/lit/ - Literature

>>20184938
That's just your intuition bro

>>20036323
Truthfully, that's a little like asking what Aristotle thought of when we talk about electrons or protons. He very likely didn't really have a conceptual frame of reference that allowed him to think about the world that way.

However, you can most certainly replace "Gods" or "the influences of the Gods" or with "the unconscious" as a way to begin thinking critically about whether or not it seems reasonable to transmute the meaning of his propositions into something equivalent to a modern day comprehension of the dynamic unconscious.

>But as I understand he also speaks about a difference between passive and active intellect, between 'animal' souls and human souls. And this is related to his model of memory recall: that while animals can remember things, humans can intentionally recall things.
He approaches something like a loose cognizance of the differences in consciousness between individual people, and between animals, but this does not really translate into an understanding of the unconscious in the fashion that we've come to apprehend it. Aristotle was very much of the position that the totality of the contents of a mans mind were given to him the moment he consciously chose to bring them into the focal locus of consciousness. Indeed, his analysis of dreams reveals as much.

How could he be so sharp? Even empirical science could catch up with him after hundreds of years?

I have nothing to say to people who overanalyze and nitpick arguments and ignore the main points. It’s so obvious to tell who did and didn’t start with the Greeks lol. No (you)’s for you. Machines have gotten us closer to understand the true forms than man ever will.