/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20034632]

Why do most undergrads hate him? He is arguably one of the best philosophers

[Anonymous No.20034635]

They want to read Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.20034756]

>>20034635
Nothing wrong with reading both

[Anonymous No.20034761]

>>20034632
He defended slavery and he said women are inferior to men

[Anonymous No.20034776]

>>20034761
>he defended something that has been totally normal throughout human history
>and he stated the obvious
do redditors (college kids) really?

[Anonymous No.20034866]

I literally teach this lil' nigga what do you want to know?

>Why do undergrads hate him.
I'll tell you why you fucking uneducated piece of shit: absolutely no one understands him because he's explaining something that's become so suffused into the collective cultural consciousness it's become an essential component of individual, and collective thought processes.

Why don't they understand him? Because he's delineating something that every single Western person manifests inherently in their middling mentalizations of reality.

Here's a crash course because I hate undergraduates so much it's unreal.

>Predication
A substance (discrete unit of reality) to Aristotle is that which can be predicated of. That is to say, a substance is anything that can be said to be in possession of observable qualitative properties as distinct from other qualitative properties.

* A subject (substance) (hupokeimenon) is what a statement is about
* A predicate (katêgoroumenon) is what a statement says about its subject

Examples:
>This (particular animal) is a man.
>Man (not referring to any particular man, but as a general class of thing) is an animal.
>This (particular color on this particular wall) is white.
>White (not referring to any particular substance, but as a general class of thing) is a color.

The same substance may be both a subject and a predicate when they refer to a general class without referring to any particular example within that class, e.g., man and white above. However, some substances are subjects but are never predicates, e.g., this particular man named John, or this particular white color on this particular wall.

The reason for this is quite clear once it's expressed diagrammatically (which I will construct now):

>Pic Related

All Aristotle is explaining is that there are concrete objects (like an apple sitting on a desk) and that there are also generalized conceptualizations that we can make about them that are themselves distinct from the object (an apple is a fruit) and that these have essential properties (an apple is a fruit by definition of the fact its an apple, as fruit is a plant by definition of the fact its a fruit, etc.) and that he got sorta confused about whether or not abstract generalizations of intangible objects such as knowledge, color, and love, or consciousness are concrete or abstract in their essential nature and so now thousands of generations of idiots are confused too.

[Anonymous No.20034874]

>>20034761
>He defended slavery
Everyone who defends jobs defends slavery, because wagecucking is the same, just a different name.
>and he said women are inferior to men
So a fact that every honest man in history said.

What else?

[Anonymous No.20034941]

>>20034776
>>20034874
Slavery is not OK. Also working for a wage is not the same as slavery.

[Anonymous No.20034965]

>>20034941
>Also working for a wage is not the same as slavery.
It is slavery, just an indirect one. You have an institution that can print money out of thin air and they can make you work to get it. Their product has no inherent worth, it's just numbers on a screen and worthless papers, but you will exchange your time for it. So you are their slave.

[Anonymous No.20034971]

>>20034941
lmao the state of liberals
go glamourize wageslavery somewhere else

[Anonymous No.20034976]

>>20034941
>>20034965
>guy provides a thoroughly educational effort post
>Slavery is ... LE BAD?

[Anonymous No.20034977]

>>20034761
>He defended slavery
No he didnt, or at least not unequivocally. He gave every arguments as to why it is bad (but may be necessary), but his own epistemology forced him to end up agreeing with the general opinion
>said women are inferior to men
In what way is that different from literally every one of his contemporaries?

[Anonymous No.20034999]

>>20034977
>>20034965
>>20034874
Hi, I'm the guy who posted this >>20034866

Aristotle thought that retards like you should be slaves to masters with finely honed wills and good hearts. Anyone of any substance as a man was not only not a slave but incapable of being defined as such.

[Anonymous No.20035081]

>>20034999
But then said, "and nowhere is slavery actually done like this".

[Anonymous No.20035164]

>>20034941
>working for a wage is not the same as slavery.

[Anonymous No.20035178]

>>20034941
It really isn't but like slavery, and probably more than slavery, the people in it deserve to be in it.

[Anonymous No.20035184]

>>20035164
More accurately, slaves in Athens weren't slaves by the common contemporary understanding of the term.

[Anonymous No.20035247]

>>20034761
he said that women were better than man at many things, like running the oikos.

[Anonymous No.20035259]

>>20034761
Based.

[Anonymous No.20035264]

>>20034761
The one true God said the same thing. Why would the greatest philosopher in human history, and the Creator of the universe both make horrible claims. I should ask my single mother about this after she comes back from picking up my little brother, whom she accidentally left in cart at the grocery store.

[Anonymous No.20035302]

>>20034866
Me again.

Just so you know I purposefully grade people who argue in class about sexism and racism far harsher than those who shut the fuck up and focus on logic.

Every philosophy professor does the same.

[Anonymous No.20035332]

>>20034866
>>20034999
>>20035302
based

[Anonymous No.20035336]

>>20035302
>Every philosophy professor does the same.
Not in all programs. It's the other way around at my uni.

[Anonymous No.20035372]

>>20035302
>who argue in class about sexism and racism
Do they really do that in philosophy classes?

[Anonymous No.20035394]

>>20035372
I've only seen it in very shitty, unorganized courses that shouldn't have existed, probably. Like that fucking Philosophy of Anthropology course which was 50% Freud and 50% Marx.

[Anonymous No.20035481]

>>20035394
as opposed to philosophy courses that should exist?

[Anonymous No.20035490]

>>20034635
Heidegger's lectures mention that you should study Aristotle for 10 years before touching Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.20035512]

>>20034761
>dismissing a person's entire belief system because they hold one or two views you disagree with
Why is anti-intellectualism like this becoming the norm? I'm seeing it more each day

[Anonymous No.20035592]

>>20034941
Product should cost 1$. Hire someone to work for 100$. Sell product for 101$. Same as slavery

[Anonymous No.20035620]

All of the hate for Aristotle boils down to
>out of context shit he said about women or whatever
>out of context incorrect shit he proposed about anatomy or science
>hating him because the medieval Catholics liked him
It's really that simple.

[Anonymous No.20036050]

>>20035336
If your philosophy professor

1. Speaks to women

2. Isnt extremely racist

3. Doesn't teach raw logic first and foremost

Then they're a sociologist

[Anonymous No.20036105]

Only tradlarpers and randians care about this old fart

[Anonymous No.20036189]

>>20035512
Because people getting stupider dumb dumb, fuck you thankin fuck ass nigga? Fuckin retarded ass nigga? Say less bitch ass fool, talkin bout anti intellectualism like no shit dumbass nigga, fuck you on? How you gonna be talkin ani inelucalism when aint nobody even inelciaial?

[Anonymous No.20036312]

>>20034866
You are a delusional moron, didn't explain what's about Aristotle philosophy

[Anonymous No.20036321]

>>20034965
It's more like indentured servitude, which is a kind of slavery with a potential way out. You're supposed to save money and invest, so you can then break out of the system. It will of course be harder in the future because WEF wants to seize our properties and make a renting based economy. Even with universal basic income, we would still technically be slaves then since investment opportunities will become lower.
I don't like the nature of the system either, since investment acumen does not necessarily reflect one's personal merits, but it is what it is. Answer isn't communism or trusting big corporations or government.

[Anonymous No.20036323]

>>20034866
What does Aristotle say that is perhaps correlative to what we call the unconscious mind? If no such concept exists in his psychology, how does he explain things like hunches and intuitions? What about involuntary thoughts and obsessions?
I do know that he was, in modern terms, a 'skeptic' about dream prophecy. Dismissing dream imagery not as some kind of supernatural communication, but very much like how we process things while awake - that if you dream of a person and see them the same day, it is not prophetic because it's not different from recognizing their face in a crowd. That sounds rather contra to the Freudian idea of the subconscious being this huge hidden self that 'knows' things that are invisible to our conscious perception.
But as I understand he also speaks about a difference between passive and active intellect, between 'animal' souls and human souls. And this is related to his model of memory recall: that while animals can remember things, humans can intentionally recall things.

[Anonymous No.20036370]

>>20035490
Heidegger it's failing at "you should study maths ten years before learning philosophy", Aristotle is not that complex and Neech is pure cringe Schopi copycat philosophy

[Anonymous No.20036554]

>>20036323
Truthfully, that's a little like asking what Aristotle thought of when we talk about electrons or protons. He very likely didn't really have a conceptual frame of reference that allowed him to think about the world that way.

However, you can most certainly replace "Gods" or "the influences of the Gods" or with "the unconscious" as a way to begin thinking critically about whether or not it seems reasonable to transmute the meaning of his propositions into something equivalent to a modern day comprehension of the dynamic unconscious.

>But as I understand he also speaks about a difference between passive and active intellect, between 'animal' souls and human souls. And this is related to his model of memory recall: that while animals can remember things, humans can intentionally recall things.
He approaches something like a loose cognizance of the differences in consciousness between individual people, and between animals, but this does not really translate into an understanding of the unconscious in the fashion that we've come to apprehend it. Aristotle was very much of the position that the totality of the contents of a mans mind were given to him the moment he consciously chose to bring them into the focal locus of consciousness. Indeed, his analysis of dreams reveals as much.

[Anonymous No.20036695]

>>20036554
>that's a little like asking what Aristotle thought of when we talk about electrons or protons.
I was aware that was possible, on the other hand so many modern concepts seem to be variations on old ones I thought I'd try my luck. Irrespective, how does he account for phenomena that nowadays is attributed to the unconscious mind: hunches and intuitions, light-bulb moments of sudden realization, unspoken and sometimes unknown compulsions and motivations etc. did he comment on any of these?
>However, you can most certainly replace "Gods" or "the influences of the Gods" or with "the unconscious" as a way to begin thinking critically about whether or not it seems reasonable to transmute the meaning of his propositions into something equivalent to a modern day comprehension of the dynamic unconscious.
Yes I have been reading a tiny bit about daemons and muses. However searching through Aristotle's Corpus he seems to not mention only in passing, never ascribing anything to them, compare to say Plato's Apology of Socrates who talks about his demon, a voice that gives censure to bad ideas. This is all the more startling to me when I look at the word at the heart of Nicomachean Ethics: "Eu-daimonia"
> Aristotle was very much of the position that the totality of the contents of a mans mind were given to him the moment he consciously chose to bring them into the focal locus of consciousness.
At the risk of imputing the concept of the unconscious where it does not belong (which is not my intention): where do those contents reside when they are not brought into the focal locus of consciousness? Is the act of bringing them into consciousness in effect spontaneous creating the contents of the mind (with the exception of memories, of course)?

[Anonymous No.20036827]

>>20036695
For Aristotle it was the instincts, or rather our "intuition" (which is the faculty of the psyche responsible for producing intimations or hints from non-conscious sources within the mind that are experienced subjectively as an involuntary attraction of our conscious attention towards seemingly arbitrary elements of our environment) that formed the foundation of knowledge. But a lot of other functions are conflated with what he calls intuition, and it takes some psychological finesse to figure out what he's really talking about phenomenologically and when.

This is, I suppose, pretty close to the idea of the unconscious. However, like Plato, his explanations for the process of these behaviors is rather low resolution, and relegated to logically fallacious reasoning.

Plato was very much an illumined individual. He was clearly inducted into many mysteries, including those at the great pyramid. So, his contemporaneous descriptions of his own subjective experience of the psyche are a little less cryptic from a purely modern psychological perspective. Plato was very much of his time in that respect. Whereas Aristotle was without a doubt thousands of years ahead of any other man with respect to his powers of inference, and categorization. He was attempting to manifest the scientific method, more or less. So, his work is the work of a pioneer; there is much stumbling, and passion in it.

[Anonymous No.20036843]

>>20036827
>This is, I suppose, pretty close to the idea of the unconscious
I half remember my teacher mentioning an analogy he had between consciousness and a writing board which would be erased but on which you could always discern the previous writings if you squinted enough...? This was over 15 years ago tho, I haven't reread him since, I really should.

[Anonymous No.20036898]

>>20036843
That's a mediocre analogy. But he probably wasn't 300 IQ like me. Let me freak you the fuck out.

Consider an infinite line. We then mark a point along that infinite line, and denote it point A. Now, let's make a rule that says every point along the infinite line that's 1 inch from point A is colored blue, and that any point along the line that's 1 inch from a blue point must also be colored blue.

Well, the consequence is that the entire infinite line is colored blue, right? That's how most people think consciousness works. That there's a sort of infinite line stretching backwards into the past, and forwards into the future, and that consciousness is a kind of infinite extension of both into themselves as a discontinuous sequence or spectrum. Like your professors analogy seems to hint at. There's a sort of deterministic pattern linking the past to the present, and propelling the present into the future.

Not so.

Let's consider another infinite line with a point A. Except this time the rule is that the every point infinitesimally close to point A must be painted blue, and that every point infinitesimally close to a blue point must be painted blue.

Well, what happens? An infinite amount of the line is thereby painted blue, and an infinite amount of the line on either side of the infinite blue line is still unpainted. You end up with the blue line portion being a smaller infinity than the two infinities that it interposes. Consciousness is, essentially, the blue portion on this line. It's continuous. The past is known to our facilities of conscious experience only via recollection of memories of the past that persist into the present as a consequence of the infinitesimally short nature of the present as experienced consciously. As such, the future is known to our experiential faculties only in so far as we are capable of deriving sense from the intimations derived from actuality regarding future events that inhere within both our recollections of the past, and our immediate experiences of those recollections in present memory.

There is some determinate distance away from the present as interpreted by my memories of the past as the present moment that constitutes an effectively infinite distance into the past with respect to my conscious experience of that moment — I have an immediate consciousness of a state of consciousness past by one unit of time, and if that past state involved an immediate consciousness of the preceding state by one unit, I then have an immediate consciousness of a state past by two units, etc. It appears that there exists a unit of distance between the present and the past that is more than any finite number of units as a consequence of the fact that I have no immediate consciousness of it.

There are no discrete units, my friend. The universe is one giant photon that appears to be moving at a fixed rate in time, and with fixed physical laws, only due to our conscious experience of it as such.

[Anonymous No.20036913]

>>20036843
In other words, there's an infinity behind you, and an infinity in front of you, and you're an infinity in and of yourself, and all three of these things are identical essential substances.

Your subjective conscious frame of reference isn't discrete, and set apart from the universe, it is the universe.

[Anonymous No.20036920]

>>20036827
the word intuition literally means "to look inside" and it was used with the conotation of understanding something by observing it.
but for some reason, people today associate intuition with superstition which is complete nonsense.

intuition is like knowing that water is bloiling because you can see the bubbles rising up. you don't have to measure the temperature to know that it's hot. you understand it by observing. intuition is developed by confronting assumptions with reality. if you believe that an object holds a particular property, you can observe the object to see if the property holds true or not.

[Anonymous No.20036934]

>>20036920
So, I use Jung's definition: hints from the unconscious.

Consider you're driving down the highway, and a car pulls up alongside you matching your speed. It overtakes you, and then pulls in front of you. For whatever reason you get a funny feeling about the car. It doesn't "feel" safe to be so close to it, so you decide to back off.

A moment later the car swerves quite erratically, and it's quite clear the driver is very distracted.

This is a good example of intuition at work. You don't know why you know something, you just feel as though you have certain knowledge as a consequence of some sort of hint from the depths of the psyche. It's role in the psyche is to help you adapt to situations you aren't fully cognizant of.

[Anonymous No.20036944]

>>20036934
>>20036920
Perhaps a better example might be the way that your brain maps out the exterior limits of your vehicle. You can sort of "feel" by a kind of intuitive sense where the wheels are in relationship to the curb, or where the rear is in relationship to the other cars in a parking lot.

[Anonymous No.20036970]

>>20036827
>For Aristotle it was the instincts, or rather our "intuition"... that formed the foundation of knowledge.
What is the word in Ancient Greek he uses for intuition?
>. But a lot of other functions are conflated with what he calls intuition, and it takes some psychological finesse to figure out what he's really talking about phenomenologically and when.
Is there any point where he describes lightbulb moments or obsession? Two different things, the former when in a seeming instant "oh it makes sense now" or "Fuck that's what was annoying me", and obsession which if I'm not mistaken he attributes to melancholia and what we would now call neurosis and paranoia.
>>20036843
Not really what I was after, I'm not interested in "Aristotle discovered the unconscious! ZOMG he so prescient!" but I am interested explaining the phenomena we attribute to the subconscious - such as non-intentional thought, obsession, sudden moments of clarity that aren't the result of deep thought
>>20036920
>the word intuition literally means "to look inside" and it was used with the conotation of understanding something by observing it.
Is that the English word intuition, or the Greek word Aristotle uses?
>>20036934
>Consider you're driving down the highway, and a car pulls up alongside you matching your speed. It overtakes you, and then pulls in front of you. For whatever reason you get a funny feeling about the car. It doesn't "feel" safe to be so close to it, so you decide to back off.
Great example of what I'm looking for!

[Anonymous No.20036991]

>>20036970
>What is the word in Ancient Greek he uses for intuition?
Sometimes nous, sometimes he gives different descriptions. As said, he's conflating a lot of different aspects of our psyche under intuition.

Read Jung if you're interested in unconscious processes. Seriously. Just read Jung.

[Anonymous No.20036998]

>>20036934
the feeling of whether or not something bad could happen is completly unrelated to whether or not it does happen. when you see a stupid driver in front of you, you are not having some supernatural divination of the future. but rather, you have an understanding of cause and effect. even if nothing bad happens, you should still be carefull because you intuitivly understand that something bad could happen, and it's that potential that you are reacting to, not a predetermined event.

but this is the point when we start entering in the realm of instinct rather than intuition. a child will imagine that there are monsters under the bed because there could potentially be monsters under their bed. it's an instict which warns that danger hides in the shadows. this is not intuition. the reason why I described the word intuition the way that I did was because "to look inside" is the literal meaning of the word regardless of how people interpret it. if people are describing something else, they shouldn't call it intuition, otherwise the original concept is lost and people forget how to use it.

[Anonymous No.20037015]

>>20036970
the english word intuition comes from the latin "intuera" which is "in" (prefix for inside) + "tuera" (word for looking). I assume that the romans kept the original meaning from the greeks

[Anonymous No.20037018]

>>20036998
>the feeling of whether or not something bad could happen is completly unrelated to whether or not it does happen.
The best rebuke I can offer you is to politely point out that not a man alive acts as though that's the case, nor would I wager do you.

The connection isn't absolute, but neither is your degree of certainty about the things that you're experiencing right now. You don't have absolute exactitude about anything, so you can't determine the absolute absence of exactitude either.

So, don't be stupid. Your reasoning is atrocious. You're talking to someone who reasons for a living, my dude.

[Anonymous No.20037033]

>>20036991
>Read Jung if you're interested in unconscious processes. Seriously. Just read Jung.
There's a specific reason I'm not doing that. I wanted a decidedly non-Freudo-Jungian alternative. I don't want to refute or undermine them. More I want to see if there's any other models that can explain the things I'm curious about. The problem is even something like Nick Chater's 'The Mind is Flat' feels like a reaction. While Julian Jaynes's theory feels anachronistic.

[Anonymous No.20037049]

>>20037033
Not wanting to bother with Freud I understand (though I wouldn't recommend), but my man, Jung is essential if you're interested in philosophy of any type.

He's seriously beyond comparison when it comes to understanding psychological functions, and their extensions.

[Anonymous No.20037063]

>>20037049
I've read Jung. I'm looking for similarities, counterpoints, and alternatives. I don't trust him as the be-all-end-all.

[Anonymous No.20037069]

>>20037033
Also, no, the five factor model explains personality the best of any models we have.

That said, Jung explains people better than any model could ever hope to. That man was a literal wizard when it came to the psyche.

[Anonymous No.20037084]

>>20037063
Oh, then you'll want to study C.S. Peirce.

Jung was a psychologist who ended up studying the occult, and mystical. Whereas Pierce was a chemist who ended up studying the processes of mind via logic.

Peirce is the photo negative of Jung in almost every conceivable way, yet they're both tackling the same problem: how do we exist in relation to the infinite?

[Anonymous No.20037092]

>>20037084
I'm vaguely familiar with him.
Does Pierce explicitly discuss phenomena such as involuntary thought, obsession, or light-bulb moments of realization etc.? If so, in which works can I read them?

[Anonymous No.20037100]

>>20037018
>So, don't be stupid. Your reasoning is atrocious. You're talking to someone who reasons for a living, my dude.
you don't know who I am so cut that crap out.

>The best rebuke I can offer you is to politely point out that not a man alive acts as though that's the case, nor would I wager do you.
your best rebuke is nonsense. it seems that you have missunderstood my argument so I will try to explain better. if you are handeling a sharp knife, you have an understanding that you could injure yourself with it. this feeling of danger, is in no way whatsoever a premonition about the future. but instead, it comes from the understanding of cause and effect. you understand that you COULD POTENTIALLY injure yourself and therefore you should be carefull. more often then not, people will experience this feeling of danger but nothing bad actually happens. because the feeling is not related to an actuall future that is already predetermined and unavoidable but rather a potential future that could happen or not.

[Anonymous No.20037144]

>>20034761
He wasn't wrong for his time, though he is wrong in our times. Aristotle lacked the imagination to think of a society that could be economically viable without slaves. Women really are inferior to men biologically and intellectually overall. They're only better at making babies, however they're also much better at providing maternal support to people. Good mothers are incredibly valuable, and rare, just as good fathers are

[Anonymous No.20037174]

>>20034866
Man, its so strange to think that everybody DIDN'T think like this before and somewhat after Aristotle's time. That's nuts.

[Anonymous No.20037191]

>>20034866
Aristotle's argument that men and women are the same species is that they come from "the same" seed, when modern science has shown that the seed differs depending upon whether or not a male or female is born. Care to explain this?

[Anonymous No.20037199]

>>20034866
ayo *smacks lips* ayo how come *sucks teeth* how come this nigga rye here sayin a category is a predicate wassup wit dat

[Anonymous No.20037203]

>>20034866
In other words, Aristotle has basically come up with the idea of object oriented programming but with respect to reality. I learnt all of this stuff in a first year computer science course. "Object" = substance and "class" = predicate. Prime mover = thread/core. Aristotle thought the universe had 56 or 57 cores.

[Anonymous No.20037208]

>>20037191
NTA but all healthy sperm come with at least one x chromosome. At what point is his statement they are 'the same' refuted?

[Anonymous No.20037236]

>>20037208
All healthy animals have spinal chords. Doesn't mean the individual animals are all the same species. Male and female sperm are different in definition, because one possesses a Y chromosome by definition and exclusion of the female definition (which is "not possessing a Y chromosome").

[Anonymous No.20037249]

>>20037203
I really, really hope you are not being sarcastic. Because surely, this is the most brilliant insight in this thread. You glorious bugman.

[Anonymous No.20037276]

>>20037236
>Male and female sperm are different in definition,
Yes but all male and female sperm are different because of gene randomization. However both have 2 chromosomes. Either you draw the line at the particular
>no two sperm are identical, therefore he's wrong
or you draw the line at the general
>all sperm have two chromosomes. But individual sperm are different from each other

[Anonymous No.20037348]

>>20037174
Yep, Aristotle was that of a big brain.

[Anonymous No.20037456]

This guy is not a joke

[Anonymous No.20037479]

>>20037348
Would I gain anything from studying him, even if I already implicitly know some of the things he taught? And what specifically would I gain from studying him in the present day? If you're the anon I originally replied to, and you really do teach Aristotle to undergrads, I'd love to hear your answer

[Anonymous No.20038647]

>>20037100
Your argument necessitates no distinction between conscious and unconscious processes.

[Anonymous No.20038652]

>>20037092
He gives an extremely detailed analysis of such processes, yes.

[Anonymous No.20038675]

>>20037191
>Be Aristotle
>Nut in your wife
>First kid is a girl
>Second kid is a boy
>Ask around to see if this is the case for other people
>Seems kinda random but everyone has the same experience
>Therefore men and women are of the same seed (ball juice)
I put it as retarded as possible for you

[Anonymous No.20038726]

>>20034866
Based effortchad

[Anonymous No.20038874]

>>20037249
What are you trying to say exactly?

[Anonymous No.20038991]

>>20034761
Greek slaves didn't have it too bad, I'm pretty sure most of the population were slaves. I think the ratio in Athens was something like 20,000 Greeks to 200,000 slaves. Couldn't have hated their existence too much if they never revolted

[Anonymous No.20040168]

>>20034632
Most people who have read him havent read more than 0.5% of his work and most people dont understand most of what they read. People hate him because they heard someone say something about him.

[Anonymous No.20040185]

>>20034632
Aristotle is dry as all hell, not that he's unimportant or anything of that sort. He's just significantly more boring to read than Plato or the Presocratics.
t. Classics major

[Anonymous No.20040200]

>>20040185
>boring
I find him quite fun to read. Though, I might have autism because my favorite thing to do was truth tables in syllogism lectures.

[Anonymous No.20040273]

>>20037348
How did they think before Aristotle?

[Anonymous No.20040279]

>>20037249
I’m not even joking, but my experience with Java and object-oriented programming helped me understand Heidegger, who in turn helped me understand why Aristotle was important.

[Anonymous No.20040301]

>>20034635
Nietzsche is what happens when you dont understand Aristotle

[Anonymous No.20040305]

>>20034761
Some people are natural born slaves and I'm sorry that offends you.

[Anonymous No.20040316]

>>20034941
A wage is a coupon for slavery. Real capital owners don't have wages that they need, they have property which is before wages.

[Anonymous No.20040317]

>>20034761

>He defended slavery and he said women are inferior to men

[Anonymous No.20040326]

>>20035512
Fuckin fool ass nigga say less. Woke up still mad just to think about your dumb bitch ass. Finna come tru and let a goofy know! That's what I MIGHT do. That's what I MiGHT do. That's what I MIGHT do. Belee dat. Brrr. And I'm out.

[Anonymous No.20040332]

>>20040200
I can relate to that, i always associate Aristotle with comfy autism. Its actually fun to read because his arguments are laid out in a beautifully logic way. Even tough hes wrong on a lot of stuff, Aristotle represents everything that's good not just about philosophy, but human reason in general.

[Anonymous No.20040388]

>>20038647
what's your point? isn't that a good thing? the biggest criticism I've seen to the theory of the subconscious is that it's inaccessible to most people while the likes of Freud and Jung had supposedly privileged access to it. if my explanation works without the need of a subconscious process, the implication would be that either I have priviledged access to the subconscious myself, or the distinction is unnecessary altogether.

[Anonymous No.20040615]

>>20037249
>tradlarper demonstrates that he's nothing more than an edgy contrarian
Like fucking clockwork.

[Anonymous No.20040672]

>>20040388
>the biggest criticism I've seen to the theory of the subconscious is that it's inaccessible to most people while the likes of Freud and Jung had supposedly privileged access to it.
I wouldn't call it a criticism, that's more like that's someone being patently incorrect, and a little bit stupid.

No offense, and I mean this very sincerely not be offensive, but you're probably not smart/old/experienced enough for the topic of psychoanalysis.

I'd recommend reading Jung but I have a feeling you'll lie, and tell me you've read every word he's written.

[Anonymous No.20040849]

>>20038652
In which works? At the very least give me the terminology he uses so I can find it with a search engine?

[Anonymous No.20040932]

>>20037203
Hey man, don't mind the other idiots, I'd love to hear what you have to say about other philosophers' paradigms and if and how they relate to programming paradigms.

[Anonymous No.20041614]

>>20034866
>this lil' nigga

[Anonymous No.20041618]

Who cares what undergrads think?

[Anonymous No.20042926]

>>20037203
NO. I want to debate this. Aristotle also came up with the rough equivalent of functional programming, teleology. He looked towards the ergon (function) of things to determine their purpose relative to everything else.

[Anonymous No.20042937]

>>20037203
Also where did you get the numbers 56/57?

[Anonymous No.20042966]

>>20042937
Oh, turns out it's at the end of Metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.20042985]

>>20034632
So when I think Aristotle I think: ground, grounded, physical, earth, science, rationalism, categories..kinda like an engineer, very left brain, who is focused on the "tangibles". I also seem to think of Aristotle as the first Western "scientist" (in that he categorized stuff, etc etc)

when I think Plato I think pretty much the opposite: the heavens, the ineffable, the intangible, the right brain, emotive, etc

is my very generalized understanding of these two correct? and god I hated reading the Metaphysics. Plato's Dialogues are infinitely more comfy

[Anonymous No.20042998]

>>20042985
I get the same impression, except that I would also call Plato a rationalist as well. Plato enjoyed mathematics as he believed it was a shortcut to contemplating the realm of the forms. Aristotle hated mathematics because it only gets you to the "indeterminate dyad", as mathematics is a blend of quantity and quality in such a way that it is impossible to untangle the two.
>hint: the indeterminate dyad is like pic-related

[Anonymous No.20043056]

>>20042937
It's from the final chapter in the book on the nature of a Prime Mover in Metaphysics. It's his estimation of the number of prime movers in the cosmos based on astronomical observation of circular motions in the Heavens.
All eternal motion is circular as it is a composite of pure variety [pure potency, the circumference] and pure uniformity [pure actuality, the axis], which gives rise to the circular motion, whose essence is uniform variety and therefore eternal. If it were not eternal it would not be partly uniform, therefore it would not be circular - this is almost tautologically true, like saying that motion which randomly changes through time without cause cannot be eternal, because it has no necessary basis for its change, as it is randomly changing and not changing uniformly. Each instance of uniform variety / eternal circular motion in the world implies at least one prime mover which is purely uniform/actual (analogically all rotating wheels imply a connected hub to each point on the circumference, all orbits imply an anchor point). I cannot explain exactly how he came to 56 or 57 though because my astronomy is almost nil.

[Anonymous No.20043078]

>>20043056
>I cannot explain exactly how he came to 56 or 57 though because my astronomy is almost nil.
I think it's reasonable to say that, if Aristotle were alive, he'd say that there were way more "cores" to the universe than a mere 56/57.

[Anonymous No.20043090]

>>20034866
>Why don't they understand him? Because he's delineating something that every single Western person manifests inherently in their middling mentalizations of reality.
Anything interesting happen with non-western international students when they get introduced to the material?

[Anonymous No.20043113]

>Minor in philosophy without ever reading an original latin/greek/medieval source.
>Mild understanding of modern philosophy
>Now doing a Ph.D on Richard Rorty works
>Aristotle is as foreign to me as any asian philosopher.

[Anonymous No.20043129]

>>20040615
>>tradlarper
What?

[Anonymous No.20043504]

>>20043090
They typically comprehend him very easily due to the mathematical nature of their thinking. Non-caucasians aren't really capable of reasoning on the basis of probabilities, theyre instead highly compartmentalized and rely on deductive inferences (which is precisely what arostotle was exploring as a means to truty). Western people are ... more fluid, and creative in their exploration of categories.

The effect of this is that a non-white will do just fine wherever they're put as long as they have the right tools, and are given proper instruction. A Caucasian/white will invent their own tools, and construct their own methods in the event they aren't provided with either.

[Anonymous No.20043518]

>>20043504
>Non-caucasians aren't really capable of reasoning on the basis of probabilities
But isn't probability a form of mathematics? On this note, who would you call the philosopher of probability. Might as well make some associations since it seems like a good thought experiment.
>Western people are ... more fluid, and creative in their exploration of categories.
That's very strange. I associate Easterners with more fluidity and creativity. Zen Buddhism, Daoism, etc.

[Anonymous No.20043528]

>>20043504

Stoicism seems like a great way for the upper brain to turn back in on itself and mutilate the limbic system so you come across as a cold, empty sack of shit. I think getting assfucked or stabbed in the gut could restore feelings of fear, pain, urgency, humiliation, revenge and so on and cure you of your stoicism

[Anonymous No.20043915]

>>20043518
Yes, it is. But it's a much more complex form. And you can see that if you express it diagrammatically with hypostatic abstraction.

To the non-caucasian brain, honey IS sweet. That is to say, X is Y. This is very much Aristotles method of thought.

To the white brain, honey is in possession of the quality of sweetness. That is to say, Y inheres within X as a constituent element. This is more akin to the way Bacon, Gallileo, and Newton were thinking. It's more a statement of subjective experiential association than one of objective determination within a hierarchy of generalized abstractions.

It's why in science you find that all of the grunt work that simply requires checking figures, running preset experiments, and counting is done by Pajeet or Chang. Whereas anything that requires real creative thought is done exclusively by whites, Europeans, and Jews.

If pajeet drops something in a dark room, unless he's shown to use his mobile phone screen as a source of light he will never in a million years make that connection. Because phone equals communication device. X is Y.

A white person will under an identical situation immediately think ... "what in this room is in possession of "light" or the capacity to generate it? Well, my phone screen is in possession of "light" so I'll use that."

[Anonymous No.20043939]

>>20043518
To add to that, it's also why you'll see on non-white social media a flurry of "creative" uses for common items. It's because non-whites really can't think up these things for themselves, and thus any information about how to use tools in ways they weren't necessarily intended to be use is so valuable, and fascinating to them.

It's borderline psychedelic for, say, blacks to be shown that they can use an object in a way that isn't self evident by virtue of understanding the definition of the object. It's like a kid being shown a magic trick. Their brains literally can't comprehend how it's happening.

[Anonymous No.20043961]

>>20040279
>>20037249
>>20037203
>computer logic helps you understand formal logic
makes sense, same happened with me for sentence logic/syntax

[Anonymous No.20043975]

>>20037203
Would this be similar to the difference between types (general) and tokens (individual instances)?

[Anonymous No.20043995]

>>20043975
Literally identical. If you study programming you study aristotle.

[Anonymous No.20044000]

>>20043995
Thanks. The dense write up from earlier was neat to explain but I was trying to compare it to what I know.

[Anonymous No.20044020]

>>20035264
>ask my mom if women should lead in church
>looks at me as if I'm crazy and says of course not, they are too emotional and petty
>cites different times churches in the area imploded after bringing women into leadership
>she never votes on her own, just asks my dad who to vote for
thanks mom :)

[Anonymous No.20044115]

>>20043915
>>20043939
Fair enough. I see where you're coming from.

However, I don't understand why you associate that with white people when things closer to "being", like Daoism and Zen Buddhism, arose in the East. If anything, the West is becoming exactly like what you criticize, and the East is rising up to take its place.

[Anonymous No.20044315]

>>20042985
Plato's dialogues are certainly comfier and more exciting to read than Aristotle's surviving writings, but the impression you have of Plato has to be chastened by the fact that his writings don't lay all of his cards on the table. If you accept the Seventh Letter as genuine, then he explicitly admits that no philosophy of his has been put to writing, but at best indications to a few readers. If you don't accept the Seventh Letter, then there's still the fact that Aristotle refers occasionally to Plato's "unwritten doctrines", suggesting either what's said in the Seventh Letter, or at least that Plato hid away important elements of his philosophy. And on the basis of the dialogues, you have the Phaedrus asserting certain weaknesses of writing, which either Plato made little of in his subsequent writings, or he made much of, meaning his other dialogues might be constructed with those criticisms in mind.

There are moments throughout Plato where the "rationalist" streak in him breaks out, such as with the first discussion of the soul as the cause of motion in Socrates' second speech in the Phaedrus, the middle account of Eros in the Diotima speech of Symposium as the nature of Nature, the problems facing causal accounts in Socrates' autobiography in the Phaedo, and practically the whole of Parmenides as a meditation on the hypothetical method.

[Anonymous No.20044328]

>>20043939
Black people invented rock and roll though. And have you seen Jimi Hendrix? He was a natural at the guitar

[Anonymous No.20044351]

>>20044115
Not really. Buddhism is a set of explicit dogmatic principles for the attainment of release from an attachment to materiality.

It's not a creative exploration of the material realm, it's a retreat from it. In so far as you utilize bhudhist teachings as a westerner it is as a way to map, and explore the ego. Whereas for Bhudhists it is a dogma describing method for its destruction, and the acceptance of its death.

It also only appears as though this is the case because you're consuming propaganda.

>>20044328
The exceptions demonstrate the rule. Also, Jimmy was half white and dropping truly unholy amounts of acid.

[Anonymous No.20045417]

>>20036370
nig ugay

[Anonymous No.20046071]

>>20036370
I'm sure Aristotle doesn't seem so hard if you're only reading him through Wikipedia

[Anonymous No.20046647]

>>20035512
Fuckin fool ass nigga talkin like he knows. Yo be chill with your dumb ass. Ain't nobody gives a fuck what you has to say anyway. Not nobody. Finna remind you what an inelciallual looks like you ever open your mouth again fuck nigga. Got me heated

[Anonymous No.20046669]

>>20034632
A profound genius and polymath. Surely one of the greatest minds of all time and understandably cherished across cultures for thousands of years. One of the greatest minds of all time. Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.20046706]

>>20046669
Aristotle pls

[Anonymous No.20046714]

>>20044351
>The exceptions demonstrate the rule
No they don't. There are tons of great black musicians, and athletes. There aren't any great black scientists or much great black authors because firstly they were only free to contribute to American culture after WW2, and second their culture is in a moral dark age where extreme materialism reigns supreme. There's good black politicians too. Shit, look at Botswana and Obama. They're not bad at all. Modern whites inherited the momentum from the age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, which themselves were made possible by truly exceptional white people, possibly the most creative and intelligent men in human history so far. But they were exceptions; most white people were and still are nothing special, like you. I see tons of pathetic white people at walmart and in my general daily life with no shred of intelligence, physical strength or beauty.

[Anonymous No.20046774]

>>20046714
This is the lowest IQ post I've ever read on this board and I regret having sullied my mind with its reception. Off to seek a purgative

[Anonymous No.20046796]

>>20046714
>Every black nation and neighborhood ever in the world is a ghetto hellhole
You, an intellectual: ACKSHUALLY
I promise it's not a complicated subject.
Also, as an aside, when I occasion upon some of you myopic retards who spout paragraphs like this to cover up black inferiority for reasons impossible to comprehend and directly at the narrative expense of your own people (presumably, otherwise it all makes sense after all), I wish deeply that I could take you ghost of Christmas Past style to Detroit or St Louis circa 1910-1950, and then drop you off in those same locations modern day, and give you some much needed perspective. On the other hand it probably still wouldn't sink in and I'd be hearing more ACKSHUALLY's

[Anonymous No.20046900]

>>20046796
Eh, I tried. Maybe you're right, white people really are inherently superior. I just know some good black friends and I thought I might as well defend blacks out of principle. If you really are right then I wish you and all whites the best of luck and that you lead humanity towards a good end. It doesn't really matter if you help everybody or only your own kind, as long as you help SOMEBODY. I don't think you're right, I think anybody is capable of excellent intelligence when given the incentive to be so, regardless of race, but I hold this as axiom, so I'm sorry but you'll gain nothing from talking to me any further

[Anonymous No.20046958]

>>20046900
High intelligence in general is an exception, you're completely correct that black people can be highly intelligent and if that was your only point then I missed it and apologize. I was responding thinking you were talking on the scale of society, where what's more pertinent is the average intelligence.
There will be more cases of high intelligence among races whose base average is higher (Whites, Asians, Jews) but it will also certainly appear in black people. Just not very frequently, and even when it does, as we see, it doesn't peak nearly as high as in other races. So it really doesn't affect their net contribution.

[Anonymous No.20047414]

bump

[Anonymous No.20047717]

>>20034941
>>Slavery is not OK. Also working for a wage is not the same as slavery.
pure atheist propaganda

[Anonymous No.20047826]

>>20035247
Oikos? Dude, just say 'home'

[Anonymous No.20047854]

>>20034632
He ripped off aquinas

[Anonymous No.20047893]

>>20047826
because I like oikos

[Anonymous No.20047896]

>>20046714
>No they don't
Yes they do?

Why are you advocating for unprincipled exceptions?