I feel like pendulum of the two thousand year old reverence for Aristotle is swinging towards Plato. cannot rationalize this, maybe it is making me thing this because I keep coming across Plato references from mathematicians and physicists often.
is it just me?
that means you're ready
>https://archive.org/details/the-secrets-known-to-the-inner-elites-lyndon-la-rouche
can you tell me what the book is about?
no, I will not use google.
Aristotle invented logic as you know it so you should give him the same reverence.
Correct. Although, the emphasis on the rift between them is somewhat contrived anyway.
Aristotle didn’t really disagree with Plato so much on an ideological basis. It was mainly that Plato chose Stessipus as his successor to rule the Academy instead of him. That is how I have always taken it. Stessipus is a literally who nowadays but in ancient times being head of the academy was a big deal.
>I feel like pendulum of the two thousand year old reverence for Aristotle
In actuality, it’s for Plato. This is not only found in Plato’s inspiration for Aristotle, but Plato’s characteristic dualism.
>is swinging towards Plato.
The opposite, towards Aristotle.
>I keep coming across Plato references from mathematicians and physicists often.
This is like saying you often see Aquinas references from metaphysics and theology. Despite the alleged modernization of these fields, it’s still to be expected based off the impact of his work.
Their views on what a form is are entirely different. Read Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Politics.
This is also valid.
>Plato’s characteristic dualism
Nice argument. Have you not heard of the “one over many”? Where do you think it’d be? Aristotle’s theory of motion shits all over this, and you clearly don’t have a hint of a grasp on it, much less Plato’s idealism.
Read more, I'm sure you'll get there.
NTA but it's pretty easy to argue for both a metaphysical and an ethical dualism in Plato. If Plato conceived the Forms to have been the Divine Thoughts of the Demiurge yet presumed matter to be an eternal recepticle that is responsible for the existence of evil and which exists apart from God, not created by him, then that very much so is a metaphysical dualism. Not to mention Plato's division of the soul into higher and lower faculties partially for the purpose of presenting a case in favour of a universal, univocal good that is possible in this world, wherein what is good for me is good for you -- so the violent punishment of a criminal for his trespasses is good for him because the higher regions of his soul take pleasure in the enactment of justice, just as does the soul of the victim demanding restitution.
Easy, sure. That doesn't say anything for its correctness. It's the pleb filter in Plato.
read more
So what's you agument against dualism in Plato?
Read the Tubingen school, or better yet, just read Plotinus and step out of the grotto.
He's not wrong, his response is harsh but he is correct. Plato does not refer to dualism, actually platonic and neoplatonic thought (essentially same thing) is monistic. Aristotle's 'unmoved mover', plotinus 'monis proodos mono' the one flight to the one. Principle and attribute. They talk of 2 things but are really one thing. The agathon and the aeriostos dyad which Isn't two but one as well. Think of the fibonacci numbers why does it start with 1 1. Principle and attribute. And it applies through everything in nature. Light and illumination. Dielectric and magnetism etc.
>Dielectric and magnetism etc.
Did any Platonics, Peripatetics, or Neoplatonics write on magnetism? I thought Aristotle wrote a treatise but it was lost to time.
No dielectric and magnetism is metaphysics. If interested you can read Nikola tesla, Oliver heaviside, Eric dolart, Walter Russell, Charles proteus steinmetz on field theory. I'm just passionate about metaphysics and philosophia. But yes the engine of magnetism is the dielectric
you sound like you're a big fan of that bald obese narcissistic moron on youtube
I've read and watched some stuff. Not a fan of his attitude but does say some good stuff. No I came to similar conclusions with the fibonacci sequence.
Why do you hate about him?
>Why do you hate about him?
Just says a lot of nothing with a smug attitude while looking like a repulsive hambeast. And I'm usually pretty charitable.
The thing is, I've detected the possibility that Plato is a fan of the golden ratio, but I don't see how it plays into his works. Sure, you can cut the divided line into parts which are 1/phi (eikasia), 1 (doxa), 1 (dianoia), and phi (noesis), but to what end? Are we supposed to mix and match (e.g. eikasia and doxa or eikasia and dianoia = noesis because 1/phi + 1 = phi)? And everybody who's spoken about it has virtually no idea of how to translate it into the established commentary of metaphysics.
Have you noticed that the four pathemata together add up to phi^3?
>every other discipline does is establish a common set of terms and definitions and iteratively builds upon them as problems await
Are you moronic? Philosophy is the perfect apriori discipline, the one all the other lesser disciplines ground themself in. It's not an iterative science and you have to be really autistic to not get that.
>Philosophy is the perfect apriori discipline, the one all the other lesser disciplines ground themself in
Not at all. Most disciplines ground themselves in certain principles, such as axioms or empiricism, but they never turn to philosophy to solve those questions. When set theory broke down in the early 1900s, mathematicians invented ZFC sets and more rigorous standards rather than turning to philosophy.
>It's not an iterative science
Exactly. Philosophy doesn't progress towards anything.
>Exactly. Philosophy doesn't progress towards anything.
Exactly. That's why it's based. Glad we agree.
>Have you noticed that the four pathemata together add up to phi^3
I don't understand the significance.
>Their views on what a form is are entirely different.
A Platonic Form is not at all anything like an Aristotelian immanent universal. That is Middle Platonists could reconcile the two, with the Platonic Form's taking the role of a paradigmatic cause that existed alongside the four Aristotelian causes and their being assimilated to the efficient cause, as the Platonic Forms were conceived of the Thoughts of the Demiurge. None of the people who were synthesizing Plato and Aristotle ever claimed that the two were in complete argument, they merely said much of their thought is compatible, which it is.
I never argued their thoughts were incompatible, just that their philosophies have major differences, which they do. And you’re acting like Aristotle doesn’t argue for forms, albeit not in the sense of “one over many”.
Again, nice argument. You don’t even have to pretend like you understand Plato to come across as a total mid-wit, so stop trying so hard.
Spot on, though I’d argue Plato’s thought dominated even before then.
I'm saying that Aristotelian and Platonic have been syncretized so thoroughly that it is simply pointless to try and quibble over which is more influential than the other, considering that the two streams have essentially merged over time and are exegeted in relation to one another.
Deep, also the whole point of studying them
What made them argue
I disagree. Aristotle’s literary criticism, account of phenomenal participation, and comparative political science are unique enough to justify a meaningful deviation from Plato’s philosophy. Augustine’s account in City of God of the differing impacts of their respective schools is a good example of this, and the notoriety of their differences are even taken seriously in German Idealism (and its critics). I’m not saying you’re wrong for accentuating their relation to one another, but I do think it’s a contemporary prejudice to characterize the emphasis on their differences as quibbling.
Anon prefers the elitist satisfaction of hiding behind Plato’s ambiguity instead.
I don't contest the idea Plato might have expressed some form of monism in his unwritten teachings, but I find the idea that anything of the sort can be found in his dialogues alone.
>but I find the idea that anything of the sort can be found in his dialogues alone.
Not that anon, and I agree that it's not explicit, but a kind of monism or non-dualism seems to be implied by Timaeus 28A where he says that the world of becoming “comes to be and passes away, but never really is”.
He does. Read the republic again specifically the cave and he talks of the "divided Line' , it's better if you figure it out than me blurt it out but a hint..why does the fibonacci numbers start with 1 1. What does one over phi really mean?
>A Platonic Form is not at all anything like an Aristotelian immanent universal.
Okay, then explain the agent intellect and the unmoved mover. Go ahead, I'm waiting. 🙂
What is there for me to explain? An explicit connection between the Platonic Forms and the Unmoved Mover was established with the Middle Platonists.
It was already present in Aristotle's corpus. How can you not read the analogy that begins Book III Chapter V and not notice the connection?
Are you referring to De Anima? I don't have a physical copy of it at the moment to check.
My bad. Yes, De Anima.
>Since in every class of things, as in nature as a whole, we find two factors involved, (1) a matter which is potentially all the particulars included in the class, (2) a cause which is productive in the sense that it makes them all (the latter standing to the former, as e.g. an art to its material), these distinct elements must likewise be found within the soul.
>And in fact mind as we have described it is what it is what it is by virtue of becoming all things, while there is another which is what it is by virtue of making all things: this is a sort of positive state like light; for in a sense light makes potential colours into actual colours.
>Mind in this sense of it is separable, impassible, unmixed, since it is in its essential nature activity (for always the active is superior to the passive factor, the originating force to the matter which it forms).
https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.3.iii.html
Hm. I do agree this can be cited in favour of Aristotle's believing in Platonic Forms, certainly, but I don't think it is especially explicit.
Well, if you think about where the intelligibility of the forms ultimately come from for Aristotle, the unmoved mover, then it's very difficult to think of Aristotle as being anti-Platonist. I think Aristotle is against naive Platonism, the equivocal terms of Being, Good, etc., but ultimately it seems like he endorses the same metaphysical "mesh" as Plato.
Also, have you heard of the Alexander of Aphrodisias interpretation of Aristotle? He argues that the unmoved mover and the agent intellect are the same thing. And it's a fascinating argument with a lot of evidence to back it up, especially if we distance ourselves from the tradition of commentary (and all its ulterior motives) and return to the text itself.
> especially if we distance ourselves from the tradition of commentary (and all its ulterior motives) and return to the text itself.
I now what (and whom) you mean hehe
Go on, say names!
anons... what was he implying?
t. moronic philosophy-enjoyer
>Also, have you heard of the Alexander of Aphrodisias interpretation of Aristotle? He argues that the unmoved mover and the agent intellect are the same thing. And it's a fascinating argument with a lot of evidence to back it up, especially if we distance ourselves from the tradition of commentary (and all its ulterior motives) and return to the text itself.
This is mastercraft bait on a specialized topic. I want to warn the oblivious anons reading this but still give a (you) for the effort.
Except for Iamblichus, Simplicius, David the Immortal, and on and on...
>paradigmatic
Stopped reading there. I don't understand what it means
They agreed methodologically but not structurally
the world soul is ripening to the point it's aware of Ideas
the last hundred years saw a shift from the real to the imaginary
>the world soul is ripening to the point it's aware of Ideas
homie it's just us
>his entire life is ruled by a post-human machine that only cares about expansion and survival like any other living thing
>bro just us :')
>>his entire life is ruled by a post-human machine that only cares about expansion and survival like any other living thing
ok and? how does this lead to
>the world soul is ripening to the point it's aware of Ideas
genuinely curious
I truly do find it amazing how basically all of western philosophy but civilized philosophy in general is simply a bunch of people talking to themselves about other people's ideas. Like what the frick are people even doing lmao
its just a long larp
Like a...circlejerk?
A circlejerk for which some people are for some reason given power (or its proxy, money)
It's because philosophers are Black folk who won't agree to follow a common set of definitions and assumptions like just about any other discipline.
Please explain a common set of terms and definitions that works for describing being in its entirety without problems. I'll wait.
The fact that you're looking for a perfect set of terms and definitions from the get go is the exact embodiment of why there's a problem. What every other discipline does is establish a common set of terms and definitions and iteratively builds upon them as problems await. Meanwhile, philosophers are all too eager to reject their peers' premises entirely and start back from square one.
It's not an approach that yields any progress.
yeah. same with mathematics, fine arts and literature.
Truth. It's kind of bizarre how seriously so many people take it all.
Plato already had a big revival in the 15th and 16th centuries. He has then been overall more popular than Aristotle for the last four centuries, but despite the meme philosophy since then has been footnotes to Descartes much more than to either of the previous two.
I would say it depends on the field and the culture. If we include the Arabic world then it is kind of hard to argue that Aristotle lost any influence. Sticking strictly to the West I would say Aristotle was more influential than Plato for a fair chunk of history, Plato has enjoyed a fair amount of interest though, especially recently when taken in scope of history, I would actually say the pendulum is gradually moving back towards Aristotle but that is just me.
The dominance of Aristotle is mostly due to him being the introductory texts for philosophy students and Boethius getting executed before he could actually translate Plato into Latin.
Both got retroactively refuted by Parmenides.
Who was retroactively annihilated by Heraclitus.
As Jungian ideas get more credence, Plato will get more relevancy
It feels like the more and more we learn about the human mind, the more vindicated Plato is.
One gets the feeling that, at some point in Plato's life, he realized that he could not live up to his teacher's example: devoting your life to living out your task of life.
He then ignored this infinite pit of despair and went on writing about things that started from a baseline assumption far beyond the "I don't know".
Aristotle inherited this infinite pit of despair, in the sense that he began from this new baseline assumption, but one must remember that he never had to contend with the knowledge of his own personal failure to devote his life to living out your task of life, because he only knew about this idea in an abstract, detached sense - for better or worse, he never witnessed the larger-than-life Socrates in person.
At end, however, and in a psychological sense, both are two sides of the same coin, or in another sense, they are two individuals who were certainly very much aware of wanting to become themselves, in despair.
So the OP's pendulum is swinging between two things, yes, and perhaps it would be better to say that the pendulum is swinging between two specific interpretations of two sets of things, but it is also swinging between the two same things, and so we might say that it might not have been swinging between anything at all for "the past two thousand years" for most people.
Mo-Tzu mogs both combined no diff