/lit/ - Literature

>>22644299
it’s an insanely dense read, you could literally write a whole book about each page of that book, the kicker ? You’ll be re-reading it two or even three times, much of the material is insanely valuable but with Aristotle a lot of it isn't fully contextualisable until the next book in the Organon so you’ll read metaphysics and it will clear up the previous question about primary substance you had from Categories but now you’ll have a whole different set of questions that can only be answered by reading Nicomachean ethics, and so on.

Aristotle starts all his major philosophy by establishing the context and dialectic of his contemporaries on the topics being discussed. He's not asserting answers to arbitrary topics nobody cares about, he's putting forth his positions on the debates of the day.
You're a seriously terrible student of philosophy if you don't care about the context of the questions being asked and discussed by a given philosopher.

>>22644299
Metaphysics is basically"uh so when are we gonna do real physics?"
A mock up of religious and artistic anticipation

>>22644378
t. Has never read any metaphysics and doesn't intend to

>>22644377
>he's putting forth his positions on the debates of the day.
>if you don't care about the context of the questions being asked and discussed by a given philosopher.
So reading him only has historical value. I'll pass.

>>22644299
If Aristotle's summaries of his predecessors are anything but exciting to you then why the fuck are you reading the Greek philosophers, let alone the hardest one, in the first place? Why do we just assume that everything is for everyone nowadays? Go read something else retard.

>>22644386
Show me the philosopher that is not answering an immediate question of their time and I'll show you a schizophrenic.

>>22644393
So in modern times you read modern philosophers that are answering modern questions not ancient philosophers that are answering ancient questions. Simple.

>>22644407
The modern philosophers are working off of a foundation established by the ancient philosophers, and frequently that Jenga tower is leaning all over the fucking place and pointing anywhere but towards the truth as it grows in distance from its foundations.

>>22644413
I don't really know of any modern philosophy based off of Aristotle unless you logic and even his logic is really only of historical value. No one uses syllogisms anymore. Definitely no one besides Thomists base anything on the four causes or his metaphysics anymore and they only stick to it for religious reasons.

To be honest I find that the wisdom of mortals pales in comparison to the holy scriptures

>>22644428
Aristotle's exploration of metaphysics and logic form the backbone for all subsequent Western christian philosophy even when later philosophers started diverging from his precepts. Saying its just Thomists who reference his ideas when Thomist philosophy was a major element of Catholic theology and the Catholic church was the only serious educative institution in Christian Europe for several hundred years is also ridiculous.

>>22644448
>Catholic theology and the Catholic church
I already agreed that people kept talking about Aristotle for religious reasons. But that's not serious philosophy and modern philosophy is not based on it.

>>22644459
Right, the Western Christian/Thomist tradition is not serious philosophy but Foucault navelgazing about having gay sex with young boys is.
Just read what you're interested in anon.

>>22644465
I will. And I'm not particularly interested in reading Aristotle if he's only of historical value

>>22644474
Take pride in depriving yourself all you like

>>22644360
also the example i gave about clearing up any questions on primary substance is actually a great example since Aristotle will indeed give you an answer to what things are essences (individual and independent things, by this he means distinct and separable) and this little answer will indeed suffice for settling discussions at the dinner table BUT in typical fashion for Aristotle if you continue to ask which things possess these qualities eventually he cops out and starts saying form is essence, that only forms are individual and independent, and okay, lets entertain this notion and say that forms are essences, but now how can forms also be particulars ? Now you will find out that actually there is huge scholarly debate about this fucking point and that nobody actually really knows what tf Aristotle meant by this whole argument, and to confuse things further part of our understanding of Aristotles argument here rests upon an ambiguous term, Eidos, and there you have it, that’s metaphysics for you until you read Aquinas, i guess.

>>22644459
Heidegger and Hegel are both Aristotelian, you can spot it from a mile away.

Aristotle wrote that way on purpose to filter plebs. Some philosophers use turgid and flowery language to make their thoughts seem more complex than they actually are. Aristotle is the opposite - he discusses extremely complex ideas in the fewest words he can possibly get away with.

Some scholars think this is because the works are "acroastic" i.e. lecture notes. But there are plenty of passages where it seems like he's going out of his way to be difficult. I really think he wanted to filter pseuds - there were plenty of them in his day in Athens.

Another factor is that Aristotle assumes familiarity with his dialogues where many of his (and Plato's) ideas are explained more clearly and simply, but these are almost entirely lost.

He's really a very creative and exciting thinker, which is why plenty of people devote their careers to studying him even today. But you have to really engage with the text to understand why he's interesting. If you're used to reading fiction, maybe you read dozens of pages a day, but with Aristotle, I've spent multiple days mulling over a single sentence. So get used to feeling stupid, and be patient, and you'll get the most out of him. If you say "this doesn't make sense fuck it", or "I understand all this, it's not even hard", then you should stick to novels.

But yes, it's boring, it's dry, it's difficult. Read a lectio, go on a walk and think about it, read it again, rinse wash repeat, it takes a long time to work through the corpus in a serious way, I'd say a couple of years easily even if you're disciplined about it.

>>22644459

The Catholics made a bugger of Aristotle to fit him into their worldview, as Heidegger himself said. Ancients who took Aristotle seriously on his own terms and didn't try to fit him in an Abrahamic straightjacket would be al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes.

>>22644378
A…what?

>Metaphysics Book II
>causes and movements cannot eternally procede or recede, necessitating a First Cause and Final Cause
>except for physical movements (transmission of elements)
>Aristotle just forgets to consider that physical movements might be the source of other movements (like all the pre-Socratics he was citing earlier talked about)
>Eternal recursion or cycles just aren't possible because if it were then nobody would have any impetus to do Good
>Existence of the Good is somehow predicated on human judgments and behavioral patterns now (even accepting the above as correct)

>>22644299
aristotle? try chipotle

>gets filtered by the first 8 pages
lol

>>22644360
navel gazer kys

>>22644299
>aristotle is fucking boring
then close the book and go watch netflix or something

>>22644299
Lmao you uncritically accepted his account of prior thinkers. OP ngmi, aristotle is a meme.

>>22645645
niechud fans really do think that a mentally ill 19th century virgin had a better account of greek philosophy than aristotle

>>22645057
Somebody better have a fucking response to this

>>22644299
>reads a couple of pages
>wonders why he doesn't "get it"
Readings not for you bud

>>22644459
It is based on it. As is other things like physics. As with any tradition, if you want to understand where it comes from, the very bottom of 'but why', you trace it down. To suggest things aren't based on it is to suggest that sprung into existence from nothing. It amounts to belief in dogma not conceding it is or understanding how it developed. It's very blind to think it's the truth and not consider who came up with it and where they were coming from in a long chain.

>>22645857
>It is based on it. As is other things like physics.
I don't know how you thought bringing up physics was going to help you. Aristotle's physics is notoriously bad and modern physics didn't show up until it was thrown out.

>>22645865
The enlightenment rose up out of the social and cultural affectations that Christianity produced; there was no moment of casting off the yoke and stepping out of Plato's tortured cave into modernity. All of the early modern scientists were religious, underwent Christian education and carried Christian moral and theological affectations if not devotion.

>>22645876
What does any of that have to do with what we're talking about? You tried to make an analogy with physics as to why you should study old ideas that modern physics, and by analogy philosophy, is supposedly based on. But your analogy strongly works against you since Aristotle was also a dominate figure in ancient physics and yet modern physics has nothing to do with Aristotle and he is never studied by practicing physicists. So by the analogy you yourself came up with he shouldn't be studied in philosophy either.

>>22645894
I'm nta you were originally responding to I just came to laugh at a retarded modern
>science has improved so we can now more accurately investigate and explain physics
This entire concept of progressive science and an evolution of a science as techniques and understanding of the field develops is Aristotelian.

>>22645902
>This entire concept of progressive science and an evolution of a science as techniques and understanding of the field develops is Aristotelian.
No it's not. Fucking Aristotle thought men and women had different numbers of teeth. At best you can say he had more respect for empirical observation than ones before him but he was not practicing the scientific method by any stretch. He was still deep in make shit up and insist it reflects reality vein of thought as clearly shown by his physics.

>>22645915
You're deflecting Aristotle's delineation of the types and roles of sciences and their limitations by bringing up typical talking points about how he got things wrong. Conveniently ignoring of course that you MUST make positive falsifiable claims if you're going to scientifically describe reality. Literally every great scientific mind ever has gotten things demonstrably wrong; if we sat around cherrypicking the mistakes of scientists across history we'd end up with a compelling argument to abolish the scientific method entirely.
>but Aristotle wasn't using the scientific method!
Aristotelian teleology and logic is the foundation that the scientific method would come to be built on centuries later. Arguably the Western Christians could have got started on it far earlier but the natural philosophers of medieval Europe got entirely sidetracked fucking about with Platonism and Esoteric bullshit.

>>22645944
>by bringing up typical talking points about how he got things wrong
Not just that he got things wrong. That he got things so easily verifiable wrong shows that he wasn't using the scientific method. All he had to do was ask several people to open their mouths and count the teeth.
>Aristotelian teleology and logic is the foundation that the scientific method would come to be built on centuries later.
Teleology has zero place in science of any kind. Even syllogisms are no longer relevant since the development of predicate logic. Aristotle is not foundational in anyway to modern science.

>>22645963
>he got things so easily verifiable wrong
These things are only easily verifiable to us because we have entire institutions dedicated to verifying them.
>shows that he wasn't using the scientific method.
Yeah no shit you fucking retard. How many times does this need to be explained to you? There could be no formulation of scientific methodology without earlier philosophers forming the logical groundwork for it. Do you think the scientific method is some revealed divine truth or something?

>>22645977
>There could be no formulation of scientific methodology without earlier philosophers forming the logical groundwork for it
What is the logical groundwork needed for the scientific method? Hey you can't just make shit up and expect us to believe it, you need to show empirical evidence. That's it. The reason it took so long is that people really like making shit up with no accountability.

>>22645993
The entirety of Newtonian physics extend from the framework of Aristotelian metaphysics by which things happen due to causes and undergo movements to reach ends. Aristotle outlines in his metaphysics a summation of the pre-Socratic positions on elemental matter, deducing that matter cannot be created or destroyed and only transferred between states.
I'm not going to break down all of Aristotle's conclusions and how they translate up into later models of the Universe for you, least of all because I'm not a master philosopher or teacher, but its deliberately ignorant to say that you can't see the logical connections.

>>22646010
>The entirety of Newtonian physics extend from the framework of Aristotelian metaphysics by which things happen due to causes and undergo movements to reach ends
You think Newtonian physics relies on Aristotle's metaphysics? Lol. This is just stupid at this point. I don't even need to bring up that Aristotle's metaphysics isn't even mentioned anywhere near modern physics.

>deducing that matter cannot be created or destroyed and only transferred between states.
He also deduced that the vacuum didn't exist, that the moon rotated around the earth because celestial matter was meant to rotate, and was totally clueless about inertia. If you're going to claim you can deduce physics from metaphysics the absolute failure of Aristotle's physics destroys his metaphysics.

>>22646035
Newton and his contemporaries being educated enough to discover and describe Newtonian physics depends entirely on Aristotle's precepts being taught throughout the Christian West, yes.
>Aristotle posited falsifiable claims based on his best understanding of the subjects so clearly he's an idiot and a fraud
You're right. Nobody should ever posit a falsifiable claim because our understanding might improve in the future. It is immoral and unethical to be wrong.

>>22646048
>Newton and his contemporaries being educated enough to discover and describe Newtonian physics depends entirely on Aristotle's precepts being taught throughout the Christian West, yes.
Even if I accept this nothing you've said reinforces the claim that Newtonian physics is based on Aristotle's metaphysics. It's simply not and claiming otherwise is a pathetic attempt to lend some scientific credibility to a dead philosophy. It's like claiming that since most modern physicists were educated in a liberal culture that modern physics is based on liberal ideals.

>>22646064
>Newtonian physics can't be based on Aristotelian metaphysics because, like, Aristotle didn't use the scientific method!
>where did the scientific method come from? Why, it emerged fully formed and logically coherent from the aether of course!
I'm done talking to you now

>>22646073
>Newtonian physics can't be based on Aristotelian metaphysics because, like, Aristotle didn't use the scientific method!
So give an example of Newtonian physics using Aristotle's metaphysics.>>22646073
>where did the scientific method come from? Why, it emerged fully formed and logically coherent from the aether of course!
Again what logical foundation did Aristotle provide? I'm not convinced you even know what science is since above you tried to claim that teleology was foundational to it which is clearly stupid.

>>22645057
Physical cannot be prime mover, because matter is not unified. There would be no unity to reality, everything would be individual and separated. Thus meaning there would be no universal all encompassing first cause that is the origin of everything, there would be no categories because nothing would be related to eachother either. Read proclus first proposition in his elements of theology for more in depth explanation.

>>22646092
But the Prime Mover is not even necessitated to begin with if eternal recursion or recurrence are possible. And Aristotle fails to convincingly eliminate them as possibilities. That's the point I'm making. His proof against infinites comes down to
1. 'well some movements can be infinite but not all movements' without any qualification as to how physical (possibly infinite) movements relate to abstract movements (allegedly impossible to be infinite).
2. 'Infinity can't happen because then nobody would pursue the Good' which is non-sequitur as far as I can tell.

>>22646128
Problem of having an endless chain of causality is first, there is no beginning, second, there is no unity. As aforementioned, when there is no unifying cause such as prime mover, or neoplatonic One, then not only is order impossible, but also knowledge too. Because knowledge is based on experience of coherent reality, and if reality is ultimately a result of infinite causality, then that is to say that everything proceeds from void. And that order is just an illusion that is partaking in chaos. Which makes knowledge impossible because reality ultimately becomes incoherent and separate, let alone language is impossible because communication is impossible without a coherent and common understanding of reality. We would suffer the consequence that Proclus brings up if there is no unity, namely that, if everything is not one, then it is many, and if it is many then the many is composed of either infinite parts or nothing. Because it cannot be one, and because something that exists cannot be made up of an infinite amount of parts, because the whole would be exceeded by its infinite parts, leaving the only other alternative that reality is ultimately nothing.

These are the options you have if you reject reality as unified as prime mover, and perhaps nietzsche did have a point when saying the philosopher reads his own desire for knowledge into philosophy itself, because at this crossroads the philosopher of course chooses coherent reality over chaos, whereas nietzsche chooses chaos over coherent reality. But look at the consequences, language becomes impossible, society becomes impossible, justice and harmony becomes impossible. No one is pursuing the Good because there is no unifying reality. Truth dies, and all becomes relative, and ultimately everything resolves into nothingness.

>>22645064
these two rhyme

>>22646076
stop arguing with the sperg. he jumps into aristotle threads regularly to bitch about "muh womyns teeth" and thinks that refutes everything. muthafucka doesn't even know that women were more likely to lose teeth due to calcium loss from pregnancy before modern medicine, making it pretty plausible that ancient women appeared to have less teeth.

bump

>Plato hid the truth from the unworthy behind poetry and myth; Aristotle behind the sheer density of discursive reasoning
unironically filtered. watch a youtube vid or something

>>22647060
Then per my reading of Aristotle I need to proceed onwards to Nietzsche, because I fully hoped and expected to find a more concrete defense of truth as a procession from necessary first principles than Aristotle offered and I am only finding stronger and stronger suggestion that eternal recursion is both possible and probable.

>>22649291
That's a good quote. Reading Aristotle is like reading through a 100 page math problem where either your working memory can handle juggling all the moving parts or you get filtered.