So, if Aristotle is a nominalist, then how do you avoid turning his theory of mind into a work of solipsism and representationalism? What is the mind grasping other than its own mental creations? What is the relationship between mental creations and the things those mental creations (as cognitive acts) are supposed to recognize?
I know who you're baiting. There's no point. He doesn't have an answer. He only dunks on culture war pseuds and midwits asking bad questions. He avoids the tough questions.
bump
>>24758678Qrd?
>>24759598There's a learned Aristotle guy who thinks that Aristotle is a nominalist, and he gives pretty extensive rundowns of why the standard medieval "realist" interpretations of Aristotle have problems. He frequently prefaces his arguments by identifying his enemies, who are Zoomer Catholics concerned with culture war struggles who have a superficial understanding of Aristotle. He's good at deflecting those people, but he's bad at arguing against the more learned realists who point out that leaning too heavily into nominalism (when arguably Aristotle is better thought of as a moderate realist on multiple topics) ends up destroying his entire theory of mind and the possibility of knowledge. Once those guys show up, he tends to stop replying. Also he tends to crash out pretty often and accuse random people of being his enemies, and that's just funny to watch.
Desperate Zoomer tradcath jeets who cannot read Greek still seething I see.
>>24759629>learnedHe doesn't seem to know even some of the biggest names in Aristotle scholarship or dismisses them as pseuds and think he's an expert because he has a 20 year old BA in classics. He doesn't seem to understand the common usage of basic philosophical terms either. It's Dunning-Kreuger to a T.
>>24759743I'm neither Catholic, a Zoomer, nor a jeet. This is awful cope. The bottom line is that you make Aristotle into a self-referential solipsist with your reading of him, making knowledge impossible. It's a self-refutation because you are essentially arguing that you cannot have knowledge of Aristotle's system, yet you claim that you know the best reading. It's beyond stupidity.
>>24759629This is far too charitable. When faced with any significant pushback he quickly degenerates into just posting racial slurs. I also haven't seen a single thread where the people he is accusing of being "tradcaths" have even said anything remotely to suggest this outside of maybe occasionally mentioning Aquinas as an interpreter. It's pretty much on par with calling anyone who mentions Avicenna's interpretation a "mudslide" or some such.
>>24759753Lol, you noticed too? His learning would be more secure if he bothered at all with philological considerations, but he blithely ignores them and reads modern distinctions into Aristotle that aren't there. He's smart, but he's also got an awful tendency to just bullshit when he doesn't know something, and he loathes being corrected.
As always none of you are defining your terms. But words like realism and nominalism have changed meaning over time. Most of you think a nominalist is someone who thinks truth is “just in our heads”. But the word nominalist can mean someone who denies that universals Exist, ie are independent entities of some kind. Most of you won’t even grasp the significance of this distinction. Aristotle was definitely a nominalist by this definition, so was Aquinas for that matter (Coplestone for instance characterizes him as a moderate nominalist). If you want an overview check out the Sep article on medieval theories of universals, it’s a good one. I get annoyed by pseuds here who think Aristotle believed in something like (immanent) Forms because he actually constantly argues against this position. Beyond that, it’s complicated, but most of you have no idea what you’re talking about and should simply study Aristotle. I’ve given my arguments against Avicenna’s essence existence distinction many times as it is and it’s a waste of time because most of you are not serious readers and have no way to understand or evaluate what I’m saying. “But… but… everyone knows Aristotle was a moderate realist!” Depending on how you define this, he could be characterized that way, and I’ve said as much in the past. This always comes down to “but… catness IS real!” You don’t know what the debate is about and I absolutely despise you.
>>24760826>Aquinas was also a nominalist
Like for you to think the denial of subsistence of universals = solipsism is simply bizarre. Solipsism is wrong for the same reason any other radical skeptic theory is wrong for Aristotle. Do you know what that is? As for “representationalism” - what do you mean by this? Yes, an abstract concept like cat is not identical to a particular cat, which has its own essence as a living creature and its own particular nature (see for example meta 12 in the first few lectios, or the opinion/science distinction in post an 1, or what he says about the relation of universals to particulars in meta 13, or what he says about primary and secondary substance in the categories, etc). All universals are representations in that sense and this is what he argues for. It’s incredible that what I’m saying is even controversial, even my “nemesis” Aquinas would agree with what I just said. Just fucking READ THE BOOKS, carefully and repeatedly. But I know most of you are too retarded for Aristotle.
>>24759629You were right. Another classic crashout.
>>24759629Is this the guy? >>24760851
>>24758057>if Aristotle is a nominalistIf you think that you are ngmi.
>>24759629>>24759778>>24759753I see. Thank you.
