>tfw you read what some autist wrote about Aristotle's PA, mixed modal syllogisms, and how Averroes figured it out for a few hours and now you understand it all no better feeling. and I got that education for free ^_^
bump
>>24923309ok but what book tho?
I’m glad someone got something from it, assuming you found my long posts from years back in the archives where I went through all of them. I was so obsessed with that shit I’d bring the complete works of Aristotle to my gf’s house, I’d wake up at 3 am say hi to the coke head neighbors on the porch and go to the uni library to read Averroes’ monographs and commentaries for hours before work. For several months it was practically all I thought about, it drove me mad, but glad someone anyone got something from my labors. The fact is though once I cracked the puzzle I hardly gave it a second thought, I don’t think it’s actually important for understanding Aristotle, just a wildly complicated autistic game. At least now you know for a fact that 99.9% of people who talk about Aristotle’s syllogistic don’t know the first thing about it. “Socrates is a man…” no buddy the terms are universals. “The categorical is a simple fact” no, again, these are universals they are not temporal in any way. Have fun trying to explain it to arrogant retards on 4chan. I guess the main benefit is showing that even at his most apparently incomprehensible Aristotle does make sense, and his logic is complete.
>>24923833Are you the guy who also fights the “Aristotelian” Thomists, too? If so, I have a couple questions.If the universals spoken about in PA are extratemporal and eternal, and if Aristotelian logic resists the metaphysics of modern logic (defined as bare particulars), then to what extent is Aristotle actually a nominalist? He doesn’t seem to be a modern nominalist. Yet the Platonic impulses of the Thomists to reify universals as “natures” doesn’t seem to be correct, either. It seems like we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.
>>24923833>“Socrates is a man…” no buddy the terms are universals.Is this wrong because Socrates has to be evaluated as a universal (when in reality he is a particular)?
>>24923899I’ve explained this many times, Aristotle himself explains it, so idk keep reading, I’m tired of it. Read Meta 13.10 where he answers you directly, but again I’ve said that before.>>24923903It’s because knowledge/science is of universals not particulars.
>>24924008What’s the middle ground between moderate realism and nominalism? Conceptualism? You don’t make yourself easy to understand when you’ve previously claimed that modern logic’s focus on bare particulars makes it impossible for modern logicians to understand Aristotelian logic. And I’ve got receipts.>It’s because knowledge/science is of universals not particularsSo Socrates would have to be treated as a universal for the syllogism to make sense, which is clearly not possible because he’s a particular.
>>24924008>no bekker numbersngmi
>>24924008>>24924171He doesn’t like explaining himself and he often says things under the influence of alcohol. Yeah he described modern logic as different from Aristotelian logic because the former is influenced by the metaphysics of “bare particulars”, but he also defends Aristotelian nominalism to the hilt. What’s the difference? No idea. Just take what he wrote, think for yourself, and move on.
>>24925246Wait, is this the same old man with a 30 year old bachelor's in classics who think he and he alone has read and understood Aristotle (and when challenged almost instantly is reduced to a torrent of racial slurs), or is that another Anon?
>>24925265Same guy, I don't know about the racial slurs tho. His favorite word is pseud.
>>24923899It's not just Thomism, you can look to the middle and late (neo) Platonist readings of Aristotle, or the (ancient version) of neo-Aristotelianism, as well as the way Aristotle was used and understood in the Greek Patristics and later Eastern Christendom, which is different from both the Thomist or Islamic approach in some key respects. Or within Scholasticism there are figures more like Bonaventure after Aristotle starts to spread. There are lots different flavors of what might very loosely be called a 'Platonist' reading of immanent universals (my favorite being the logoi/Logos of Maximus the Confessor, although it is fleshed out by the later development of the essence/energies distinction in Palamas and others).In terms of what Aristotle meant, that's another question due to the paucity of sources and questions about how his corpus comes down to us, or how the dialogues might have varried. If Aristotle agreed with Plato (in the Seventh Letter) that some elements of metaphysics need to be approached obliquely, the loss of the dialogues could be pretty damn important. At any rate, Middle Platonists and even figures earlier than that period is normally bracketed to were reading Aristotle's dialect natively and didn't seem to have trouble accepting him in more of this direction.Personally, I've never much wondered about it because, while late Platonic and Patristic readings of Aristotle certainly do seem to get further away from the parts of his corpus we have, I think they're simply better and developing him in a more fruitful direction. There are things I don't love about Thomas though.
>>24925280Give him some prolonged resistance and after "tradcath," and "pseud" he will slip towards calling everyone a "jeet retard," before finally replying to posts with just "nigger."Seen it several times now.
>>24925291Ironic given a tradition where it is said to be impossible to come to full understanding while still ruled over by the passions and lacking in virtue.
>>24925300He excuses himself by dismissing the Ethics (except for the chapters on the intellectual virtues) as unimportant because it's not science.
>>24925265Honestly, I don't even care if he wants to wage a crusade against Thomism and tradcaths. He's clearly studied this in-depth, and I've learned a lot from him. I just want to understand Aristotleanon's conclusions better, and I don't understand how there can be a middle position between moderate realism and nominalism. If modern logic is different from Aristotelian logic because the former holds bare particulars (nominalism) to be the true metaphysics, then how can Aristotle also be a nominalist too? Clearly he's something different, even if he does not go as far as to be a moderate realist as he is taken to be by the Thomists. There's not much room to maneuver here. This is why when I actually read the Metaphysics (Sachs translation) cover-to-cover like he exhorts so many to do, I took the position that Aristotle thought that essence is a form that is neither universal nor particular. So, not quite a realist or even a moderate realist, but not quite a nominalist either. So maybe we are actually in agreement, and I just accidentally triggered him? I have no idea.Hopefully he'll return in a better mood.
>>24925288≥In terms of what Aristotle meant, that's another question due to the paucity of sourcesHe talks about it all the time, dude. There is no paucity in this area, although the only place where he really ties the various pieces together and completely 'answers' the problem of universals is Meta 13.10. Sometimes I think this chapter was originally part of Meta 7 since he promises to answer the question there and never does. I remember I had people months back calling me a pseud, saying I was "Dunners-Kruger", then I hit them back with the many, many places where he attacks a Platonist conception of universals and they had nothing to say. Goddamn faggots had never even read Aristotle. So that's why I'm not keen to get into these fine debates with people here, most haven't read the books (including you, sorry, or you didn't put much effort in). Then they also can't understand Aristotle's answer, which affirms both the essentiality of being and its immediacy and unknowable individuality. He explains this, as I said Meta 13.10 is the clearest spot, but people who aren't used to reading philosophy, or don't know Aristotle's technical jargon, can't understand it and keep finding fresh 'contradictions' ('but then... how IS it a dog???'). Then they get buttblasted and start attacking me and I attack them, and so on. >seventh letter>some elements must be approached obliquelyThis is a red flag for me too, it makes me suspect you're not interested in thinking through philosophical problems at all and are just a wannabe mystic. Certainly God, for Aristotle, is not known discursively but noetically. But the problem of universals is answerable discursively and Aristotle has answered it. >>24925291Yeah lol I do ultimately sperg out. But it is frustrating, you have no idea how ignorant you are. We are not on the same level, though you could be here too if you put in the work. I think OP is actually doing this, good for him.>>24925300Aristotle does not say this. Also, I admit it is wrong to get drunk and call retarded people 'retards' on 4chan but I doubt you're a paragon of virtue yourself.>>24925340It's not that it's 'unimportant' of course ethics is important. But the science of ethics is different from actually being ethical, as Aristotle says. So my point in the past has been that studying philosophy, or studying ethics, will not make you a good person, that's a work that happens outside of philosophy. If you think reading big fat Greek books will make you a good and virtuous person you are a fool. You're just trying to pick at me, I've talked to you many times and you do not know anything about Aristotle. I've exposed you as a pseud repeatedly, like when (if it was you) you insisted philosophy was a Useful Science that would make you a good man, and I showed in Meta 1 where Aristotle explains philosophy as the useless science, knowledge for its own sake. I just don't feel like getting into these shit-fests, it's bad for my blood pressure.
>>24925461>the science of ethicsIt's not a science, it plainly can't beby the definition of science as pertaining to what's necessary and eternal while ethics pertains to contingent particulars of life. Pseud.>is different from actually being ethicalDuh. Way to miss Aristotle's explicit purpose for the Ethics btw, "we are conducting an examination, not so that we may know what virtue is, but so that we may become good.">like when (if it was you) you insisted philosophy was a Useful Science that would make you a good manYou mean when I quoted Aristotle's Protrepticus and *he himself* says philosophy and philosophers are plainly helpful for becoming good and beneficial and learning how to be good and beneficial? Whatever you say, you're disagreeing wth Aristotle.>and I showed in Meta 1 where Aristotle explains philosophy as the useless science, knowledge for its own sakeThis is just Wittgensteinian slip-and-sliding, as though useful for Aristotle always means productive, which is his specific denial. Pseud.>>24925356I don't know why you put so much weight in what he thinks, he insists syllogismos doesn't mean or have anything to do with reasoning when that's the very meaning of the word in every contemporary Greek author, from Plato and Thucydides to the rhetoricians. It's like he would gloss the word "reason" by saying "it has nothing to do with reasoning." And he bullshits by pretending the Prior Analytics is actually about demonstration and not syllogisms in general, when that's exactly what Aristotle lays down as the purpose of Prior Analytics in ch. 4, "After these distinctions we NOW state by what means, when, and how every syllogismos is produced; SUBSEQUENTLY we must speak of demonstration. Syllogsmos should be discussed BEFORE demonstration, because syllogismos is the MORE GENERAL: a demonstration is a sort of syllogismos, but not every syllogismos is a demonstration." His contempt for dialectic is silly considering Aristotle calls it useful for discovering principles, "It has a further use in relation to the ultimate bases of the principles used in the several sciences. For it is impossible to discuss them at all from the principles proper to the particular science in hand, seeing that the principles are the prius of everything else: it is through the opinions generally held on the particular points that these have to be discussed, and this task belongs properly, or most appropriately, to dialectic: for dialectic is a process of criticism wherein lies the path to the principles of all inquiries." Magically, he'll concede what he's refused to ever otherwise in any other circumstance concede as long as the words are, quoted, and he'll magically and suddenly discover himself talking about the importance of dialectic and how he never denied it because he only talks to win or look impressive.
>>24925356This might help some. Give it a try. You don't need any of the subsequent contributors.>form + matter are both required for essence.>form > matter>I don't remember where he posits this but if you don't treat form > matter then you will have difficulty discerning genuine articles.>Aristotle claimed no substance can be both universal and particular.>Aristotle also equivocated and used his substances as both.>treat the essence by itself as universal.>treat the particular as the substance.>identifying the substance is critical.>if it has been properly identified then substance is essence.>if you are confused at this point then you still have one shot.>if you think this makes sense then stick to the various commentators and let them make the shot for you.>univocal-->equivocal-->analogical>no one likes an equivocator but everyone does it. >if you can make it from univocal--> analogical without revealing equivocal then you are now an Aristotle.Future congratulations are in order if you take your one shot. Welcome to no start hylomorphism. Supposedly we can't make a comeback since we never went anywhere. Don't ask questions you already knew the answers to. If you don't want to make the shot then you get commentators and a genuine Aristotle terrifies them. >inb4 pseud>inb4 me meta>inb4 b-b-but my turditional gonotologist said my transition hole was real!>inb4 m-m-muh philosophy is a wasteTranlosophists get the pipeline. Ywnbaw, you may end up better or worse. It feels like a waste because you're still stuck in the me meta phase.
>>24925461I love how you couldn’t even bother to defend or explain your claim where you make Aristotle to be more than a nominalist (and insist that it’s necessary to understand the difference between Aristotelian logic and formal logic). Now you’ve backtracked and insulted everybody for ever taking you seriously. MY BAD for reading your words and the original source.Man, fuck you, dude. I can’t stand your pompous, hypocritical, and alcoholic ass. Like, I literally had you quoted and your claims highlighted, and you can’t even be bothered to acknowledge it. I think it would be hilarious if somebody read your work on this forum, absorbed it, and then never acknowledged your labor. It’s what your faggot ass would deserve.
>>24923833everyone in france seems to have understood aristotle as simple formalization of the Idea.
>>24925356I'll let you in on a secret : it is in Plato.
>>24925246Aristotle is a nominalist in the sense that he denies subsistence to abstract universals (horse, horseness). But there are no “bare particulars” - an x really is in itself a horse, a dog, whatever. And yet there is no “horse”, “dogness” as such, except in an intellect. What makes Aristotle’s solution difficult is that it is genuinely speculative, ie a transcending of finite categories and a reflection into infinitude. Much of his philosophy is like this, like his solution to paradoxes of motion, etc, this is why he is a great thinker and why Hegel loved him. “Is it infinitely divisible or not?” It’s both. I don’t mind explaining myself I just don’t like explaining the same thing over and over again to an aggressively hostile audience. These aren’t private hot takes I’m relaying to you exactly what he says, where he says it even, and it’s still “hmmmm I dunno… but, then, what IS Socrates-ness??” It’s frustrating as shit lol. Aristotle’s solution is elegant and it is described in full in meta 13.10 and partways everywhere else, in the Categories (secondary substance is quality), in the zoological works, everywhere, this is his whipping-horse, the main point where he breaks with the Academy, and it has profound consequences.
>>24926066So he’s a conceptualist, and that’s why he’s above mere “bare particulars”? I see. Thank you. Gee, was that so hard? >aggressively hostile audienceHonestly, you make a curious and receptive audience hostile because you’re such a fucking presumptive and haughty asshole man. You bring it on yourself. Anyway, I have nothing more to ask of you. Thank you.
>>24925356Right but the confusion always arises in picture-thinking, and your moderate moderate realism suffers from this. “Surely, horseness is real.” It is, but it isn’t a being. I don’t see how any sort of realism withstands Aristotle’s constant attacks in the Metaphysics. What IS horseness, exactly? Nothing, this is his consistent position, except a thought in your soul. But this thought refers to actual horses, and it is essential to them, as individuals, to be thought of as horses.
>>24926312I'm not at all the anons you were replying to so far in this thread, but if this is true, essence is axiomatized subjectively to the soul as a thought in reference to actual horses yet doesn't exists outside of the soul's intellection, so then, what's stopping anyone from asserting that actual referent is all an hallucination in your mind as a belief that can be dismissed as a falsehood due to being incapable of referring to axioms outside of one's mind so that any other mind can too know of this?
>>24926312>Right but the confusion always arises in picture-thinkingDoesn't Aristotle say that the mind thinks through images? Anyway, I've had my hunches about how to extend things further through stretching act and potency to its limits, and through the idea that thoughts/universals are indices of some kind. But I've tortured you enough for now.
>>24926066>>24926312The real question is why is this incompatible with modern metaphysics. I don't see how this is anything more than "bare particulars". Is it because that Aristotle at least admits that essence is real and fundamental, but no essence is self-subsistent outside of the being that it defines and the mind which apprehends it?
pill me on bare particulars, did America really just start existing after England?
>>24925671>I don't know why you put so much weight in what he thinks, he insists syllogismos doesn't mean or have anything to do with reasoning when that's the very meaning of the word in every contemporary Greek author, from Plato and Thucydides to the rhetoricians. It's like he would gloss the word "reason" by saying "it has nothing to do with reasoning."Honestly it's not that crazy of an opinion. You reason until you understand, and once you understand, you explain. It's like climbing a ladder until you reach the apex of understanding, then you descend with the explanation. Analytics is about the form and matter of explanation (Prior and Posterior respectively). How reasoning itself works (in the sense of discovery and sorting things out) is covered elsewhere like in De Anima and Topics (and I guess Sophistical Refutations).
>>24926066Honestly, half the reason why I never engage with you at a deeper textual level is because I can't be bothered to convert book numbers to the appropriate Greek letter in my head. I wish you did Bekker numbers or at least referred to Zeta, Eta, Lambda, or whatever tickles your fancy.
>>24926527he also calls horse a universal?
if it's thin and you grin, you're in sider town pal
>>24926066No one likes explaining to you over and over that you should learn the difference between a universal, essence, quiddity, and nature either bro, but here we are.You make the same basic mistake over and over.
>>24925671>>24926523If “syllogisms” aren’t “logic” or “reasoning” but rather explanations, then which works cover reasoning and/or logic? How do we get from observations of particulars to generalizations to axioms? How do we figure out more middle causes?
>>24927345Religious?
Will somebody please POST FUCKING ARCHIVE LINKS or at least direct me to search terms "posterior analytics" and "meta 13.10" are very broad and narrow respectively k thanks I appreciate the posts
>>24925461>Antique commentators who clearly see Aristotle as a realist (and *gasp* a Platonist) didn't read the book.Sorry bud. I know you think you're the only person in the world who can read Greek, but when it comes to complex philosophy reading a language learned later in life, which you don't use day to day, in an extinct dialect, isn't really much to go on. Early moderns were fluent in Latin and they still managed to butcher the scholastics because key terms had shifted their meanings. And here you are, an American speaking to antique Greek.Whereas Porphyry spoke it natively.
>>24927937https://warosu.org/lit/thread/23699127https://warosu.org/lit/thread/23714959https://warosu.org/lit/thread/23725760https://warosu.org/lit/thread/23776870https://warosu.org/lit/thread/24880176Non-exhaustive, but this should be enough to get you started. "Mixed modal syllogism", "Marko Malink", "Malink", etc., are some search terms that could help you too. He has a distinctive style.
>>24927998Thank you muchly I had only found the first couple of those
>>24927972Their native Greek was Koine, was it not?
>>24926374Universals aren’t “axiomatized subjectively” they are learned by experience as he describes in post an 2.19. The universal is indeed grounded in the actual particulars, not the subject. He actually addresses this objection in Meta 10 - is man the measure of all things? No, on the contrary, man *is measured* by all things. Your universal thoughts, while subjective, are caused by real particulars, so they are not arbitrary. You also can’t lose sight, in this problem, of his theology, how the simplicity of God is mediated by the spheres, etc. Aristotle’s solution to universals is very similar to his solution to Zeno’s paradoxes. In both cases what is at issue is the relation between the potential (the universal, the points) and the actual (the this, the segment). It’s the same exact move and here, as there, the confusion arises in thinking “but, surely, if it’s infinitely divisible, there is an actual infinity of points”. “But, surely, if the universal refers to real particulars, it is itself an actual substance, or perhaps a half-substance of some kind”. But with universals it’s harder because you can’t see it lol. And we’re used to reifying universals, and this is perfectly legitimate, as long as you don’t forget the nature of what you’re reifying.Beyond that I might respond to more, I know not everyone here is a retard, but we’re going in circles. Read Meta 13.10 a few times, take a walk, think about what he says, and read everything else too. Even Gerson admits this chapter is pure nominalism. There is loads of confusion itt, like, as usual, most of you don’t know what eidos means in Aristotle. The intellect does “become” form - so do your senses, as he says. But the form your intellect becomes is a universal, not a real being. The idea that your intellect becomes, not a universal, but the thing, is Empedocles, he attacks this theory in DA1.What’s the “cash value” as that faggot pseud James would say? That reality is not perfectly intelligible, that it’s real in itself, in its contingency and individuality, that there is a dark side to the moon and that’s where we live, and it’s not an illusion or mere appearance, this is life. And that God himself is, not a concept, or a universal, but living ousia, and not to be corny but the same can be said of (you).
>>24928252Honestly, if you'd give some Bekker numbers, I'd be able to look at your passages more easily. I'm traveling so my copy of Metaphysics is at home, and the only non dogshit copy of Metaphysics online (Perseus) is divided into Books and Bekker numbers, with no chapters in-between for some reason.
>>24928252I guess if particular forms exist and are the essences of particulars, then universals are just relationships between particular forms. And those relationships can be about any aspect of those forms, so there's no reason to say that they exist on their own, they definitively don't exist on their own, and they're not the final destination of predication like Aristotle points out in Categories. I suppose the only question I have left is why do there seem to be "bundles" of properties that are properly united as universals that perpetuate themselves across particulars, e.g. the species homo sapiens. That definitely seems to be more real and self-perpetuating than "green-ness", though obviously human-ness doesn't exist like a particular. Honestly man, I'm sorry for bothering you so much about this question. I guess what interests me the most is looking for the basis of a "formal science", and what interests me the most is when Aristotle talks about how contraries differ from contradictories, how he distinguishes between differentia and accidents, and otherwise finding out how any property relates to each other. Like, diairesis is such an underrated way of thinking and I apply it often to my own life as well.
>>24928325I’d say - what bundle of properties? Neither the individual nor the universal can be characterized this way, as a sort of ‘heap’. Aristotle consistently says the nominal account of a thing only signifies (semainei) the essence. But for the perpetuation of species, see Gen An 4. The individual animal is the product of its parents’ genetic material. Of course it is essentially a man or whatever, the universal, it is such as to be subsumed within this general concept, but it’s also a particular. So you see the true, nominalist Aristotle allows for modern biology, while the cringe, likely homosexual realists can’t explain it. If you want a pure formal science like that you’d love Hegel’s Science of Logic. Aristotle only scratched the surface desu.
>>24928252Before I start my reply, I'm not these repliers>>24928261>>24928325All particular things aren't bare particulars but is itself a universal as well as bare particulars also universal if it is ever brought to mind as thought, so it cannot be referenced to strictly speaking as it is pure nominalism, so then Aristotle has never positively explained what are particulars besides having them be essentially actual to the mind that is a particular yet the mind to itself a universal, which is Ari's whole gimmick to place forms strictly into universals of some category, and have the particular matter being referenced only in potentia and never ever dare talk about actual particulars in how it actually is as it is conceptualizably impossible and beyond his own proclivities to answer what even is the matter with particulars in themselves as it is to him, nothing at all but universals given a name, and to such a response, all I have to say is why would anyone in their hopefully right minds even bring up a false dichotomy with universals and particulars when it is universals all the way around with him? If anything, it is a circular definition to have particulars never be positively known and only be negatively unknown in knowing it is not a universal and how that universal is treated to have actual particularity. It is a cop out ultimately to refuse to properly, strictly define what are the attributes of actual particulars, for if it is unattributive in any thought whatsoever, then it isn't really a principle for universals either, which makes Aristotle a potential conceptualist (pure nominalism) or a potential and actual conceptualist (requires defining actual bare particulars not in terms of universals).
>>24928465
>>24928452Two btw’s - the problem of bundling just is the unity of matter and form; and, in gen an 4, he *explicitly rejects* the idea that the universal, horseness etc, has anything to do with the propagation of the individual.
>>24928473>Socrates shows upDamn right no one knows anything.>Plato shows upI can see why you became an authoritarian.>Aristotle shows upYou must be the upgraded version.>team no start hylomorphismSolves metaphysics.
>>24928452It's hard for me to enjoy Science of Logic because Hegel doesn't understand Pure Being nor Pure Nothing. I would have loved to see him joust Tweetophon on this issue.
>>24926527I've written numbers 1 5 and 10 into the contents page of my copy
>>24925954>everyone in francelmao what? you're not the intellectual center of the world anymore
>>24929777My book has the actual chapters. But I don't always have my books with me lol. It's just so weird because Bekker numbers are standard and very specific so why not just say 1024a20-32 or something like that.
>>24925461>get drunkThen stop. Cultivate discipline.
>>24929916I understand naming chapters desu it feels more natural (even though there's no difference) but I do agree just use the alphabeta nigga
>>24930276No I’d rather be a philosophical rascal, like Maimon, besides my family is full of drunks it’s our nature. My great-grandpa died in his 40s from drinking, grandpa was an alcoholic doctor who predicted he would die of cirrhosis, dad fucked his health up severely from it too, but did cut back in middle age, my favorite uncle drinks a 12 pack a day, my cousin got hospitalized for wd seizures etc. It’s like riding a bike, natural. I can’t believe some dude above is doubting me on what a syllogism is, this is just what Aristotle says, it becomes explicit and crystal clear in Post An - and Topics for that matter, as he thinks all these dialectical moves are syllogisms, but none are “all men are tall” predicate-subject. Or look at prior an 2.22 when he talks about sex, good luck converting that proof to “a is b” syllogisms. Kierkegaard tells a story about a clown who tries to warn a town about a fire and they dismiss him because he is a clown, that’s how I feel drunk posting about Aristotle because I am correct but you faggots who haven’t even read him don’t want to hear it. It’s all pretty hopeless, but I comfort myself by thinking how worthless and stupid most of you are.
>>24928966>I read the first five pages and decided I knew all about it
>>24930879>I comfort myself by coping and seethingSounds right
I prefer the Penguin Classics edition.
>>24926066What happens if whales go extinct? How can we think about dinossaurs? How can we think about non existing things?
>>24930918lol come on anon, were you really convinced by "Pure Being" = "Pure Nothing"? Parmenides would have bitchslapped this autistic German motherfucker to oblivion.
>>24930918There's no point of reading further into a work if the foundation and proof of concept is demonstrably false, unless you're just curious about what the person thinks in general or want to pan for a few nuggets of accidental insights.
>>24930879I think a few people have taken on your challenge of converting things into syllogisms on /lit/ before, at least from geometry.
>>24928452>I’d say - what bundle of properties? That's a fair point. But a bit of a distraction. In any case, I don't want to get too caught up here, because I only wanted to point out that the strange persistence of species-similarity seems to be somewhat unexplained.>The individual animal is the product of its parents’ genetic material. True, which is why individuals and parents share so much of their essence. But what about the relationship between individuals and other individuals that are not immediately related to them? Why do certain characteristics perpetuate themselves far more frequently than others, so much so that we consider said characteristics to be part of what it means to be a certain type? >So you see the true, nominalist Aristotle allows for modern biology, while the cringe, likely homosexual realists can’t explain it.I agree, but it reduces Aristotle into thinking that the essence of any man is their DNA, and that the definition of man is to be DNA machines of a certain type (and evolution is when we have a new population of DNA machines who no longer fit that previous type).
>>24925461Again, your difficulty is that you seem to think the term 'universal' is interchangeable with 'essence' and 'nature,' which leads to setting up a strawman where the intellectual universal is either exclusively 'in the mind' as universal, or else we are committed to some sort of naine 'two worlds' Platonism is 'horseness' exists.If you look at later synthesizers, such as Saint Maximus the Confessor, Avicenna, or Saint Thomas, they absolutely don't think of things in terms of this 'two worlds view.' To use Saint Maximus as an example, the logoi of creatures are not freestanding, discrete from the Logos. Indeed, he points out that nothing is wholly intelligible in itself, since a nature's context determines its activity.But returning to Aristotle:In Meta 7, he points out that the form of a sphere does not come into being when artisans cast a bronze sphere. The form already exists regardless of if it is instantiated.Likewise, in Book 8 he suggests that the form man would still exist if there were no men, just as the form of a sphere would exist even if none were not cast (1045a). So too, in Book 9 it is reiterated that form is ontologically prior to matter.Similarly, in Book 2 of the Physics, he reiterates that the form of shapes is prior to their exemplification.Likewise, the way in which principles (a unifying 'one' through which a multiplicity of causes are known) resolve the Problem of the One and the Many requires that principles are in some sense prior to causes. What sort of priority? This is a tricky question, and why Aristotle is revised. Aristotle seems on solid ground when he says that concrete particulars are what are known best *to us* and that principles are what are known best *in themselves* (first by nature). But the exact sort of priority for the genus over the species is a continuing question that leads towards the introduction of paradigmatic causes.
>>24932057Indeed if form, to be one thing and not any other (and so one type of being and not any other) were not prior, then matter (as a principle of individuation) would presumably be neither prior nor posterior to form, or else matter would itself be prior to form, which would also be to say that act and potency are neither prior nor posterior to one another, or else potency is prior to act. But this is absurd. Likewise, following the Peripatetic axiom that nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses, the universal cannot be in the intellect unless it exists in some sense prior. So too, if everything is received in the manner of the receiver, man cannot come to know anything without first *being* something in particular (another case of priority).
>>24930879Then i wish you good luck.
Aristotle, as it appears, wrote two ANALYTICS. The first introduced the common syllogism, giving rise to logic as a discipline of study and securing Aristotle a place in the broader history of science and philosophy.The second introduced modal logic, concerning necessity and possibility. This is arguably the most obscure part of any literature in history. It has given generations of commentators room to speculate, and as we see with modern modal logics like the one developed by Kripke, there is a reason for that. The formal structure of possibility and necessity is notoriously difficult to grasp, counterintuitive, and to some degree dependent on speculation.Aristotles modal logic was connected to his essentialistic metaphysics about act and potential.>>24923833Link your postings, please!
>>24925288In my opinion, we have to distinguished between:1. What Aristotles wrote and explicitly states anyway.2. The interpretation of Aristotles during the history of thought.3. What a reconstructed system of Aristotle's logic would allow for inference, i.e., if we assume his syllogism is a system of symbolic logic similar to modern logic.From my point of view, the (3) point is nothing more than a intellectual exercise, just like (1). However, (2) is important to understand the history of European spritis.>>24927998Thanks.
>>24932164Interestingly, Cicero seems to lean most towards the Peripatetics (despite his ethical treatise using a more Stoic approach, but that isn't that odd since the late-Platonists use Epicetus for functional reasons too). Yet despite this, he is producing stuff like Scipio's Dream, which is hugely popular. I think a modern tendency to read things in modern ways, or to focus on readings that can be shifted in that direction (which is why I think Marcus Aurelius and Epicetus are more popular than Seneca, despite the former having a more developed philosophy) tends to paper over how much trends we call "Platonic" are actually endemic to ancient thought. So sure, the Stoics might be something like the Sophist's "giants" in their materialism, but the priority of Logos makes this materialism very unlike modern materialism (as does their existence on causality). There is, in a way that isn't always clear (in Aristotle as well) a priority for form/Logos. I think this is precisely why, despite a very open environment, the Stoics, Empiricists, Epicureans, Peripatetics, etc. all went extinct, not from persecution, but due to being out debated, so that you end up with only Platonism and a highly "Platonic" form of Jewish and Christian (and later Islamic) thought. This isn't to say that the Stoics and Aristotle don't continue to have huge influence, but it seems like precisely this metaphysical issue that puts the Platonists on top.Granted, the original theory of forms had huge issues. IMHO, Plotinus, Origen, Proclus, Denys, the Cappadocians, etc. resolve this fairly satisfactorily, although there are still major outstanding issues.
>>24932164yw
>>24925288Given that Jesus was actually God, and the Logos itself, it's pretty obvious that those with access to that knowledge will be led to a more coherent and total philosophical understanding as well, even if it is secondary to the ascetical and mystical ascent.But then for a lot of people, they seem to gravitate towards Aristotle or Stoicism as against their later interpreters precisely because they want to reject Christianity.
>>24928966>>24930918>another Hegelcel tries to equate Pure Being and Pure Nothing, even though Being is and Nothing is notWhy should I try to make 1 = 0? Even the most indeterminate being is infinitely more being than any kind of nothing (which is not). An indeterminacy still "is" and is far more being than nothing ("is not") of any kind (if we can properly say that nothing has kinds).
>>24934902Not to disagree with you, but rather go a step further, is it appropriate to even say that "indeterminacy still "is"", or should it be treated like the statements that supposedly posit a "nothing" (ie: meaningless nonsense)?For surely if something "is", this entails that it "is what it is". Otherwise we wouldn't have a "something" to say that it "is", and indeed the lone "is" would not specify anything in particular. So the question is: is indeterminacy what it is? When one answers no (for if the answer is yes, it would be determinate), surely they should then ditch the nonsense of literal "indeterminacy" and proceed to honour identity and speak meaningfully. Wishful thinking in an aristotle/hegel thread, I know.
>>24934902but its being something is not, that's hegel's only point. for hegel the end (of phenomenology of spirit) contains the beginning (of logic) so special determination is the specific direction he already presupposes being to take. you're right that nothing constrains being to determination by negation. hegel's point rather seems to be that wisdom requires some sort decisionistic exception according to which we delimit multiplicity. he seems to demand representation as a technique. which i think is also the point of aristotle's departure from plato's dramatizations of the problem.
>>24923833satsuki anon?
>>24934951i think we could say that "indeterminacy has no quiddity" even if its essence refers it to nothing.
>>24934970...and after that taste of word salad, my day-trip into the realm of hegelstolian slop is done. As you were, anons.
>>24934996>use of complex language >mixture of meaning and reference >already in agreementI'ze parmenides nigga. I'ze out here bein n sheeeeet. I done did done already moved past im doe I do I do doe it done dern diddly always done been dat way. >glad to see you'll never demonstrate anything.
>>24923833There are thousands of myteries that lie left to be solved. A real intellectual doesn't dwell on his victories or rest upon his laurels. He has his moment of relief and then moves on to the next matter.
>>24934951>>24934960there's a difference between being something, being anything, a possibility for being, and nothing.
>>24934902*Hegcel
