Based moron
>Writes one of the foundational works on metaphysics
>Denies the most fundamental ideas of platonic metaphysics
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Aristotle
Based moron
>Writes one of the foundational works on metaphysics
>Denies the most fundamental ideas of platonic metaphysics
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
He still held that the purpose of life was for nous to apprehend universals. Not much different. And his ethics are different from Plato only because he’s actually more conventional than Plato relative to the rest of Greek society.
>Not much different
Very different because it makes metaphysics an afterthought
No it doesnt, are you dumb? He still said that the activity of divine nous was the telos of the entire universe.
He derives it from the material world, he denies the pre-existence of universals
Two of his four causes have nothing to do with matter and must be supplied by mind. Also, it isn’t actually the apprehension of material things that leads you to the apprehension of universals, but the apprehension of primary substances, which is true are perceives first in the senses, but they already require form and actuality to exist. And he doesn’t say that universals don’t “pre-exist” because he isn’t a nominalist and states that the universals are the real causes of the sensible things, he only says that the mind perceives primary substances before it can perceive the universals. If Aristotle fit the picture you’re painting then he might have actually discovered the scientific method, but he only came close.
All causes must be supplied by the mind.
Nonsense, the cause of shitting yourself being a case in point
A cause is an explanation. Efficient causes happen all the time without mental input, but they are only recognized, understood, and communicated with mental input.
I was referring to their existence not their apprehension.
You clearly were not, you literally implied it
That other guy isn’t me breh, I know that cause means explanation. However I don’t know how you know what I was implying.
Ohhh okay no problem XDDD, I see that other guy is trying to derail the discussion. So sad that a couple of scholars cannot discuss Aristotelian causes without some dumbass infertering with us.
There's four people in this discussion. There's causal man (me), case in point man, etc.
You sound severely schizophrenic. Take your medication asap (as soon as possible).
You don't understand what causes are then in the Aristotelian sense. Stop confusing all causes with the merely efficient one.
And you dont understand the difference between efficient causes and non-efficient causes. Case in point.
How are material causes "outcomes" then? Or formal causes? Or final causes? Hell, in the first two, they just make no sense, but in the last one, a final cause is the antithesis of an outcome (because it is the for-sake-of-which, the not-yet-reached, the goal).
Please, for your sake (and for mine), go back and read, re-reard, and double re-read what Aristotle wrote regarding this. Take your time, there's no rush. I mean seriously, this is getting downright silly. Please, if you are going to be a serious scholar of such an IMPORTANT philosopher, it might pay to really chew on what Aristole is saying.
I have "really chewed on" what Aristotle was saying, and this is my conclusion. What's wrong with it? Give me an argument that doesn't make you sound like a posturing moron who knows less about Aristotle than me.
>a serious scholar of such an IMPORTANT philosopher
You're on IQfy, moron. Honestly? Forget explaining anything. You'll probably say something so profoundly stupid that it'll make me question whether you know what an "outcome" is, let alone anything from Metaphysics.
Your conclusion is totally wrong for a start. Case in point. I have a degree in philosophy from a highly ranked institution so, please, I'm not going to sit here and give you a whole lecture on Aristotellian metaphysics. Case in point.
I'm the other guy in this convo (causal man, me) and I gotta hand it to you, you're definitely making all the right points here. The other guy does not have a clue what he is talking about. Keep up the solid work my fellow scholar
Based meta commentator
Why thank you, I truly do enjoy derailing meaningless conversations. Case in point.
I concede. Sorry for evr doubting you. You are clearly the SUPERIOR SCHOLAR.
I also have a degree in philosophy, and I 100% guarantee that my university is even higher ranked than yours. I know you’re wrong. Don’t even bother trying to give a lecture. You’d just embarrass yourself.
Please, you're clearly the one trying to give the lecture. I mean, case in point. Seriously. I went to HARVARD, chump. Where'd you go? Yeah, that's what I thought. Uh-huh, I know you've got these internalised lecture notes, but it's just not going to cut it. Do some more reading. Like. A LOT MORE READING. And maybe you might even be in the same ballpark as me. Till then, you'll be playing catch-up with the REAL SCHOLARS. Try not to embarrass yourself with your reply (if you're not shitting yourself at the thought of making one). Case in point.
Funnily enough, I also went to Harvard. Although there were some serious morons over there, I don’t remember there being anybody as dorky as you though.
Oh yeah, you went to Harvard, yeah? Got your big-boy pants on now, have you? You feeling like a real stonecold scholarly intellectual? Please, save the intellectualising for the real scholars that did not attend that totally overrated and underperforming school of spastics. What kind of idiot would say they went to Harvard and be genuinely proud of it?
Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?
No, doesn't it make you one?
I haven't backpedaled away from a posturing tactic, so no.
Who's posturing? I went to Harvard and you went to some shitty community college. Case in point.
If you are so smart you should be able to refute him with 2 sentences(quite possible).
I can do it in one: Case in point.
>I have a degree in philosophy from a highly ranked institution
No, a cause is an outcome. Case in point.
Huh? Other way around, bozo. He said that the telos of the divine nous was the activity of the universe.
Maybe only insofar as making the universe helps it contemplate itself
this is a chatbot test?
The question of whether "this" is a chatbot test has been debated from generartion to generation across several societies and there have been a diversity of viewpoints on this contentious issue. Although there does not seem to be a conclusive answer, it is important to respect the diversity of viewpoints on this matter and treat each other with care, compassion, and sympathy.
Case in point
It's summer. I'd say a tourist
Ameritard moment