/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16469465]

Okay so it’s widely established that Aristotle was in fact more handsome than Plato. But which one was more correct?

[Anonymous No.16469469]

>>16469465
More correct Plato less correct but more intelligent, Aristotle

[Anonymous No.16469481]

>>16469465
I don't know who's more correct, but I would rather be around Aristotelians than Platonists, that's certain.

[Anonymous No.16469486]

>>16469465
aristotle is the better philosopher, plato is the better artist. so for me it's plato.

[Anonymous No.16469491]

>>16469465
Aristotle. Plato was incorrect about almost everything.

[Anonymous No.16469495]

>>16469486
That's a weird distinction. Plato wasn't talking out his ass

[Anonymous No.16469502]

>>16469491
Like what? The existence of abstract objects? Physicalism and materialism are easily debunked

[Anonymous No.16469505]

>>16469465
Simplified like this and compared Plato's superiority is obvious.

[Anonymous No.16469519]

>>16469502
In your dreams, schizo.

[Anonymous No.16469527]

>>16469519
Physicalism is ass. Anyone can come up with a cursory rebuttal to it

[Anonymous No.16469532]

>>16469502
When did soft-materialism get debunked?

[Anonymous No.16469537]

>>16469502
This may be hard for a Platonist -- wanting something to be real doesn't make it so.

[Anonymous No.16469564]

>>16469537
Good thing Plato never said that.

[Anonymous No.16469587]

>>16469465
"lack of respect for the sublime" where does he say that?

[Anonymous No.16469638]

>>16469527
Well go on. Let us see your rebuttal.

[Anonymous No.16469646]

>>16469532
When it called itself soft materialism

>>16469537
Do you believe what you're saying is true? I'm sure you do but I just want to see an upstart to it so I can jack off

[Anonymous No.16469652]

>>16469638
Two different arguments, it's really fun to debunk because it's a bit of exercise on something slightly easy. Everyone knows it's bullshit if you're not a materialist. It's like arguing with a flat earthen just less vapid.

If it takes a physical object to allow an immaterial object like math then how do you account for how math becomes emergent off these physical instantations? In consciousness, at some point something was not conscious and yet it has emerged in different systems of life, or at the very least will have in terms of aliens. Of course taking a physicalist approach would deny that consciousness ever existed until a conscious being happened. This predicates consciousness off that certain being which wouldn't allow consciousness to arise in different lifeforms.

To argue for a continuum we assume Being exists, or that existence exists. Starting from a smaller point, we can assume it is congruent with a larger or smaller object and by getting to a perfectly congruent aspect of the larger and smaller object then comparing that to the full aspect of the larger object then differing it by quantifying this difference, or incongruency. This creates a quantifiable continuum.

Assuming physical events are on a continuum. For instance a bit of stone is less physically consequent of reality than a mountain, planet or star, then we can measure some events as more physically prevalent. This develops a hierarchy of causation caused by physical events per physicalism.

If being physically assaulted or tortured then I would experience stronger emotions, being causated at a higher level necessarily from something physical and at a higher level. Yet it can be the privation of physical objects which cause more distress than being punched for instance.

[Anonymous No.16469702]

Aristotle was platonist and Plato's fren and best student

[Anonymous No.16469713]

>>16469702
False. Plato's best friend was the one he bequeathed his academy too.

[Anonymous No.16469721]

>>16469713
His nephew? Besides we dk why aristotle left

[Anonymous No.16469734]

>>16469465
>But which one was more correct?
Plato lol

[Anonymous No.16469759]

>>16469702
Based unitarian chad

[Anonymous No.16469877]

>>16469502
Phenomenalism isn't.

[Anonymous No.16469884]

>>16469481
Based Diogenes

[Anonymous No.16469893]

>>16469877
wth does that have to do with aristotle or physicalism?
Phenomenalism is shit for its own reasons

[Anonymous No.16469902]

Virgin Plato vs Chad Aristotle, that's all I have to say.

[Anonymous No.16469909]

>>16469893
>wth does that have to do with aristotle or physicalism?
It doesn't, it has to do with rejecting Plato.
>Phenomenalism is shit for its own reasons
Explain some of them.

[Anonymous No.16469910]

>>16469495
yes he was

[Anonymous No.16469918]

>>16469481
refuted

[Anonymous No.16469930]

>>16469910
well then so are mathematicians for the past century. Have fun proving that

>>16469909
How does phenomenalism refute Plato? By starting with the individual and even more the "objectification" of their perspectives

[Anonymous No.16469935]

>>16469930
>How does phenomenalism refute Plato?
I said reject, not refute. Philosophies aren't refuted, they're rejected. Phenomenalism is the starting point to rejecting Plato. The forms are individual to the unique.

[Anonymous No.16469937]

>>16469465
which one was taller?

[Anonymous No.16469976]

>>16469937
plato had large shoulders that's why socrates nicknamed him plato.

[Anonymous No.16469981]

>>16469976
sorry but i'm a single issue voter

[Anonymous No.16469986]

>>16469935
You refute it partially by rejecting it. If your philosophy isn't more universally applicable then it's not more universally correct.
If a form is unique then it's not universally applicable refuting your own philosophy

[Anonymous No.16469991]

>>16469981
plato

[Anonymous No.16470000]

>>16469981
i think the taller one was aristotle because he makes fun of manlets now and then while plato says nothing about them afaik

[Anonymous No.16470007]

>>16469986
>You refute it partially by rejecting it.
No. I'm not concerned with refuting it.

>If a form is unique then it's not universally applicable
Correct. My point being that universally applicable forms don't exist.

[Anonymous No.16470020]

>>16469918
t. has never read actually plato obviously

[Anonymous No.16470040]

>>16470007
Okay well as long as phenomenalism works for you, however it does since apparently not everyone can use it

[Anonymous No.16470265]

>>16469652
Care to re explain that mate? I'm ESL and I struggle to undestand those points.

[Anonymous No.16470280]

I’d want to learn from and discuss things with Aristotle, bud I’d party with Plato.

Plato seems like he’d be good at parties.

[Anonymous No.16470295]

>>16469465
>INFP-A and Aristotelian
Have I done it wrong bros?

[Anonymous No.16470311]

>>16469481
>Wedding hymn of your right hand
Took me a while, but I get it now

[Anonymous No.16470354]

>>16469465
>Privately hated mythology
Plato actually disapproved of "poetry" in general (in the ancient sense, "poetry" included poetry as we know it and plays and myths and such).

[Anonymous No.16470400]

>>16470354
i.e., Plato was a bore.

[Anonymous No.16470423]

>>16469652
anon you dont have to paint pretty here. its not an essay to send to your professor at 23:57. just write clearly

[Anonymous No.16470428]

>>16470295
No myersfags are the worst

[Anonymous No.16470443]

Aristotle made one of the worst mistakes in the history of philosophy.
Pretty easy. STEMfags and redditors need to go back.

[Anonymous No.16470454]

>>16470354
>t. never read Plato
Cringe

[Anonymous No.16470487]

There's no way any philosopher ever was E unless you count the sophists.

[Anonymous No.16470489]

>>16470454
Book X of the Republic. He argues that poetry is a poor imitation of reality that stirs the passions and clouds reason. He argues that poets promote immorality. The only poetry he seems to permit is "philosophical" poetry (the Republic itself is "poetry" in the broad sense of the word). Unless you're one of those sad souls who believes that Plato wasn't using the Republic to advance his own ideas, but instead was somehow "demonstrating" philosophy through the advocacy of positions he himself didn't hold; in which case, lmao and fuck off.

[Anonymous No.16470552]

>>16470265
Too sleepy on gas otherwise I would. The first just says if a universal is formed by a physical instantiation then a universal is formed many times particularly. Basically it would imply 1+1=2 isn't true for anyone and probably only true for one thing which instantiated it (it'd have to be different otherwise they share something which isn't physically determined).

The second says if physical objects instantiate a universal then we can assume that the physical aspects determine the immaterial. If this is true it'd be fair to say big instantiates big. Even if you don't twins can be very dissimilar in personality and certainly consciousness. That could be dug in the weeds a bit with physical objections of some sort but they'd be increasingly derivative to where it's not talking about anything. Still the absence of eating or love etc is caused by no physical instantiations (I think materialists have a better argument than physicalists here). So the absence of a physical instantiation causing immaterial effects contradicts it but usually physicalists don't quantify this so it's more of a conversation starter than the first.

[Anonymous No.16470586]

>>16469465
Both

[Anonymous No.16470649]

>>16470489
So he argues against certain types of poetry, not poetry itself.
Way to out yourself retard.

[Anonymous No.16470752]

>>16470020
kys

[Anonymous No.16471215]

>>16470752
so if Plato didn't like gays how does this have anything to do with the fact Rome and Greece were gay haven

[Anonymous No.16471253]

>>16470752
Laws is the only work of Plato that is vaguely homophobic. You're being disingenuous. In Charmides, Socrates lusts after a youth and of course there's the Symposium.

[Anonymous No.16471392]

>>16470649
I said "in general." As in, "there are exceptions." Goddamn, /lit/ is full of absolute mongoloid fucks.

[Anonymous No.16471411]

>>16469465
>it’s widely established that Aristotle was in fact more handsome than Plato
Nope, plato was stronger and thus more attractive

[Anonymous No.16471589]

>>16471411
t. barafag

[Anonymous No.16471622]

>>16471392
>the exception is general
Nice cope

[Anonymous No.16471831]

>>16470552
>Too sleepy on gas
What? Also, I don't understand anything you typed, it's like some schizo babble.

[Anonymous No.16472250]

>>16469465
Any mathematician would say with plato, so I'll go with him. Also aristotle didn't get the theory of forms

[Anonymous No.16472332]

>>16469465
There's a little give and take for both, but overall it would be that Plato is more correct in general, but Aristotle is more practical.

[Anonymous No.16473162]

>>16469491
imagine believing this lamo

[Anonymous No.16474450]

>>16471831
Then don't ask about philosophy

[Anonymous No.16475068]

[Anonymous No.16475079]

>>16475068
(dying gaul statue)
The absolute moggening...

[Anonymous No.16475692]

>>16469465
Plato made up shit that felt good
Aristotle summarized all available knowledge at his period in time
One was basically a /lit/ religious LARP'er, the other a good college professor
Socrates would have ridiculed both of them

[Anonymous No.16475704]

>>16469465
>Aristotle
>Sees ethis as dependent upon the individual
kill yourself shitskin

[Anonymous No.16475744]

>>16469465
Plato never disliked the experimental method as a "lack of respect for the sublime". For him, the stability of knowledge depends upon the stability of the object. Sensible reality is ever-changing, thus there cannot be knowledge of sensible reality, because it is never the same. Forms, on the other hand, can be known because they never change.
Also, two imprecisions:
1. there was no proper experimental method before Galilei, so it is difficult to claim that Plato was against it.
2. the Greek word for sublime was only used by later platonists, about 500 years after Plato, so I don't see how he could claim anything "lacked respect for the sublime".
Whoever made this meme is a giant pleb. Like all of you. Go fucking read.

[Anonymous No.16475750]

As a Catholic, which epic gaming Greek philosopher should I look into?

[Anonymous No.16475749]

>>16469465
Also aristotle was balding and Plato was tall and massively built, hence his nickname (Plato means "broad shouldered"). So no, Aristotle was not more handsome.

[Anonymous No.16475753]

>>16471831
the absolute state of this board

[Anonymous No.16476840]

>>16474450
>>16475753
Fuck off to /x/, you absolute imbeciles

[Anonymous No.16476857]

>>16471253
Republic, Phaedrus, Symposium (Only Socrates and Diotima is Plato's views).
fuck
off

[Anonymous No.16476875]

>>16476857
gays btfo

[Anonymous No.16476889]

>>16469465
>aristotle
>see ethics dependent upon the individual
op is a faggot, sage, etc

[Anonymous No.16477051]

>>16475068
Xenophon was a handsome looking motherfucker

[Anonymous No.16477144]

>>16469481
>noooo, I can't think men can be beautiful or else I'm gay!
The absolute state of Ar*stotards.

[Anonymous No.16477744]

>>16469465
>Dislikes the experimental method as a "lack or respect for the sublime"
holy based scoob

[Anonymous No.16477757]

>>16469465
not shitposting, I have never come across anything from aristotle that I thought seemed truly worhwhile

[Anonymous No.16477985]

>>16469465
Aristotle has a dumb bowlcut

[Anonymous No.16478147]

>>16469481
based aristotle
traps are the perfect lovers for bisexuals

[Anonymous No.16478269]

>>16471215
Not everyone in ancient Greece and Rome believe in homosexuality, but most did. Aristotle mentions in his Ethic that being gay is morally fine, seeing how some men where naturally born more attractive to men then women.

[Anonymous No.16478304]

>>16471831
the second attempt was fine