/lit/ - Literature

>>17756848
The resurgence in Aristoteleanism over the last 40 years is the greatest move in the history of philosophy

>>17756848
Aristotelianism has numerous problems and has been abandoned for good reason.

>virtue ethics

>>17756876
He needs a Plotinus.

>>17756848
Aristotelianism should make a comeback but in a secular atheistic non-chud version as espoused by Giordano Bruno (pbuh), Avicenna (pbuh) and Karl Marx (gigapbuh)

>>17756962
This is what Ayn Rand was trying to achieve with her philosophy. The epistemology is intriguing, imo.

>>17756848
I'm catholic and even I cringe to neo-aristotelians.

>>17756901
By vomiting upon the people in the back row, this man is clearly sacrificing surplus (i.e. unneeded) nutrition, and in transferring it to the other passengers, he is thereby maximizing utility

>>17756962
I assume you know that you sound like a complete absolute retard.

>>17757062
>I am x and even I...
shut the fuck up, cuck

so he is the end game...

>>17757067
Go live how you want on your own time. Go cherish your cultural traditions on your own time.
You’re not subjecting the rest of society to it.

Utilitarianism isn’t perfect. It makes assumptions about human needs.
But nobody is magnitudes different in any physical or mental capacity than anybody else. There’s no solid rationale to have a rule-based system where you choose an arbitrary set of virtues to raise up based on one man’s preference.

>>17756934
Enter Oristotinus

>>17756848
Read David Bentley Hart, the superior philosopher and writer.

Read an actual philosopher.

>>17758191
>society
Where?

>>17758191
>You’re not subjecting the rest of society to it.
Liberalism does precisely that and no one bats an eye

>>17756876
>Aristotelianism has numerous problems
i'm a philosolet ... the "X philosopher is flawed" argument never made sense to me. like fucking duh. every philosophy can ultimately be critised and dismantled; or elaborated on and bolstered. it seems so arbitrary to me. whats the point being made here

>>17758237
>he's not an actual philosopher because... ummmm... he is just not okay?

>>17758210
>all shall be saved
>democratic socialists of america
?

>>17758276
Not him, but much of Aristotelianism's value comes out of its empiricism. The problem is that a lot of the structures Aristotle comes up with to describe the world are either known to be entirely wrong as he describes them (the Celestial Spheres, although his argument for an uncreated polytheistic universe ruled by ~50 or so Gods can be extended if we ditch the Hellenistic Astronomy), or only true in some cases in reality although Aristotelianism treats them as universal (Impedance). This isn't to say that Aristotle is 100% wrong, but rather that he was around in 325BC and there's been a lot of intellectual work done in the mean time.

"Let's go back to Aristotle" is sort of pointless then because you can only ever re-tread ground that was already covered millennia ago. We've already left Aristotle, why go back to him so we can... leave him again? It's the problem with academic """""""""""""""""""philosophy"""""""""""""""""""" like hacks like Feser engage in, as they aren't trying to actually understand the world or find wisdom, but rather justify their paycheck by creating buzz and activity. Born a decade Earlier, and Feser would be a Platonist; born a decade later, and he'd be a Marxist. All he's concerned with is justifying Academia as an institution.

>>17756848

Jay Dyer

I still have never seen Feser deal with Hume and Kant's criticisms of Aristotelianism without just appealing to common sense ("causality is real bro, it's so obvious")

>>17756848
>what to read after Feser?

>>17758354
I think Feser is genuinely Christian and trying to convert people, not just for academia's sake. You should see the vitriol in his writing, you can feel the seething whenever he writes about it.

>>17758191
>But nobody is magnitudes different in any physical or mental capacity than anybody else.
Cringe

>>17758354
So, I suppose one thing that I - I'm not aligned with Feser, but I am an analytic philosopher influenced by Aristotelianism - find useful about characterizing my views as "Aristotelian" isn't that they are the views of Aristotle, but that they have a kind of philosophical methodology that is Aristotelian in spirit: try to give good respect to common sense while also paying attention to our empirical knowledge about the world. Some philosophers abandon common sense for a very "naive," unfiltered reading of the empirics (Hume strikes me as like this a lot); others I can't see being much motivated by either (wild idealist views, for example). It's the desire to respect both that I respect most in Aristotle and think modern philosophy should make use of.

>>17758354
>We've already left Aristotle, why go back to him so we can... leave him again?

epistemology isn't a game of fashion; or rather, real philosophy shouldn't be.

>as they aren't trying to actually understand the world or find wisdom

as compared your cretinous posting on /lit/? what is wisdom? taking on a system and dumping it for the latest thing? there's no wisdom in someone unable to find a point of view and stick with it.

>>17760323
>he considers Kantian idealism "wild"
You did not read Kant. It seems like you didn't understand Hume well either.
Additionally, "common sense" is not valid for good philosophy. If we want to make common sense a clause, then I can philosophize virtually whatever I want based on what I believe is common (a la Nietzsche).

>>17760359
>Additionally, "common sense" is not valid for good philosophy

mere assertion.

>then I can philosophize virtually whatever I want

that's not the type of "common sense" aristotetlians are embracing

>>17760371
>mere assertion.
Common sense has never been a valid support of good philosophy. This is why Aristotle and Aquinas were eventually laughed out of popularity, because people had enough of appeals to common sense.
>that's not the type of "common sense" aristotetlians are embracing
It's exactly the same, the only difference is what you take as your foundation.

>>17760401
>This is why Aristotle and Aquinas were eventually laughed out of popularity

what world do you live in?

>It's exactly the same

you have no idea what you're talking about. in any case, philosophy isn't about what's most popular, it's about epistemology and necessary refinements of these systems as human understanding expands.

>>17760359
"Wild idealist" should be parsed as "idealist views that are wild," rather than "idealist views, which are all wild" - I'm thinking Berkeley, here, not Kant.

(Kantian idealism is not wild. I don't much care for it, but it's not my target).

Common sense is a perfectly good heuristic in a discipline like philosophy, for the following general reason: humans are not very good at working out things from pure reason. I simply don't trust someone who tells me they've discovered that <X common sense idea> is an illusion *just by thinking about it*, for the simple reason that, in my experience, those kind of arguments never pan out (e.g., no argument against the reality of free will, or time, or moral objectivity, or any of that from purely a priori grounds has been borne out well). So we're left with the old case of our theories being underdetermined, and we must maintain a modicum of sanity, here.