/lit/ - Literature

>>16118921
You're right, he wasn't. Book Alpha of Metaphysics, Aristotle slays the theory of forms

>>16118959
Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas.

>>16118984
Indeed - the foal kicks hard

>>16118921
>I often see the claim: 'Aristotle was a Platonist' circulating around here
From who?

Plato is a Rationalist, Aristotle is an Empiricist.
Plato believe in a realm of ideas wherein is contained all aspects of an objects characteristics - that can only be discovered through intellection.

Aristotle believes that all that can be known is capable of being studied by sensory experience.

They have fundamentally opposing views on this, though there are certain parallels of shared beliefs between the both of them. What Plato and Aristotle represent is more important than the dirty details of their two systems - they represent two drastically different kinds of thinkers which the one or the other will be more relatable to whoever reads them. It depends on whether you believe that materiality and sense perception are the only reliable tools, or, if you are an idealist that believes truth is discoverable in theorems incapable of being demonstrated.

>>16118959
How can you slay something you don't understand?

Depends on what you're talking about
Early Aristotle was an edgy teenager with brilliant ideas that made it his endgame to get the entirety of Athens to hate his guts
He was like Nietzsche but without the poetic abilities, great ideas, unfair refutations
Late Aristotle can be seen as the systematic study and expression of late Plato

>>16119057
>Plato is a Rationalist, Aristotle is an Empiricist.
Please don't divide them up into a structure only to be recognised and created over a thousand years later. Does Aristotle proving the existence of God sound empirical to you?

>>16118959
>Book Alpha of Metaphysics, Aristotle slays the theory of forms
Except it doesn't.
Modern Quantum Physics operates under the problem of scientific knowledge that the Theory of Forms addresses. Whether or not you accept this as being valid ultimately boils down to nothing more than mere opinions about something you're incapable of understanding.

>>16118921
>>16118959
>>16118984
>>16119032
>>16119057
Calm down everyone, calm down, I think what those few anons try to say about Aristotle being a Platonist, are that the method Aristotle spiritually took from Plato, and arrived overall through different means at the same "place".

>>16119081
I don't know if you're a legitimate retard but I'm not the one who gave them those designations.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/empiricism-ancient-medieval/#ArisEmpi
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/#Rati

>>16119057
>from who

From people who recommend Lloyd Gerson's recent work to me, so typically neoplatonists on the internet. But the question sometimes also comes up here.

>>16119086
I agree with you about there being a value of Plato's forms in Science, but to be realistic to Plato that somewhat entirely misses in what would be called by a modern the phenomenological achievement by Plato. Or in other words, the real being of the Forms which are not, to be put it crudely, emotionless. But then I suppose there are those like Jung who tried to find psychological characteristics stemming from and in relation to cardinal scientific phenomena in quantum physics and physics in general, such as polar opposites in magnets or so forth and then sadly this was unthinkingly adopted by hippies and serious theories by Jung were cast out the window for while scientific materialism, and dumb hippies, still have an effect.

>>16119086
>never heard of the 3rd man argument

>>16119098
You're point? It's still utterly retarded, it's like trying to throw onto the Renaissance painters terms like "romanticism" or "neoclassicism" when they encompass such terms already in their formulations. It would not do to call them something which came later, which came from them, and is not appropriate in other ways.

>>16119110
>from 1 guy who recommends a book in many threads
>so this is the opinion of all nuplatonists
Hmm.

>>16119078
What lead you to taking up this interpretarion of Aristotle's corpus?

>>16119119
>You're point? It's still utterly retarded,
Go bang your head up against Stanford then, I don't care about your opinions and you should have already known that these terms are often used to describe their two differing views on how one arrives at knowledge - and that these terms are fairly apt in giving a general picture for laymen who do not understand the intricacies of every detail of their thought; which is why they are used.

>>16119136
>academia knows what's best!
A midwit take, and yeesh calm down man.

>>16119090
I might be misunderstanding you, but how could their means be different if Aristotle took his method from Plato? And by method, do you mean to imply that Plato was the original inventor of the theory of syllogism, or something else?

>>16119142
Lets see: who should people consider more.
>Stanford.edu
>Some 15 year old asperger baby
Your argument was stupid and displays your gross lack of any formal education in the matter. Start reading, stop posting.

>>16119120
It's just what I observed lol.

>>16118921
>I often see the claim: 'Aristotle was a Platonist' circulating around here
You do? Are you sure you aren’t thinking of them drawing comparisons between the non-personal and non-intervening God they each believe in (though each’s God is different) in contrast to Christianity which they both influenced?

>>16119115
This is already addressed within Timaeus 31c
TMA in no way "refutes" Plato's model of ideality that, even in Plato's own humble estimation; he was comfortable enough scrutinizing himself.

>>16119147
They can do different things with the means, and still arrive at the same underlying ideas. For example, both in their works on Poetry and art, have their own conception of a mimesis and get over the problem of that in their own way equating to a phenomenological end.

>And by method, do you mean to imply that Plato was the original inventor of the theory of syllogism, or something else?
Yes undoubtedly that though less developed, among other things. Though I wouldn't say "inventor", just that Aristotle took his main formulations from that, such as Euthyphro.

>>16119172
I do see comparisons between neoplatonic and Christian theology, but it's not like the topic comes up everyday. Check the archive for that phrase and its variants, you'll find a good number of posts like that.

>>16119160
It's a definition made for ease and dumb people like you, everything which "empirical", and "rational" means was not present within the Greek conception of the world. Besides, it is utterly reductive both of Plato's whole Philosophy, in just calling him a "Rationalist", as well as Aristotle's, just calling him an "Empiricist". You're one of these retards that probably like to call "Analytic Empirical, and Continental Rational" as well don't you?

>>16119191
>dumb people like you
Says the retarded faggot who thought 4chan invented this designation.
Not even going to read the rest of your low IQ rambling if you don't even have the god damn common decency and intellectual honesty to actually read the articles given to you.
Come back in 3 years when you are old enough to post here.

>>16119119
YouTube historians like you should fuck right off.

>>16119200
Just wait, he's going to come back with a food analogy or some other troglodyte shit and then you'll really be sorry.

>>16119184
I see. So in this case, they use the same means (syllogisms, induction, etc.) to develop their theories, but nonetheless arrive at similar conclusions. But as for the question of who invented logic, I din't think that because Plato used arguments first it means he was the one who developed the theory of syllogisms. I'd still bet on Aristotle, as he was the one comprehensively investigated the very nature of arguments qua arguments.

>>16119086
>Modern Quantum Physics operates under the problem of scientific knowledge that the Theory of Forms addresses
Absolute retard take
Where the fuck do you see a connection between quantum physics and the theory of forms?

>>16118959
fpbp

>>16119213
Heres a whole book on just that, if you are too retarded to read and understand it then dont bother talking to me.

Inventing the Universe: Plato's Timaeus, the Big Bang, and the Problem of Scientific Knowledge (SUNY series in Ancient Greek)

The "irrational gap" between perception and explanation can be appraised historically and identified in three stages: Plato's Timaeus furnishes the first example of a scientific theory dealing with a realm of ideality that cannot be derived from immediate sensible perception; the Big Bang model is constituted on the basis of the purely geometrical notion of symmetry; and in the more recent Algorithmic Theory of Information, the analysis of the purely symbolic language expressing physical reality reveals the level of complexity of any given theory formulated in this language. The result is that the probability of the universe actually conforming with simple mathematics is zero. In a formal system, a theorem contains more information than can be found in the set of axioms of this system, and it remains undecidable. In Aristotle' s language, the theorems that can be proved within a theoretical model are already potentially contained in the system of axioms under lying these theorems

>>16119226
Aristotle BTFO

>>16119233
I dont have a problem with Aristotle, I think his form of thinking has a ton of value. The guys saying he "refuted the theory of ideas" itt are uneducated illiterates though, and their bias prevents them from rationally considering the validity of another perspective.

>>16119197
>Says the retarded faggot who thought 4chan invented this designation.
When did I ever say this? It is so obviously a retarded designation and there is a reason someone like Heidegger would not use it.

>>16119200
Hey listen here faggot, it's a stupid designation because of what it means,

>>16119212
Agreed, though undoubtedly Aristotle based much of his logic on Plato.

>>16119258
>When did I ever say this?
Here,
>>16119081
You are too illiterate to even read and consider the articles provided, instead you outright dismissed them off-hand. This in itself demonstrates what little you have to offer this discussion, goodbye.

>>16119267
Yeah, you must have the phenomena before you can have a science. We gotta thank Plato for developing his dialectic too.

>>16119226
kek are you the author shilling your book?
shows great ignorance of the presocratics and does nothing to demonstrate that aristotle was a platonist

>>16119345
>kek are you the author shilling your book?
Luc Brisson is a Canadian historian of philosophy and anthropologist of antiquity. He is emeritus director of research at the CNRS in France, and is considered by some of his colleagues and students to be the greatest contemporary scholar on Platonism.

Thanks for your sweet 15 year old opinions on subjects you know nothing about.
>shows great ignorance
Yeah you do
>does nothing to demonstrate that aristotle was a platonist
Never said he was. I know you are demonstrably too illiterate to exercise basic reading comprehension but try harder pseud.

bump

>>16119119
>>16119142
>>16119191
>>16119213
>>16119345
Fucking brainlets. When somebody is actually giving you substance to validate their argument and you are running on pure feefees like a childish woman, you should re-evaluate your worthless fucking lives.