Aristotle's Metaphysics

[Anonymous No.22625338]

>Solves metaphysics 2300 years ago
>Never disproven
H*means need not apply

[Anonymous No.22625352]

>untangles all the aporias in Metaphysics
>the hidden doctrine is just Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation, Ancient Greek edition
who would have thought...

[Anonymous No.22625360]

>>22625352
>untangles all the aporias in Metaphysics
>it was already done
nothing new under the sun

[Anonymous No.22625380]

>>22625360
Plato, untangled, ends up either being Berkeley (optimistic idealism) or Parmenides (philosophy is actually impossible). I'm still unsure which is which yet.

[Anonymous No.22625391]

>>22625380
>unwritten doctrine
no retard the dialogues were not the whole teaching of Plato. they were for the plebs. to solve the aporias required initiation into the esoteric and oral tradition and practices.

[Anonymous No.22625535]

>>22625391
I didn't mention anything about the dialogues. I was talking about the whole, meaning the unwritten doctrines.

[Anonymous No.22625605]

>>22625380
Berkeley is subjective idealism. Kant would generally fall in that bucket too, although he has the noumena.

Plato would be more objective idealism, akin to Hegel, Pierce, Bradley, etc.

Some people take Plato as a Cartesian dualist, but I think this is reading things back into Plato. Plato's forms are "more real" because they are less merely clusters of effects, more self determining or necessary. This idea is in Hegel too, although it manifests differently.

[Anonymous No.22625635]

>>22625605
There's nothing subjective about Berkeley's idealism. It's all sustained by the mind of God baby.

[Anonymous No.22625881]

>>22625635
>baby
stop

[Anonymous No.22625908]

>>22625352
Schopenhauers metaphysics are a meme. He is a fine pessimist.

[Anonymous No.22625913]

>>22625881
only if you say reply with something insightful.

[Anonymous No.22625945]

Is Platonic Idealism different from Eleatic Idealism because the former admits degrees of reality, whereas the latter is even crudely dualistic in rejecting whatever is not Being, Real as Illusion? I think Berkeley will follow Eleatic tradition in rejecting every sensory perception as purely illusory, whereas Leibniz grants it a more Platonic understanding as something just confused, imperfect.