READ FIRST: https://www.colbygray.com/aristotle/2-aristotle

> Fetched: Colby Gray - ARISTOTLE

I've read the page. It's a dialogue exploring the idea of education-as-eudaimonia — the wish that education meant formation toward human flourishing rather than content delivery and credentialing. The argument moves through three stages: first, that the classical and medieval traditions (Aristotle's paideia, Aquinas's definition of education as bringing a person to the state of virtue) already defined education this way; second, that the Jesuit Ratio Studiorum and the later Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm were the most successful institutional attempts to run a school system on that definition, though with a more affective, discernment-centered emphasis than the intellect-first Thomistic approach; and third, that Aristotle uniquely serves as a "commons" because nearly every modern discipline — analytic ethics, biology, psychology, development economics, AI, literary theory, metaphysics — has its own independent entry point into his thought.

The conclusion ties it together: formation-centered education wasn't refuted, it was orphaned when pluralist societies lost a shared account of the human good, and it gets rebuilt not by institutional reform but by small communities practicing it — seminars, study groups, friendships around shared texts.

What would you like to do with this — discuss the argument, push back on part of it, or something else?

> "well, it looks like we are going to have to define friendship."