This filters the midwit and christians

[Anonymous No.16325991]

if the genera are in the highest degree principles, whether should one regard the first of the genera as principles, or those which are predicated directly of the individuals? This also admits of dispute. For if the universal is always more of a principle, evidently the uppermost of the genera are the principles; for these are predicated of all things. There will, then, be as many principles of things as there are primary genera, so that both being and unity will be principles and substances; for these are most of all predicated of all things. But it is not possible that either unity or being
should be a genus of things; for the differentiae of any genus must each of them both have being and be one, but it is not possible for the genus to be predicated of the differentiae taken apart from the species (any more than for the species of the genus to be predicated of the proper differentiae of the genus); so that if unity or being is a genus, no differentia will either be one or have being. But if unity and being are not genera, neither will they be principles, if the genera are the principles.—Again, the intermediate classes, whose concepts include the differentiae, will on this theory be genera, down to the individuals; but as it is, some are thought to be genera and others are not thought to be so. Besides this, the differentiae are principles even more than the genera; and if these also are principles, there comes to be practically an infinite number of principles, especially if we suppose the highest genus to be a principle.—But again, if unity is more of the nature of a principle, and the indivisible is one, and everything indivisible is so either in quantity or in species, and that which is so in species is prior to the divisible, and genera are divisible into species (for man is not the genus of individual men), that which is predicated directly of the individuals will have more unity

[Anonymous No.16326286]

we should all kill ourselves and end our sufferring

[Anonymous No.16326297]

>>16325991
Are you saying unity and difference can't be foundational to reality?

[Anonymous No.16326322]

>>16326297
No, you need to explain the argument being made here

[Anonymous No.16326409]

Midwit and religious fags on suie watch

[Anonymous No.16326463]

I can't believe I wasted my time on this, but here goes:
>full atomization of the individual, or of any characteristic that could apply to any classification of being has not been achieved, and it cannot come from higher taxonomixal ranks, because those are divisible, or rather, those are dividual. As opposed to individual characteristics which are getting ever more refined with every differentia that comes about
It means that true singularity has not existed, and once it will exist it will be true infinite multiplicity.

[Anonymous No.16326563]

i really hope you didnt type all this shit out yourself. and i hope nobody took the time to read it

[Anonymous No.16326566]

>>16326463
Close, but no cigar

[Anonymous No.16326571]

>>16325991
>using Leibnizian framework for philosophy after Hegel
ngmi.

[Anonymous No.16326574]

>>16326566
No it's exactly on point.

[Anonymous No.16326578]

>>16326574
Nope.

[Anonymous No.16326580]

>>16326578
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.16326591]

>>16326580
Sorry, I'd rather watch the midwit squirm in his sleep.

[Anonymous No.16326601]

>I can't because I'm a good-for-nothing frogposter
Figures

[Anonymous No.16326624]

>>16326601
Seethe for me midwit while I sip on some brandy tonight

[Anonymous No.16326626]

>>16325991
Instead of trying to appear intelligent on an anonymous board where no one cares but yourself just use the hide option for posts and stop wasting your time and ours.

[Anonymous No.16326629]

Instead of trying to appear intelligent on an anonymous board where no one cares but yourself just use the hide option for posts and stop wasting your time and ours.

[Anonymous No.16326630]

>>16325991
too long, didn't read

[Anonymous No.16326631]

>>16326624
I mean, you admitted I got close.

[Anonymous No.16326637]

>>16326631
Congratulations, so sleep well my my midwit friend.

[Anonymous No.16326643]

>>16326637
It's eight in the morning rn.

[Anonymous No.16326657]

>>16326643
it's five oclock somewhere as they say

[Anonymous No.16326667]

>>16326657
Noone says that, I think you're being facetious. Which leads me to believe that this whole thread is a thinly-veiled excuse for satisfying your internet addiction paired with a closeted inferiority complex. Refute this guy and I'll acquiesce >>16326630

[Anonymous No.16326676]

>>16326667
>Refute this guy
This thread is not made to refute but to make midwits seethe in frustration as you are currently doing because you failed to fully comprehend what was written.

[Anonymous No.16326684]

>>16326676
Can't fail to comprehend if I don't attempt to in the first place
After all, a doctor in a psych ward is there to heal and subdue the mentally ill, not to indulge in their delusions

[Anonymous No.16326691]

>>16326676
Okay so I just looked it up and it turns out I was completely right.

[Anonymous No.16326693]

uniqueness is the first principle

[Anonymous No.16326695]

>>16326691
You think this lie will work wagie?

[Anonymous No.16326699]

>>16326695
I'm a neet.

[Anonymous No.16326702]

>>16326699
how many years

[Anonymous No.16326706]

>>16326702
3. Since I left mandatory military service

[Anonymous No.16326719]

>>16326706
3 years isn't much but it's still three years and you aren't a mutt

[Anonymous No.16326762]

>>16326719
I'm still young :/

[Anonymous No.16326817]

>>16325991
OK, ESL here.
Aristotle questions how should you approach building genera when thinking about the world or things. From a deductive (each first of the genera is a principle) or an inductive way (each principle predicated directly of the individuals).
So, the trouble is that if you go in a deductive way each first of the genera will be a principle and a genera in itself, thus pointless. Creating a category that doesent work (because it doesent excludes or excludes everything) . He then explains why it wouldnt work using the non contradiction, identity and the excluded middle laws.
Thus, if everything is a genera in itself then that means being and unity which can be said of most things is a genus. If being and unity is a genus you cant make differentiae, since being a differentiae it means that is and has a unity on itself as the differentiae.
So he concludes genera cant be principles if you identify genera as principles (since they arent genera because everything is in that genera).
Then he argues that the best approach is to see the individuals, as the indivisible is prior to the divisible you will easily find the unity if you attest for the differentiae of each individual to find whats in common or which doesent get divided.
I dont know if i got the last bit and the argument is probably more nuanced than my english skills can translate.
And if im not gettin filtered by language or sheer logic, I am for what you say.
Why would christians get filtered by this? Averroes and Aquinas pretty much got Aristotle and religion troubles fixed.
Or are you saying all christians are midwits like me? Lol
Please enlighten me

Paradoxically, this makes me think that everything which exists is the total singularity on itself as the same time it is an individual.

[Anonymous No.16326843]

Wouldnt that reinforce the idea each individual holds inside of it the singularity? Making the point of a christian soul somewhat reasonable? Ofc only if the paradox is true and everything is us as we are everything

[Anonymous No.16326903]

>>16326817
No.

[Anonymous No.16326954]

>>16326817
Last part is acceptable.

[Anonymous No.16327181]

Aristotle is like : "Everything is a fundamental unity, that doesn't make much sense."

[Anonymous No.16327209]

>>16326624
That's champagne, retard