By all accounts he was considered kinda midwit tier in Antiquity, overshadowed by Plato and the Stoics, but in Medieval times Europe became utterly enthralled with his writings to the point they were taught as the undisputed truth of things even into the 1700s.
>>24728045From Plato basically only the timaeus circulated. But it's not true it was all aristotlelic, platonism was influential through Plotinus, Augustine, Dionysius, Boethius, Eriugena and the school of Chartres
>>24728045This is a misrepresentation of the reception of Aristotle in antiquity. His philosophically sophisticated acroatic works were only recovered in the 1st c. BC, then many Platonists became intensely interested in him, like Ammonius Saccas, as they became diffused, understood, and commented upon. After Plotinus all neoplatonism is heavily Aristotelian, regardless of whether the thinker has a positive or negative view of Aristotle himself. There's not a lot of 'meat' in the dialogues so Aristotle was indispensible for helping these guys think through Platonism in a philosophical way - this is feasible because their philosphies are closely related to begin with. In Alexandria, Aristotle came to be seen as equal to Plato and was more heavily studied. This continues from then on; most of Plato's dialogues were not translated into Arabic but those guys were devoted to Aristotle, albeit with a neoplatonist bent. And in the Byzantine empire too anyone seriously studying philosophy would start with Aristotle and follow the old neoplatonic curriculum. Also everyone knows the factoid that most Platonists from 6th century into the renaissance thought Plato and Aristotle did not actually disagree on anything important. Plato has interesting ideas but expressed in an unscientific form, for the most part. Lots of his arguments aren't even any good. Plotinus quotes from maybe five dialogues but he's implicitly citing Aristotle on every page - and he hated Aristotle.
>>24728083As for medieval europe they didn't have much Plato or Aristotle for a long time, they had to go off of patristics etc. for much of their understanding of philosophy. When Aristotle's works were translated it was like if a primitive people were introduced to the internet.
>>24728045What >>24728083 said is essentially correct. Aristotle was all over middle and neo Platonism, as well as Christian thought. Even if they weren't reading him directly, they were deeply influenced by him. Both Saint Augustine and Boethius, the two biggest influences on Western thought during the time Aristotle was "lost" have major influences from his thought.He also was never lost in the East. Thinkers there grew up on him. The Islamic Neoplatonists were well versed in Aristotle and attributed new texts to him.But Aristotle was often read as a Platonist. Is this fair? That's a question of some debate, but overall I think it is.
>>24728096It depends on what you mean by Platonist. For example if you define Platonism as broadly as Gerson does then practically any anti-materialist philosophy is Platonist. But if you think Plato's views on the Decad and the One were central to Platonism, as Aristotle did, then he was definitely not a Platonist. He criticizes Plato at every turn, sometimes he even mocks him. Is Spinoza "really" a Cartesian? Sure, you could say that and it wouldn't be senseless. The neoplatonists had strong cultural pressures to think of Aristotle and Plato as one. What this means in practice can be anything from reading Aristotle into Plato, to the reverse, and any combination on particular issues. But I don't really know how anyone could read both and come away thinking they were the same. The arguments you see in "Aristotle and other Platonists" are weak, the position he is advocating is not at all mainstream or widely accepted in academia. At best you could say that Aristotle misunderstood Plato and that their views are closer than he thought, but there are still definite points of opposition - their theology for example is completely different, (Aristotle's naturalistic astrotheology vs Plato's neopythagorean theory of the One and the Dyad, or any of the theologies in the dialogues), this is not a small issue.
>>24728108Could you elaborate more on Plato's views about the One and the Decad? I've heard about the One and the Dyad (and desu, still trying to tease out Plato's exact positions), but the Decad is unheard of for me.Also, what do you think of Joe Sachs's attempt to bridge Plato and Aristotle together?
>>24728112Per Aristotle Plato used the same old one over many arguments from the Dialogues to claim that Unity Itself was the principle of everything (Plotinus, Augustine, etc. all use this same sort of argument). The One Itself is entirely One, so differentiation comes from a separate principle, the Great and Small. Per Aristotle this is extremely similar to what some Pythagoreans also said. From the One comes, not sensuous reality directly, but the Forms, just like in the Parmenides the numbers are 'generated' from One and Being(=the Great and Small). Plato said there were ten of them (so presumably they would be very abstract); he also had a theory about how they are derived, numerologically as it were, or arithmologically, from the One and the Dyad (G&S). The Forms are absolutely one; so to account for numbers, which are both one and many, there's another world of the "mathematicals" which covers mathematical objects. (So the Number Forms are not like ordinary numbers). Then you get the sensuous world which participates in the mathematicals and the Forms and ultimately of course the One. Plotinus tried to claim that the number 10 was metaphorical for completeness and not a literal decad (he thought the decad was his Intellect).
>>24728128So basically it's this classic tree like you see in Plotinus - a maximal division, division itself (the Great and Small); the One; and then a series of intermediate steps, from unity, to a plurality of unities (the Forms), to a plurality of unities multiplied as such (the mathematicals), to the world of becoming or not-being, with the Great and Small (or Dyad) being the evil principle like in the Laws, or Plotinus' matter.
>>24728083>Plato has interesting ideas but expressed in an unscientific form, for the most part. Lots of his arguments aren't even any good. I think youre stupid lmao.And now I understand where this continental v analytical philosophy divide was silently born, before it matured retardedly in the 20th century.
>>24728151All of you Platopseuds are the same here. You think there's some sekrit meaning that you acquire by reading the Dialogues as literature rather than using your brain like you're meant to in philosophy. Anyone who thinks carefully - like the neoplatonists themselves - is an "analytic", for you. >Anything that moves is moved by something else>but that's an infinite regress>therefore there's a self-mover>therefore the soul is immortalGreat argument Plato.
>>24728128The thing that always gets me about the mathematicals being intermediaries is that it seems unfathomable to imagine how anything qualitative can emerge from the quantitative that isn't just more or less of the original quantity. In fact, quantity could be seen as a quality all of its own, bigger or smaller. It's just one quality among many, one that admits to being measurable in some way.
>>24728170Yeah it's hard to grasp and it's too bad we don't have more evidence. Plato might have been wrong but he wasn't a retard; the way Aristotle presents the theory makes him sound retarded. Plotinus is interested in sympathetically reconstructing the unwritten doctrine. The "mathematicals" (tho he doesn't explicitly address them) would be his Soul, which is also one and many, as opposed to intellect which is a one-many. In general Plotinus thinks the mathematical language is metaphorical. If you think about what these different sorts of number are meant to be, metaphysically, he would maintain you end up with his three hypostases. The justification is ofc the principle of continuity, there can be no gaps - the ultimate has to be mediated by the proximate. (Just like you could not understand three dimensions straight from the point without the interceding dimensions - here the three dimensional is the ultimate, the second dimension is proximate). So Intellect, or the Decad, is the nearest to being One without being One, and Soul or the mathematicals is nearest to Intellect/Decad, etc. He also thought that the Great and Small should be interpreted as the deficiency of Intellect in relation to the One and not as an evil principle; also he would say it's not ackshually dualistic, the Great and Small itself depends on the One, and could support this from the Dialogues and philosophically.
>>24728194That makes sense, as much as it can as a brief gloss. I just have one last question. What is a one-many, and what is the difference between that and something that is one AND many? Glancing at the language itself, it seems to be that "one-many" is prior to "one AND many" (as the intellect is prior to the soul), which is intuitive in the sense that the former implies something that has more "unity" than the latter, since the former seems to be "one thing" while the latter seems to be a conjunction of two things, "one" and "many". So, the analogy checks out, but that is merely going by the presentation of "one-many" and "one AND many" in natural language via its construction.How are they actually different, and why?
>>24728234In the One-Many, Intellect, the intelligible Forms of everything exist all together, simultaneously as a unity and a multiplicity within that unity. The one and many, Soul, thinks discursively, so it's one thing after another.
>>24728253Ah okay. Brilliant summary. Reminds me of the simplicity of the intellect, that kind of topic. Thank you!
>>24728156Poetics 1.1447a-b:>But the art that uses bare words and the one that uses meters, and the latter either m8xing meters with one another or using one particular kind, happen to be nameless up to now. For we have nothing to use as a name in common for the mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus and the Scratic dialogues, even if someone were to make the imitation with trimeters or elegiacs or anything else of that sort.Poetics 9.1451b>For this reason too, poetry is a more philosophical and a more serious thing than history, since poetry speaks more of things that are universal and history of things that are particular. It is what is universal, the sorts of things that a certain sort of person turns out to say or do as a result of what is likely or necessary, that poetry aims at, even though it puts names on people.Rhetoric 3.2.1404b>For even in poetry, if a slave were to use gussied up language, or someone too young were to do so, it would be rather inappropriate, or in connection with subjects too petty for it. Instead, what is fitting even in these writings [lies between] contraction and amplification.Poetics 6.1449b-1450a>And since tragedy is an imitation of action, and action is performed by particular people engaged in action, who must necessarily be of some particular sort in both character and thinking, [and] it is natural for there to be two causes of actions, thinking and character (for it is on account of these that we say the actions too are of certain sorts, and as a result of these that everyone succeeds or fails), and the imitation of the action is the story (since by "story" I mean this--the composition of the things done--while by "states of character" I mean that as a result of which we say the people who act are of certain particular sorts, and by "thinking" all those things they say in which they demonstrate something or even declare an opinion)...Rhetoric 3.16.1417a>The narration ought to bear on character. This will be the case if we know what fosters character. Now, one thing is to make clear the choice involved; and the sort of character one has relates to the sort of choices one makes, and the sort of choice one makes is related to one's end or goal. It is for this reason that mathematical arguments do not involve matters of character, because they do not involve choice either (since they do not have the "for the sake of which"), whereas Socratic arguments do, since they speak about such things.>nooo, don't make me grasp particulars as universals
because he said something about virtue and wisdom and truth and they jizzed their pants when reading that because they thought it sounded nice
>>24728045aristotle was the smartest and most productive philosophy nigga on ancient times. mf has a bigass philosophy system. he really be one of the philosophy protagonist, along with plato, aquinas, kant and hegel. other niggas are just side characters.that's how big this nigga is, no surprise those medieval mfs spent all their time studying him. yet there are some dumbass niggas who discredit this big og just because he fucked up at something minuscule and non philosophical.
>>24728156>Socrates: Indeed writing, Phaedrus, doubtless has this feature that is terribly clever, and truly resembles painting. For the offspring of that art stand there as living beings, but if you ask them about something, they altogether keep a solemn silence. And likewise speeches do the same. For you would think that they speak with some understanding, but if you ask something about the things said, wishing to learn, it indicates some one thing only, and always the same. And when it's been once written, every speech rolls around everywhere, alike by those who understand as in the same way by those for whom it is in no way fitting, and it does not know to whom it ought to speak and to whom not. And when it suffers offense and is reviled without justice it always needs its father's assistance. For by itself it cannot defend or assist itself.>Phaedrus: These things you've said are also most correct.>Soc: What then? Do we see another speech, the brother of this one, and genuine— do we see both in what manner it comes into being and how much better and more powerful it naturally is than this one?>Phae: What is this one and how do you say it comes into being?>Soc: The one that is written with knowledge in the soul of him who understands, with power to defend itself, and knowing to speak and to keep silence toward those it ought.>Phae: You are speaking of the speech of him who knows, a speech living and endowed with soul, of which the written speech might justly be said to be a certain image.>Soc: Just so, absolutely.>Until someone knows the truth of each of the things that he speaks or writes about; and becomes able to define every thing in relation to the thing itself; and having defined it, knows how, next, to cut it in accordance with forms all the w ay to what is uncuttable; and, seeing clearly concerning the soul's nature in accordance with these same things, discovering the form that fits together with each nature, in this way sets down and orders the speech, giving speeches of many colors and embracing all harmonic modes to a many-colored soul and simple ones to a simple soul— before this he will not be able to handle with art the class of speeches, to the extent that it naturally admits of it, either for teaching something or for persuading something, as the whole earlier argument has disclosed to us.
>>24728156>Doesn't [Lysias] seem to have thrown the things in the speech with an indiscriminate outpouring? Or does what is said second appear to need to have been placed second out of some necessity, or any other of the things said? For it seemed to me, as to one who knows nothing, that whatever came forward to the writer was stated, not ignobly. Do you know some *necessity of speech writing* by which that man thus set down these things in a row next to each other? >...But I think you would assert this, at any rate: that every speech, just like an animal, must be put together to have a certain body of its own, so as to be neither headless nor footless but to have middle parts and end parts, written suitably to each other and to the whole... So then examine your comrade's speech as to whether it is in this condition or otherwise, and you will find it no different from the epigram that some say was inscribed for Midas the Phrygian: >I am a bronze maiden, and I lie on Midas's tomb.>As long as water flows and great fruit trees bloom,>Remaining here on this much-lamented grave,>I announce to passersby that Midas is buried here. >That it makes no difference that some line of it is said first or last, you are doubtless taking note, I should think.
>>24728333Here we go, the "muh esoteric writing" trope. Do you guys work from the same script or is it all one person? Plato is critical of writing, and he thought genuine philosophical insight (the vision of the Good) was non-discursive. On the other hand, he valued thinking and argumentation highly, if not writing so much, and even if this sort of knowing can only be secondary.. Leaving aside the vision of the Good philosophical understanding does not arise by passively reading a text, you have to think through it on your own, many philosophers have observed the same. Plato tried to do this with the Dialogue form, unfortunately at least on /lit/ this has only served to spawn pseuds like you who have contempt for thinking. Your quotes from Poetics, Rhetoric are retarded because you're ignoring what Aristotle says about the nature of science in Post An. Just because he thought poetics was "more philosophical" than history does not mean he thought philosophy should be expressed in poetics, again he rejects this view. Aristotle understood Plato to be mixing philosophy and 'poetics', so do I. Once again you're desperately grasping for quotes with no understanding of what you're saying. When I quit responding to you it's not because I can't answer you, it's because you're too retarded to argue with.
>>24728368>Here we go, the "muh esoteric writing" tropeYour rejection of this requires you to either handwave those lines from the Phaedrus or treat them as ironic.>Do you guys work from the same script or is it all one person?Kek >>24728151 is someone else>he thought genuine philosophical insight (the vision of the Good) was non-discursive.To quote the Republic, "And if you (Glaucon) assume [titheis] that the ascent and the contemplation of the things above is the soul's ascension to the intelligible region,you will not miss my surmise, since that is what you desire [epithumeis] to hear. But God knowswhether it is true.">Plato is critical of writing...On the other hand, he valued thinking and argumentation highly, if not writing so muchThe Phaedrus doesn't just criticize writing, but says "if you must write, do it this and that way," and it's reasonable to conclude that Plato wrote as much as he did in accordance with those passages, "giving speeches of many colors and embracing all harmonic modes to a many-colored soul and simple ones to a simple soul," and "know[ing] to whom it ought to speak and to whom not," in the same set of speeches.>philosophical understanding does not arise by passively reading a textThis has been my entire point in every past interaction, that when Plato writes a dialogue like Phaedrus saying playful writing is the solution to the problems with writing, you can't settle for the surface impression without probing the obvious problems on the surface, e.g., Recollection being defined in two different ways in Meno. Whether they can be reconciled or not requires active interpretation to see what's going on and asking why they're presented differently in different contexts.>Your quotes from Poetics, Rhetoric are retarded because you're ignoring what Aristotle says about the nature of science in Post An. Just because he thought poetics was "more philosophical" than history does not mean he thought philosophy should be expressed in poetics, again he rejects this view.I'm showing you that on Aristotle's grounds the texts require the same interpretation a tragedy requires, that Plato's not even pretending to write a scientific treatise, that arguments differ in precision and with respect to the ends sought accordingly in the dialogues. That they're not well read or understood if you pretend a bad argument by Socrates directed to a retard doesn't serve a purpose.>Once again you're desperately grasping for quotes with no understanding of what you're saying. When I quit responding to you it's not because I can't answer you, it's because you're too retarded to argue with.You've literally butted into threads to argue that Plato meant by "logoi" "philosophy" where the whole context of the passage means "arguments". Don't act like you don't divorce your interpretations from context or understanding.
>>24728151Plato was an incredibly intelligent man who wrote a lot of literary masterpieces with the purpose of asserting completely baseless nonsense. Despite being a really cute idea, the world of forms is basically schizobabble
>>24728045>I'm so fucking cool by denying the importance of an extremely integral western philospherThe biggest issue in the modern world is retards who want to feel special by fighting truth itself. You aren't special, you're just a dullard who's wasting everyone's time with posts like these
>>24728057Platonism lingered further In the Renaissance: Plethon, Cusa, Ficino, Pico del Mirándola, and Bruno. 17th century: Cambridge Platonists
>>24728858>Despite being a really cute idea, the world of forms is basically schizobabbleCannot believe people who still take this shit literally, Am I missing something? Is not the very first example, and the entire point of the Cave analogy, not to essentially establish an idea of true justice?I dont understand this retarded babble about "Plato literally believes there are extra perfect trees in the sky". It just seems like a reversed post hoc application of Christian delusion.
>>24728045Aquinas really liked him. That's why.
