system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
How should we frame Aristotle's ethics considering that modern biology is non-teleological?

I recently started reading the Nichomachean Ethics because I want to learn philosophy, and this book is on every syllabus I could find. It is clear after reading Book 1 that it is truly brilliant. But I wonder about its validity in the light of modern evolutionary theory. He seems to believe that human beings were created, and that they were created to use rationality well. It seems to me that because the first premise is faulty (we evolved through Natural Selection), then the second falls apart. Does natural selection imply that rationality is limited by survival instinct? If so, what does that mean for the Nichomachean Ethics?

I would also like to know how existentialist philosophers dealt with this issue. Most specifically I'm interested in Hannah Arrendt's perspective, because I have heard that she was akin to a neo-arostotelian.
gpt
Well, it's infamously unclear whether or in what sense teleology can really be dispensed with in modern biology.

But in any case, the natural course to pursue here would be to argue that the relevant issue of human nature is not a biological matter, in the relevant sense of 'biological'.

> He seems to believe that human beings were created, and that they were created to use rationality well.

I think you may have misunderstood something, since he definitely doesn't think this.

> Does natural selection imply that rationality is limited by survival instinct?

Nope!