Aristotle was a hack

[Anonymous No.23040697]

>Being is not a genus or a kind...
okay...
>if it were a genus, it would imply that there's a higher genus with differentia of being and something other than being... which is nonsene
hmmm, that makes sense. but what is it, then?
>instead, it is an arche!
You've got to be fucking kidding me. That's basically a genus with special pleading. Aristotle is a hack. FUCK THIS GREEK HACK.

[Anonymous No.23040702]

>>23040697
Philosophy is mumbo jumbo

[Anonymous No.23040704]

[Anonymous No.23040707]

>>23040697
>>23040702
You know philosophy is bullshit when it doesn’t contribute to practical decisions whatsoever. It’s just cope for monkey brains that refuse to accept their ignorance

[Anonymous No.23040711]

>>23040697
Maybe that part wasn’t meant to be a deep insight into being and instead merely an explanation of how he uses the terms arche and genus?

[Anonymous No.23040753]

>>23040711
It was part of his explanation of what being qua being is, aka first philosophy, and how we ought to understand the world and everything that is for what it is. So... if we're using to describing beings as genera... then how do we describe being itself?

[Anonymous No.23040770]

>>23040753
being is just that which interacts and can be interacted upon, simple

[Anonymous No.23040777]

>>23040770
How do you interact with being? It isn't a genus, and it isn't even a predicate.

[Anonymous No.23040780]

Aristotle is the best

[Anonymous No.23040789]

>>23040707
>he thinks philosophy does not contribute to practical decisions

[Anonymous No.23040827]

>>23040697
meh, no

Yeah, his physics and metaphysics had issues but you can't just point out to a problem and say he was a 'hack' because of it. He contributed more to developing human knowledge that you ever would in 1000 lives. Pretty much all the great thinkers made mistakes. It's ungenerous to judge them by these mistakes. Overall he had more solid intellectual achievements than any single scientist or engineer who ever lived.

TLDR: You're retarded.

[Anonymous No.23040832]

>>23040702
Go live in the woods naked

[Anonymous No.23040849]

>>23040827
okay, so if he isn't a hack, explain to me how calling being an arche instead of a genus (when it functions like a special genus) isn't special pleading

[Anonymous No.23040863]

>>23040789
Some philosophy. Not all of it

[Anonymous No.23040919]

>>23040849
Did you even read my post? I said it didn't matter even if he did make a mistake.

In this specific case I don't have the exact reference. For all we know you could be caricaturing his argument, or it could be a translation issue, or an error that crept in since what is left of his writing were probably student notes, etc. And the 'arche' has metaphysical connotations as the first principle, the fundamental element of the milesians, etc. so he was probably making a metaphysical point.

At any rate, his metaphysics wasn't in my opinion the most interesting part of his work and your gotcha 'own' is just nitpicking which removes nothing of his remaining achievements.

[Anonymous No.23040964]

>>23040919
>I said it didn't matter even if he did make a mistake.
retard, stop talking then.
>and your gotcha 'own' is just nitpicking which removes nothing of his remaining achievements.
it's literally the keystone holding up the tree of genera. if you don't understand what the keystone is, the whole arch collapses.

please, pseud, stop talking to hear your own opinions.

[Anonymous No.23040979]

>>23040697
>According to the Greek philosopher; Aristotle, arche is a principle or an element of something which is intangible and cannot be demonstrated but it offers the factors of the likelihood of that something. It explains how everything was made out of a primal element or substance; as a cause.
That's not special pleading, he's simply stating the obvious: being is the essential ground upon which anything exists. It is a first principle that must be assumed and cannot be denied.

When a genius confuses you, be sure that you're the idiot and not the genius.

[Anonymous No.23040999]

>>23040964
More nitpicking and dodging the issue I see.

A very contemporary, detail-oriented mind you have there. You should consider a career in analytic philosophy. You'd fit right in.

[Anonymous No.23041027]

>>23040964
you're the retard. your arche? - retard. genus? yep. it's retard.

[Anonymous No.23041221]

>>23040979
>When a genius confuses you, be sure that you're the idiot and not the genius.
I'm sure I'm not the idiot because countless philosophers from Plotinus through Heidegger were mystified by this point and sought to go beyond it.
>>23040999
>pointing out that Aristotle lacks a solid answer for the "thing" that everything else is built upon is "nitpicking"
dude, just stop talking. you clearly haven't read enough philosophy to understand why this is a problem.
>A very contemporary, detail-oriented mind you have there.
And you don't think Aristotle was a detail-oriented guy? He was exceedingly prescient across a variety of sciences. But he wasn't without fault.

[Anonymous No.23041268]

>>23041221
>I'm sure I'm not the idiot because countless philosophers from Plotinus through Heidegger were mystified by this point and sought to go beyond it.
Please, then give us your better solution if Aristotle is such a dummy.

[Anonymous No.23041318]

>>23041221
The point is that you calling Aristotle a hack in ALL CAPS just because his philosophy wasn't 100% perfect is just puerile.

Besides, neither Plotinus nor Heidegger were any good. Neoplatonism is degenerate drivel and Heidegger was just an academic philosopher or, in other words, an actual hack without much real insights.

[Anonymous No.23041397]

>>23041318
>Plotinus nor Heidegger were any good
Okay, then what about Aquinas, Kant, or Hegel?
>>23041268
Look guys, I was pulling a ruse. Aristotle is near and dear to my heart, and I was just whipping up some bait about a topic I find dear to me. I wanted to get a discussion going, and usually making a bold, irascible, and somewhat stupid claim inspires people to smack it down with prejudice.

To be fair though, I thought you guys would have something more substantial than "uhhh... old genius right? durrr... it just makes sense okay?" The philosopher himself would have not been pleased with that attitude.

[Anonymous No.23041799]

>>23041397
I was wrong earlier when I said retard. turns out; faggot

[Anonymous No.23041878]

>>23041799
I humbly accept the change of insult.

[Anonymous No.23041891]

>>23041221
>I'm sure I'm not the idiot because countless philosophers
Gonna stop you right there; other philosophers, as in, some few other geniuses? You're not in their rank, go back to wikipedia summaries.

[Anonymous No.23041964]

>>23041891
What an irrecoverably stupid opinion. I guess nobody should read books or try to understand anything unless they're a once in a century genius, huh?

Kill yourself, sincerely.

[Anonymous No.23042429]

>>23040697
Metaphysics, Book VI
>"That physics, then, is a theoretical science, is plain from these considerations. Mathematics also, however, is theoretical; but whether its objects are immovable and separable from matter, is not at present clear; still, it is clear that some mathematical theorems consider them qua immovable and qua separable from matter. But if there is something which is eternal and immovable and separable, clearly the knowledge of it belongs to a theoretical science,-not, however, to physics (for physics deals with certain movable things) nor to mathematics, but to a science prior to both. For physics deals with things which exist separately but are not immovable, and some parts of mathematics deal with things which are immovable but presumably do not exist separately, but as embodied in matter; while the first science deals with things which both exist separately and are immovable. Now all causes must be eternal, but especially these; for they are the causes that operate on so much of the divine as appears to us.
>There must, then, be three theoretical philosophies, mathematics, physics, and what we may call theology, since it is obvious that if the divine is present anywhere, it is present in things of this sort. And the highest science must deal with the highest genus. Thus, while the theoretical sciences are more to be desired than the other sciences, this is more to be desired than the other theoretical sciences. For one might raise the question whether first philosophy is universal, or deals with one genus, i.e. some one kind of being; for not even the mathematical sciences are all alike in this respect,-geometry and astronomy deal with a certain particular kind of thing, while universal mathematics applies alike to all. We answer that if there is no substance other than those which are formed by nature, natural science will be the first science; but if there is an immovable substance, the science of this must be prior and must be first philosophy, and universal in this way, because it is first. And it will belong to this to consider being qua being both what it is and the attributes which belong to it qua being.
So, there is a sense that a genus is associated with a corresponding science (meaning knowledge), and that the highest genus must be studied with the highest science, first philosophy, and that whatever this highest genus must be, it must be being qua being. I haven't gotten to the part where Aristotle talks about whether being is a genus yet, though, so no comment on the specific arguments. However, OP doesn't seem foolish to assume that Aristotelian thought sets us up to assume that its genera "all the way up" the ladder of being.

[Anonymous No.23043547]

bump

[Anonymous No.23044635]

>>23042429
Continuing on:

Metaphysics, Book III
>Moreover, assuming that the genera are first principles in the truest sense, are we to consider the primary genera to be first principles, or the final terms predicated of individuals? This question too involves some dispute.
>For if universals are always more truly first principles, clearly the answer will be "the highest genera," since these are predicated of everything. Then there will be as many first principles of things [20] as there are primary genera, and so both Unity and Being will be first principles and substances, since they are in the highest degree predicated of all things.
>But it is impossible for either Unity or Being to be one genus of existing things. For there must be differentiae of each genus, and each differentia must be one41; but it is impossible either for the species of the genus to be predicated of the specific differentiae, or for the genus to be predicated without its species.42 Hence if Unity or Being is a genus, there will be no differentia Being or Unity.
To begin, the whole point of Metaphysics is to see if one can derive a "science of everything" that can broadly apply to everything, a science which Aristotle calls "first philosophy" which would be prior to even the highest science. And here, Aristotle is investigating what is frequently called the method of division (diaeresis) and its paradigm, the genus and differentiae.

Aristotle begins by assuming that we can divide being into something called genus (plural = genera), which are classes of things arranged in a hierarchy from most general to most specific. The "lower" genera (e.g. man) are identified by taking something from a "higher" genus (e.g. mammal) and finding a "differentia", which is a fancy word for a unique difference that is not held in common by the other members of the genus (e.g. rational thought). This process allows us to properly identify "man" as a thing in its own right thanks to its property of rational thought, and it allows us to form a "science" that studies each thing and seemingly discern knowledge of that thing as well. So far, so good. But does this method of division (diaeresis) work when it examines... itself? e.g., when we look at the highest point in the ontological tree?

(1/?)

[Anonymous No.23044657]

>>23044635
Herein lies the problem: this method falls apart at the highest point. If you go to the so-called "highest genus", which Aristotle takes to mean Being or Unity, you would have to commit special pleading to call it a genus. Why? Because... what is more held in common than the most held-in common thing? It's metaphysically nonexistent. In other words, you CANNOT say that the method of division arises by itself, so this hypothetical science of being would have nothing to say about being itself, and therefore fails.

Furthermore, even if we granted such a higher genus (let's call it Superbeing) for the sake of argument, and then ignored the problem of infinite regress, the process of differentiating the genus Being from the genus Superbeing wouldn't make any sense, either. Think about it, you would be saying that there is a "Being" differentia within Superbeing which is NOT held in common with the rest of Superbeing. So.. you're saying that the rest Superbeing is ... not Being. In other words, nothing. You've made a "highest genus" which is mostly nothing. And you've identified two differentia that can form as new branches of genera, which is Being and Nothing. But nothing is not a thing! You cannot have genera be the "basis" of "beings", and then have a "being" that is also a "non-being". It's contradictory nonsense. And I don't even want to wrap my brain about trying to figure out how it would be possible to differentiate "Superbeing" from "Hyperbeing" or "Supernothing" or whatever would be next in our insane thought experiment.

So, OP, you are right, the cornerstone DOES not make sense and requires special pleading, which is EXACTLY Aristotle's point and why he goes on to return to the drawing board at this point, ready to investigate other possible causes.

>But if they are not genera, neither will they be first principles, assuming that it is the genera that are first principles. And further, the intermediate terms, taken together with the differentiae, will be genera, down to the individuals; but in point of fact, although some are thought to be such, others are not. Moreover the differentiae are more truly principles than are the genera; and if they also are principles, we get an almost infinite number of principles, especially if one makes the ultimate genus a principle.
And now he is summarizing the problems we just covered, thinking out loud here of whether we should be viewing the "bedrock" of reality as genera or whether we need to look for something else to fulfill the role of principle (arche).

By the way, "arche" isn't necessarily a competing "theory of everything" the same way "genus" would be. Arche is more of a placeholder and a description for what the theory of everything would be. So, if Aristotle calls "first philosophy" an arche or archai, he's being correct merely in a tautological way, without saying anything of substance as to what that first philosophy would entail.

(2/2)

[Anonymous No.23045372]

>>23044635
>>23044657
chat is this real?

[Anonymous No.23045634]

>>23044657
Building on the critique of diaeresis, there's also the problem dealing with the genus-species relationship and how being complicates things. Supposedly, being is predicated of everything, since everything "is" in at least some sense (barring Kant's critique of it later). But if there is a genus called Superbeing, and it has a species (aka a "directly lower" genus) called Being, then we are implying that Being can only be partially described of Superbeing. So now we this strange dilemma where we have simultaneously Being and Nothing as predicates for a portion of Superbeing. We also have an even stranger situation in that the species Being is behaving as if it were "larger" and "higher up" on the ontological tree than its parent genus Superbeing!

There's so much that can be spoken about here. Whether being is a predicate (Kant), whether being is better described as presence (Heidegger, Derrida), whether non-being is a thing or if difference is an adequate replacement for it (Plato, Plotinus). We haven't even scratched the surface here.

[Anonymous No.23045822]

>>23040697
Off you go, into the lower Hells with the Dante haters and the Plato scoffers. You have no business reading the greats. You do not have the capacity to appreciate what you're reading.

[Anonymous No.23046223]

>>23045822
Would you say
>>23042429
>>23044635
>>23044657
Is worthy of reading the greats?

[Anonymous No.23047217]

bump