/lit/ - Literature

>>13928961
>>13929059

"The problem seems to me, in both cases (the refrigerator case and the stick and rock case) you still haven't explained that which needed to be explained: in both cases the questioner has asked for a power to be explained (the fridge case the electricity, and in the stick case the motion) and you explained it by reference to another thing which has this power.

But the power itself still hasn't been accounted for: yet it must have an account, if one accepts the principle of sufficient reason. The infinite series cannot be accepted for that reason, because it makes the power fundamentally inexplicable. "

...so the theist might argue. I am not sure if it holds up, but at first glance I don't see anything wrong with it: what do you think of it?

I open the debate.

Aristotle was a worse thinker in every way than Plato: this isn't to say he was dumb but is to say that he was dumber than Plato. I can just see him in his Academy days: Plato is up there lecturing, and Aristotle, lisping and unshaven is bringing up the most inane objections, shouting from the back of the classroom in an autistic fashion. Sadly, this awkward young man is indeed really gifted, but just not quite able to ever grasp what Plato is going on about when he talks of seeing the form of the good, and the knowledge of this rips him up.

Everything good in Aristotle comes from Plato, as a close study of the dialogues will reveal. Everything bad in Aristotle stems from him trying to fit everything in to his system, which just doesn't work. He can't write. He can't think. Plato is clearly the greater.

Discuss.