[ 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: 2.19 MB, 1700x2275, Aristotle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14376345 No.14376345 [Reply] [Original]

Has anyone ever refuted Aristotelian metaphysics?

>> No.14376351

>spent the last 4 months studying aristotelian metaphysics and would love to talk about it
>you'd think this thread would be a wonderful opportunity to discuss it
>the nature of /lit/ is that it's the exact opposite, the OP is phoneposting and knows nothing about the topic, and all discussion in the thread will be horrible
>tfw reluctantly hiding the thread so at least i don't have to be annoyed by seeing the inevitable replies from posturing phoneposters with low attention spans

>> No.14376363

>>14376351
I'm not a phoneposter. Why would you think I am? Look at the file name. I'm also a fan of his metaphysics and have found that no one has actually refuted him, for instance, Hume is credited for refuting him, but his "refutation" stems from an ignorance of Aristotle's actual position. My goal here is to discuss Aristotelian metaphysics in an intellectual manner. Perhaps someone did refute him, and I just didn't read them. :)

>> No.14376370

>>14376345
We should do a group reading of his metaphysics

>> No.14376371

me

>> No.14376372

>>14376370
We should. That would be fun.

>> No.14376374

>>14376370
I second this, even tho I haven't read the Greeks.

>> No.14376376

>>14376351
Talk to me anon. I took a class on Aristotle from an Aristotle scholar a few years ago. Aristotle is cool even if I disagree on many things.

>> No.14376378

>>14376363
Honestly nobody refutes anybody so long as someone isn't ready to accept it, and everybody refutes anybody so long as someone is willing to assert it.

>> No.14376384

>>14376345
Do you even know what metaphysics is? There is no final refutation or closure. Other metaphysical systems have been devised that are just as "valid" as Aristotle's.

>> No.14376390

>>14376384
I believe that Aristotle asserted objectivity while other metaphysical systems assert relativism. Your sentence here presupposes a lack of objectivity while insinuating that I'm wrong for believing it exists. If Aristotle asserts objectivity, and others don't, why don't you feel as if there had to be a refutation of objectivity in order to make room for relativity?

>> No.14376418

>>14376390
This a grossly naive view of the history of philosophy.

>> No.14376445

>>14376418
If I say that all glibs are globs, and I believe this to 100% be true, don't you think you would have to demonstrate why not all glibs are globs before asserting that? Do you think philosophers are just saying shit to establish metaphysical systems without actually believing that their metaphysical systems are true?

>> No.14376478

>>14376445
Aristotle didn't demonstrate his first principles, he just assumed them to be true.

>> No.14376540

The LNC has arguably been refuted by Graham Priest. Check out Doubt Truth to be a Liar.

>> No.14376542

>>14376384
This is painfully sophomoric. Almost no one believes in logical positivism, for instance.

>> No.14376545

>>14376542
Excuse me, NO ONE*

>> No.14376561

>>14376542
>no one believes in logical positivism
Have you been to a university science department? You just btfo yourself bro.

>> No.14376578
File: 6 KB, 250x173, 1576606875386s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14376578

>>14376561
Damn, I don't think you know what logical positivism is. My hunch is that you're conflating it with *scientism*, which is part of the same genus, but a different species of epistemological positions. Additionally, most scientistic types are also sophomoric neckbeard students. I think you'd be hard pressed to find actual academics maintaining this position.

To be clear, scientism, or vulgar positivism, is different than logical positivism in that the latter wanted a scientific syntax that ordinary expressions were converted to. No one thinks that's a possibility now, which is my point.

>> No.14376587

>>14376351
I'm the same way with Aquinas. I don't even open threads on him anymore because it's never anything more than some ignorant hottakes.

>> No.14376589

>>14376478
in all fairness you can demonstrate his first principles ergo cogito sum

>> No.14376590

>>14376578
To add one more thing: vulgar positivism is simply the belief that the hard sciences possess a monopoly on the truth. These type of people generally do not permit the existence of cateris paribus clauses in science and typically have a hard time distinguishing empirical principles from metaphysical presuppositions. You can quickly refute a positivist by asking them to delineate the boundaries between Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry. Most will take Carnap's route (also used by logical positivists) that the difference is pragmatic. The question becomes what scientific principles delineate the lines of the pragmatic.

The logical positivists take on a similar refutation, but my favorite actually goes back to the issue of quid juris in Kant. How can we account for the heterogeneity between propositions and sensation, or in the language of Kant, the difference between the concepts of the understanding and sensible intuition? That gap is the true downfall of logical positivism.

>> No.14376595

>>14376345
Why is pure actuality imperceptible?

>> No.14376604

>>14376561
>Damn, I don't think you know what logical positivism is.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. As I asked before: have you been to a university science department?

>> No.14376610

>>14376604
Meant for >>14376578

>> No.14376634

>>14376610
Link me one (1) publication from a tenured university professor in any hard science department that advocates for logical positivism with the following necessary conditions:

1. A need for a scientific-logical syntax that converts empirical statements into this language.
2. A claim that only logical and scientific discoveries count a truthful statements.

It doesn't have to be the focus of the paper, but should at least be mentioned at the standard that this person is seeking. If you do that I will admit I might be wrong. I say 'might be' because you are claiming basically any university department holds this.

>> No.14376636

>>14376634
Oh, last qualification: that this was published in the last 10 years.

Obviously you'll find articles from 50 years ago on this. But my point is that this position has been definitively thrown into the dust bin of bad philosophical frameworks.

>> No.14376644

>>14376345

Modern scientists, among others.

-Do not say: "nuh uh that isn't metaphysics." - it is.

>> No.14376645

>>14376604
And to answer your question, I'm a university instructor. A good friend of mine just finished his PhD in chemical biology at my uni.

>> No.14376649

>>14376634
Physicists and chemists don't usually expound their pet philosophical views in their publications. I'll ask again: have you been to a university science department? Have you talked with its faculty members?

>> No.14376651
File: 7 KB, 170x297, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14376651

*blocks your path*

>> No.14376653

>>14376651
Kant converted to Aristotelianism on his deathbed

>> No.14376655

>>14376644
How did modern scientists refute Aristotle's views on motion?

>> No.14376656

>>14376645
>I'm a university instructor.
As am I. In its science department. The question stands.

>> No.14376666

>>14376649
>Physicists and chemists don't usually expound their pet philosophical views in their publications
That's flagrantly false in mathematics, logic, and physics. I'll grant that this is not the case in general in chemistry. For instance, read Godel or Tarski and you'll see that while they are very cautious they will let a few of their positions slid into their position. Read fucking Hawking, jesus christ, his position was as close as you get to modern positivism and it was all over his work.

I'm done with you brainlet. Congrats on finishing your semester. Enjoy your winter break!

>> No.14376690

>>14376655
the silence is telling on this one

>> No.14376691

>>14376666
So you haven't talked to the members of your university's science faculty? Why lie by omission in the first place, anon? Also conflating physics with theoretical physics is a major brainlet move.

>> No.14376695

>>14376666
Checked.

>> No.14376698

>>14376691
>Also conflating physics with theoretical physics is a major brainlet move.
not that anon but that's a no true scotsman fallacy

>> No.14376699

>>14376345
It's easy to refute. Just say this: I don't accept your premises.

>> No.14377099

>>14376699
Aristotle

>We live in a physical world
>immaterial truths exist

You:

>lol nah bro

>> No.14377130

>>14377099
Genuine question, what would be some immaterial truth?

>> No.14377135

>>14377130
Matter doesn't move itself, for one. Wood can't turn itself into a bed and bronze can't turn itself into a statue.

>> No.14377139
File: 114 KB, 1280x720, 1570783067526.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14377139

>>14377135
>Wood can't turn itself into a bed and bronze can't turn itself into a statue.
damn nigga don't EVER look up Weak Interaction

>> No.14377148

>>14377139
Something can appear to move by itself or we can lack an explanation for why it's moving but this doesn't mean that matter is actually moving by itself.

>> No.14377174

>>14377135
>Matter doesn't move itself, for one.
Yeah, there's this thing called gravity

>> No.14377184

>>14377174
Can gravity turn wood into a bed?

>> No.14377197

>>14377174
If gravity is what moves all matter then how does this contradict the statement that matter doesn't move itself?

>> No.14377232

>>14377184
Highly implausible but ok, there seems to be a moving force, a man's hand or gravity or whatever. And that's an immaterial truth?

>>14377197
It doesn't? It was never supposed to contradict that statement

>> No.14377236

>>14376351
Nah you’re monitoring the thread you lying faggot.

Btw how would you respond to Leibniz criticisms of Aristotelian metaphysics? It’s been a while since I’ve read them but it’s more or less like this.

Even if an angel from heaven told me that the reason why A is A it’s because he has the substancial form of A, this wouldn’t be an explanation, but a tautology.

A form, say an accidental form, can only exist in a substance. Only a substance X that has form A in actuality can cause substance Y (that potentially can receive A) to have A in actuality. Like only a lit candle can light another candle. But (here he uses calculus-like phrases which I can’t exactly reproduce) in the split second that the form of A passes from X to Y, and in the infinitesimal space between the two substances, where does the form of A exist? In the vacuum? But the vacuum is not a substance, and forms can only exist in substances. Therefore actual A can’t cause potential A to be actual (because there is an unbridgeable, albeit infinitesimal, insubstantial gap between the two).

>> No.14377264

>>14377232
If you're not supposing gravity to be the first principle then what's the point of bringing it up? If you are supposing it to be the first principle then explaining how things like wood can turn into beds is the least of your problems. It only creates problems. Either way, it is an immaterial truth that matter can't move itself regardless of what you believe the first principle is. Whatever is moving matter is necessarily immaterial.

>> No.14377279

>>14376653
Underrated post.

>> No.14377324

>>14377135
>Matter doesn't move itself, for one. Wood can't turn itself into a bed and bronze can't turn itself into a statue.
Imagine rejecting the entirety of modern physics in favor of ancient speculation that is utterly useless in the present except for historical value.

>> No.14377345

>>14377324
Modern physics proves that bronze can turn itself into a statue?

>> No.14377370

>>14377135
Look what you've done, you've pissed off all the materialists. Now the whole thread is going to become a defense of optimistic nihilism.

Either way, no, wood doesn't turn itself into a bed. A form derived from function requires a will.

>> No.14377388

>>14376345
yes

>> No.14377432

>>14376698
not him either but I think he just meant it like set != subset

>> No.14377439

>>14376589
Confused by this
Its cogito ergo sum from descartes
Cogito= I think
Ergo= hence
Sum= I am
What am I missing?

>> No.14377486

>>14377345
Your concept of movement assumes that things being stationary is the natural order of things, and that movement is secondary and accidental. What modern physics has revealed is that there is no "movement in itself," movement is always one thing moving relatively to another thing, there isn't some absolute coordinate system where there's a definable absolute motionlessness. Ancient views of the world largely speculated that it was created largely as it is, but science has revealed that the history of the Earth and the universe involves continual change that from our perspective has been incredibly radical.

>> No.14377512

>>14377486
The belief that matter doesn't move itself doesn't require any sort of stationary or motionless aspect of the universe. Continuous motion of matter doesn't explain how bronze turns itself into a statue and if it did, we could expect to see bronze spontaneously turn itself into a statue. That doesn't happen.

>> No.14377775

>>14377439
that you can accept aristotles basic premises on cogito ergo sum

>> No.14377787

>>14377486
This literally doesn't mean anything in regards to his metaphysics. I can realize the potential of being a painter by becoming a painter, for instance. There's motion right there.

>> No.14377788

>>14376345
>Has anyone ever refuted Aristotelian metaphysics?
No. Read Edward Feser.

>> No.14377796

>>14377324
There is literally nothing in modern physics that contradicts this and in fact the entirety of modern empirical philosophy (which is what science is founded out) is Aristotelian metaphysics.

>> No.14377803

I love being a pure maths student. All of my peers are actually intelligent people who have genuine passion about philosophy and art and learning about everything.
The engineering students I have met are all universally midwit brainlets, I can't stand them.

>> No.14377806

>>14377788
THIS
Someone rec'd him here and I read his books and it unironically theistised me. Never thought I'd become religious from an anime shitpost site

>> No.14377822

Unironically, read Whitehead.

>> No.14377853

I’m confused about Aristotle’s ideas on individuals and universals. He says that scientific knowledge is only of universals. Yet forms only exist in individuals. If there were no longer individuals the forms would no longer exist. How can the forms be said to be universals if there are not paradigms of the forms “out there” independent of individuals? Aaaargh I can’t express myself right but do you get what I’m saying?

>> No.14377878

>>14377803
Engineering students are the niggers of STEM.

t. Engineering student

>> No.14378050

>>14377853
Like how can there be universals if there are only individuals out there?

>> No.14378214

>>14378050
im pretty sure he just says that you perceive what is universal about something while abstracting away that which detracts from the individual lol

>> No.14378250
File: 24 KB, 300x361, jose_angelbuesa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14378250

unironically aristotle is a sophist who gave a simplist answer to the great and never-ending problem of the greeks' fisis.
his system does not explain anything actually and the christian theleological dogma that grew from it was some kind of logical-non-error-way of explaining reality, but just assuming god.
the trick and the mistake of his theory was his way of seeing reality. fisis is a construct of the brain, there is no order, everything is chaos. however, i understand why his ideas are so welcomed by people that have the necessity of explain reality around themselves and who regularly ask themselves questions of the nature of things.
lastly, plato was much more based, complex and gifted than aristotle.

>> No.14378254

>>14376345
Derrida.

>> No.14378268

>>14378250
>i understand why his ideas are so welcomed by people that have the necessity of explain reality around themselves and who regularly ask themselves questions of the nature of things.
So... philosophers? Yeah his ideas are welcomed by many philosophers.

>> No.14378380

>>14378268
no i wasnt talking about philosophers i was talking about you guys.
i think that you have some abstract thoughts about reality and that you search for explanations, but you think naively and simplistically, sp you accept aristotle's system.
modern philosophy is just an attack against aristotle's philosophy and its christian variation.

>> No.14378382

>>14378250
>plato was much more based, complex and gifted than aristotle.
you say that, completely unaware of what a's exoteric dialogues were. I'm sure you'd be asserting the converse if we only had Plato's esoteric writings to judge from.

>> No.14378469

>>14378382
well i was saying that because of plato's theory. he had a complex and very sensible way of viewing reality, and when it comes to aristotle (obviously i refer to him as one of the greatest) i think that he, that was basically the inventor of science, wanted a metaphysical system that explained things in a favorable way to tag and differenciate things in reality. it was such an utile and pragmatic view, but utterly wrong.
in my opinion, plato is also wrong, but what i wanted to say is that the look of plato's was a bit more wide and opened to the unknown.

>> No.14378520

No. Aquinas finalized it.

>> No.14378549

>>14376666
Based and checked. That being said, most contemporary scientists are scientific realists from what I can tell, that's the opposite of logical positivism, the logical positivists gave a constructional semantics of scientific sentences ultimately in terms of actual or possible experiences, because otherwise scientific claims read literally are asserting what positivists considered unobservables and therefore undue metaphysics.

>> No.14378784

>>14376653
>Kant converted to Aristotelianism on his deathbed
Source? Is this real?

>> No.14378803

>All these posts and no one has refuted him
Guess he's right, then.

>> No.14378811

>>14378803
>theleology is a simplistic and naive approach. fisis is not real, everything is chaos, and order a construct of human's logos.

>> No.14378814

>>14378803
see >>14376371

>> No.14378817

>>14378811
>human's logos
wonder where that came from

>> No.14379122

>>14377432
that's irrelevant. If i say "all swans are white" and then I point out a subset of swans are black, it doesn't fucking matter if you say set !=subset the refutation stands.

>> No.14379261

>>14378817
logos is the greek word for word or reason

>> No.14379276

>>14377236
Anyone

>> No.14379282
File: 105 KB, 295x422, plotinus-1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14379282

More a revision than refutation.

>> No.14379291

>>14378784
Kant made philosophy Aristotelian-esque again by replacing the sensationalism (reached its peak in Hume) with Aristotelian primary substance notions of "object," and Aristotelian notion of "concept" crap. He just psychologized the Aristotelianism so it became mental rather than out there in the world. So in a way, Kant was very Aristotelian and he is to blame for how Aristotelian-esque philosophy since Kant came to be. It's almost like the early moderns didn't exist, thanks to Kant.

>> No.14379339

>>14377853
https://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-met/#H8
an interesting interpretation

>> No.14379347
File: 1.08 MB, 800x600, 1553903281921.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14379347

>>14376589
>Aristotle's first principle
>cogito ergo sum

I want to kill myself

>> No.14379351

>>14378250
very brainlet take. I hope you right your course

>> No.14379353

>>14379347

I don't know whom's trolling whomstd've at this point

>> No.14379652

>>14379347
What are you talking about? I'm saying that you can justify his first proposition by concluding we exist cogito ergo sum. Once you get to the fact that we exist, we argue for realism and then establish for his metaphysics. There's nothing wrong with what I'm saying.

>> No.14379705

>>14379351
could you elaborate more?
most of the people i talk with about these themes are idealists so i think my opinion could be biased.
i would like to see in which ways do you think i'm wrong (i know i am).

>> No.14380394

bump

>> No.14380994

>>14378469
>plato's was a bit more wide and opened to the unknown.
again, you're making this judgement ultimately only from assessing his exoteric dialogues. he very well could have been equally utilitarian and pragmatic as Aristotle in his esoteric teachings. Many ancient phil scholars pretty much accept that Aristotle's logical works are the closest we'll get to Plato's esoteric logical treatises, as the former wrote them while still a member of the Academy. If the Aristotelean fruit fell from the Platonic tree, how far do we claim it did so?

>> No.14381311

Aristotle's notion of universals is a strong canditate the more absurd idea ever conceived by a philosopher, and that says a lot

>> No.14381468

>>14379282
this

>> No.14381782

There's a nice section in Difference & Repetition that deals with Aristotle.