/lit/ - Literature

>>16775670
Based

>>16775670
Aristotle is definitely right about women though

>>16775792
Plato did admit that women are technically worse than men in The Republic, but he most likely wanted this idea of every human doing one job, and letting some women do jobs that they’re really good at other then home keeping

Regardless, Aristotle did say it more directly which is always appreciated

>>16775670
If you think there is such an opposition between Plato and Aristotle you have never read one of them, or missed a lot from one of them.
I think the greatest difference between them was that Plato posited the Good/One beyond Being/Intellect.

>>16775831
Aristotle didn’t believe in the theory of forms, that’s like, Plato’s THING

In my opinion, Aristotle is a scientist who made some very basic philosophical arguments that I really doubt could’ve only been made by him

>>16775670
I must say, Aristotle got it wrong on justice. But, remember, he made Alexander The Great, and that is not small feat

>>16775863
>Aristotle didn’t believe in the theory of forms
oh so you never read anything from him. what do you think hylomorphism means? as i said even though aristotle doesnt go beyond Being, he says that reality is intellect.
aristotle is just another platonist, no coincidence he was almost as influential as plato to the late platonists.

>>16775863
>e very basic philosophical arguments
Is this bait? Aristotle invented the only legitimate logic to exist in human history. He literally remains unsurpassed to this day.

>>16776050
>only legitimate logic to exist in human history
Which one?

>>16776079
Syllogisms (and modal syllogisms). There is no other logic adequate aside from the categorical logic laid down by Aristotle.

>>16775670
>implying they had mutually exclusive philosophies

>>16776098
What about logic as objects and extensions which is more broad than syllogisms in frege? It's certainly more mappable on language in subject and predicates

>>16775670
Unfathomably based

>>16775896
>he thinks Aristotelian form is the same as the Platonic Ideas

Oh no no no bwahaha

>>16776110
Read Aristotle's "Metaphysics" and "Politics"

>>16776098
syllogisms were used by Indian philosophy as well, Aristotle is not the only man to have grasped their existence on his own

>>16776117
That is a calculus, not a logic. And anyways, it's a worthless calculus (as all attempts at philosophy using it and its successors have demonstrated).
>It's certainly more mappable on language in subject and predicates
Only if you uphold certain metaphysical positions imposed in the calculus itself.
For example, there is no way in Frege's calculus or its successors to denote the statement "All mammals are animals".
Note, that statement is not the same as saying "For every X that is a mammal, X is also an animal". The first statement, "All mammals are animals", is a statement about universals that is not dependent on any metaphysical viewpoint. It can imply a (proper) Aristotelian point regarding essence or it can imply an (incorrect) object-property ontology or some other mistake. The second statement, "For every X that is a mammal, X is also an animal" only asserts that there is no X that is in the set of mammals and not in the set of animals.
Frege and his successors have created a very useful calculus for mathematics. They have not created a logic. At the least, it is not a logic capable of any serious philosophical work, and anyone who suggests otherwise is simply not a philosopher. That is probably why it is loved by analytics.

>>16775896
https://youtu.be/y9r_pZL4boE
>Aristotle explains his metaphysical theories

>>16776126
aristotle says that every sensible thing is only intelligible because of form not because of matter, therefore hylomorphism.
what do you think aristotelian form is?

>>16776172
Syllogisms can be grasped by illiterate tribesmen as well.

>>16776252
I think you're attributing a scientist or formalist interpretation of it ad hoc. Frege was a platonist and his ∀mA(m) does the same thing as "All animals are mammals" but is more accurate. You can check in mammals, m, to see if it's an animal A. A bit more helpful matter,
2+2 = 2*2
2*2 = 4
2+2 = 4
In syllogism.
F(x) = x + x G(x) = x * x | x = 2. You have layers of order of essence in the images F/G. Where in syllogisms you have to first find a proof that you must assert as an axiom then not be able to explore it. The difference between fol and syllogistic logic is that fol can check to see what x is while syllogistic can't ever prove the essence of its assertions.
Straws are cats
Cats are dogs
Therefore straws are dogs is inherently only valid while
∀x S(x) iff S(C(x)) and C(x) implies D(x) | x = Persian cat

It's just more amenable to reality

>>16776300
Doesn't that concern our understanding only?

>>16775670
The problem with people who read plato is that they imagine they're intelligent enough to sculpt a noble lie for the people.

>>16776445
You'd hope not, noble lies are always bs except as a last resort (like ppl are going to die or go extinct) but ideally you'd still say the most fundamental truth. There only exists truth and universality and particularity of truths

>>16776300
You’re actually having a laugh, he meant form=shape...

>>16776389
>Frege was a platonist and his ∀mA(m) does the same thing as "All animals are mammals" but is more accurate. You can check in mammals, m, to see if it's an animal A.
It literally, obviously, and plainly does NOT do the same thing. This isn't even what Plato would believe. Frege may have believed himself a platonist, but like all philosophers and would be philosophers post 1400 he was plainly incompetent at philosophy. If he believes he continued anything of worth to the Platonic tradition, he was mistaken.
>The difference between fol and syllogistic logic is that fol can check to see what x is while syllogistic can't ever prove the essence of its assertions.
You literally cannot, because it's empty wordplay. What does Cat mean in a formal logic? Nothing, because formal logics, by definition, contain NO CATEGORICAL CONTENT and NO SEMANTIC CONTENT in any statement.
>∀x S(x) iff S(C(x)) and C(x) implies D(x)
This says literally nothing about anything until you import semantic content after having done the calculus. This is the definition of a meaningless statement, it literally carries no semantic content at all about cats or dogs or straw or anything else.

You do some calculus, and the import /after the fact/ semantic content, and assume that the semantic content in no way influences what is a legitimate assertion or operation and what is not. That is exactly why they call it a formal logic, it is concerned only with the FORM and not the SEMANTIC CONTENT of the statements. Therefore, its ability to prove is limited to FORM only and NOT SEMANTIC CONTENT.

>>16776539
the shape of a thing implicates its form, nature, essence, idea. you cannot have a square circle.

>>16776436
understanding = awareness = being
something can only be apprehended if there is something in it to be apprehended.

>>16775670
Neither of them are right.

>>16776660
But where’s this limit with shape? By bending my finger have I made a new finger? It’s all well saying there are no square circles but that’s because the form on roundness is a circle, not because it just so happens that we can’t turn it into a square

>>16776707
Square circle.

>>16776618
Your emotional outbursts are noted. The semantic aspects for syllogistic logic is same as fol and "formal logic" is derivative of Aristotle's logic so I still don't see the difference. They both get semantics similarly

Sophists>Plato>Aristotle

>>16776707
What do you mean by limit with shape? The finger having the form of the finger will do what a finger does, that is, it will bend. Forms are not static paradigmatic images, they are not sensually visible.

>>16776710
I’m sorry for your loss man, some people just never want to leave the cave...
You might’ve missed this>>16776276

>>16776724
I will admit, some sophists were quite good

>>16776660
In surfaces with negative curvature you can have squares with more than 5 sides (the five sided square on the pseudosphere being the most famous example), to say nothing of the weirdnesses possible in manifolds with non-constant curvature. Triangles with angles summing to more than 180 degrees are also a common construction (to give an example, on a sphere take a point A in the equator, walk a fourth of it's circumference and take a second point B. Let C be one of the poles of the sphere, the triangle ABC has three straight angles).
A square circle isn't as logically impossible as you think (in a space using a L^1 norm all "circles" are "squares" anyway).
An omnipotent being could easily tinker with the fundamental proprieties of space to create the physical universe you describe. It wouldn't even be logically inconsistent

>>16775890
I wonder what aristotle thought of him, he ended up doing everything aristotle warned leaders not to do

>>16776445
Dude plato got it right, sometimes is better to lie to the common layman, just look at how the world is today because of (((democracy)))

>>16775792
>>16775821
Reminder

>>16777181
I tell you, democracy has got to be the worst system ever made

>>16777101
Anon, the point is simply that a circle to be a circle won’t be anything that is different from being a circle, this was just an example. You can’t call something that moves by itself a rock, you can’t call a living being that lives in the water a dog. The forms and ideas are natures/essences.

>>16777200
compared to Plato's:
>lmao if you don't do philosophy in this life, you'll be a bee in the next one. Or worse: a woman.

People who oppose Plato and Aristotle are retarded. Ammonius Saccas knew this. It's a matter of emphasis and temperment.

>>16777210
I can't believe how people can have fait in the democratic system when at best the elites just put a puppet in power and at worst we got something like the french revolution, where unrestricted democracy in the form of mobrule murders everyone the masses deem """unworthy""" of living. Plato really was ahead of his time to see what a shitty system (((democracy))) is.

>>16777622
Do you believe Plato’s alternative for rule is viable? Or do you believe in some other type of rule?

>>16777645
I think that aristotle was right in his critique of the republic,I don't really believe that even now it's possible to implement the type of society that plato wanted, we are just too shitty to lose our freedom for a better society. Thou I still think that democracy needs to go, I think that trying to strive for a more meritocracy approach would be a good first step for improvement.

>>16777702
Where would you say you are politically?

>>16777760
I think I lean more in the traditionalist spectrum. Would totally be okay with an elective monarchy where we don't let a useless monarch get power. Thou I believe it's difficult to achieve in the current political climate where people cannot stand someone higher in the hierarchy than yourself.

>>16775670
Heraclitus was smarter than both of them.

>>16777320
Where did Ammonius Saccas write about this?

>>16778420
Plato and Aristotle: cultivate excellence and realize the good
Heraclitus: everything changes and wE LiVe In a SoCiEty

>>16778420

>the world is in a constant state of flux
>what's changing, Heraclitus?

>>16778494
>what's changing, Heraclitus?
>the world, are you deaf boy?

>>16778501
Clearly your statement isn't

>>16778506
Isn't what?

>>16776724
Ok Nietzsche

>>16778520
Is not changing. I'm glad you're curious about the being of my statement

>>16778448
>cultivate excellence and realize the good
spook spook spook spook

>>16778547
Do spooks underlie how you define spooks?

>>16778544
Each statement is a new thing. Not sure what you're talking about.

>>16778547
spooking is a spook

>>16778562
>systematized schizophrenia
Priceless

>>16778571
>shit I don't understand is schizophrenic
Predictable

>>16778589
>that was funny anon
Appreciate it

>>16775670
Plato was so wrong in his thinking that literally hundreds of people made their careers on dabbing on him.