/lit/ - Literature

>>7219502

He is " The Philosopher". I like Scotus better, but Aristotle did so much it is hard to compare to him. He set the foundations for pretty much every sub-discipline of Philosophy and will probably never lose relevance. I just got through the articles on time in Aquinas' commentary on Aristotle's Physics and Aristotle like always has such a prima facie and "common sense" oriented take on the subject and yet is incredibly subtle, and uncovers allot that wouldn't have been caught by anyone else.

Methodologically Aristotle is a wonderfully modest Philosopher, he always considers the prima facie views of the common people and the views of the Philosophers of the past on a subject and ensures that he has a full understanding of them before going on to solve the issues that arise in the differing conceptions and give his own take. Sometimes his accounts are piecemeal and sketchy, but this is preferable- because it shows how seriously and honestly he is working through the issues. It is because Aristotle was also aware of his own limits and wasn't always willing to give something that seemed prima facie perfect and complete but was resting on "thin ice".

No, because pretty much everything he believed has been proven to be utterly wrong. Today, only christposters like him, because of their moronic word games that are based off of his philosophy, which is pretty ironic, considering he was a pagan

>>7219750
he lived at the beginning of time dude

give him a break

"""""Does""""" """""/lit/""""" """""agree""""" """""that""""" """""Aristotle""""" """""is""""" """""the""""" """""best""""" """""philosopher""""" """""of""""" """""all""""" """""time""""" """""?"""""

Clarify what these words mean pls

>>7219750
I don't think you know how thought develops. It's not a trivia game where we base importance on how many answers they got right. He asked the right questions and formed the basis for the natural sciences, not to mention his creation of logic and the massive influence his ethics have had.

>>7219760

>>7219750
Syllogisms are still usable and fine, contemporary logic is better however

>>7219750
>Today, only christposters like him

You should consider actually getting knowledgeable about Philosophy before you comment on it. Aristotle is quite popular outside of Christian Philosophy. His hylomorphic account of objects and his virtue ethics are both being explored and utilized by various contemporary analytic philosophers.

Also

>No, because pretty much everything he believed has been proven to be utterly wrong.

While certain empirical beliefs of his have been shown to be improbable now his actual philosophical positions are still widely discussed and even supported.

> because of their moronic word games that are based off of his philosophy

How do you intend to communicate knowledge without any words or deductions ?

>>7219771

>You should consider actually getting knowledgeable about Philosophy before you comment on it.
>because only a christposter like me knows about philosophy, and if you disagree with me, that means that you're ignorant about the whole of philosophy

How typical

>>7219792
Yeah, he said you aren't knowledgable, and then he went on to demonstrate his own knowledge.

What have you done? Removed a statement from context and then posted a childish remark.

>>7219797

I wasn't referring to his 'knowledge', but to his rather dumb suggestion that disagreement by default implies a lack of knowledge in philosophy, in spite of disagreement being pretty much the heart of philosophy.

To me, that sums up very neatly why his strain of philosophy doesn't demonstrate a love for wisdom, but a fundamental limit on it

Aristotle considered metaphysics as the highest activity to be done after contemplation to know god

>>7219806
The errors in fact you made are what caused to him say you weren't knowledgable, not the fact of your disagreement.

>>7219806
He assumed a lack of knowledge because you didn't display any, and you're still not displaying any. You haven't demonstrated anything except for your own incompetence. He brought an argument, you brought assertions. He wins by default.

>>7219806
Your disagreement was stupid, which implied that you don't know philosophy. Dude you sound like a sore loser, people generally back up their claims in arguments, not attack their opponents. Quit ad homming bro

What are some modern Aristotelians I should look into? I'm particularly interested in how his metaphysics can be a base for a plausible modern system

>>7219728
Aquinas commentary:

He says therefore first [446] that every change of its very nature removes from its natural disposition the thing that is changed: but both generation and corruption take place in time. And therefore some attributed generations in things to time, as in the case of learning and the like, saying that time is “very wise” because the generation of science takes place in time. But a certain philosopher by the name of Parus, a Pythagorean, claimed on the contrary that time was “wholly unteachable,” because with length of time comes forgetfulness. And he was more right: for, as was said above, time per se is more a cause of corruption than of generation. The reason is that time is the number of motion, and change is per se destructive and corruptive. It does not cause generation and existence except per accidens. For from the fact that something is moved, it departs from the state in which it was. But that it arrive at some disposition is not implied in the notion of motion insofar as it is motion but insofar as it is finished and perfect. And this perfection is brought about by motion on account of the intention of the agent which moves to a predetermined end. Therefore corruption is attributed rather to change and time, whereas generation and being attributed to the agent and generator.

>tfw Aristotle knew about entropy

Yes, Nicomachean Ethics is the only must-read philosophical text.

The rest is of philosophy is for hobbyists. Aristotle is for life.

>>7220952
Half of the things in NicomaCEAN ethics are blatantly wrong.

Not to mention Metaphysics.

"if I were not Alexander the Great, I would like to be Diogenes,"

>>7219502
There is no best philosopher of all time- that's not how it works.

>>7220963
WOW

EVERYBODY, QUICK!

ALERT THE TOWN ELDERS

ARISTOTLE IS WRONG AND THIS GUY JUST PROVED IT

>>7220963
It was John Green tier and it was on /lit/.

Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov
Autumn Briggs

>>7221033
shit wrong thread lol

>>7221016

>muh tradition and authority

you are worse than that which you despise

>>7221044
>muh wrong side of history
>muh iphones

fuck off

>>7219792

Actually, those non-Christian Philosophers who like Aristotle and often expand on his ideas are more knowledgeable than most of us on this subject.

>>7219806

>but to his rather dumb suggestion that disagreement by default implies a lack of knowledge in philosophy

I never said that though. You are simply assuming that I meant that. There is no general case here where anyone who disagrees with me is said to be wrong, there is just this individual case, where you made an ignorant comment and I pointed out that it was wrong.
And considering a claim that " no one takes Aristotle seriously" is a claim about the whole of Philosophy, you obviously don't know about Philosophy if you made such a comment.

>>7219826

http://www.cjishields.com/neo-aristotelian-metaphysic-2.html

Not all of these are Neo-Aristoteleanism ( Quine), but this looks like a good place to look. Also there is a compilation of articles edited by Feser called " Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics" which is all about the Neo-Aristotelian project. It was the first place I went to when I started getting into it, along a presentation from Kathrin Koslicki on hylomorphism at my university.

http://www.amazon.ca/Aristotle-Method-Metaphysics-Edward-Feser/dp/0230360912

>>7219913

That part was very interesting. Another thing that caught my attention was this.

>Therefore, if motion had a fixed existence in reality, as a stone or a horse has, one could say unqualifiedly that, just as with no soul existing there exists a number of stones, so also with no soul existing, there would exist a number of motion, which is time. However, motion does not have a fixed existence in reality, nor is anything actual of motion found in things but a certain indivisible of motion which divides motion; indeed, the totality of motion comes to be on account of the mind considering and comparing a previous state of the mobile to a subsequent state. According to this, then, time also has no existence outside the soul except according to its indivisible; while the totality of time is had by an ordering process of the mind enumerating the prior and subsequent in motion [i.e., “before” and “after”], as was said above. And therefore the Philosopher said significantly that with no soul existing time is a being “of a sort,” i.e., imperfectly; this is similar to the statement that motion exists imperfectly without a soul existing.

Time seems to be in part subjective, but not entirely.So there is something about the way motion is that objectively entails us determining a count on it that we call "time". "Being in time" is not to be within some container that is prior to the things acting within it- it is rather to be measurable and measured.

That, and " time is an accident of change" is right on the dot ( we can't perceive passing time without some sort of change happening in at least us), and ends up allowing him a uniform time that still isn't absolute like Newtonian Absolute time is.

>>7220963

The Metaphysics is still the best piece of pure Philosophy ever written. If there is anywhere that Aristotle was wrong it would probably be " On The Heavens" since his cosmology is extremely improbable at this point.

>>7221820
what differ between Plato and aristotle ?

>>7222059

Earlier Aristotle is fairly Platonic. Aristotle fusses Socratic Rationalism and emphasis on definition with the more dynamic understanding of a reality of becoming and the natural world that was highlighted by the natural philosophers before him. A few key differences are

1. Aristotle's soul is not like a pilot a driving a ship like a Platonic soul is. The soul is to the body what sight is to the eye. Anything to do with emotions and the like is non-seperable from the body. The only part that may be fully separable is the intellect that comprehend non material things like universals.

2. Platonic universals are "outside" of the things that they inform. That which is informed by universals "imitates" or "takes part" in the universal as a perishable copy of it. Aristotelean universals are really "in" the things they constitute.

3. Aristotle believed that the natural world was comparatively orderly , Plato believed that the natural world was comparatively chaotic.

4. Plato's God created a world from a chaos. Aristotle's world was eternal and had a God who sustained it.

>>7219728
If the philosophy of Aristotle and the Scholastics were not correct would you cease to be religious?

Yo guys, I just got a nice basic writings hardcover from a charity shop. I read Nichomachaen ethics a few months ago, which should I check out next?

Who did less damage?

The Poetics is a fairly shit response to the Ion.

>>7220994

realest nigga in the whole thinking game

>>7222848
scientism is the cancer of the modern world

reminder that more of what sam harris now says is accurate than what aristotle said.

Old philosophy is to be studied out of historical interest not to learn anything which is actually philosophically relevant nowadays

>>7222848

Lol

>>7222759

I'm probably not even "religious". I'm not baptized, I don't go to church, I am mostly unremorsefull about my sins, I struggle to have faith in God instead of just assenting intellectually to his existence, etc. Intellectually and aesthetically i'm totally on board, but I have allot of work to do before I am actually part of the faith. I'm still a philosopher first and foremost and Catholic only derivatively.

>>7222848

> He thinks Aristotelean "forms" are located in the heavens rather than in things in every day life.

>>7222919

Why is knowing what you are talking about before you comment on it such a hard concept for people ?

Please point out to me where philosophers cite and defend Sam Harris and his ideas. And account for the evidence I have put forward earlier in the thread showing cases where Aristotle is relevant to modern Philosophy.

>>7222988
How important are the aesthetic elements when it comes to following a certain creed? Short of a road to damascus type moment what would get you going to a certain church?

Forgive me if this is too personal, but how old are you and what type of work are you in? I would be very curious as to see the lifestyle that has allowed you to gain such philosophical knowledge.

>>7219750
Alright John

>>7222919
gr8 b8 m8

i r8 it a 98

>>7223002

My first love was music, and I've always been very artistic. I still play music. I only went to Catholic school as a kid because they had a fine arts program. I completely rejected Catholicism until some point in University- I was a Nietzschean atheist when I arrived. Catholic Reactionary Politics, Catholic art, and Scholasticism kind of all became things I was into through my intellectual journey in university- I've been through quite a bit since my old Nietzschean days.

For me to go to church It would have have a Latin mass, it would have to have an aesthetically pleasing interior and exterior, and if there were some mummified saint's hands for me to admire I would be into it. The "comforting" elements of the faith don't do nearly as much for me as the sublime elements and intellectual elements do. I have more love for the crusaders and the paradox of God dying on a cross as if he were a criminal than I do Mother Teresa or the possibilities of salvation. If there was a church like in the picture I attached I would attend every day without doubt.

I'm just a university student, 24 years old, finishing up my undergrad ( I started late and took fewer classes so I could work while doing school). I just work hard when I'm interested in a subject and spend allot of my spare time doing Philosophy even apart from what I do in school. I do this on 4chan so that the time I would be wasting on the internet becomes productive. I really just know the basics of the discipline and have a background in Philosophy in general, I don't have allot of knowledge when compared to any of the professionals who work on this subject academically.

>>7223227
so you arent really into worshipping God? Do you actively try to seek him? Do you agree with Catholic dogma?

also checked those mirror dubs

>>7223326

I would like to be. I pray to God ( not as petition, as a means of worship) occasionally and I definitely feel something when I do, same with when I pray to the Virgin Mary. I have no idea what "seeking him out" entails really though. I can agree with some of Catholic Dogma but I don't know every article of faith so I can't really say if I totally agree or not.

>>7223574
have you thought of talking with a priest/bishop?, often that's one of the best places to start (when talking about Catholic dogma or struggling with the faith)

also, I think it would be a good idea to try to go to mass once in a while, often we lack that sense of community which is important to living the faith

God bless you Scotusbro

>>7223574
>I definitely feel something when I do,
do you pray or contemplate (the breath likely) ?
Chrisitans have their own methods of contemplation, but clearly they have one on unconditional benevolence (which is called metta for the buddhist)

you can go further, since your feeling that your experimented through your unification with your deity is what is called the first jhana in buddhist categories. You have other jhanas, the fourth one being pure equanimity (but still unsatisfactory since it ceases).

The goal is to make permanent, as opposed to conditioned on your state of mind+body, the unconditional equanimity towards your perceptions and unconditional benevolence towards yourself and others/nature.

There are few manuals for christian mystics, meanwhile you can read an exposition on the dhamma here
http://pastebin.com/LBuPTS2N

>>7222310
I read that the science for A. is contemplative, as opposed to theoretic, with prime science for A. being the metaphysics.
For both P. and A., can you tell more on what they think of the contemplation ?

Do P and A agree that the contemplation is a higher means to acquire knowledge than the reason, the discourse ?

the word Contemplation stems from theoria and we see thus that it connects to theory. Is the contemplation a discourse, a use of the reason ?

I know that the ideal life for A. is to contemplate, but for both P. and A., I do not know what they contemplate.

Why both P. and A. do not do phenomenology ? why do they not do what we call today ''meditation'' ? they see to look outside of their selfs in order to acquire knowledge, but not inwards of their selfs to acquire knowledge.

>>7219502
No, Plato was

>>7223786
It's pronounced Play-Dough.
You can mold it into many forms.

>>7223616

I've thought about joining the SSPX, since they have a chapter in my city. I'm not sure. It is often on my mind, making the time to go do it is another thing. God Bless you as well.

>>7223732

I have experienced Kundalini through meditation before ( Catholicism is pretty much the first and last religion I considered. I almost was a western Hindu at one point). I have some experience with mysticism, though I enjoy doing natural theology much more. Thanks for the link.

>>7223768

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this yet. I'm going to work on my Aquinas paper and then come back later.

>>7223985
>I've thought about joining the SSPX
i dont think you should join antisemitic groups if you want to be Christian

>>7219502
Sure, but it's like being called the tallest midget.

You're still worthless and hold a shit title that only serves as an embarrassment to the informed.

>>7224441
>Sure, but it's like being called the tallest midget.
it is bad only there are non-midget...

>>7223768

By contemplation do you mean just trying to intuit things themselves as opposed to deducing arguments ? Aristotle was all about syllogisms taken from first principles and plugging empirical premises in syllogisms to come to things that are less readily known about the world by us. Plato did seem to think that knowledge is something inherent in us, something that we just learn to "remember" through argument and dialectic.

I don't really know what you mean by "contemplation" though.

Aristotle believed that a life lived by the intellect is the highest life, but that involves doing all the stuff with logic and syllogisms.

They both "look inside" for knowledge on certain subjects, ones that involve the soul and the like. In a way Aristotle does phenomenology in that he is a methodological conservative. He takes the prima facie view unless it doesn't make sense. He simply does'nt feel the need to adopt a phenomonological view because his epistemology isn't based on representation.

Phenomenology comes from the assumption that we get representations of real things in the world, and it is possible that the representation is faulty and this can lead to error in regards to the things in themselves. For Aristotle the objective essences of the objects of the senses are communicated to us, and our failure to grasp the truth of things comes from the way we piece sense perceptions together.

Scotus makes the point that individual sense impressions are simples like" white" "hot", etc but they can have no truth value themselves. Rather truth value comes when we form propositions about these sensible simples like " the dog is white". So phenomenology is in a whole different universe epistemically.

>>7224432

But the regular church adopted heresy with the second vatican council did they not ? If I wanted to be a modernist liberal I would just be one and forsake God entirely.

>>7224533
I think I mean the contemplation for A. in this sense:


>>
>Abstract. — The present article examines the meaning of human contemplation (θεωρία) in Aristotle.
>The term is found to have three meanings, the original meaning of «beholding», the most frequent
>meaning «observation, examination, study», and the restricted meaning of the exercise or use of
>knowledge already possessed. The highest object of contemplation is limited firstly by the hierarchy of
>sciences to the domaine of metaphysics. It is then seen that both in NE and in EE God is the proper
>object of the highest contemplation. Contemplation and the life of contemplation are distinguished.
>Contemplation consists in examining all the sciences with a view to raising the mind to God as much as
>possible, as well as in the observation of the activities of one's good friends with a view to improving
>one's moral activity, which in turn promotes contemplation. Contemplation was the chief activity of the
>Lyceum, and Aristotle's works are models of the θεωρία of the contemplative life. Finally, an attempt is
>made to show that God is the final cause of man's highest contemplation and happiness (cf. Plato's
>όμοίωσις θεώ ).

>>7223794
I kek'd, thank you.

>>7224533
>>Phenomenology comes from the assumption that we get representations of real things in the world, and it is possible that the representation is faulty and this can lead to error in regards to the things in themselves.


I take phenomenology as the Phenomenology of Spirit, of as Husserl.
I think that the question is why the greeks did not analyse the perceptions, to have a science of perceptions, instead of saying, as you mentioned, that
>the objective essences of the objects of the senses are communicated to us, and our failure to grasp the truth of things comes from the way we piece sense perceptions together.

he says that there a truths and that any faulty statement, faulty wrt to the truth, comes from the mind...

I copy-paste what is said about phenomenology à la Husserl:
>As envisioned by Husserl, phenomenology is a method of philosophical inquiry that rejects the rationalist bias that has dominated Western thought since Plato in favor of a method of reflective attentiveness that discloses the individual’s “lived experience.”[5] Loosely rooted in an epistemological device, with Sceptic roots, called epoché, Husserl’s method entails the suspension of judgment while relying on the intuitive grasp of knowledge, free of presuppositions and intellectualizing. Sometimes depicted as the “science of experience,” the phenomenological method is rooted in intentionality, Husserl’s theory of consciousness (developed from Brentano). Intentionality represents an alternative to the representational theory of consciousness, which holds that reality cannot be grasped directly because it is available only through perceptions of reality that are representations of it in the mind. Husserl countered that consciousness is not “in” the mind but rather conscious of something other than itself (the intentional object), whether the object is a substance or a figment of imagination (i.e., the real processes associated with and underlying the figment). Hence the phenomenological method relies on the description of phenomena as they are given to consciousness, in their immediacy.


A. seems not sceptic enough since he still favours some notion of truth which of course can only be grasped through errors, since nobody has perceived truths '''from the world outwards us''.
But then, A. speaks of the contemplative life, Plato too.
This is why I speak of the contemplation-meditation which would be a ''scientific method'' turned inwards to us.

>>7224537
>did they not ?
nah, stop listening to "Pol-tianity", Scotus

>>7224537
You can't be a Catholic and reject Catholic teaching, might as well pick what you like if you're gonna be a sede

>>7222988
who said i was talking to you self-important mug
>>7223206
great point

>>7223794
OIC wat u did thar

Let's just say that humanity would be centuries ahead of where it is now if he was never born.

>>7225189
let's not

>>7224537

Read the documents for yourself rather than trusting what the media reported on it.

>>7225189
yeah we'd be doing great without logic and the foundation of sciences

>>7225238
being a materialist in 2015

>>7225189
How so? Perhaps you mean because Descartes and Berkeley liked to bully some Aristotle fanboys.

There are probably 20 people in the history of the world that can trashtalk based Aristotle without coming out as complete morons.

Sam Harris isn't one of them young /lit/ shitposter up there ITT.

>>7219502
he's better:

>>7224587
>>This is why I speak of the contemplation-meditation which would be a ''scientific method'' turned inwards to us.


in fact, it would be an empirical phenomenology, since the phenomenology that we have today is incredibly rationalist, from the outside.

>>7224557

This sounds like it is based on one of three of the stated subject matters of the metaphysics. There is some controversy over which one ought to have primacy. Metaphysics is based on one or all of the three subject matters. 1. Being qua being. 2. Immaterial things, particularly God. 3. Substances.

> Intentionality represents an alternative to the representational theory of consciousness, which holds that reality cannot be grasped directly because it is available only through perceptions of reality that are representations of it in the mind. Husserl countered that consciousness is not “in” the mind but rather conscious of something other than itself (the intentional object), whether the object is a substance or a figment of imagination (i.e., the real processes associated with and underlying the figment). Hence the phenomenological method relies on the description of phenomena as they are given to consciousness, in their immediacy.

So there simply are intentional objects ( what ever they are), no need to bother inquiring into anything beyond that ? It doesn't seem like that great of a method. It's just Descartes' epistemology without the proof that the world beyond the senses actually exists. Husserl just seems to ignore the question and focuses in on the representations themselves and holds that they must be "something" because the things that views can't be the thing viewed at the same time. Which isn't particularly convincing.

>>7224587

Why is Aristotle thinking that something of empirical truth can discovered a problem?

>since nobody has perceived truths '''from the world outwards us'

This just seems like begging the question if it is meant to be a support for Phenomenology.

>>7224620

From just looking at the wiki page for the 2nd Vatican council. It seems pretty bad. I guess I'll look into it.

>>7225195
I certain would before making any sort of major decision in regard to it.

>>7224628
I think that's what the SSPX and Sedevacationist people are saying to the mainstream church.

>>7226285

Forgot my trip.

>>7225522

Interestingly enough. The greatest of the early moderns, Leibniz, had good things to say about Aristotle and Scholasticism. Probably because he was more adept at logic so could understand what they were getting at more easily. Descartes carried allot of baggage from his Scholastic teachers as well.

I don't think anyone smart enough to get Aristotle would be trash talking him as much as giving some well founded criticism, while still remaining respectful.

>>7226285
>From just looking at the wiki page for the 2nd Vatican council. It seems pretty bad.
the same you could say about Thomas' proofs and the Crusaders, Scot

>I think that's what the SSPX and Sedevacationist people are saying to the mainstream church.
yeah, just like Photios I, and he turned out to be an opportunist schismatic

>>7225600
Meme philosopher tbh.

>>7226285
>It's just Descartes' epistemology without the proof that the world beyond the senses actually exists.
yes and the point is to notice that there is no need for such a foundation. the proof being purely intellectual, it is seen more as a fantasy, purely artificial than anything else.

The only man willing to die for his ideas

>>7219750
Even Analytical philosophy with its faith in science and prejudices on anything tempting with idealistic metaphysics considers the study of Aristotle surmises on thought of great importance. See Quine.

>>7228111
>Even Analytical philosophy with its faith in science and prejudices on anything tempting with idealistic metaphysics considers the study of Aristotle surmises on thought of great importance.

laughingautists.jpg.

if you must be a rationalist, then study Plato, not Aristotole.

>>7228961
why?

>>7225189
Tell me how Aristotle stopped non-europeans and non-arabs to develop humanity. They probably never heard of him till the late 19th century. Or are you a fucking racist that only thinks that Europe and the ME could have made humanity centuries ahead.

>>7229084

Also, reason is nothing but imagination, from its deduction rules, to the ''axioms'' that we believe are intuitive.
the point is to treat the imagination/mind as a sense, as the other five ones.

because it makes more sense that the reason connects to world of forms, just like a the sight connects to a world of visual forms, the hearing connects to a world of sounds and so on for the remaining senses of the usual five senses.
[perhaps all these worlds can blend into the unified world that we perceive, but we can say that they do not blend for a more solipsist stance]

the intellect (the word conciousness would be used today) is what gather and manipulate all these gates of senses.

>>7222988
>> He thinks Aristotelean "forms" are located in the heavens rather than in things in every day life.

I don't think that's the point of the image. It's making fun of Plato, not Aristotle.