Finish the book before posting, niggoi

>supposed to be a good theoros at the festival
>probably never gave a good report of it

>>23610426
>ends up unable to refute him and comes up with the “myth of er” fable to scare him into doing good
>appeal to agnosticism

>I know how much you love fine speeches, Socrates

Would Socrates be some kind of podcast whore if he lived today? How many podcasts would he be subscribed to? Would he start one himself?

>>23610465
It's ironic. Socrates hates oration and prefers dialectical back and forth. This is very clear in the Protagoras, which is molded odd Odysseus descent into Hades. Hell for Socrates is being surrounded by Sophists who want to launch into long speeches.

File: 1721521261539.jpg (116 KB, 1104x1011)

116 KB JPG

>>23610426
The end was the worst part. Seriosly, in the last chapter he fucked up egregiously.
>bad people are le bad because ... uhm they'll suffer in an imaginary afterlife
>no, I can't prove this afterlife so instead you have to read a boring artificial story about heaven and hell I just made up ad hoc after telling you at the beginning of the chapter that fictional stories such as Homer's are always bullshit and fictional story writers are just midwits who can't into philosophy

>>23610418
I don't get how people think Thrasymachus wasn't refuted. He was absolutely destroyed. If tyrants don't know what's good for them, then they can't make justice work to their advantage.

It just seems like a cope to me.

>>23610489
Ok, but that wasn't the argument. He usually gives a myth at the end of the dialogues. Some of them outright contradict each other, so they're probably just for literary style, or for the instruction of stupid readers ("noble lie").

>>23610501
A clever tyrant can still create the illusion of being just while secretly profitmaxxing.

>>23610489
The point has gone badly over your head friend.

Maybe try "Plato's Critique of Impure Reason," that's a pretty good commentary on the Republic.

>>23610501
This, the only case in which Thrasymachus' thesis identifying regime and ruler match his take on injustice as good, tyranny, it's shown in book 9 that the tyrant enjoys things in every case less than the just man.

>zoomers think Thrasymachos was the hero

>>23610418

1. What is Justice?

2. Various Answers Refuted

3. Thasymachus' Argument: Injustice is Preferable to Justice, the Life of the Perfectly Unjust Man Better than that of the Perfectly Just

4. Thasymachus Bows Out, Embarrassed

5. Glaucon and Adeimantus Take Up a Steelman'd Version of Thrasymachus' Argument

6. Socrates Admits the Difficulty of Refuting It - A Firm Definition of Justice is Needed First

7. The City in Speech, the Soul, the Philosopher King

8. City in Speech Compared to Other Regimes

9. Philosopher King (The Perfectly Just Man of Glaucon, Adeimantus, and Thrasymachus' Argument) Compared with the Tyrant (The Unjust Man of their Argument)

10. The Life of the Just Found Far Preferable to that of the Unjust

The "offtopic rant" is exactly on topic. You just didn't follow the argument, which is normal for people reading it the first few times, especially without guidance. The bulk of the book is setting the stage for the core argument that the life of the perfectly just man is better than that of the perfectly unjust man, but people tend to get lost in the forest and forget why they're talking about what they're talking about.

File: 91nxHVG-iwL._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (108 KB, 643x1000)

108 KB JPG

Why do you noggers never read the laws

>>23610878
Been reading this, it's the best book by Plato actually.

Goes into floods too, if you believe in Noah's and Atlantis.

When I read this I got mad once I realized Thrasymachus is meant to be the bad guy

>>23610937
My criticism is that megillus just fucking disapears

>>23610945
I don't pay attention to the names when they're speaking. Those are irrelevant, really, to the discussion at hand. Although it is typically the Athenian stranger talking, I do find that more often than not it doesn't matter who is talking in any dialogue as long as they are exploring and setting up some kind of overall Platonic dialogue-style rhetoric, to explore concepts.

It's not like you're reading a play at all.

>>23610957
But i liked him :(

>lol X word means whatever I want it to mean
sit down and listen to the wise discourse, retard. Or did you take my sentence to mean to kill yourself? who knows.

>>23610600
How long can they maintain the illusion?

>>23610945
Megillus has a less prominent role on account of Kleinias having the project to set up a constitution. So Megillus is really more important only as a Spartan voice in the proceedings.

>>23610957
I don't think this is true. Book 1 of the Laws highlights the differences between speakers especially in discussing the Athenian custom of symposiums, but this plays out in the whole dialogue, where the Athenian very gently critiques Doric practices and brings the two old Doric men, who are not philosophers, around to seeing something like an appropriate role for it.

Similarly, taking the Republic, Thrasymachus and his student Cleitophon are distinguished, and Glaucon and Adeimantus are distinguished throughout, with Glaucon being the interlocutor for the more "philosophical" passages in books 5-7, and Adeimantus being the lead interlocutor when they discuss poetry and the gods. Even more generally, Adeimantus is more interested in the everyday concerns of the inhabitants of the city-in-speech and he tends to appeal more to authoritative opinions, while Glaucon is more interested in the radical proposals and tends to appeal more to nature. Taking two other dialogues, Sophist and Statesman, Theaetetus is very moderate and bashful, while Young Socrates is more courageous and bold. And in those dialogues, the Eleatic Stranger's approach is differentiated from that of Old Socrates (compare Sophist and Statesman with the dialogue Theaetetus, and compare Socrates' practice of maieutics there with the tentative definition of sophistry in the Sophist as consisting of soul-cathartics). Even the sophists are distinguished from each other, where Prodicus is treated with the highest esteem, followed by Protagoras, Thrasymachus, and Gorgias as worthy of serious consideration, followed by Hippias, Euthydemus and his brother Dionysodorus, and Gorgias' student Polus at the bottom. And then there’s the Symposium, where all the main speakers are carefully distinguished in their self-understanding as lovers or beloved, what authorities or laws they appeal to, and how their professional pursuits color their praises of Eros.

>>23611227
Remembering the details of the speakers is inherently not understanding the book. The whole purpose of the book is to explore concepts. That's the function of a Platonic dialogue.

We aren't having this discussion here, you simply do not understand the correct way to approach these works. I will state that your post is verbose and detail intensive but you lost the overall larger picture.

Aristotle's Organon essentially explains how a Platonic Dialogue works. Read that, and then understand what 'Plato' is doing by writing these works.

>>23611255
>>23611227
:3

>>23610489
He offers counterarguments prior to this, including a point about bad people tending to suffer from their negative behavior while still alive

>>23611255
>Remembering the details of the speakers is inherently not understanding the book. The whole purpose of the book is to explore concepts. That's the function of a Platonic dialogue.
This both correct and incorrect. The purpose of the dialogues is to inquire into a range of subject matters, sure, but it does this through concrete particulars. The Laws is differentiated from the Republic, not just by the difference between lawgiving and justice, but in the difference between young politically ambitious Athenian interlocutors like Glaucon and Adeimantus, and old conservative Dorics like Kleinias and Megillus. The Symposium isn't about Eros and the Good and the Beautiful in abstract, but are framed by the Sicilian expedition and Alcibiades' desecration of the Herms and blaspheming of the Mysteries (which the other main speakers except for Aristophanes all were caught up in). The Republic takes place in a household torn apart years later by the Thirty Tyrants (Polemarchus, Cleitophon, and Niceratus are all killed by them, and Glaucon might've joined them; note Adeimantus' presence and Glaucon's absence in the Apology). Meno, *the* dialogue about virtue, is conducted with a vicious man (see what Xenophon writes about Meno in the Anabasis) and Socrates' accuser Anytus. The interpretation of the dialogues requires not just following the explicit arguments, but also the action of the "drama," which sheds further light on the arguments. To take Meno as an example again, Recollection only comes up on account of Meno threatening to abandon the conversation, not as a discrete account disconnected from everything else he and Socrates have been talking about.

>Aristotle's Organon essentially explains how a Platonic Dialogue works. Read that, and then understand what 'Plato' is doing by writing these works.
The dialogues aren't treatises; they don't present Plato in his own voice saying "I believe x and here's why", but they present both what philosophy is, how it's practiced, but also whst hurdles it faces with different types of people. This amounts to Plato acknowledging that it doesn't happen in a vacuum, and he shows us why, and he does so while being able to speak at different levels to different audiences as much as writing allows him to (see Phaedrus on not just the faults of writing, but also logographic necessity, which is the corrective to writing meaningfully).

>>23610465
You are a loser.

>>23611296
Actually on the last point, I was stating that by putting 'Plato' in quotes, that his dialogue was likely a collaborative effort, just like how many of Aristotle's works are symposium notes, not just Aristotle.

However, I will say this. The reason why I mention the Organon is that it clearly lays out the Socratic Method. That is the point of the Organon. A syllogism, or ratiocination, is an extremely important launching point for some of the greatest philosophical reasonings.

Through a Platonic dialogue, Q.E.D.s and reductio ad absurdums are more easily realized. Please read the book I've referenced and get back to me. There is a lot more than you think going on in much of the dialogues.

>>23611436
What book are you refrencing?

>>23611436
>Actually on the last point, I was stating that by putting 'Plato' in quotes, that his dialogue was likely a collaborative effort, just like how many of Aristotle's works are symposium notes, not just Aristotle.
I don't think we can assume this. We can say this (or we tend to say this) about Aristotle's writings because of the messy condition of what survives vs. what he's reported to have written, and because of some ancient reports. But no one says that Aristotle's dialogues were collaborative the same way some the treatises are suspected to be, and of Plato's dialogues, the only ancient report of assistance locates it with Philip of Opus with the Laws, and as likely author of the Epinomis.

>However, I will say this. The reason why I mention the Organon is that it clearly lays out the Socratic Method. That is the point of the Organon. A syllogism, or ratiocination, is an extremely important launching point for some of the greatest philosophical reasonings.
I don't contest that the treatises of the Organon shed light on the quality of some of the arguments, but I would add the Rhetoric, insofar as Socrates (and others) don't shy away from using rhetorical arguments. And I'd think a certain limitation to using the Organon as authoritative would be the extent to which Aristotle might disagree with Plato; we also shouldn't rule out the possibility that the treatises in the Organon are just also something of a response to Platonic philosophizing.

>Through a Platonic dialogue, Q.E.D.s and reductio ad absurdums are more easily realized. Please read the book I've referenced and get back to me. There is a lot more than you think going on in much of the dialogues.
I've studied and continue to study the Organon texts. But again, a focus on the explicit arguments doesn't, I think, exhaust the dialogues. They can't show you what to make of why it's noted that Thrasymachus turns red (Socrates doesn't say it's because of Embarrassment, but because of the heat of summer and arguing effortfully) and how it ties into the broader subjects (it's related to what comes to be called Thumos in the soul), nor what to make of Recollection being brought up in the middle of the Meno only to be dropped immediately after in favor of mathematical hypothesis as a mode of investigation.

>>23611445
He's talking about the Organon (Categories, On Interpretation, Prior and Posterior Analytics, Topics, and Sophistical Refutations).

>>23611471
Oh okay, because that's not really a singular book lol, even if those works are read together.

>>23610426
I believe it's pronounced "niggos", heathen

>>23611644
it's clearly a greek plural vocative. take a hike.

>>23610864
Yeah, losing the narrative in Plato dialogues happens often. Phaedo got into so many niche details that I forgot that they were recalling how Socrates died lol.

>>23610600
His "profit" would still be far inferior than the profit of the righteous man that have desire under the control of reason, read book 9

>>23611806
Nta, but the plural would make it improper for a singular, would have to be "nigge" or something

>>23611476
Every single book in the Organon is meant to be read side by side. It is the bible of the Socratic Method. You should read it one of these days, you would understand Plato to be so much more than simply people talking to one another.

>>23611971
>You should read it one of these days, you would understand Plato to be so much more than simply people talking to one another.
That's a very uncharitable reading of my position, but you do you then.

>>23611033
By looking at modern tyrants I'd say as long as they live.

>>23611259
>He offers counterarguments prior to this, including a point about bad people tending to suffer from their negative behavior while still alive
He just asserts this claim but never proves it.

File: Screenshot 2024-07-21 104150.png (5 KB, 181x41)

5 KB PNG

>>23611436
q.e.d. is latin shit, euclid wrote in greek and pic related is what was actualy said, how many times do i have to remind you people of the importance of euclid

>>23612479
This is the dumbest kind of pedantry, arguing over a point not being argued

>>23612520
im simply pointing out that anon uses q.e.d. without knowing what it is, this shows that he is a pseud and this fact does not reflect well on him and his comment

>>23612530
I already know he's a pseud, he promotes the Organon but has plainly never bothered to translate any Platonic arguments into proper syllogisms (because you can't for the vast majority), but all he said was...actually, fuck him, whatever, have at him lol.

File: ananke.jpg (447 KB, 1027x1600)

447 KB JPG

>>23610489
>the choice is yours, God has none

>>23611876
>>23611806
>>23611876

i don't know ancient greek, just typed random letters

>>23610426
its er, the suffix er, it ers, like the black has some inherent quality, this is the hidden etymology of this taboo word

>>23611227
Like how Euthyphro is supposed to be the highest expert on piety, which Socrates dismantles. And in the beginning of Laws he points out that Ceinias and the Cretans got their laws from Zeus and that Meguilles and the Spartans got their laws from Apollo, thus making their laws arbitrary, which seems like a rehash of the Euthyphro.

>>23611971
>Every single book in the Organon is meant to be read side by side. It is the bible of the Socratic Method.
Not back in the day. The fact that they're together is happenstance due to the fact that, for a long time, all of Aristotle's other work was lost.

>>23611259
>>23612434
I think it's fairly obvious that all bad actions receive justice, eventually. Just not always within the span of the lifetime of the person who committed the injustice.

>>23612887
>it's fairly obvious that all bad actions receive justice, eventually
This right here is baseless soiboi cope. All the bullies from my highschool are living happy lives now, having made a great career and founded happy families. When does this "justice" come?

>>23612924
>all bad actions receive justice, eventually
Simple. If a local businessman keeps dumping toxic sewage into his community, he might not get cancer from it, but his kids will, and his grandkids will too.
>All the bullies from my highschool are living happy lives now, having made a great career and founded happy families. When does this "justice" come?
Either they grew out of their habits and also deal with the pain of their conscience and memory, or they continued their habits and will eventually piss off enough people to ruin what they've built (e.g. lose their job, get divorced, etc.). Plus, this sounds like you're taking social media at face value, and you probably don't have any idea what's going on their lives.

>>23612946
>more baseless soi cope
Already assuming that they have a "conscience" is faulty.

>>23612883
No, they all reference each other. Categories is necessary to read before you read Posterior or Prior Analytics.

It's important to understand the definitions of the words people use before they use them in logical arguments. The problem is that sometimes I do just recommend people read Categories or On Interpretation to understand exactly what Aristotle is talking about in his other works, because that is also necessary to read Physics or Metaphysics.

But in reality, there is no reason to assume that those are unrelated works.

>>23612972
Then if they don’t have conscience they are miserable and should not be envied. You would rather be an animal that is lead only by what his current desire is with no other purpose than pleasure?

>>23613036
They're not any more related compared to Aristotle's other works in how they reference each other.

>>23613042
No, Categories and On Interpretation are the works where a lot of the terms are defined that he uses in other works. Once you've read those you are essentially to read everything by Aristotle.

Once you've read the entire Organon though, you are ready to critically analyze any Platonic dialogue. That's the difference. :3

>>23613037
>Then if they don’t have conscience they are miserable
On the contrary. But you sound too much like someone who doesn't know how he would have felt if he didn't have breakfast. For you it is impossible to imagine a person whose nature is completely different from yours.

>>23613087
Maybe those bully of yours was righteous in bullying you, you sound like a fag.

>>23613099
You insulted me. Where will be Plato's justice for what you just did?

>>23613082
Says who?
>>23612972
That's not exactly what I said.

>>23613115
I think insulting and bullying queer is acting according to justice, since their queerness can affect other and also it reduce the queerness from your soul, so yeah maybe your bullies were righteous in bullying you and therefore are happy and you are miserable because you’re a disrupted queer and therefore not living according to justice. Joke apart Plato don’t say that all injustice will be punished but he say that if it stay unpunished it feed that beast inside of you that is desire when a punition could have tamed it a bit so in this case it is worse to not receive punishment.

>>23613150
Thanks for proving that Thrasymachus remains unrefuted.

>>23613258
Being not punished will be a far worse punishment since his soul will not be corrected and he will still remain a slave of his desire. And being a slave of his desire will make him miserable because he will never have enough. I know a lot of people that are slave to that tyrant that is desire and they are all miserable, some are obese, some are drug addicts, some are sex addict and they are all miserable because they don’t have desire under guidance of reason, even i was like that before and i was miserable, i am so much happier now that i have all that under control.

>>23613282
As long as the tyrant can satisfy his desires he won't be miserable. Thrasymachus wins again.

>>23613292
The Tyrant will live in fear of getting killed, will have no friends that he can trust, can’t go out of his home unprotected, all the good people from his city will be gone he will be left with the scum of the city that he will need to be flattering toward as to not get killed, to me he seem miserable.

File: Portrait_of_Niccolò_Machi(...).jpg (265 KB, 1200x1542)

265 KB JPG

>>23613292
>As long as the tyrant can satisfy his desires he won't be miserable.
lol what kind of 60 iq monkey are you

>>23613292
Looks to me that you were refuted along with Thrasymachus ITT, you stupid retard.

>>23610418
The conclusion of the book is that ethics and morals serve society to function. Therefore refuting the idea about morals or justice as something serving the individual either altruistic or egoistic. The whole state building talk was mlre or less an allegory or rather drunken ramblings you have with your friend at a dinner party if you go a bit to much off topic to make your point because its fun. Everybody who thinks the republic is actually serious about state building or politics is retarded.

>>23613292
The tyrant desires that he rule forever and that all his enemies be vanquished. That's something he can't have. So >>23613347 is right.

>>23611255
>Aristotle's Organon
Helpful as propaedeutic and that's it. From Jonathan Barnes's Aristotle's Theory of Demonstration:

>This points to the problem; for in the whole of the Aristotelian corpus there is not, as far as I am aware, a single example of a demonstration. The Posterior Analytics quotes arguments which come close to demonstrative form; but there is no perfect example. In the other treatises there is scarcely a syllogism. There are arguments which might be said to show a degenerate syllogistic form; and there are arguments which can be brought into perfect syllogistic form witlhout much violence to the text; but even these cases are rare, as will be clear to anyone who tries to formalise any of Aristotle's arguments.
>Those who pretend to find examples of genuine demonstration throughout Aristotle cannot pretend that his text as it stands contains any such arguments, and so they must base their claims on reformulations of Aristotle's actual words. Thus the Greek commentators regularly paraphrase Aristotle's text in such a way as to impose syllogistic form on its arguments. An extreme form of this view, that all the arguments in Aristotle are really demonstrations, is sometimes supported by the belief - never in my opinion seriously held by Aristotle - that the syllogism is the only form of valid reasoning. For if all valid arguments are syllogisms, then either Aristotle's arguments are invalid (which is unthinkable) or else they are, despite
themselves, in syllogistic form.

Same with Plato judged by the same.

Go ahead and take Socrates's argument with Cephalus and rephrase it in correct syllogisms. Or any argument. All you'll discover is that almost all arguments in Plato aren't syllogistic, same as with Aristotle.

>>23614673
>the belief - never in my opinion seriously held by Aristotle - that the syllogism is the only form of valid reasoning
What are the other forms of valid reasoning?

>>23614803
It's not clear if valid has a technical meaning or not where it might mean the argument is true or correct, or whatever. Checking different translations of the Analytics, valid is sometimes a translation of legetai, and invalid translates paralogismos. I think Barnes just means to say that syllogism can't be the end-all for Aristotle when we barely see it in his actual arguments everywhere else, so those arguments as we actually find them are probably what Barnes could think is the alternative. He pretty convingly shows that syllogism and demonstration are aimed more at a teacher's expression for the sake of teaching, but that they don't really discover principles which come mysteriously by intellect or nous.

>>23614673
>a single example of a demonstration.
Plato's dialogues are a demonstration of the Organon. The method of argumentation expounded in the Organon is the Syllogistic - the particular to generals methodology of understanding and comprehending anything. This is also called Ratiocination.

What that individual does not understand that was Aristotle was defining in the Organon was the SOCRATIC method, hence what Socrates is using throughout all Platonic dialogues. It really is sad how stupid some self-professed ''''scholars''''' really are.

>>23614976
Anyone that divides Plato or Aristotle into two schools of thought are retarded. This is understood.

They were of one sound mind, one was the teacher of the other. :3

>>23614976
No, wrong. For someone quick to spout off about using the Organon, you clearly don't understand demonstration, which is a kind of technical and formal argument outlined in books you don't evince more than wikipedia familiarity with. When you say the "dialogues are a demonstration", this is merely a casual use of the word demonstration, which has a technical meaning in the Organon that you depart from. Take your own advice and study the Organon, and get better than casual acquaintance with it.

>>23614976
Go ahead and take an argument from book 1 of the Republic, any you choose, and formulate it into proper syllogistic form. Do it or you don't make your point.

>>23614976
Socratic inquiry is a different thing from formal logic. Logic requires clearness in concepts from the beginning. Socratic reasoning makes previously unclear ideas clear.

>>23616080
>>23615033
>>23615026
Just see
>>23614999

Come back when you stop giving a fuck about universities and their false dichotomies. :3

>>23610418
I started reading Politics by Aristotle, rather slowly, and I've got to the second part where he begins by going on about Plato's Republic, which I haven't read. Should it have been a prerequist to have read The Republic beforehand or can I just power through it and read it after? I'm looking forward to see what Aristotle has to say about Spartan and other Greek constituitions but don't want to be lost if The Republic comes up again.

>>23616651
Your use of ":3" is as faggy as your evidently wrong understanding of anything you pretend to read.

>>23616734
You should be aware that Aristotle presents slight differences that don't match, such as never bringing up the philosopher-king, but you're fine reading through as you're doing as long as you take it with a little grain of salt.

>>23616841
>evidently wrong understanding
You mean considering Aristotle and Plato as the same school of thought? Everyone understands that.

>>23616881
Funny how Aristotle himself loudly disagrees with that assessment all over his writings, as does his best commentator, Alexander of Aphrodisias, but if you're a brain damaged syncretic like the Neoplatonic retards, of course you'd never notice.

>>23616950
Weird that everyone understands that point then.

>>23616950
It's not fair to call the Neoplatonics retards who just smushed Plato and Aristotle together. They did much to deconstruct both and then combine their remains. For example, Plotinus basically rips apart Aristotle's Categories and strips it bare. The other Neoplatonics are more deferential but still make additions and modifications.

>>23617024
No one "understood" that until hundreds of years after the death of Plato and Aristotle and the collapse of their physical school communities. It takes someone who believes in the fake Chaldean oracles to read Aristotle's criticisms of the ideas in both the Ethics and Metaphysics and come away thinking it's not a disagreement.

>>23617054
They didn't deconstruct anything, there's nothing impressive about settling on a conclusion at the start and inventing arguments to make it plausible later.

>>23617115
>They didn't deconstruct anything
Well, that’s patently false. I’m going to presume that you’re speaking out of your ass, because I referenced works by Plotinus where he did exactly that and yet you continued to assert your position

>>23617826
"Deconstruct" doesn't mean "criticize", in the first place, and a reference consisting of a vague handwave to a corpus instead of a citation to a work (e.g., saying On Substance or On the Genera of Being, etc.) or an argument isn't anything worth arguing strenuously with. Not relevant to my point about dumbly believing in a harmonization anyway, it just emphasizes the differences.

File: aristotle the platonist.png (1.07 MB, 1196x1794)

1.07 MB PNG

>>23616950
>>23617115
Aristotle only critiques "the Plato" that Plato himself critiques in Parmenides and Sophist , i.e. 'the friends of the forms'. Ergo the correct reading of Plato accords with Aristotle; A's own logoi and universals are themselves types of ideas.
Then the harmonization doesn't say they agree on all things, but that that Plato is infallible while Aristotle is fallible since he contradicts himself all over the place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_intellect

>>23619572
I love that book anon but take it cum grano salis. I wish I had it with me so I could do some epic takedown of the thing but I'll stick to the problem of Aristotle's criticism of Platonic Forms because I was reading over it last night. Gerson says in one place (rightly) that Aristotle's criticism depends in part on his view that intellectual substance must be incomposite. Then he (wrongly) says that Aristotle in no place says why he thinks this is so. This is a major mistake. One of Aristotle's big criticisms of Platonic forms is that the Platonists cannot explain why they are each "one", and the reason for this is that he thinks the only principles of unity can be 1.) unified form itself (i.e. immaterial intelligences and such); 2.) the unity of form and matter in particular substances, and yet their Forms are complex and immaterial. For just one example see Meta 7.15. Again, Gerson makes much of the distinction between nature and Form, the idea being that the Form of Humanity is different from the humanity (nature) that is in particular humans. One is immortal, the other mortal, etc. So Aristotle's "mistake" is supposed to be assuming that Forms are universals. But in fact Aristotle raises precisely this distinction and rejects it when he speaks of the impossibility of a Form being the substances of its particulars because either the Form would then be many (the supposed "misunderstanding") OR if the Form was the substance of any single particular it would be the substance of all of them, i.e. they would be identical. And that's the view that Aristotle is supposed by Gerson to have misunderstood or ignored. Another massive point of confusion is on the question of Aristotle's conception of essence. Gerson assumes (and to be fair many medievals also thought) that the essence is an immanent universal and that particulars are differentiated (somehow) by their matter. But this just isn't what Aristotle says. This reading is based on passages where Aristotle speaks of distinct individuals as being "the same in form". But the word "same" is homonymous in Aristotle, likewise the word "one". (1/2)

(2/2) When Aristotle talks about how we conceptualize continuities in Meta X he draws a distinction between true unities (such as particular substances) and the 'unity of measure', like the one foot length. Our species-concepts are like this unity of measure. Species are sets of qualities that vary along a continuum (just look at what he says early in History of Animals 8 about how he's sometimes unsure if something is "really" plant or animal). Again look at what he says about colors in Sense and Sensibilia. The essence is NOT the universal "man", the essence just is Socrates or Callias. "Man" does not really exist except as a concept. "Oh so you're making him a nominalist?" Nominalism has become a boogeyman word in certain circles... yes, he was a nominalist, but certainly not a relativist. The true tension between Aristotle and Plato, and what makes it so valuable to study them, is that Plato is always going up and up from the particular to the universal. But the upshot of Aristotle's Metaphysics is that it is particular things that are real (and qua particular they are undefinable), and God too is a particular, not this abstraction "Ipsa Unitas". "How do I know particulars?" Read Meta 1.1. So in this way Aristotle's philosophy is actually pointing forward toward modern philosophies like existentialism because his ontology folds back on itself. And this was obscured for a long time because of neoplatonist cope. I can already think of any number of objections you might make - "what about knowledge being of what is eternal?" I don't have time to answer them all. Read the Metaphysics over and over again.

>>23610878
Because 95% of it is regulations about property and taxes and other boring topics.

>>23614673
>>This points to the problem; for in the whole of the Aristotelian corpus there is not, as far as I am aware, a single example of a demonstration.
This is so wrong. All of Aristotle's arguments are syllogisms. Whenever he explains why something is the case, it is a syllogism. It's astounding that tenured scholars have such a pisspoor understanding of Aristotelian logic. They think that for Aristotle to "use" a syllogism means saying "all a is b, all b is c", but the syllogism isn't a tool to be used it simply abstracts the structure of any causal demonstration. He actually says in Rhetoric (book 3 iirc) that most people can syllogize just fine without knowing anything about logic, we syllogize 24/7. This whole post and the quote is a gross misconception of what the syllogism is and what the Analytica are about. Syllogisms aren't a "technical and formal argument" as another anon below says. The reason Aristotle never breaks his demonstrations down into premises in that way is because it isn't necessary to do so.

People think the syllogism is a "method" or "tool" for reasoning. What he's actually doing is working out the basic structure of causal explanation in order to prove metatheorems about the nature of scientific knowledge.

>>23611255
>Aristotle's Organon essentially explains how a Platonic Dialogue works. Read that, and then understand what 'Plato' is doing by writing these works.
False. It's about dialectic, not the dialogues. Dialectic was a sort of school exercise with strict rules. It is true that many dialectical techniques are present in the dialogues and the Organon helps you see them more clearly.

>>23611296
>The dialogues aren't treatises; they don't present Plato in his own voice saying "I believe x and here's why"

>>23611436
That's not what the Topics is about either.

>>23611436
>many of Aristotle's works are symposium notes, not just Aristotle.
People say that all the time but there's no evidence for it besides an old title of the Physics being "On Physical Things Heard". It just sounds cool so people repeat it. When you read Aristotle they do not seem like notes at all, let alone notes written by other people. I also would push back on the idea that Aristotle used "lecture notes" because in his milieu lecturing from notes would be like admitting you didn't really know what you were talking about.

>>23611468
>the messy condition of what survives
They're really not all that messy, anon. Certainly not messy as if they are just some notes that a student copied down. They make cross-references to other written works, they read like something meant to be read. The relation to live lectures if anything would be that they're very concise because they were meant to refresh the memories of people who had heard fuller lectures.

>>23611971
>Every single book in the Organon is meant to be read side by side. It is the bible of the Socratic Method.
You're overselling the Organon, anon. If anything it's the antithesis of the Socratic method because it's mostly about demonstration.

>>23619670
I wish I knew enough to have a real critique. Can you elaborate on "God too is a particular"? Particular implies not just instantiation but distinction, so God being a particular implies He's distinct from adjacent instantiations but there aren't any. There's no second God to contrast the first, so what could make any of His traits and therefor Him not universal? The universe is an individual universe, can I say then that the universal is particular?

>>23619930
>Particular implies not just instantiation but distinction, so God being a particular implies He's distinct from adjacent instantiations but there aren't any.
The difference between a particular and a universal is that a universal is said of many. "Color", "man", "tomato" are all universals. But "This particular shade of puce right here", "this anon", "this tomato" are particulars. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the particular "implies instantiation". And of course God is distinct from everything else. You'll just have to take my word that this isn't some anon's pet theory, this is what Aristotle himself says. One of his central criticisms of Plato is that Plato's logic, as Aristotle understands it, would tend to make God a sort of universal, because God is the "being" that exists apart from all particular beings and gives them all their being, and Plato's reasoning to his God goes like "isn't there one large thing that makes all the large things large? And one red thing that makes the red things red? And mustn't there be one Being that makes them all be?"
>There's no second God to contrast the first, so what could make any of His traits and therefor Him not universal? The universe is an individual universe, can I say then that the universal is particular?
You're mixed up on what a universal is. "Universe" would only be a universal if there were multiple universes. And the universe isn't a particular, either, because it's not in itself a subject of accidents. It's the things in the universe (the spheres, trees, whatever) that are actual subjects.

File: wonka1.jpg (19 KB, 220x195)

19 KB JPG

>>23619906
>they read like something meant to be read.
"If there were an extension which were such as to exist independently and be permanent, there would be an infinity of places in the same thing. For when the water and the air change places, all the portions of the two together will play the same part in the whole which was previously played by all the water in the vessel; at the same time the place too will be undergoing change; so that there will be another place which is the place of the place, and many places will be coincident. There is not a different place of the part, in which it is moved, when the whole vessel changes its place: it is always the same: for it is in the place where they are that the air and the water
succeed each other, not in that place in which they come to be, which is part of the place which is the place of the whole world."

>>23617902
What do you take a deconstruction to be then? Because Plotinus goes point by point through Aristotle's Categories and shits all over it.

>>23619668
I bet you take your cum with a grain of salt lmao

>>23619668
>>23619670
are you a Bruell fan

>>23619962
How can the universe not be a subject of accidents? There is an essence to it that remains the same as it changes in orientation, quality, etc.

>>23610878
It's mid. Cratylus, Theaetetus, Philebus, Parmenides, Hipparchus, Ion are peak Plato.

>>23611813
socrates died of confusion

>>23619962
I went ahead and ordered Aristotle's works to figure this out. In the mean time, are you arguing from belief or are you explaining an argument from Aristotle's belief? Can't tell whether to argue or ask questions.

>I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the particular "implies instantiation".
I just mean to say that 'particular' is in reference to a particular thing that actually exists instead of potentially exists. The instantiation of the form of apple is an actual specific, tangible apple. An instance of apple.

>You're mixed up on what a universal is. "Universe" would only be a universal if there were multiple universes.
I do not quite understand. Using your earlier example, if only one tomato existed would "tomato" then no longer be a universal?

>>23619962
How does your interpretation map onto how Aristotle is normally interpreted? What's the landscape?

>>23613087
You sound like you deserved it

On /lit/, you are almost always viewed as wrong.

>>23612946
>If a local businessman keeps dumping toxic sewage into his community, he might not get cancer from it, but his kids will, and his grandkids will too.
What about if you were a band on rootless cosmopolitians who roamed from land to land, leaving it after you have extracted the value from it's land and people.
Where would the justice be.

>>23623232
When people either wake up to what's going on or there's no more land to extract value from. There's always a finality to something that cannot sustain itself.

bump

>>23623224
probably the essence of the entire bot agenda, to keep an antagonistic tone and oppositional discourse