjects eventually become questions of ongoing debate.

When we engage with Aristotle's work, it’s crucial to determine whether we should accept his ideas as a whole or selectively adopt what remains valuable. Much like separating the "art from the artist," many scholars and thinkers engage with the practical aspects of Aristotle's philosophy, such as his ethics and logic, while critically challenging his outdated views on slavery, gender, and citizenship. By doing so, we honor his positive contributions without endorsing his more problematic ideas. If we engage with historical figures in this way — appreciating the value of their work while rejecting their harmful beliefs — it allows us to attain a more nuanced understanding of their contributions.

Critics might argue that Aristotle’s views on women and slavery are too harmful to be excused, and that continuing to celebrate his work risks legitimizing those outdated beliefs. However, dismissing his entire legacy overlooks the complexity of engaging with historical figures. Instead of erasing thinkers like Aristotle, we should scrutinize their contributions, acknowledging their flaws while learning from their insights. Society was completely different back then, with other knowledge, systems, culture, and laws. It would be unjust for the person, and it would be disrespectful to the societies of the past. It would disregard their noesis (ideas and thoughts), education, history, and contributions. This is obvious, but on the contrary, if you bring a person with our modern way of thinking and mindset to past societies, they would not be accommodated either. They might even be considered controversial or deranged. Again, completely different times, and completely different mindsets.

We should challenge ideas rather than canceling people for their opinions. In a world that values free speech, everyone has the right to express their views, but that also means others maintain the freedom to challenge those views. The beauty of open discourse lies in this exchange: it enables growth, refines our beliefs, and allows flawed ideas to be exposed through reason and debate. Rather than silencing controversial viewpoints, engaging with them critically fosters a more thoughtful, informed society where ideas are tested, debated, and, when necessary, reformed. If we cancel an idea without presenting it fully, tackling it, or challenging it, people will not understand why that specific idea does not work in conjunction with our modern society and mindset. It gives the feeling of withholding knowledge, a trait of dictatorship and not democracy.

The impulse to cancel historical figures like Aristotle overlooks the benefits of critical engagement. Cancel culture often encourages outright dismissal, but grappling with these complex figures through debate helps refine our own values. Engaging Aristotle’s ideas, both good and bad, fosters a more nuanced understanding of the world, allowing us to challenge harmful ideas while preserving the foundational contributions to philosophy and science. Their contributions laid the groundwork for philosophy, logic, and science, and removing them from discourse would weaken our grasp of these fields, undermining future progress. It is through thoughtful engagement can continue building on the intellectual foundations they established. Only a fool would suggest otherwise.