/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18187370]

Plato vs Aristotle

Who’s better?

[Anonymous No.18187391]

A village idiot, in the literal sense, who really loves the truth, even when he only babbles, is in his thinking infinitely superior to Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.18187397]

>>18187370
Plato, but he needs Aristotle nonetheless.

See Hamann.

[Anonymous No.18187414]

>>18187370
Objectively, Aristotle.
Subjectively, Plato.

[Anonymous No.18187418]

>>18187414
You need to override that dichotomy.

t. Goethe

[Anonymous No.18187431]

>>18187397
Where does hamann say anything about this? Could you elaborate a bit more? This sounds interesting and kind of what I have been thinking.

[Anonymous No.18187444]

Aristotle hands down

[Anonymous No.18187448]

[Anonymous No.18187460]

>>18187370
Both are good and they complement each other, but Plato is better.

[Anonymous No.18187489]

>>18187370
Ayo they linked up???

[Anonymous No.18187558]

>>18187370
plato is the better writer
aristotle is the better philosopher
therefore plato

[Anonymous No.18187563]

>>18187431
He might not be exactly right in his positioning of Plato and Aristotle, but he does very well to show the lines of thought coming from them as well as their mutual dependence in our understanding of them.

>In Hamann's own terms Kant was a "Platonist" about reason, believing it disembodied, and Hamann an "Aristotelian" who believed it was embodied.

[Anonymous No.18187574]

>>18187558
Aristotle wrote dialogues as well but they've been lost, and Cicero said "If Plato's prose was silver, Aristotle's was a flowing river of gold."

Make up your own mind, but Cicero's judgement can't be discounted.

[Anonymous No.18187583]

>>18187574
i judge based on what we have
and it's not a matter of dialogues or essayism, but of general tone, imagery, style, pace, invention, etc.

[Anonymous No.18187627]

>>18187391
Isn’t this what socrates would say, which makes Plato superior

[Anonymous No.18187631]

>>18187583
But who knows what Plato's lectures might have been like, just from reading any of Plato's works, don't you think that he might have been dry at times when going through the dialectics?

We really don't know what Aristotle might have read like.

[Anonymous No.18187635]

Both were major pseuds

[Anonymous No.18187655]

>>18187631
when i say "aristotle" i mean : aristotle's remaining books
when i say "plato" i mean : plato's remining books
so my answer is : plato's books we can read are better than aristotle's book we can read
i think it settles it

[Anonymous No.18187668]

>>18187370
Plato

Aristotle and his focus on “reason”, breaking the balance of dyonisian and apollonian, was the reason for Greece’s downfall

[Anonymous No.18187726]

>>18187655
But Aristotle is not just his remaining works, we know more about him than what comes from those. You should say "Plato is the better writer from what we have". But I don't think anyone would disagree with you there anyway.

[Anonymous No.18187739]

>>18187370
Plato of course

[Anonymous No.18187808]

>>18187563
This is really interesting. I think Aristotle is important for he will explain in more direct and “rationally developed” way part of Plato’s philosophy, and obviously also because of Aristotle’s expositions on what Plato considered most important and did not write, the agrapha dogmata. There are scholars who say Aristotle’s whole philosophical enterprise was interpretation of Plato.
Your quote on Hammann shows a lot how the two meet in perfect agreement. This is also more or less the case with the Categories of Aristotle and how it only on the surface seems anti-platonic. I believe the human reason/nous to be in this movement from the (universal, ontological) Mind to the particular mind and consequently to the particular world and from this, a return back to the universal Mind through the intelligibility - universality - of the particulars. I’m sure this could resonate husserlian phenomenology a bit too.

[Anonymous No.18187839]

>>18187808
>This is really interesting.
I thought you would find it so, Hamann is an underrated gem and has many novel ideas like this. At the very least I advise you to read over his wikipedia page.

>I believe the human reason/nous to be in this movement from the (universal, ontological) Mind to the particular mind and consequently to the particular world and from this, a return back to the universal Mind through the intelligibility - universality - of the particulars. I’m sure this could resonate husserlian phenomenology a bit too.
I might be a troglodyte in this, but your whole statement reminds me a lot of the Neoplatonists, and how they were strongly influenced by both Plato and Aristotle. Are you familiar with them?

[Anonymous No.18187841]

>>18187668
Retard

[Anonymous No.18187849]

>>18187370
Essential reading on the subject.

[Anonymous No.18187852]

>>18187849
Who is Batman and who is Joker if Gotham is Western civilisation?

[Anonymous No.18187874]

>>18187839
I have been planning for a long time to read Hamann. Just have a lot to read and never could find time, but certainly he is now low on my priorities.

And yes, the neoplatonists will emphasize a lot this process of procession-return and stasis in the One. I guess Aristotle kind of hints at it too when he identify reality with pure Intellect and its movement toward itself. Likewise, Plato’s unwritten doctrines makes the Unity of the One and Dyad the principle of manifestation (the Unity from which the Ideal Numbers and Figures and Meta-Ideas spring and “organize” the Forms and the intermediary numbers and finally the phenomena) and at the same time the elementa prima of every particular - coinciding here with Aristotle’s categories position about the primary substances.

[Anonymous No.18187879]

>>18187874
he certainly is now not low*

[Anonymous No.18187952]

>>18187874
But I don't understand how you interpret Husserl, essentially Neoplatonically, in what I gather is a very unorthodox interpretation of his philosophy.

What do you think?

[Anonymous No.18188013]

>>18187852
The truth is Batman needs the Joker as much as he needs him.

[Anonymous No.18188039]

>>18187448

[Anonymous No.18188066]

>>18188013
So who is who?

[Anonymous No.18188109]

>>18188066
Its pretty obvious isnt it?

[Anonymous No.18188111]

>>18187952
Husserl, even though subtly, gives preeminence to the Subject. The reduction from what he calls natural attitude to a more “deeper” status of consciousness and the structures of reality, could be understood as that ontological transcendence from the empirical, particular, to a more universal, eidetic structure. This recalls that relation of Intellect and its activity - intellection - toward intelligibles, and Subject and its intentionality toward the Object in different ontological degrees.

[Anonymous No.18188412]

>>18188109
No.

[Anonymous No.18188422]

Plato's world of forms is a nice introduction to concepts and perceptions, but they always remained the same.

Aristotle on the other hand, made a much more complete analysis of objects, no one encapsulates an idea by nature, but rather by accident.