Fine, I’ll admit it. He was right all along and I’ve been a fool for years in order to try to escape from the truth.
>>25281482he was right about everything that doesn't have to do with hard sciences. was there ever any other (modern) take on him than that?
>>25281488Well, he is the father of the scientific method. Comparing him with modern science isn’t fair, as it was a continuous effort over multiple centuries and Aristotle was just one guy who refuted his master on some key points.
>>25281496even the method was critiqued by Bacon for too much deduction and not enough data.
>>25281482Right about what
>>25281501And that was a valid criticism. But it doesn’t devalue Aristotle Philosophy as a whole.
>>25281505Metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of nature (which is not natural science)
>>25281519yeah...just the nature parts
Lame thread made by a dullard. You could have posted _why- you think he is right. Or fucking anything besides a useless toss-away sentence.
>>25281505the Jews
>>25281520Right as in the soul exists as distinct from matter?
>>25281652The soul is the form, which keeps matter together. A human soul without a material body is deficient, that’s why at the end of times the soul is joined once again with the body
>>25281482Aristotle-sama... I kneelHis system of term logic was always superior to this fedora-tier modern Analytic logic>Dude but like... since unicorns don't exist, we'd get a false consequence from the true premiss "All unicorns are animals"!! No I will not explain how this is a true premiss if unicorns don't exist
>>25281505About Aristotle denying the subsistence of universals, i.e. Aristotle was a nominalist. Of course most anons do not know what a nominalist is, they think it is the same as relativism. But a nominalist is someone who denies that there is a universal like horse-ness outside the mind and this is Aristotle’s position, constantly affirmed.
>>25281679This is illustrative. They think for a proposition to be true it must correspond to an existent fact. Aristotle understood that universals never correspond directly with existent facts. Almost none of the Analytics concerns existence and it filters the shit out of people. Just imagine - someone from 2500 years ago is still avant garde. That’s why we love Aristotle here.
>>25281707It makes me think of Kant’s matter/form dualism.
>>25281714It should make you think of that and it should make you think of Heidegger as well. Aristotle is the driest, most boring philosopher on the surface but like the statuettes of Silenus the inside is full of gods.
>>25281707>that picno wonder he was into little boys
>>25281501Bacon was a fag who spawned globohomo.
>>25281679How is his logic any different from what math does
>>25281707>just a fat chudgrim
>>25281868Aristotle's logic is a way of understanding the form of explanations in general and then using this form to demonstrate metatheorems about epistemology. It's not a tool you use, it's an analysis of something we take for granted, namely the relation of the components of any explanation. So it's not a question of his logic being 'different' from 'what math does', it's more like epistemology than logic. The Prior and Posterior Analytics form one work (this is a known fact, Aristotle always refers to them as such); Prior An has to be read in terms of Post An. Neoplatonists and Arabs had already figured this out but when modern ((analytics)) tried to take a crack at Aristotle's logic they did what they always do and arrogantly ignored history. Because of this, about 25% of Prior An is completely incomprehensible to them. They don't understand the rest either ofc but they have to straight skip the modal syllogistic because it might as well be written in Linear A. This is because they don't understand the book or the arguments Aristotle is making.
>>25281881Thats fascinating thank you so much for this post.So if I master Aristotle I'm done with philosophy? How can I start down this path? The only classical authors I've read are homer and sophocles.
>>25281885Aristotle is just the beginning; in spite of its brilliance it rests on a strange astronomical theology which is not tenable any more. As much of a cheap or perhaps 'reddit' shot as this may sound, the entire system rests on science that we now know to be incorrect. What advice could you need on reading? It's a book, you read it; if it's hard, you read it a few times and maybe take notes or write short essays. There is a serious barrier to Aristotle in that his works are not organized well, so some passages don't make sense until later. For example, at the beginning of the Physics he mentions briefly that being is not a genus, he doesn't explain what he means by that, why he thinks it, or its significance until the middle of the Metaphysics. Stuff like that happens all the time in Aristotle.
>>25281885NTA I would suggest you start with the nicomachean ethics, since it is more accessible than other texts and you get a general feeling for Aristotles style. After that I would read the first five books of the metaphysics. There Aristotle does exactly what the other anon talked about (intersection of logic and epistemology). From there you can read on the soul or de generatione et corruptione, the first two books of the physics, it’s up to you because you will be equipped enough to understand most Aristotelian texts. However I would strongly advise against starting with the organon (which was originally intended as the starting point in philosophy), because it is probably the most dense and difficult collection of texts in the corpus aristotelicum. You can instead read porphyry’s introduction to the organon which is more accessible and the protrepticos which is a popular text meant for people without philosophical education.
>>25281885all readings of aristotle must start with plato and the pre socratics.
>>25281924No, Aristotle always gives summaries of the positions he is attacking. You should know in broad strokes about Platos philosophy, but you can get that from Wikipedia or the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy (for the academics on a high horse)
>>25281924If I was to do it all over again I'd actually read Plato and Aristotle side by side. I wrote out a whole schema for this and which dialogues should be read with which works of Aristotle but I can't find it atm. I hope we can all agree that Aristotle is objectively the greater philosopher and more interesting thinker than Plato. He just has 0 pseud appeal so Plato gets all the glory.
>>25281930there's no reason not to read plato and it would only be beneficial. usually i don't care about reading the long chains of who precisely who influenced who but int the case of classical greek philosophy come on now not being able to intelligently discuss plato would only hurt that anon pursuing artistotle.
>>25281937Ok, you’re right about that.
>>25281935Please share if you ever rediscover this
I keep my copy of Plato in the bathroom. He's my go-to poop read and I slowly work through all his works in cycles that run about a year and a half.
>>25281947How much fecal matter is on that book? Your hands?Your phone?
>>25281691I thought you had finally logged off. I also thought you admitted that you did not know enough about scholasticism to characterize Aristotle's position accurately.
>>25281952Augustine said he could see God in a pile of shit (sterculinum). He does the whole ladder of eros but starting from a turd-coil. I think it says a lot about the man and his worldview. This was in one of his early more 'Platonist' works but I can't find it right now; I remember the relevant passage also had a lot about 'numeri', another Platonism. Really annoyed I can't find it because I'm sure he said it somewhere, at least in passing.>>25281968All I learned from that thread is that Thomas' position was actually closer to Aristotle's than I realized. The upshot was, "Thomas, too, is basically a nominalist". I think it is essential to understand that Aristotle is really breaking with Plato - this shouldn't be hard to grasp considering he attacks him by name all the time, but some don't see this; and that his solution to the problem of universals is NOT "the forms are in the things", it is a denial of Forms period. As for the word 'nominalist', it characterizes someone who denies the existence of universals outside the intellect and this is what Aristotle says and most of the Metaphysics is about explaining this. Deal with it.
>>25281482If you read in translation you didn't read him
law of homo: being is lawlaw of special: you can fight the law
'universals' are also what Kant would consider to be qualities and what the medievals called 'quddity'. this version of universal is WAY DIFFERENT from a concept like being which is the genus of everything that exists. affirmative judgments of qualities effectively always state that they are. please stop visiting.
>>25282060I don't even know what you're trying to say. Kant speaks of universals as universals, not qualities, so you're off to a bad start. A universal is not the same as quiddity in medieval philosophy.> this version of universal is WAY DIFFERENT from a concept like being which is the genus of everything that exists.A universal is something that is predicated of many, said of many. It's that simple. But 'being' is equivocal, and it also (separate issue) cannot be a genus. So for instance 'substance' is a univocal universal and a genus. Is it a quality? No. Is it a quiddity? No. But I don't know what I'm replying to, your post reads like you just got kicked in the head by a mule.
>>25282075substance as a 'univocal universal' is just to say that it has no proper specification and things that fall under the category have no relation to other things that are named as such. however that expression for substance is not properly the thing that makes something what it is (the quddity or essence) which is the thing that makes it intelligible to multiple parties. a universal that is predicated of many is a particular, i mean what else could such a problem be about? being as an equivocal property of things is, i guess, if you want to be very granular, what makes it a genuine universal and not just an essence or substance. because it's equivocal for everything it is universal, it's that simple. substance is not only not common to everything that can be, but it also has no specification which makes it entirely not essential. that you have to say the 'that substance' to point to the specification, you are already delineating what it means for something to have a certain quality.there is NO KEY you can use to open the door of quiddity being the specification of being while maintaining that both substance and being have no specification.
>>25281505Politics
>>25281482>Fine, I’ll admit it. He was right all along and I’ve been a fool for years in order to try to escape from the truth.and you also get Alexander the Great DLC>In the story, Alexander ascends into the heavens for days. As he approaches the highest realms, he is stopped by a heavenly being (often described as a bird of paradise or a voice from the heavens) who tells him: "You who yet know nothing earthly, how can you know the heavenly?" Realizing he has overstepped his mortal boundaries, Alexander retreats back to Earth.
Bump
those aristotle anon threads were probably some of the best ever here
>>25281482I find it interesting that in his famous defense of slavery in "Politics" at the outset he gives this line which is the only surviving written record from antiquity of an argument that the institution of slavery is wrong>Let us first speak of master and slave, looking to the needs of practical life and also seeking to attain some better theory of their relation than exists at present. For some are of opinion that the rule of a master is a science, and that the management of a household, and the mastership of slaves, and the political and royal rule, as I was saying at the outset, are all the same. >Others affirm that the rule of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature; and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust.I wonder who these people were and what their full argument was, if this was an actual argument Aristotle was responding to and not just a hypothetical. Why are they never recorded anywhere else?
>>25283207Thanks man. I hope it helped people see that you can get a lot of milage out of even the most apparently boring philosophers, that any philosopher is much more than what ‘everyone knows’ about him. Obv others contributed massively and probably took some time off my life but I was the main asshole. I’m pretty sure my face was actually purple at times I was so pissed at people applying the ‘one over many’ realism to Aristotle when he thought that argument was completely retarded.>>25283221It sounds like something a sophist would say but that’s obvious enough. It’s a good spot to cite against chuds because Aristotle thought all these caucasoid tribes were defective and ought to be slaves of Greeks. Why couldn’t such a genius recognize the Innate Superiority of Whites? Because there is no such superiority, it’s all cultural.
>>25283269Aristotle had probably never even seen a non-white person.
>>25283303To the Greeks there were Greeks and barbarians, which was anyone who was not greek.
>>25282170At the time of this writing, about 80% of the people in Greece were slaves.
>bigbrain geniuses in ancient greece doing all their word salad thinking on rock chairs>a few thousand years later society decaying into mordor out of lord of the ringsagriculture was a mistake. Should've just stuck in bronze age collapse warlording. Humanity was meant to have blood feuds over shroom trips and nomad sustenance farming.
>>25283507Hi Chang
>>25283450And you came to that number how exactly?
>>25283508>literally everything in reality getting worse since death of jesus>nah hol' up muh plato aristotle theories can fix it brohuman condition was literally better in antiquity and your just gonna deny it and keep word salading it over the 2000 year old translations of aristotle
>>25283520Why do the bots reply in Chinglish? Couldn’t they train them to sound plausible at least lmao
>>25283521Why are you spamming every thread with this shit retard?
>>25283524Oh I’m only replying to the China posters, I don’t even interact with the others!>in every threadInteresting self-indictment there lmao
>>25283450>source: I made it up
>>25283527Samefag
>>25283526Writing in zoomer case isn't chinglish>forced lmaoCringe
>>25283524cf baudriller china sundrome or maybe literally nuclear content going to through the earth's core
>>25283533syndrome*
>>25283532
So the only question left is, if Thomism is a credible development of Aristotelian thought.
