/lit/ - Literature

>>10321119
If you think about it, you're at the literally center of your subjective experience of the world.
All things that exist, that are not you, exist in every direction around you.
In an infinite universe, the only center is arbitrarily defined. If we define the center of the universe as our subject experience of reality, then every person is the center of their universe.

>>10321136
>infinite
Actual or potential?

>>10321150
Actual. Current science suggests that the whole of the universe is actually infinite.

>>10321159
It doesnt suggest it so much as assumes it.

>>10321187
Well in the end it's one of those unknowable things. Anything outside of our 93 billion mile wide sphere of observation might as well not exist, because it can't be measured or affect anything.

Mathematical models project it to be infinite based on current information anyway.

>>10321201
>mile
Light-year. Fuck.

>>10321201
>can't be measured so can't affect anything
That's where you're wrong kiddo.

Anyway i havent read aristotle, seems pointless to do so in the current year.

>>10321213
Anything outside the observable universe is fundamentally unmeasurable. That's why it's not the observable universe.

>>10321214
Well if science cannot account for something it should not comment on it, imo.

>>10321226
It can make projections.
That's what science does. The math predicts, and if possible it's confirmed later.

Maybe in a thousand years we'll have some quantum wormhole fuckery to confirm or deny it.

>>10321119
Are there any good criticism or outright refutations of his metaphysics?

His work is kind hard and dry to get into and it seems like the few people who have read him seriously are heavily attached to it.

>>10321319
Darwinism is thought by many to have thrown a wrench at teleology. I don't hold that view myself, however.

>>10321213
I can't imagine being this retarded. Please tell me why it's a waste of time to read Aristotle?

>>10321454
I used to have an aversion to reading him because of Randians who thought we should only read Aristotle. But then I read him for myself.

>>10321119
Does anyone itt know why people still take Plato's idea of forms seriously? To me it just sounds laughable...

>>10321600
Please, share with us your knowledge on Plato's eidos, so we can all laugh.

>>10321609
Did I step on your toes? Neo-Platonism is usually for Christ cucks, right?

>>10321656
No, I'm not upset. More like surprised of your jugdement and the amount of knowledge you must achieved to speak in such terms.

>Neo-Platonism is usually for Christ cucks, right?

Even if that's the case, I don't see the point/problem, or what are you impliying. Although you started talking about Plato and still don't see what's so laughble (I would like to know and learn more about Plato).

>>10321687
I've read enough secondary lit to know he basically believes in magical forms behind everything.
>the ideal mailbox
>the perfect pile of dog feces
>the metaphysically necessary table of tables

>>10321719
>I've read enough secondary lit
Ah, what I was afraid about.

>to know he basically believes in magical forms behind everything.

Maybe you should read more to get further instead of this superficial view.

>>the ideal mailbox
>>the perfect pile of dog feces
>>the metaphysically necessary table of tables

I don't know what you mean by the first phrase. English is not my native language so excuse me.

The second thing (I'm guessing) is the Parmenides, a middle period dialogue where Plato questions his own theory of ideas, and start developing problems to his own theory (in the first part of tje dialogue, in the second he tries to find solutions). In this case, until that point he thoght in ideas of things beauty, justice, goodness, etc., but if there's an idea for each thing, there must be an idea of "pile of dog feces" (sic). The problem goes further, but I can't spend more time now to talk about the whole dialogue and the rest of his work. For short: Plato reformulate his conception of ideas in the next dialogues because the previous notion wasn't strong enough to resist the critics. Also we must considerate that Plato wasn't flawless and his work is open to interpretation and reformulation, not totally clear and closed.

The last thing, the table of the tables, I don't know is you are referring to the third man problem. If it's so, I redirect you to my previous paragraph.

>>10321813
It's written like shit but I'm in a hurry. It is possible to understand it anyway (I hope so).

Was there ever a worse person? He and Augustine single-handedly swerved Aristotle's and Plato's legacy, immortalized perverted translations and crass, deliberate misinterpretations to fit their cosmology. It irks me to no end.

>>10321719
>>10321656
>>10321600
See what I'm talking about? Absolutely twisted perception of Platonic Idealism.

The point is - there is even one argument for dualism that not need any preassumptions?