[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 152 KB, 806x992, pa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4699233 No.4699233[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

In one sentence of less, tell whether you agree with Plato or Aristotle more and explain why.

>> No.4699262

>:^U

vs

>:^U

>> No.4699261

I DO NOT COMPLETELY AGREE WITH PLATON, BUT BETWEEN HIM, AND ARISTOTLE, THE USURPER, I CHOOSE PLATON.

>> No.4699265

LESS LESS LESS LESS.

>> No.4699294

>>4699261
I agree in part; to expand, my primary interest is infinite ironic movement between the two through Socrates

>> No.4699307
File: 1.26 MB, 2560x1920, fractal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4699307

Holy shit...Plato was right.

Everything is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of 1 ultimate copy.

SHIT! FUCK!!! UFFFUFUFUFUUF!

>> No.4699316
File: 112 KB, 500x410, HRKLTS.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4699316

>>4699294

HERAKLITUS IS LIFE, HERAKLITUS IS MOTION.

>> No.4699325

I agree with Aristotle more in the practical aspects and Plato more in the aesthetics because Aristotle's forms are wholly material while Plato's forms are transcendental, idealistic.

>> No.4699332

All of western philosophy is one long footnote to Plato.

>> No.4699344

They were both equally wrong and should be discarded wholly.

>> No.4699354

>>4699344
You mean Descarted, no?

>> No.4699360

plato is a faggot who drooled over metaphysics; as a consequence can't be disputed, Aristotle is practical choice

>> No.4699359

>>4699344
Greene go back to alaska

>> No.4699389

how do you know they weren't just bumbling psychonnauts at the time, they spoke about crazy things that no one else belived. the sophists were right. I choose Socrates.

>> No.4699411
File: 56 KB, 612x792, 1395728926463.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4699411

>>4699354
oh god

>> No.4699414

>>4699411

Wow I legitimately want to hurt whoever made that.

>> No.4699592

Plato is more fun to read so I agree with him
>being a boring materialist

>> No.4699743
File: 3 KB, 178x149, hng.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4699743

>>4699316
>tfw forced to share my favorite presocratic with an insufferable attention whore

"Nature loves to hide.”

>> No.4699754

Aristotle

Motherfucker correctly theorized the size (and existence) of Antarctica without anyone having ever visited it before.

>> No.4699772
File: 232 KB, 834x1285, My fuuuuucking life.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4699772

There is no other option for a e/lit/ist

>> No.4700200

Aristo because he is more sane.

>> No.4700217

>>4699772
>you will never live in ancient Greece

>> No.4700229
File: 20 KB, 470x264, toenwasgeluknogheelgewoon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4700229

>>4699265
anon, alsjeblieft

>> No.4700231

>>4699772
>you will never be the patrician who bought Diogenes, only to have him dominate you completely.

>> No.4700238

>>4699233
Plato, as I'm an idealist myself.

>> No.4700314

Neither, I agree with Thales.

>> No.4700328

>>4700231

>you will never see the look on Plato's face when Diogenes takes a featherless chicken to the Academy

Diogenes was the greatest of them all.

Also

>Zeno proves through reasoning that there is no such thing as motion
>Diogenes gets up and walks away

>> No.4700335

>>4700328
>"Someone took him [Diogenes] into a magnificent house and warned him not to spit, whereupon, having cleared his throat, he spat into the man's face, being unable, he said, to find a meaner receptacle."

>> No.4700336

Aristotle doesn't dress up his arguments in pedantic bullshite, point automatically goes to him.
Politics>Republic, even counting the cave which deserves all the praise it gets.

>> No.4700340

>>4700335
I forgot how amazing Plato's back stories were.
>You will never drag Socrates to dinner and or wrestle with him

>> No.4700341

>>4700328
Lived philosophy is best philosophy.

>> No.4700343

>>4699233
Aristotle is more right because Plato is more wrong.

>> No.4700344

>>4700336
>counting the cave which deserves all the praise it gets

That's wrong though. It's self-congratulatory, overstates things, and anything it had to say relied on the idea of a public that thought philosophers were dumber than they for having ideas. Even if that were true at the time, it's certainly not true now.

>> No.4700346

>>4700336
but the peripatetic school is literally pedantic

>> No.4700347

>>4700336
Plato didn't profess to have the truth but carefully constructed dialogues to have the reader think and make up his own mind.

Aristotle just tells you like he's some authority on anything.

Plato is best.

>> No.4700349

>>4699325
Dude Plato was an arrogant fascist. Muh form of beauty fuck off

>> No.4700350

>>4700238
>only idealists like Plato

Hmm

>> No.4700353

>>4700349
Reason is fascist, as it seeks "the one best way" this might be illusory in an ever changing universe, but that isn't Platos fault, he merely takes his emphasis on knowledge (rationality) as the greatest good, to its conclusion.

>> No.4700356

>>4700328
Zeno wasn't proving that motion wasn't impossible, so your second joke is retarded. Zeno was pointing out that you can't do infinite things at a time when geometric sums weren't understood.

The whole argument was meant to be absurd, they just couldn't figure out why

>> No.4700360

>>4700356
Same shit happened with Schrodinger's Cat. It was meant to be retarded and people now cite it to try to explain the whole thing.

>> No.4700361

>>4700356
No it was meant to prove that the world of appearance was illusory as the world of truth must be static. A debate that lingers on in the free will vs. determinism debacle.

>> No.4700362

>>4700353
You can't not be reasonable though you fucking retard. Reason goes to the very core of thought itself. Saying reason is fascist is like saying the physical world is fascist because you have to find food. Yes it is, now move on

>> No.4700364

>>4700362
>You can't not be reasonable though

What is irrational when used in its proper sense? Begone sophist.

>> No.4700365

>>4700361
That's simply retarded

>> No.4700372

>>4700365
The Greeks were retarded.

>> No.4700371

>>4700364
There is no irrational thought, only a rational argument on premises derived from bad evidence. 100% of the time irrational arguments come from bad conceptions and implicit arguments made by the arguer

>> No.4700377

>>4700372
No, your interpretation of the Greeks is retarded because you underestimate their cleverness

>> No.4700378

>>4700371
It still arrives at a "one best way" that if wrong, will be irrational. Reason is fascist by nature.

>> No.4700381

>>4700377
No they were brilliant for their time and with the resources they had at their disposition. But if you want to be anachronistic about it, they were retarded.

>> No.4700392

>>4700378
Stop armchair philosophizing and work harder at your retail job. Thinking is not for you

>> No.4700398

The Greeks have so much retarded reasoning I see no reason to side with them.

The modern ones, like Kant/Russell etc. are so much less retarded

>> No.4700401

>>4700392
>no argument

I'll take as I schooled you, remember to put those feelings away and learn a little from my nectar of wisdom.

>> No.4700407

>>4700381
Hur dee fucking hur Zeno literally thought you couldn't move look how dumb I am

>> No.4700415

>>4700401
I CAN'T MAKE AN ARGUMENT FOR REASON BECAUSE YOU'RE LITERALLY SAYING REASON IS LIMITING AND THUS ARISTOTLE SUCKS. YOU DO REALIZE THAT ALL HUMAN UNDERSTANDING IS REASONING? OR DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT 'REASON' IS?

>> No.4700417

>>4700407
It's only an appearance. Kind of like free will.

>> No.4700423

>>4700415
Reason is applied thought. You thinking that your ass itches is not reason but mere consciousness, you thinking why or how your ass and if scratching will make it worse, is reason. And if you are rigorous you will arrive at the one optimal conclusion.

>> No.4700426

>>4700328
>Misunderstanding Zeno this badly

Wow

>> No.4700445

>>4699233

I love both equally but agree with Plato more because I subjectively favor the pursuit of cohesion over the pursuit of coherence.

>> No.4700465

>>4700344
>relied on the idea of a public that thought philosophers were dumber than they for having ideas
>Even if that were true at the time, it's certainly not true now.

Do you even go to the real world? Philosophers are still shat on by 80% of the population that think they have streetsmarts instead.

>> No.4700502

Hey moderns, the Forms are qualia. Get it now?

>> No.4700514

>>4700465
>80%
Nice random number. It really helps prove your point.

>> No.4700515

>>4700423
>Reason is applied thought.
Reason is thought.

>You thinking that your ass itches is not reason but mere consciousness, you thinking why or how your ass and if scratching will make it worse, is reason.
Yes.

>And if you are rigorous you will arrive at the one optimal conclusion.
So Plato just advocates scrathing your ass without thinking and thus Aristotle is inferior?

>> No.4700517

Aristotle because he is the best flute player.

>> No.4700519

>>4700445
>I subjectively favor
Do you also repeat yourself again twice?

>> No.4700530
File: 63 KB, 400x300, disgusting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4700530

>all these people saying Plato

>> No.4700541
File: 63 KB, 1024x768, kitty.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4700541

>>4700502

Kek.

Close, but Qualia has very little to do with it.

>> No.4700545

>>4700515
>Reason is thought.

Yes but thought is not reason.

>So Plato just advocates scrathing your ass without thinking and thus Aristotle is inferior?

No, he says there's one ultimate truth that can only be reached by reason (applied thought) by contemplating the true form of ass-scratching, not just by hearing words in your head. Have you even read Plato?

>> No.4700554

>>4700545
>Yes but thought is not reason.
No. You're wrong. Experiencing and acting on impulses is not the same as thinking.

>No, he says there's one ultimate truth that can only be reached by reason (applied thought) by contemplating the true form of ass-scratching, not just by hearing words in your head. Have you even read Plato?
You can't apply thought to anything, thought is the vessel by which we can understand at all.

>> No.4700557

>>4700554
Words in your head is not reason as well.

>You can't apply thought to anything, thought is the vessel by which we can understand at all.

You've just applied thought to construct a discernible sentence

>> No.4700573

>>4700557
>You've just applied thought to construct a discernible sentence
rational conclusions are the direct result of applied thought, and so is the result of applied thought. Thought can't apply to itself.

You said >Plato more in the aesthetics
By the fact that he is idealistic, which is where the disagreement began.

>> No.4700583

>>4700519

>pointing out a perceived redundancy
>repeat yourself again twice

I do hope you were being cheeky.

>> No.4700584

>>4700583
Sure was.

>> No.4700585

>>4700541
Wrong.

Protagoras' infallibility of immediate perception (the redness I see really is redness) + Heracleitian motion (physical things are in flux, completely mutable) = transcendent qualia and illusory bundles of properties (which are perceived by the uninitiated as being 'physical things' and 'real').

In reality, there are nothing but Forms, and no perception of a red thing tells me what redness is, but I know the Form of the Red independent of experience. Physical motion explains redness in a mutable thing qua physical motion, but not Redness itself which is an infallible perception and thus prior. So, knowledge of the Forms allows for intellectual/conceptual models of the physical world (since all quantities which are merely predicates are reducible to qualities/Forms like Oneness, Twoness, etc.)

>> No.4700587

>>4700573
I've just told you why Plato is arrogant, because there can only be one truth (his) and this is because the fascist form of reason. Reason is applied thought when you construct a model of the world. Reason follows rules, thought doesn't I can think in contradictory terms that's not reasonable. If you want to equate reason with thought, that's cool, but why do you even use words like 'thinking' or 'thought' then? To me reason is an activity of mind that's applied to problem solving in the broadest sense.

>> No.4700603

>>4700587
Sure, I would agree, but you haven't demonstrated to me that reason is fascist, you've only demonstrated that Plato is a jackass.

>If you want to equate reason with thought, that's cool, but why do you even use words like 'thinking' or 'thought' then?

>Reason follows rules, thought doesn't I can think in contradictory terms that's not reasonable

I would argue that absolutely no one thinks in contradictory terms. Even if they can't or don't state it in argument, doesn't mean they don't have a logical excuse in their mind. Christians, for instance, may hold a conception for God in their mind that is logically consistent with how they view the world. They would need to grasp new concepts before understanding why that conception of God is flawed.

>If you want to equate reason with thought, that's cool, but why do you even use words like 'thinking' or 'thought' then?

A thought (I should scratch) is inherently different from the urge to scratch. Thoughts only enter consciousness when a person is trying to reason how. I suppose the distinction is rather arbitrary, but thought and thinking seem like a condition where the brain is using reason to work out a problem, meaning they are intrinsic.

>To me reason is an activity of mind that's applied to problem solving in the broadest sense.
Sure, definitely

>> No.4700613

>all these people who think A & P were 'wrong'
>not realizing the history of ideas is cyclical

>> No.4700618

>>4700603
If I said that the most virtuous way to talk is to be sincere and deceitful. It would make no sense, I would first have to contemplate their nature as concepts, and their social meaning and consequence and then I would have to end up making one the true answer. That's what jackass know-it-alls do when they correct you in your err. That's how reason is totalitarian because it in its own ideal leads to the final answer.

>I would argue that absolutely no one thinks in contradictory terms.

You are small and big. I just thought that, that is contradictory.

Also I think "banana banananananabanana banana" right now until I had to stop to write. That has nothing to do with problem solving or reason.

It seems we agree most of the way though.

>> No.4700637

>>4700585

>Protagoras' infallibility of immediate perception (the redness I see really is redness) + Heracleitian motion (physical things are in flux, completely mutable) = transcendent qualia and illusory bundles of properties (which are perceived by the uninitiated as being 'physical things' and 'real').

>In reality, there are nothing but Forms, and no perception of a red thing tells me what redness is, but I know the Form of the Red independent of experience. Physical motion explains redness in a mutable thing qua physical motion, but not Redness itself which is an infallible perception and thus prior. So, knowledge of the Forms allows for intellectual/conceptual models of the physical world (since all quantities which are merely predicates are reducible to qualities/Forms like Oneness, Twoness, etc.)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see the jump between the first and second paragraph that allows an appreciation of Qualia as anything but mediated sense-certainty arriving at but not quite reaching perception proper, which is where Forms might reside.

Qualia, or the mediated sensory data which is given this name, might provide a certain basis for Forms in a primordial manner, but it has little to do with it beyond this.

>> No.4700639

why?

>> No.4700662

>>4700637
Read the Theaetetus and the Sophist dialogues.

>> No.4700732

>>4700662

That's not an answer, but I picked up what you meant afterward.

It's an interesting perspective, but I ultimately disagree. If you haven't already, you might benefit from reading Descartes.

>> No.4702766

>>4700732

Descartes had very little to say that hasn't been blindly reiterated for the past 500 years. Kant on the other hand... And no, you didn't understand me at all.

By qualia I meant simply the qualities of subjective experience and yet you write words like 'mediation' and 'sense-certainty'. The dialogues I refer to you will provide you with an understanding of Plato's epistemology and you should also read Aristotle's Metaphysics.

>> No.4702794

>ctrl f
>no Democritus

Do any of you filthy metics even heliocentric astronomy?

>> No.4702986

Both were pretty cool dudes

>> No.4703578

>>4699233

>Plato and Aristotle
>holding codices

captcha: ngPink Herodotus