[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 345 KB, 1161x959, rekt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13030544 No.13030544 [Reply] [Original]

So Plato was right all along?

>> No.13030569

>>13030544
>>13030544
Looks like a pretty amateur reading of Aristotle, whose basic refutation of Platonic forms can be summed up as: essences cannot exist outside of their subject because the subject then lacks a claim to being that entity. But positing the existence of primary substances is hardly less metaphysical, which a lot of people who reflexively accuse Aristotle of naive empiricism seem to miss. The essence simply exists inside the subject, as opposed to outside. Hardly unreasonable. But this conclusion is arrived at through pure deduction, as is Plato's. Both thinkers turn out to be rationalists.

>> No.13030581
File: 19 KB, 747x517, 1547839221826.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13030581

>>13030569
>Looks like a pretty amateur reading of Aristotle
It's the introduction to the Loeb edition of Aristotle's Metaphysics.

>> No.13030589

>>13030581
Doesn't make it correct

>> No.13030603

>>13030589
Damn son

>> No.13030632 [DELETED] 

>>13030544
hey is this frederick coplestons history of philosophy volume 1?

>> No.13031178

>>13030544

Rule 1: Plato is always right.

Rule 2: Ostensibly evidence to the contrary actually further proves Rule1.

>> No.13031191

If you have an empty cup, where is the emptiness?

>> No.13031209
File: 513 KB, 800x600, 1535799134826.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13031209

>>13031178
>Rule 1: Plato is always right.
>Rule 2: Ostensibly evidence to the contrary actually further proves Rule 1.
It's true

>> No.13031443

>>13030569
>if I don't like it it's amateur
Love this pro /lit/ reading that takes over every thread.

>> No.13031471

>>13030581

Retard, go read the Metaphysics (or at least the parts that deal with Artistotle's conception of the deity) and then tell us Artistotle DIDN'T copy the gist of platonic doctrines as outlined in the Timaeus, and presents them as his own, albeit embedded in a theoretical framework that resolves around Ousia and divine connection with the soul.

Aristotle never openly acknowledges his platonic debt for two main reasons. Because the Metaphysic was probably written near the end of Aristotle's life and feels no longer obliged to rebel against the master, or so we may assume. He's certainly writing from a more platonically inspired thinking than when he wrote the Eudemian or Nichomacian Ethics. Those were written, likely enough, when Aristotle was still active in the Academy, with Plato probably looking over his shoulder.

Aristotle actually had a period of intellectual disagreement with Plato (yet in good humour) when he was still in the Academy, became anti-platonic by the time he founded his Lyceum, and as he grew older, his sympathies for his old teacher grew, but couldn't get to admit, to himself (if its true that Aristotle's written is nothing more than lecture notes) or if it was meant for publication, to his readers, that he never could abandon Plato, not even during his fiercest periods of disagreement.

And go fuck yourself.

>> No.13031647

>>13030544
Uhm, no Sweetie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4KDxvz5D30