Aristotle Chads report in and tell me what the FUCK is he talking about. Or post quotes from Aristotle and discuss their meaning. I'll start.>Metaphysics II.2 "Again, nothing infinite can exist; and if it could, at least being infinite is not infinite."What does he mean by being being a limit?
well, here's what ChatGPT said:Thus Aristotle says: even if something infinite existed, its “being” (its essence as infinite) would not itself be infinite. That is, the very form or being of “infinite” must function as a limit, because definition (to ti ên einai, “what-it-was-to-be”) is always finite.Step 3. So what does this mean?“Being” is a limit: For Aristotle, to be something at all requires having a definite form or essence. A pure “infinite” has no form and no determination, so it cannot exist as a substance.The being of the infinite (what it is to be infinite) must be a finite account, a definite logos. You can define “the infinite” (e.g., “that which is always divisible” or “that which is without end”), but the definition is itself a bounded concept — not infinite.So Aristotle’s paradoxical wording really means:If there were something infinite, its being would still have to be finite, because essence is always determinate.Therefore “the infinite” cannot be an independent substance — it can only exist as a feature of other things (e.g., as an indefinite process of division, or a potential endlessness, not as an actual infinite).
Aristotle believes being is something particular and concrete. So, a being cannot be infinite because nothing concrete and particular in space and time can be infinite due to its nature.
>>24730901But suppose something infinite does exists, I think Aristotle is saying it would still be limited by the nature of its account.
>>24730893>>24730893This is a logical deduction from Aristotle’s metaphysical understanding. Substance is what stuff is. A statue is white. It is of a man. It is marble. It could be black obsidian or of a woman. It is still a statue. Essence is what makes a something a thing and if it didn’t have it it wouldn’t be a thing. A statue’s essence are all the things that make it a statue. It’s the artistic representation of something made of stone. Marble is not a statue.A man is not a statue. Marble in the shape of a man is a statue.Uncut Marble has potential to be a statue. Its form exists in the artists mind. And is actualized after it is cut. Coincidentally we can briefly see some of the old school men arguments for God here. All things have potential and move from potential to actualization. There must be something that is unmoved that begins the process and that thing is God. Anyway, we can see that being infinite is an essence because if something was infinite it would be required for its definition. But definitions are not infinite. Therefore the infinite thing logically cannot be infinite. This is important because Plato’s form was a non special non temporal thing. A cat is a cat because it takes part in the form of cat which is a timeless spaceless cat which we recognize every time we see a particular cat. This leads to a problem i won’t go into of having their being infinite forms, which isn’t liked.Aristotle’s theory is free of this problem, so he contends.
I think we have to understand "being infinite" a single concept. As long as you are (aka, as long as you exist), you will have a limitation. I suppose the concept of ever expanding infinite eluded him no?
>>24731032>I suppose the concept of ever expanding infinite eluded him no?No, I don't think so.>>24731030Thanks. > being infinite is an essence because if something was infinite it would be required for its definition. But definitions are not infinite. Therefore the infinite thing logically cannot be infinite.Is that like saying the infinite simplicter cannot exist as a substance because it would be necessarily limited by the account of its essence?
>>24730893nigga just READ, the fuck you doing skipping the whole first chapter of the second book?>>24730899deepseek is so much better for philosophy questions its unreal
>>24731189I didn't skip it, I understand he's talking about the problems of an infinite regress and setting up his later arguments. And I was also wondering about this part two sentences prior:>so that one who is tracing the infinitely divisible line cannot be counting the possibilities of section.I think I grasp the paragraph about the final cause but the one about the formal cause is puzzling me a bit.
This is my interpretation as someone who hasn't read the Metaphysics yet, but I have read the Physics and On the Soul. Infinite in the category of quantity is a potentiality rather than an actuality, which is consistent with modern math, as infinity is not defined as a number but as a limit, but in this case at least infinity makes sense as a potential. On other hand, in the category of substance infinity is more nonsensical, because substance is an absolute thing which is not subject of growing (an animal can grow, but there is not more substance of that animal as it grows, it is a single substance), so it must be an actuality, it can't be a potentiality. An illustration of this is that you can think of an ever growing sphere which keeps its sphere substance, but you can't think of an infinite sphere, because then it would be a boundless space without radius, so there wouldn't be a sphere at all. Form implies actuality and limits, and infinity implies potentiality and that there are no limits, so being and infinity are contradictory terms.
>>24732091Yeah, that seems pretty accurate>with modern math, as infinity is not defined as a number but as a limitI remember somewhere in there Aristotle says that infinity itself is a limit. I think being being a limit has been sufficiently explained, and hopefully my statement makes sense here >>24731102I'll post some more troubling quotes going forward along with this, again:>>Metaphysics II.2, end of paragraph about formal cause, "so that one who is tracing the infinitely divisible line cannot be counting the possibilities of section."Is he saying that although a line is infinitely divisible, it is only so in the abstract, so if one were to trace it, he wouldn't be tracing over a specific number of sections or something? Maybe I should include the whole paragraph.
Is the Good also the form of forms for Plato?
Just chiming in to say I'm glad there's a thread about actual reading here. Even just for the sake of the mental exercise Aristotle is worth it, but also of course for the foundation of much of philosophy after.
>>24732627>and hopefully my statement makes sense here>Is that like saying the infinite simplicter cannot exist as a substance because it would be necessarily limited by the account of its essence?I think so. Moreover, based on what I read on On the Soul, Aristotle seems to think that intellect (including human intellect) is potentially able to apprehend all the forms, and this apprehension implies that the intellect, which has no form by default, adopts the form of the apprehended concept. But, of course, it couldn't adopt the form of infinity, because it has no form, and this is something we can test internally when trying to think of infinity. So its lack of intelligibility is an additional sign (not a proof, though) that infinity can't be a substance.However, I'm not as sure of this as with my previous post, I'm no expert in Aristotle, so take it with a grain of salt.
Aristotle be doing dat greek maff wit lines an sheiiiit
>>24732627(me)>Maybe I should include the whole paragraph.I guess the point of the paragraph is just to say there can't be an infinite regress of forms/formal causes.
Why do people say that there can be infinite unmoved movers? Is it that the would each correspond to their own seperate universe, or would they all be in the same universe?
