>>24827125
>the contrary of sufficiency would be insufficiency, which both deficiency and excess would be categorized under. Therefore deficiency is only contrary to sufficiency secondarily because it's a type of insufficiency.
this seems like pedantic nerd shit where the conclusion is "who cares".
>Another example would be the equal/unequal and the more/less. The contrary of equal is unequal but equal is the intermediate between the more and the less so the equal would be a privative negation of the more and less because they are unequal and unequal is a privation of being equal.
schizobabble. what's wrong with just saying the contrary of equal is unequal and more or less are types of unequal. why are you trying to synthesise two systems when you can just say one supplants the other

>>24827156
because maybe the concepts of more or less are prior so they wouldn't be types of unequal. Because if equal is a composite of the more and the less then it would be posterior to them.

>>24827177
>maybe the concepts of more or less are prior so they wouldn't be types of unequal.
ok i get this. you're trying to make everything aristotle ever said interconnected. the obvious answer to this is they're not prior btw.

>>24827183
>you're trying to make everything aristotle ever said interconnected.
well I'm trying to understand his actual view and where he changed it.
>>24827183
>they're not prior btw.
You could be right if the more and less is defined by the equal, but would it be a problem if the equal was defined by the more and the less?
>"The equal, then, is that which is neither great nor small and is naturally fitted to be wither great or small; and it is opposed to both as a privative negation (and therefore is also intermediate)
Think about Good and Bad. That which is neither is intermediate between the two and is defined by both in that it "participates" in the possession and privation of the Good in some way.

>>24827231
>would it be a problem if the equal was defined by the more and the less?
you're creating problems where there don't need to be problems
>Think about Good and Bad. That which is neither is intermediate between the two and is defined by both in that it "participates" in the possession and privation of the Good in some way.
the intermediate there is the good. the bad is contrary to the good and there are two sub contraries-excessively good and deficiently good

>>24827125
I think you hit on the main difference in how he relates contrariety and privation. There are other smaller ones - he lists the categories with quality before quantity; the way he talks about substance is different but I’d maintain he is saying the same thing in both works. Some think the metaphysics is more essentialist but they are wrong, both texts are equally essentialist and nominalistic. Beyond that I haven’t read that section in years desu, it’s boring, difficult, and not central. I’m mostly into German idealism these days. But are you sure he rules out one thing having two contraries? Just hard to believe because it’s so central to his ethics not to mention the logic at stake here. Your post made me happy anon you are not a pseud or a tradcath zoomer, keep going.

>>24827244
>the intermediate there is the good.
Yeah I think that is false. There is no such thing as excessively good. If excessive good was bad then it wouldn't be good. The Good is not a compound of contraries which is how Aristotle defines intermediates.

>>24827248
you obviously have fucking read what aristotle thought on this but you haven't understood it

https://philosophybreak.com/articles/the-golden-mean-aristotle-guide-to-living-excellently/

>>24827248
>There is no such thing as excessively good.
if we just replace good with kind, which is basically a synonym, you will understand what i mean.

you can be excessively kind or deficiently kind. does that make sense to you?

>>24827247
you are a libtard who clearly doesn't understand philosophy in any meaningful sense

>>24827247
I appreciate the encouragement and I idk how you could tell I'm not Catholic, but thankyou, as that is a compliment. Glad to hear this part isn't central.
> the way he talks about substance
I was going to mention this, especially primary substances, but I think I agree that he's not really changing much there from the categories.
> But are you sure he rules out one thing having two contraries?
He says it a few times but I think he leaves room for qualifications.
Here from X.4 1055a19 "...evidently one thing cannot have more than one contrary, for neither can there be anything more extreme than the extreme nor can there be two extremes for the one interval."
I bracketed this part off since it seemed to differ from what he said in organon, but in ch. 5 he goes into it more.

>>24827270
theres a problem with what you're saying, i'll explain later

>>24827280
I don’t know how to respond to this. I guess that means you win. Anyone who reads philosophy in terms of CNN political categories is emphatically ngmi.

>>24827291
you're going to explain how you're wrong because you have some insane esoteric christcuck definition of good and you're having difficultly reconciling that with aristotle's more sensible definition of good?
>>24827297
are you or are you not someone with liberal political beliefs? i am incredibly certain that you are

You know how Aristotle says you can create a bronze sphere or a wooden triangle but you can't create a sphere or triangularity? I'm trying to wrap my mind around how, for him, the form is the actual. If it is actual then it precedes the primary substance in some way, right? But he says the forms are not substances like they are for Plato, so how, then, do they exist as actual when not actualized i.e not compounded with matter? Do they exist actually in the Nous of the Prime Mover? Hopefully he recapitulates, I haven't finished Metaphysics, I'm on book X

>>24827253
I haven't read Ethics where he talks about the golden mean, but I bet you don't understand Plato.
Health is a good thing and you can never have an excess of it. If an excess of something can be a bad thing then the thing isn't inherently good.
Being healthy is good. Drinking water is conducive to being healthy, you ought to drink water. But drinking too much water will kill you because drinking water isn't necessarily good.
>>24827270
See the above, but also for someone who thinks being kind is being good, you certainly aren't very kind. Anyways I was talking about the Good, and I don't want to debate whether kindness is a virtue but Plato would say that is isn't. There is a golden mean for being kind, or strong or whatever, but THE Good is not an intermediate.

>>24827912
>Health is a good thing and you can never have an excess of it. If an excess of something can be a bad thing then the thing isn't inherently good.
health is an intermediate, you can of course be excessively healthy-it means you don't eat enough good food or spend enough time exercising
>Anyways I was talking about the Good, and I don't want to debate whether kindness is a virtue but Plato would say that is isn't.
stop citing plato, who is a gay retard, and stop asking why things in aristotle contradict one another if you haven't read aristotle in his entirety. i cannot believe someone is unironically saying "OH BUT PLATO THOUGHT THIS" plato thought the world we could sense wasn't real and just flexed his muscles to win arguments, fuck that retard

>>24827926
>you can of course be excessively healthy
I don't buy it. The contrary of health is disease which is a privation of health, so how do you get to the point where health is a compound of two prior contraries?

>>24827972
>disease
aka a deficiency of health
>so how do you get to the point where health is a compound of two prior contraries?
health is contrary to an excess of health and a deficeincy of health

bump

Aristotle fags, help a nigger out. This guy >>24827976 is rudely mistaken, is he not?

>>24830199
>>24827247
people who have actually read and understood aristotle: 1
dipshit pesuds: 0

>>24827976
>health is contrary to an excess of health and a deficeincy of health
which means health is a compound of excessive health and deficient health, but that makes no sense. If the compound is posterior, how can an excess of a thing be prior to the thing itself?
Surely you wouldn't say the Good is contrary to excessive Good, (excessive Goodness is impossible), but Good is contrary to a privation of itself.

>>24831316
>which means health is a compound of excessive health and deficient health
health is an intermediate of excessive health and deficient health
>Surely you wouldn't say the Good is contrary to excessive Good
stop trying to synthesise plato and aristotle, which is what i assume you're trying to do. again, the closest thing aristotle has to good is the concept of good virtue which is an intermediate between excessive good virtue and excessive bad virtue.

>>24827247
>But are you sure he rules out one thing having two contraries? Just hard to believe because it’s so central to his ethics not to mention the logic at stake here.
I'm going to list some citations.
>X.4 1055a19 "...evidently one thing cannot have more than one contrary, for neither can there be anything more extreme than the extreme nor can there be two extremes for the one interval."
>X.5 "Since one thing has one contrary..."
>X.5 1056a6 "The equal is not contrary to either the one alone or to both (the more and less); for why should it be contrary to the greater rather than the less? Further, the equal is contrary to the unequal. Therefore it will be contrary to more things than one. But if the unequal means the same as both the greater and the less together, the equal *will* be opposed to both... but it follows that one thing has two contraries, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE.
>Again, the equal is evidently intermediate between the great and the small but no contrary is observed to be intermediate, nor, from its definition can be so.
but then he says:
>The equal, then, is that which is neither great nor small...; and it is opposed to both as a privative negation (and therefore IS also an intermediate)
>For the combined denial of opposites applies when there is an intermediate and a certain natural interval.
>X.7 1057a30 "...all intermediates must be compounded out of contraries. Therefore all the inferior classes, both the contraries and their intermediates will be compounded out of the primary contraries.
>>24831457
Ok bro, I wish FPBP is correct and this doesn't really matter. I'm just trying to conceptualize what he's saying and perhaps it'll become more clear when I read Ethics. I really don't want to miss anything or jump ahead without understanding.

>>24831457
>health is an intermediate of excessive health and deficient health
That other anon is right about this, that makes no sense and isn't what Aristotle says. Health is a mean, yes, but not a mean between excess and deficient heath, but a mean between the excessive and deficient goids and practices like too much/little exercise and food. Food and exercise aren't just simply healthy, but are healthy according to proportion necessary for a given person. And I don't think you're right in saying "good virtue which is an intermediate between excessive good virtue and excessive bad virtue", there's virtue and two vices, good virtue isn't a mean between virtues, it's a balanced state avoiding vices. I don't see how that anon is harmonizing Plato and Aristotle, there isn't excessive good, there's goods that are ranked according to how self-sufficient and complete they are.

File: 1748913401530074.gif (337 KB, 267x229)

337 KB GIF

>>24831534
I knew it, thank you.

>>24831534
>but a mean between the excessive and deficient goods and practices like too much/little exercise and food.
fitness and health are obviously the same thing. define health before you go on about it-i'm sure it's something that's just a compound of different virtues that you can be individually excessive or deficient in.
>nd I don't think you're right in saying "good virtue which is an intermediate between excessive good virtue and excessive bad virtue",
ok, excessive virtue and deficient virtue. i was just trying to make a point quickly
>there's virtue and two vices, good virtue isn't a mean between virtues, it's a balanced state avoiding vices.
and the vices are a deficiency of a virtue and an excess of a virtue
>I don't see how that anon is harmonizing Plato and Aristotle, there isn't excessive good, there's goods that are ranked according to how self-sufficient and complete they are.
there is excessive kindness, excessive wisdom, excessive courage, etc. i am literally just telling you what aristotle thought. i don't even personally believe this shit, it's just a fact that this is what he thought. again, aristotle only talked about virtues not abstract ideals

>>24831534
>Food and exercise aren't just simply healthy, but are healthy according to proportion necessary for a given person.
so you can have an excess amount of food/ exercise or a deficient amount of food/ exercise and health doesn't exist??? ok, fine, same shit. my point is that virtues only exist, in aristotle's system, if you can have an excess or deficiency in them

>>24831558
What are you complaining about?

>First, then, one must recognize this, that things such as virtues are of such a nature as to be destroyed by deficiency and by excess, as we see (since one must use visible examples as evidence for invisible things) in the case of strength and health; for excessive gymnastic exercises, as well as deficient ones, destroy one’s strength, and similarly drink and food, when they come to be too much or too little, destroy one’s health, while proportionate amounts produce, increase, and preserve these.

Is that the same or different than claiming that health is a mean between too much health and too little health? I think what Aristotle says is different than what you were saying.

>>24831634
> similarly drink and food, when they come to be too much or too little, destroy one’s health
ok that's even more narrow than what i was saying-health here literally means a balanced amount of drink and food. you do realise i was fucking replying to someone saying "health is an absolute good", right? if what i was saying looked a little strange it's because i was REPLYING to someone in terms they might understand. stop fucking acting as if i just randomly made a bunch of statements out of thin air

>>24831674
He didn't say that, he said
>Health is a good thing and you can never have an excess of it. If an excess of something can be a bad thing then the thing isn't inherently good.
That's much closer to what Aristotle is saying, there isn't an "excess of health", and health is simply good. I don't see what the point of berating that anon is when he's stating something closer to Aristotle’s view, and I don’t see what gained by apparently answering him "in terms they might understand" if those terms take him away from Aristotle's position.

>>24831776
>there isn't an "excess of health", and health is simply good
ok but there is an excess of food and drink, and health only refers to a balanced proportion of food and drink. what other definition of health does aristotle give, other than as a virtue? your entire argument for this is that aristotle has said that health is a virtue, therefore it is simply good. it's not setting the world on fire, is it. my definition, also supported by aristotle, is more useful.
>similarly drink and food, when they come to be too much
health is simply a word used to denote a balanced proportion of food and drink, since there are no definitions of health outside of that. similarly, strength is simply a balanced proportion of gymnastic exercises.
>I don’t see what gained by apparently answering him "in terms they might understand" if those terms take him away from Aristotle's position.
then you don't understand how argument and debate work because i have to try to explain things to someone in terms they understand. if you are genuinely saying oh aristotle said health is a virtue, therefore it's simply good, then fine. i don't know why you're saying anything more than that and overcomplicating things. it's not very bright, but fine.

>>24831816
>what other definition of health does aristotle give, other than as a virtue? your entire argument for this is that aristotle has said that health is a virtue, therefore it is simply good. it's not setting the world on fire, is it. my definition, also supported by aristotle, is more useful.
He doesn't define it as a virtue, he says virtues are analogous in their natures to strength and health. And health isn't argued to be good "because it's a virtue" but because it's an end sought either in itself or for the sake of higher goods, and primary goods are ends.

>then you don't understand how argument and debate work because i have to try to explain things to someone in terms they understand.
He was already understanding it more or less the right way, you're arguing with him just to argue while not even sticking to what Aristotle says.

>>24831849
>He doesn't define it as a virtue, he says virtues are analogous in their natures to strength and health.
obviously there is a virtue that corresponds to what I'm talking about-"good appetite" or something instead of "health". again, i was just trying to explain to them what I meant using terms they provided. The argument began with;
>Think about Good and Bad. That which is neither is intermediate between the two and is defined by both in that it "participates" in the possession and privation of the Good in some way.
i should have just said aristotle doesn't have a concept of the bad, which would have been true instead of interpreting him as referring to morally good and morally bad. fine.
>And health isn't argued to be good "because it's a virtue" but because it's an end sought either in itself or for the sake of higher goods, and primary goods are ends.
again, i am just suggesting your point for you because these words do not have easy equivalents in english.
>you're arguing with him just to argue while not even sticking to what Aristotle says.
i'm trying to argue with him using points he has made and using more of what aristotle said than he did. that's what arguing is.
>He was already understanding it more or less the right way
less
>while not even sticking to what Aristotle says.
aristotle wrote in greek. he did not say good or bad. if that is your point, then why are you not correcting the guy talking about good or bad in the context of aristotle. i am trying to interpret what this guy is saying because, again, his definitions of words are inconsistent and he brought plato up out of the blue. how about you don't microexamine what i'm saying and have a look at what i'm replying to

>>24831937
I'm not going to repeat myself, what I said stands. But complaining about microexamining is silly from someone who came in doing exactly that and has kept it up.

>>24832053
>But complaining about microexamining is silly from someone who came in doing exactly that and has kept it up.
i'm pointing out and trying to correct flaws in understanding, you're just paraphrasing what aristotle said and hoping it will be absorbed through osmosis. if you don't see any issue in someone bringing up plato or bad in the context of aristotle and just want to jump on me when i try to reconcile this with aristotle's beliefs, feel free to do so

I get it now. Sufficiency and insufficiency are primary contraries meaning they deal with privation. Excess and deficiency are species of insufficiency and are contrary to each other thus contrary to sufficiency.
But not all contraries admit of a mean.

>>24831937
>aristotle wrote in greek. he did not say good or bad
what is your point?

>>24832725
it's a technical point about the concept of good meaning something different in aristotle than good does in a system with good and bad in it. there is no concept of bad in aristotle, and morally good is different from good, they are literally different terms. it's virtuous and good

>>24832782
>οὐ γὰρ ἵνα εἰδῶμεν τί ἐστιν ἡ ἀρετὴ σκεπτόμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ ἵν᾽ ἀγαθοὶ γενώμεθα

>>24833003
i JUST fucking said virtuous and good are different

>>24833027
You said "morally good is different than good," review "ἀλλ᾽ ἵν᾽ ἀγαθοὶ γενώμεθα" instead of being an ass, let alone a persistently wrong one.

>>24833031
well you've just conclusively demonstrated you don't know what morally good means, haven't you

>>24833047
Aristotle's talking about the difference between merely studying what virtue is, and teaching how to do virtue/be virtuous, which = "ἀγαθοὶ γενώμεθα".

It's impressive how committed you are to saying others are wrong while apparently not knowing what Aristotle says about anything.

>>24833031
>all in agathoi genometha
oh so its agathos. i've never actually read aristotle in greek. that's just fucking virtue again isn't it. these translations are shit
>>24833057
ok so there is no concept of good, let alone morally good, in anything you've quoted. and yes, i haven't read aristotle in greek, congrats. obviously these translations are shit and you're using virtue and morally good interchangeably, which show that you don't know what these words mean.

>>24833063
Agathos is the same words used for morally good, goods like food and drink, and higher goods like pleasure, advantage, and the noble, you idiot. ἀρετὴ is the word for virtue.

Again, Aristotle isn't distinguising being virtuous from becoming morally good, those are the same. But you're intent on trying to act like you're right without regard to getting anything right, so nothing you say from here on out counts for anything.

>>24833071
>Agathos is the same words used for morally good
NO it is used for goodness in VIRTUE i.e. being virtuous you thick shit. it has no similarity with the english concept of "moral goodness".
>Again, Aristotle isn't distinguising being virtuous from becoming morally good
because there is no fucking concept of morally good in greek, only goodness in virtue. why are you arguing with me on this unless you don't understand the difference between being virtuous and being moral. just say you don't see a difference between being virtuous and moral
>But you're intent on trying to act like you're right without regard to getting anything right
yeah you're just interested in winning an arbitrary argument by misrepresenting what my point is, well done. just say you don't see the difference between virtuous and morally good, oh wiat you have so I WIN
>Again, Aristotle isn't distinguising being virtuous from becoming morally good, those are the same.
>Again, Aristotle isn't distinguising being virtuous from becoming morally good, those are the same.
this is the level of word understanding you are at lmao. that's why you have been wrong for this entire argument, because you don't know what words mean

god, what a waste of fucking time this has been. arguing with someone who can't tell the difference between virtue and morality and pretends he understands ANYTHING about the greeks

>>24833083
>when Aristotle says "becoming good" he doesn't mean becoming morally good, and he's totes not understanding being virtuous as equivalent to being morally good
Lol you're so dumb

>>24833151
>when Aristotle says "becoming good" he doesn't mean becoming morally good
yeah agathos doesn't mean morally good, does it moron. killing a bunch of trojans and getting some sex slaves for it doesn't make you morally good, does it
>he's totes not understanding being virtuous as equivalent to being morally good
holy shit you're so easy, just lead with that next time. virtuous=morally good=you don't know what words mean

>>24833163
You have hangups about the English terms "morally good." Aristotle means *morally good*, and instead of letting him teach you what he understands that to mean, you go in loaded with a 21st century understanding of morality and saying, "nuh uh, he's not talking about becoming morally good when he talks about becoming good." Ineducable.

>>24833170
then your definition of morally good is meaningless if it can take on characteristics and restrictions that are completely different from our current and longstanding definition of "morally good". "virtuous" is a far more accurate term for agathos than "morally good". i'm not even going into technical points like how there's no "morally bad" to oppose aristotle's supposed concept of "morally good"

>>24833181
>then your definition of morally good is meaningless
Are you five? All that "morally good" aims at, in whatever language or time it's being said in, is "how you should act and carry yourself for the sake of your own well-being." Whether that has grounds in nature, law and convention, a god's instruction, or some outside metaphysical objective something is a different matter. You're bickering to bicker.

>>24833215
>"how you should act and carry yourself for the sake of your own well-being."
so selfless and altruistic behaviour isn't morally good? is there also no concept of morally bad accompanying it? it's also irrelevant because the point is that virtuous is a more accurate term for agathos than encapsulates more of the meaning aristotle intends, because you can have an excess of it or a deficiency in it and not simply be "morally bad". i think what your definition might encapsulate is "moral". what you have been talking about for the past hour (i'm not going to check) is "morally good" which naturally suggests there is a "morally bad"
>Whether that has grounds in nature, law and convention, a god's instruction, or some outside metaphysical objective something is a different matter.
you just defined it as a set of actions designed to maintain or seek your own well-being. why are you now suggesting there are other goals outside the one your definition already provided?
>You're bickering to bicker.
i am precise as it pertains to language, because i believe word use matters. if you don't think it matters, then why won't you just accept that virtuous is a more accurate term and morally good is a bad term or that i simply care more about precise than you do? how about you stop calling me wrong and dumb when the problem is you don't understand what it is you're saying or what i'm saying or that you simply don't care about accurate definitions of words?

>>24827892
the forms just ARE, you ain't making them, you are making things to resemble a notion of what the forms are

>>24833235
>so selfless and altruistic behaviour isn't morally good? is there also no concept of morally bad accompanying it?
You're getting confused by the moral opinions that people have, which may or may not be reasonable. Example: Aristotle calls liberality (in the sense of giving things, especially money, away) a virtue, but he also says that this is good *for the person practicing liberality*. Aristotle would be willing to acknowledge and take seriously the claim that "to be selfless and altruistic" is a moral position, but acknowledging that isn't the same as agreeing that it's necessarily a sufficient or exhaustive understanding. And of course there's "morally bad" in Aristotle's understanding. It's a different view than modern "you've done something objectively bad," but he absolutely talks about this when he discusses vices and vicious people.

>you just defined it as a set of actions designed to maintain or seek your own well-being. why are you now suggesting there are other goals outside the one your definition already provided?
You're getting confused. Are you supposed to be morally good because it's our natural end, or are we supposed to merely out of a sort of custom or agreement? You're contesting that it's appropriate to speak of moral goodness at all in Aristotle, and I'm getting the impression you only think that because you're too stuck on modern discussions of objective morality.

>it's also irrelevant because the point is that virtuous is a more accurate term for agathos than encapsulates more of the meaning aristotle intends, because you can have an excess of it or a deficiency in it and not simply be "morally bad".
Agathos is the word for "good", not virtue, which is arete, first off. It's used both in a moral sense, such as what I quoted in Greek above, and in non-moral senses such as when he talks about food ad exercise being good. Second, Aristotle's not giving a laundry list account of what makes you good or bad, and not every vice of excess or deficiency makes you morally bad, but he absolutely discusses viciousness, and in some cases it's obviously and absolutely tied to vice.

>i am precise as it pertains to language, because i believe word use matters
No, you aren't, and no, you don't. You just said "agathos" is "virtue", which, besides being totally wrong, makes nonsense out of his later admission in the Ethics that pleasure is a good (the only questions at stake are whether it's the highest good, and if it needs qualification), he's not saying it's a virtue.

>how about you stop calling me wrong and dumb when the problem is you don't understand what it is you're saying or what i'm saying or that you simply don't care about accurate definitions of words?
You literally came in here to say OP was being wrong and dumb, while being wrong and dumb.

>>24833337
i've skimmed this, i'll respond to most of this in 12 hours or something. safe to say you're wrong, you're changing what you're saying and haven't understood what i've said
>Agathos is the word for "good", not virtue, which is arete,
should be aretee if you're being accurate in your transliteration. alpha rho epsilon tau nu, not alpha rho epsilon tau epsilon. that's just a taste of how WRONG and DUMB (You) in fact are

>>24833351
>should be aretee if you're being accurate in your transliteration. alpha rho epsilon tau nu, not alpha rho epsilon tau epsilon. that's just a taste of how WRONG and DUMB (You) in fact are
>alpha rho epsilon tau nu
It's alpha rho epsilon tau eta you idiot, and I was clearly transcribing it, not transliterating it, a transliteration would be aretḗ to differentiate epsilon and eta.

Lol, lmao even

>>24833359
it would be a transliteration if you were using a normal keyboard and it's more accurate as to how the word is pronounced

>>24833366
You don't know what the differences are between transliteration and transcription, and it would be pronounced ar-reh-tay, not tee, unless you're a modern Greek who refuses to believe their language sounded different 2000 years ago.

>>24833374
>You don't know what the differences are between transliteration and transcription
you don't know the difference between virtue and morality, which are completely different. i don't care about the difference between transliteration and transciption because they're so similar as to be identical
>it would be pronounced ar-reh-tay, not tee
ok so it's aretae or aretay and you chose arette because you're esl which explains everything.

>>24833380
>you don't know the difference between virtue and morality, which are completely different
Virtue and morality are tied up together in Ancient Greek thought, and your denial is just a denial based on feels.

>i don't care about the difference between transliteration and transciption because they're so similar as to be identical
That's funny, Mr. "i am precise as it pertains to language, because i believe word use matters".

>ok so it's aretae or aretay and you chose arette because you're esl which explains everything.
I used "arete," not "arette," which is the standard transcription of the word. Is your schtick to meet a quota in the number of wrong things you can assert in every post? Because it's pretty funny, ngl.

>>24833380
Nta but while Aristotle’s arete is not quite what we modern people mean by morality, “moral” behavior is definitely part of arete. Look at what he says about justice, almsgiving, philia, etc. Aristotle did not have a purely Greek/Homeric concept of virtue, like Plato he is pushing back against this. I think you’re both retards frankly. I feel empathy cringe at you for insisting that Aristotle’s virtue is indifferent to “morality”. Of course it is not at all clear what you even mean by this.

>>24833387
>Virtue and morality are tied up together in Ancient Greek thought
no, morality does not exist in ancient greek thought. only virtue does, which some people confuse for morality even though virtue is more accurate
>That's funny, Mr. "i am precise as it pertains to language, because i believe word use matters".
word use as it pertains to morality and virtue? yes, that matters. transcription and transliteration? irrelevant to everyone except filing clerks
>That's funny, Mr. "i am precise as it pertains to language, because i believe word use matters".
>I used "arete," not "arette," which is the standard transcription of the word. Is your schtick to meet a quota in the number of wrong things you can assert in every post?
so your definition of "wrong" is nonstandard? explains a lot
>>24833389
>Look at what he says about justice, almsgiving, philia, etc.
all virtues, that is to say good in moderation, bad in excess and deficiency. aristotle does not argue that we should be excessive in charity, does he?
>I feel empathy cringe at you for insisting that Aristotle’s virtue is indifferent to “morality”.
well then you haven't read the thread. my point is that virtue is the more accurate term and morality covers nothing in aristotle's arete or agathos that cannot be described as virtue. morality is simply a more imprecise, and mostly inapplicable, term

>>24833399
You’re arguing about words. Aristotle calls this out as a pseud move in his logic. Also of you think virtue ethics means you should be “moderately good” you got filtered. It’s like you only remember half of NE and are arguing off the half you remember. Yes, Aristotle’s ethics is not the same as Jesus. But neither me nor the other anon are claiming this. You are arguing about words you stupid faggot, there is no content here.

>>24833414
>You’re arguing about words. Aristotle calls this out as a pseud move in his logic.
quote him on that
>Also of you think virtue ethics means you should be “moderately good” you got filtered
i meant "moderately charitable"
>Yes, Aristotle’s ethics is not the same as Jesus.
putting it lightly
>But neither me nor the other anon are claiming this.
yeah you're claiming that "virtuous" is as accurate a term as "morally good" to describe aristotle's use of agathos, which is simply incorrect.
>You are arguing about words you stupid faggot, there is no content here.
all philosophy is language games, bitch. that's all philosophy is.

>>24827125
Ripping to shreds seems drastic. You're talking about the part in metaphysics where he says all philosophers make contraries first principles?

>you're already starting there but you might be overlooking the context.

He claimed this was the case to identify substance. So if you're presented with 1, and don't get excited over 1, then this is a hypothetical which was pared. In theory you can find the parts which were cut and this can establish the contrary. Either way there is a substance and this is usually just some measure, there was a tipping of the scale. You can't make negated substance first, well you can but that's garbage, so substance then negated substance. The scale can be reasonably tipped if there are limits but otherwise you've located the contrary.

>>24834200
I think i was confused about what a primary contrary is vs a derivative one and how one thing can have more than one contrary but I think I figured it out here >>24832717
but I worded it haphazardly at the end. I should have said excess and deficiency are derivatively contrary to sufficiency because they are species or modes of insufficiency which is the primary contrary of sufficiency. Not sure if this is relevant to your post which is probably going over my head.
>all philosophers make contraries first principles
the part is from X.7 1057b22 "Now contraries do not involve one another in their composition, and are therefore first principles."

>>24834246
huh?

>>24834265
god dammit

>>24834246
This is one of those things I usually can't help much with. I think you might be dismissing to lower categorization prematurely. Setting contraries as contraries for definite is going to take you further away from most probable. The exception is mostly just for no accidents, but this is already a situation where definite is ruled out.

>>24833302
>the forms just ARE
I'm asking how they exist prior to being immanent in matter and if they are transcendentally(?) present in the Divine Intellect.

This is what ChatGPT says:
“Virtue, then, is a mean between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency.”
(EN II.6, 1106b36–1107a2)
For example:
Courage (virtue) is the mean.
Cowardice (deficiency) and rashness (excess) are the vices.
Here, both vices are bad relative to the good of virtue — but they’re bad in opposite ways.
So it looks like the good has two contraries.

“The primary contrariety is between possession and privation.”
(Met. X.4, 1055a33–34)
Virtue is a possession (hexis) of the right mean — a form of order or measure in the soul.
Vice, by contrast, is a privation (sterēsis) of that proper measure.
So the primary contrary of the good (the perfected hexis) is the privation of that perfection — in general, evil (kakia, badness).
The various vices — cowardice, rashness, intemperance, stinginess, etc. — are species or modes of that one privation."

This makes sense to me and I understand now so unless you tell me how this is wrong then I think I'm okay to move on Thanks bros.>>24831489>>24833031
>>24833047
>>24833063

>>24834410
so you've been using contrariety and contrary interchangeably?
>This is why in some cases there is a mean (there are men who are neither good nor bad), and in others there is not (a number must be either odd or even). Further, some contraries have their subject defined, others have not. Therefore it is evident that one of the contraries is always privative; but it is enough if this is true of the first-i.e. the generic-contraries, e.g. the one and the many; for the others can be reduced to these.
sounds like contrariety only applies to maths gaytardation

>>24834476
You have to be 18 to use this site

>>24834504
is that a normal response to someone pointing out you mixed up two different words?

>>24834510
I'm not >>24834410, and only children use a word like "gaytardation"

>>24834583
"gaytardation" and "mathematics" are synonyms to everyone except sodomites. are you, by any chance, a sodomite?

File: 9cf.jpeg.jpg (53 KB, 828x395)

53 KB JPG

>>24834600
>"gaytardation" and "mathematics" are synonyms to everyone except sodomites. are you, by any chance, a sodomite?

>>24834608
sodomite confirmed!!!

>>24834616
You still have to be 18 years old to use this site

>>24834619
are you unironically gay though? that's gross

>>24834641
You don't gotta be gay to fuck a man in the ass, you just gotta be real mean

>>24834651
ok, perhaps a mathematician then

>>24833337
right i think i've decided to reread aristotle. i don't think either of us is properly representing him and obviously he didn't represent mainstream greek thought, which is what i was mostly aritculating

>>24836092
You wasted everyone's time you bastard.

>>24836377
time spent discussing philosophy is never wasted time