>Wrong about almost everything he said >People still jerk

t. John Green

>>1037646
>Wrong about almost everything he said
Such as?

File: trajectoryaristotlea.jpg (60KB, 400x322px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 400x322px

>>1037653
http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/AristotlePhysics.htm

everything

>>1037672
He complained about him having weak philosophy.

Than when asked for an example you bring up physics.

>>1037682
>Gives examples of him being wrong
>B-But that doesn't count
Science didn't exist back then and all of his "physics" were seen as philosophy by him and historians of today.

>>1037646

>Right about almost everything he said
> People still shit talk him without actually reading his works.

In regards to those parts of the physics that were more properly physics than philosophy. Since then we have had technological advancements that allow us for better experimentation - Aristotle was just about as right as he could be with what he had to work with.

Also, contemporary physics is most likely "wrong" about everything as well. In 2000 years for all we know Aristotle's system could turn out to be considered closer to the truth than our contemporary quantum physics. It is no reason to disparage either system.

>>1037702

>Aristotle's system could turn out to be considered closer to the truth than our contemporary quantum physics. It is no reason to disparage either system.
You are an idiot if you think there is any likelyhood of this being true.

>Sure aristotle was wrong any time you could objectively show it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't wrong about the small vague things he said

>>1037687
Name some shit he was right on then.

>>1037734
meant for >>1037702

>>1037719

>You are an idiot if you think there is any likelyhood of this being true.

Why? People thought that it turned out that Parmenides was right due to Einstein after thousands of years of people thinking that Aristotle completely destroyed his ideas. Why couldn't the same thing happen with Aristotle ?

Also: what is wrong with Aristotle's solution to the problem of future contingents ? What is wrong with his hylomorphism ? What is wrong with his claim that you could reduce all the syllogisms in his logic into either Barbara or Celarent? What is wrong with his conception of Virtue ethics ? What is wrong with his statistical theory of modality ?

>>1037755
Dude, you're wasting your breath. OP has never read anything by Aristotle, at most he's browsed a Wikipedia page or listened to John Green shit talk him and Plato.

>>1037734

Using the four causes, act/potency and form/matter as ontological building blocks for his metaphysics. They work out the best with our prima facie experience of the world - which you at the least need to be able to reconcile your theories with , even if you move beyond it.

Positing metaphysics as the "first philosophy" that grounds everything else.

Positing a theory of the "the soul" that was neither strictly a matter of physicalist reductionism, nor dualism. Since both of those theories fail quite easily.

Allowing for logics that have more truth values than T/F - ( though Lukasiewiczs would use Aristotle as a means to actually do this rather than just suggest it).

Realizing that you can't get truly categorical moral statements, but need to root it in teleological structures that we pick out by noticing the properties of the being in question.

Aristotle's logic, while incomplete, was technically correct ( he basically invented deductive logic through his predicate logic - the innovations of the 19th century were just to combine his logic with Stoic propositional logic at first. His predicate logic was and still is technically correct though)

Out of stuff I mentioned here >>1037755
I do personally disagree with his modal theory since it relies on induction too heavily. Still it is a good one, and probably better than the current one based on conceivability - rooted in the principle of non contradiction, and not having too much more to it than that.

>>1037687
Your post isn't about "what people thought back than" you said your speficially had trouble with how people see him TODAY. Than when asked you bring up his physics. No one today thinks his physics are what you should study.

Let me guess, you don't know anything about his philosophy just a few bit of trivia about physics he got wrong and use that as a reason to dismiss everything else.

>>1037755
>>1037767
>Why would mathematical laws that have been proven time and time again have a higher chance of being true than some random guys guises
Aristotle fags everyone.

>>1037824
>He's so cool and smart
>Got most of his shit horribly wrong and in many cases even hurt thinking for thousands of years to come
>N-No guys he got a few vague things not wrong so he's the best

>>1038908
There have been 3 posts by you asking for what philosophy you think he was wrong on and 3 times you evaded the question. You keep going back to his physics, something nobody still studies. This is beating a dead horse and shows that you have no knowledge of his actual philosophy. The fact that you think his physics hurt development when it served as the model which Newtonian physics budded from also shows you have no understanding of science either.

Stop getting your education from youtube.com

>>1038908
please tell me you're baiting, there's no reason to stick with your dense opinion on an anonymous imageboard

>>1038899
>>1038908

That we can make mathematical abstractions based on certain phenomena doesn't gaurentee that we have gotten to the truth of that phenomena, only that we have abstractions with predictive power based on it, that corresponds to it qua the features of it that are predictable and quantifiable. This leaves allot to be desired. Secondly, because these "laws" ( a silly metaphor, there are no magical non-spatio-temporal "laws" "governing" things from the beyond, things just act in certain ways because of the kinds of things that they are - their natures, Aristotle was right on this) are justified by induction, it is impossible to actually prove them. Induction gives us evidence, but no amount of inductive evidence actually constitutes a proof, you just get higher and higher degree of probability. Aristotle did not "guess" , he looked at our prima facie view of the world and deduced from there. He lacked the experimental equipment that we gained during the scientific revolution which means that, yes, his cosmology and physics ( insofar as what we call "physics" is tracking the ways in which bodies move) is outdated. But this was a small part of his enterprise. You have yet to demonstrate how he got any of things I mentioned. >>1037785 wrong. You should if you want to claim that "Aristotle was almost always wrong."

Can you justify your claim that he hurt thinking for thousands of years ? How so when the Scientific Revolution was based on the advances made by the Merton Calculators, who could have only existed due to the sophisticated Medieval University system that became that way due to their using Aristotle as a base at first before moving beyond him.

Finally it is hilarious how you call his advances in logic "vague" when Aristotle's logic was the first time someone clearly gave us a science whereby if the premises are true then the conclusion will come necessarily. Logic is the least vague discipline possible, it is hyper precise and exact.

>>1037646
>read the republic and aristotle's politics
>literally 7th grade edgy fanfic shit

>>1041022
Hot argument slave.

>>1041062
Actually I would have probably been a philosopher king fag

>>1037687

Yeah and who studies Aristotle's ideas on physics today? No one you dingus.

I think his ethical philosophy has at least some relevance today, even if maybe it needs a bit of tweaking.

>>1037646
Posterior analytics, On Interpretation, Metaphysics (especially his law of Non-Contradiction), and On the Soul remain very relevant today imo.

The problem is, OP, you just haven't read enough Aristotle.

File: Helios.jpg (475KB, 2000x2981px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 2000x2981px

>>1037646
word. no wonder alexander died young and his empire collapsed.
if he were tutored under someone intelligent instead - like plato - we'd all be speaking greek on a hellenistic vase painting forum.

>>1041007
Now show that there is any likely hood at all that Aristotle was anywhere as close as qctual scientists.

>>1041136
Of course no one would study his wrong bullshit so why do you fags think he is worth anything other than being charismatic?

>>1041324
>metaphysics
>soul
Kek, you aren't making the man seem any less wrong

>>1038981
>Essentialism—what I’ve called "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind"—stems from Plato, with his characteristically Greek geometer’s view of things. For Plato, a circle, or a right triangle, were ideal forms, definable mathematically but never realised in practice. A circle drawn in the sand was an imperfect approximation to the ideal Platonic circle hanging in some abstract space. That works for geometric shapes like circles, but essentialism has been applied to living things and Ernst Mayr blamed this for humanity’s late discovery of evolution—as late as the nineteenth century. If, like Aristotle, you treat all flesh-and-blood rabbits as imperfect approximations to an ideal Platonic rabbit, it won’t occur to you that rabbits might have evolved from a non-rabbit ancestor, and might evolve into a non-rabbit descendant. If you think, following the dictionary definition of essentialism, that the essence of rabbitness is "prior to" the existence of rabbits (whatever "prior to" might mean, and that’s a nonsense in itself)

>>1038981
Anything involving physics, chemistry and metaphysics. Other people have said it in this thread. Learn to read.

Greek philosophy was amazingly anti science, especially Aristotle and Plato.
If it weren't for their bullshit being the dominate greek philosophy we probably would have had something worse a shit years ago.

>>1042098

I did in the post - as far as making ontological claims goes Aristotle already has a leg up by not positing "laws of nature" as if they we not something apart from the substances that are supposedly affected by them. Our current physics is valuable because by abstracting what is quantifiable we can utilize those mathematical relations and apply them to manipulating things - that doesn't translate into good ontology though, at least not without argument. Regardless, I already agreed that much of his cosmology and physics are outdated given the current evidence. But since we are dealing with contingent truths that are found through induction,there is little security in them. If you asked Newton if there was any chance that Parmenides could be correct he would have said no, and given the scientific enterprise at the time he was right to say that, but once new evidence came in from relativistic physics it made Parmenides' claims more plausible. This is because none of our physics has the power of being deductive truths, they are limited to probability. So this opens up space for Aristotle to take on a role like Parmenides did.

70 years of getting positive inductive results in physics: that f -> g seems like a solid inductive case to us. But for a being that existed for 10 000 000 000 + years , 70 years of f -> g would seem like a much weaker inductive case, it would be like what rolling seven ones on a die in a row would be to us. There is no such thing as an objectively strong inductive case - its power from the psychological effect it has on us. It is potentially infinite how great an inductive case could be, you can always add evidence, but a feature of infinity is that every finite number is equally distant from it. This shows that every inductive case has an equal chance at becoming the superior one, as each one is equally capable of reaching the same inductive strength. Thus there is as good of a chance of one theory being the better one as any other.

>>1042171
Pre-Socratic Greek philosophy was heavily pro-science though. Everything was based on rationalization through observation, the world had to have a natural order to function.

>>1042440
You haven't showed any evidence of Aristotle being right. For someone who should understand philosophy you shoukd realize going
>hurr durr modern science could possibly be wring maybe one day
Is nor evidence of Aristotle being right.

>>1042146
>>1042157

Actually, if anything supports Aristotelian essentialism, it is the members of the periodic table of elements. H2O works out fine with Aristotelian essentialism. Aristotle was also fine to admit that some things may not have essences. Some have also suggested that DNA is an easy enough fit for essence in living organisms as well.

>If, like Aristotle, you treat all flesh-and-blood rabbits as imperfect approximations to an ideal Platonic rabbit

Yeah that's not Aristotle. Species were defined by sharing in several foundational causal features - that was there "essences", nor did he posit "ideal" rabbits in another world like Plato did. He simply pointed out that in order for us to actually pick out a general type of thing correctly, and not mistake it for something else, we need to be able to pick out what it is in itself that allows us to correctly define it as such. Essences are just the metaphysical principles that account for correct definitions, and unless you have a strong account of nominalism you need something like essentialism or platonism in order to account for attribute agreement in the world.

Aristotelean essentialism can hardly be blamed for our not catching on to evolution sooner when Augustine believed in evolution in the first place, despite being trained in Aristotle's philosophy to a degree and existing close in time to Aristotle than Darwin.

>t. Thomas Hobbes

>>1042489

You asked

>Now show that there is any likely hood at all that Aristotle was anywhere as close as qctual scientists.

I demonstrated that

>every inductive case has an equal chance at becoming the superior one, as each one is equally capable of reaching the same inductive strength. Thus there is as good of a chance of one theory being the better one as any other.

Which shows how exactly that there is a likelihood that Aristotle was anywhere as close as "actual scientists" are.

>>1037646
people who lived along time ago are going to be wrong about stuff

>>1042534
So you admit that the likely hood is so amazingly low that it isn't worth mentioning?

I am the most stereotypical positivist neckbeard STEMtard boogeyman around and I still don't understand all the shade thrown at Aristotle. Yeah, he was wrong about a lot of things, but being wrong in a logical way is what builds a framework for future generations to test against and learn new things, only for them to be corrected in turn and so on. Mocking Aristotle for his "mistakes" seems as petty to me as mocking Newton for the innacuracies of classical mechanics. They were doing the best they could with what they had.

File: Feser.jpg (7KB, 157x204px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 157x204px

>>1037646
>mfw

>>1043247

No, I demonstrated that given how induction works every theory based on induction ultimately has an equal chance at turning out to be the better one in the future. Which means that the likelihood that Aristotle was anywhere near "actual scientists" in correctness is very high since both sets of theories have an equal chance at being the better one in the future. Of course this is still just talking about his physics, not even getting into all the other stuff I mentioned that you have yet to demonstrate anything wrong with.

>>1043274
Have you seen any decent criticism of his work?

Scholastics and atheist logicians of quality seem to both stay in isolated in academic circlejerking safespaces with each side only leaving it to smite laughably weak arguments made by novices.

>>1037646
Didn't Aristotle create the first model of what would eventually become the scientific method? I don't know about you, but I'd consider that a pretty big right.

>>1043262
Aristotle himself was rather humble as well. In the Prior Analytic where he invented logic he basically says: "so guys this is the first time we've ever had a science like this, needless to say, there is probably going to be a fair amount more work to be done after I'm gone". Aristotle was aware that while he did have an all encompassing system of sorts, that it was'nt totally complete. I'm pretty sure he was hoping that in the future people would have improved on his work in places.

I think though that the idea is that we should now only care about Aristotle for historical reasons. But people more well versed in intellectual history realize that knowledge is never a straight line - many times after people thought Aristotle was entirely outdated people have gone back and found aspects of his work to be worth supporting in their own setting, and have tried to develop from that point again after noticing some errors in the first time people did so.

I think for what ever reason 4chan posters have a tendency to view everything in " all or nothing" frameworks. Either Aristotle's works must be infallible or they must be completely worthless, when in reality no work is ever like either of those options. Even most works that are wrong have some of the truth in them, if they had read their Aristotle they would know that, as he was one of the first to point it out.

File: ejp405251f6_online[3].jpg (194KB, 420x350px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 420x350px

>>1043300
Holy fucking shit you are serious. You seriously believe that the random bullshit to come out of an uneducated mans mouth is just as likely to be true than math and physics with dozens of proof backing it up? Are you serious? How can you be this stupid? Out of all of the paragraphs of dribble you posted you have yet to post a single bit of proof showing anything aristotle has said about physics are even close to true.

You seriously believe that modern beliefs of trajectory and physics are just as likely to be true as pic related because hurr durr a famous guy from the past said it would be so!
Why are so many philosophy fags so ignorant they think their subjective bullshit is anywhere on the same level as actual science or math?
You literally believe pic related is just as likely as what ACTUALLY FUCKING HAPPENS


My mind is blown by how stupid some people are willing to go to defend their history crush.

>>1043320
No, that was the Arabs over a thousand years later. Aristotle didn't do jack shit and was very anti scientific.

>>1043319

http://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/SMLM/PSMLM10/PSMLM10.pdf

There is some nice back and forth between Feser and Rota here, though it isn't exactly a heated debate. To be fair in academia most of the quality discussions on these topics are just that, discussions, as opposed to debates. In Feser's case he is fairly new on the scene - so to my knowledge not too many have bothered writing to refute him, because most people write to refute the big names.

>>1043350
Thanks, do you have any other good links regarding quality discussions on scholasticism and its validiy?

>>1043334

>You seriously believe that modern beliefs of trajectory and physics are just as likely to be true as pic related because hurr durr a famous guy from the past said it would be so!

That isn't what I said though, and you know it. I gave an argument based on the nature of induction to ground my conclusion. If it is wrong then show what is actually wrong with it.

You have yet to give an argument against anything that I said. Stop deflecting with substance-less shit talking and deal with my points, or just admit that you have nothing to retort with.

>>1043366
Go outside and throw a ball or watch a stream spout. That disproves aristotle trajectory

>>1043337
Goddam what happened to the fucking Arabs

File: 1451234341491.jpg (55KB, 362x387px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 362x387px

>>1043337
>that was the Arabs over a thousand years later.
It is my understanding that they improved on the idea, then had their idea improved upon by Europeans in the enlightenment. Am I mistaken on this?

>Aristotle didn't do jack shit
According to this article...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/#Sci
He made very significant contributions in the areas of logic, ethics, and science. Is this information incorrect? Or have I been misled?

>and was very anti-scientific.
When you say Aristotle is "anti-scientific" do you mean to say he's anti-scientific by modern standards, or by those of his own time?
>Aristotle says, “better known by nature”, or “more intelligible by nature
>By this he means that they should reveal the genuine, mind-independent natures of things.
These quotes I got from the article I mentioned earlier seem to suggest the opposite, that Aristotle was in fact very pro-science, and adhered to empiricism much like modern scientists do today. Is this information mistaken?

>>1043366
Except nothing aristotle said was a good argument of induction. Most of the shit he said was easily proven wrong unlike modern physics which have laws that make sense both mathmatically and in the real world.
The likelyhood of aristotle being right is so close to 0 it's not worse talking about.

>>1037653
he thought flies had 4 legs and he thought snot was brain tissue

>>1043377
Most of the advancements of the Islamic Golden Age were the fault of Persian and North Africans.

>>1043374

If you asked someone who didn't know Quantum Mechanics and you told them that something could be in two distinct places at once they would tell you to go try to put a ball in two places at once and use that to claim that the idea is absurd and soundly disproven. Yet electrons can be in two places at once according to QM. No matter what, these kind of knowledge claims are totally defeasible. And given that they are, my argument >>1042440
still holds.

>>1043398
As I demonstrated in my second argument:

>There is no such thing as an objectively strong inductive case - its power comes from the psychological effect it has on us.

Likewise I pointed out the issues with considering that being able to abstract out models with predictive power is a guarantor of strong ontological claims in my first argument.>>1041007

>>1043436

Also, I would like to point out that given the evidence we have now I do think that Aristotle's physics are probably wrong. I'm just pointing out that this absolutist attitude and idea about how science and epistemology works is demonstrably ungrounded.

There is also the issue of how much of modern physics actually refutes Aristotle, and how much of the conflict is actually illusory. Edward Feser has a good paper demonstrating that Aristotle's "law of motion" and Newton's inertial principles are reconcilable, and that the latter does not really refute the former in any way. It is the first paper in the link I posted here >>1043350.

Though, it would be much more interesting if people would show how the other 9/10ths of Aristotle's work is wrong, rather than just harking on the physics.

I'm still waiting to hear about how Aristotle's answer to the problem of future contingents is wrong. That would be an interesting discussion.

How are things like the soul and form not just the result of humans thinking that their abstractions need to exist objectively?

>>1043514

Why would they be in the first place ? Form is the content that informs the matter and makes a thing what it is, the soul is the "form" of the body, like sight is the form of the eye. Form/Soul describe qualitative features of reality, matter describes the quantitative substratum that the qualitative things inhere in.
There isn't any obvious reason to embrace complete materialist reductionism, it would at least need some argument to support it.

>>1043355

On hand no. But really, most secondary literature you can get on Scholasticism from the anglosphere is pretty balanced. Anthony Kenny, for example, is a proponent of analytic Thomism while also thinking that none of his five ways to demonstrate God's existence actually work.

>>1043541
>Form is the content that informs the matter and makes a thing what it is,Form/Soul describe qualitative features of reality, matter describes the quantitative substratum that the qualitative things inhere in.

Because those seem to be lables our mind creates to make sense of the world and that these labels have no existence outside of our minds. Hence they cannot really tell us anything about the thing itself only what we label/attribute to it

>>1043557

>Because those seem to be lables our mind creates to make sense of the world

But how are you reaching this premise ? I don't see any reason to believe that.

>>1043576
Because they do not appear to have an objective existence outside of the human mind or social consensus and how their construction seems to be very similar to that of words.

What is the obvious reasoning to belive the qualities you describe have an objective existence?

>>1043598

>Because they do not appear to have an objective existence outside of the human mind or social consensus and how their construction seems to be very similar to that of words.

Why though ? You haven't explained what criteria you are using to make this distinction.

>What is the obvious reasoning to belive the qualities you describe have an objective existence?

Because prima facie they seem just as real as anything else we would posit as being real. And to my knowledge there is no defeater that would deny it. You would have to deny that balls are actually round to make this claim go through, is roundness not an objective feature of a ball ? How is the qualitative content of something subjective ?

>>1043627
>Why though ? You haven't explained what criteria you are using to make this distinction.

Because they like words their content shares the inconsistency that we see with things that are derived wholly from abstract reasoning alone.

>Because prima facie they seem just as real as anything else we would posit as being real.

Time, words and measurement are real even though they are mental constructs are they not?

>And to my knowledge there is no defeater that would deny it. You would have to deny that balls are actually round to make this claim go through, is roundness not an objective feature of a ball ? How is the qualitative content of something subjective ?

Or just admit that it relies on tautological thinking we call it a ball because it has a collection of traits we assign to ballness. Those kind of categories like roundness are just ways of organizing and making sense of all the different objects we perceive.

Its why things like that can never be observed and why you can get strange things like cultures without a distinction between traits like green and blue

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%E2%80%93green_distinction_in_language

>>1043665

>Because they like words their content shares the inconsistency that we see with things that are derived wholly from abstract reasoning alone.

I don't get what you mean by this comment.

>Time, words and measurement are real even though they are mental constructs are they not?

Time is a mental construct ? Can you elaborate ? If time is a mental construct rather than actually being something mind external then how did we construct it ? If we "construct" something then that implies that at one point it was unconstructured and another time constructed, unless the passing of time is objective then how can we go from one state to the other ?

That I assign a certain conjunction of sounds to certain ideas is true, and this entails that words exist. That a certain word is assigned to an idea in a contingent matter doesn't entail that a word in itself is a mental construct though. We really use that word, it is just that what the word denotes is arbitrary.

>Or just admit that it relies on tautological thinking we call it a ball because it has a collection of traits we assign to ballness.

But once you admit that there are certain objective traits we pick out in objects that allow us to meaningfully categorize them then you've already admitted that qualities exist. If not then there would nothing more objective about saying that " the thing we call "ball" has the features we call "round" " and " that thing we call "paper" has the features we call "round" " - unless the features denoted by "round" are actual qualities. Our definitions have to actually match up with things in reality for them to work and actually succeed in organizing and making sense of our perceptions. If there was no objective basis in reality then doing this would be totally arbitrary.

The fact that some cultures don't have a blue/green distinction just means that they don't use language the same way we do. It doesn't constitute any sort of challenge to the idea that qualities exist.

>>1043723
>Because they like words their content shares the inconsistency that we see with things that are derived wholly from abstract reasoning alone.

That the traits you talk of have an existence just like that of words when it comes to their formation and and use.

>Time is a mental construct ? Can you elaborate ? If time is a mental construct rather than actually being something mind external then how did we construct it ?

I meant to say the measurement of time.

>That I assign a certain conjunction of sounds to certain ideas is true, and this entails that words exist. That a certain word is assigned to an idea in a contingent matter doesn't entail that a word in itself is a mental construct though. We really use that word, it is just that what the word denotes is arbitrary.

I agree.

>But once you admit that there are certain objective traits we pick out in objects that allow us to meaningfully categorize them then you've already admitted that qualities exist.

Like I said they only exist in the mind as the words do. You can never observe any of these traits nor can you ever seperate them from being bundled with out concepts.

>>1043753
> If not then there would nothing more objective about saying that " the thing we call "ball" has the features we call "round" " and " that thing we call "paper" has the features we call "round" " - unless the features denoted by "round" are actual qualities.

They act as actual qualities just as the words do, once you create these subjective categories you can derive an degree of obejectivity in them but in the sense that one can say that in soccer its objectivly better to kick the ball into your opponents goal.

>Our definitions have to actually match up with things in reality for them to work and actually succeed in organizing and making sense of our perceptions. If there was no objective basis in reality then doing this would be totally arbitrary.

They only have to match up with the categories we have made for ourselves or have been taught for them to be consistent. Hence why those people can still have a consistent approach to the world despite not being able to make a green blue disticition.


>The fact that some cultures don't have a blue/green distinction just means that they don't use language the same way we do. It doesn't constitute any sort of challenge to the idea that qualities exist.

It does as this is an example of one of your objective qualities not existing for people who do not lack some sensory difference.

>>1043770
>*It does as this is an example of one of your objective qualities not existing for people who do not have some sensory difference.

>>1043770
The color issue doesn't move past language though. Having the words "blue" and "green" combined is only evidence that blue and green aren't real qualities only if you already hold that they are mental-linguistic constructs. Each exact shade between blue and green still can count as a quality, and must since several examples of one and the same shade show up in nature, and if the different shades don't share anything at all objectively then you would have to agree that light teal and dark teal are no more similar to each other than dark red and light teal are to each other, unless you admit this then you have to admit that there is some shared quality that dark and light teal partake in that is inherent in nature.

Also, literally everything could be given this same critique. Electrons, atoms, arrows, you can just as easily claim that all quantifiable things are just linguistic constructs that are only objective insofar as we determine a framework and then parse reality into them. So your thesis doesn't just deny form, it also denies matter, and any determinable content that could be found in science and philosophy alike.

You can't parse out reality with language and thought that actually corresponds to it by conjoining and dividing things ( the root of quality: that round things are like other round things but unlike triangular things), unless there is something about the things parsed by your language/thought that objectively makes it justifiable for us to parse them into the categories we do in the first place. Your thesis would mean that it was impossible to parse reality with our thought and language in any way that actually corresponded to it, all parsing would be equally arbitrary. That would mean that both of these two propositions would be equally true.

" Balls are round"
"Balls are not round"

And you violate the principle of non-contradiction.

>>1043986
>The color issue doesn't move past language though. ect

Can you express this in another way?

>Also, literally everything could be given this same critique. Electrons, atoms, arrows, you can just as easily claim that all quantifiable things are just linguistic constructs that are only objective insofar as we determine a framework and then parse reality into them. So your thesis doesn't just deny form, it also denies matter, and any determinable content that could be found in science and philosophy alike.

I dont think it would go so far as to deny matter as that is something that can exist independently of perception and value and indeed produces them.

>You can't parse out reality with language and thought that actually corresponds to it by conjoining and dividing things ( the root of quality: that round things are like other round things but unlike triangular things), unless there is something about the things parsed by your language/thought that objectively makes it justifiable for us to parse them into the categories we do in the first place.our thesis would mean that it was impossible to parse reality with our thought and language in any way that actually corresponded to it, all parsing would be equally arbitrary. That would mean that both of these two propositions would be equally true.

Can you express this in a different way?

All I am saying is that the the qualities we attach to items only have existence in our minds and not on the material object itself even if these objects which prompt us to do so. I don't see how this violates your principles it just acknowledges the limitions of our ways of understanding

>>1037646
Except for when he said heavier objects fall faster than slower ones. He was right about that.

(in b4 in the void)

>>1043986
You do realize magenta is not a real color right?

>>1044289
>e said heavier objects fall faster than slower ones. He was right about that.
You must live in some weird alternate universe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo%27s_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment

>>1042124

> I don't understand that disciplines such as physics and ethical philosophy have different levels of objectivity.

>>1037646
Everyone who has ever said anything has been wrong, humans are not capable of discovering objective truth, only slightly less pernicious lies.

>>1045057
On what grounds do you make that claim

>>1044403
>I'm going to ignore all of the wrong he was and pretend the subjective ethics weren't wrong

>>1043436
You could make up all the bullshit you want to pretend that observational confirmation doesn't matter but in the real world bullshit philosophy will never stand against claims that have been tested and proven.
>B-But what if it gets proven wrong later
Well until that time comes Aristotle is wrong and physics is right.

>>1042139
Logical positivist trash detected

>>1042171
>Greek philosophy was amazingly anti science, especially Aristotle and Plato.

Science didn't even exist until 2000 years later you fucking faggot.

>>1047013
That doesn't mean their beliefs weren't at odds with it.

>>1042520
>Augustine believed in evolution
What did anon mean by that

>>1037646
>>Wrong about almost everything he said
This is why STEMfags can't into philosophy

>>1037672
http://www.units.miamioh.edu/technologyandhumanities/kuhn.htm

You are reading Aristotle wrongly. But well what did you expect reading something from an insanely different physics paradigm.

>>1044280
I'm not really sure how to state the argument in a significantly different way. If you want to say that qualities never actually exist apart from the material subjects they exist in then that is fine with me, that is Aristotle's position. Them being distinct from the material objects they constitute is a mental construct - but the fact that those qualities really are features of material objects is not a mental construct.

To say that qualities don't exist because some languages don't have as tight of distinctions in the way they divide up the color spectrum doesn't show that qualities are mental constructs. You don't move past language with that example. Each shade on a spectrum of "blue and green" has repeated instances in the world, if you can find two examples of the same shade in the world, then those features that allow them both to have the same shade are really existing things in the objects we are considering, or else you can't claim that there is any similarity in the two instances of the one shade and that they really are more alike to each other, and to other shades close to them on the spectrum, than an instance of dark red is to either of them. With real qualities existing we can work on this spectrum of shades we call " green to blue" - with some languages we will parse out the "green" from the "blue", in others we will not parse them out, but in both cases we would be working on the same really existing set of qualities picked out of the world so to be able to do this in the first place. If qualities don't exist then we have no objective grounds to make these kinds of distinctions and unifications that are needed for our construction of reality in the first place. To even make the claims that one language parses out "blues" from "greens" and that another language does not requires that one language really constructs a structure based on real qualities in one way, and another language constructs on this same set of qualities in another way.

>>1044308
Yes. But some qualities being mental constructs is not the same as all qualities being mental constructs. Aristotle never claimed that all qualities were objective, by the 17th century Scholastics they had an intricate theory of "entia rationis" to account for this.

>>1046996

I already claimed that given the evidence right now that contemporary physics has the better supported theory.>>1043436
I was asked what the likelihood was that Aristotle's theory could turn out to be the better one in the future, I demonstrated that given the nature of induction, there was a very high likelihood by default. If you have a problem with my argument actually deal with it instead of attacking strawmen, giving no argument, and being vitriolic.

>>1047318
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html

Augustine maintained that creatures developed from creatures distinct from them. Just rather than it being based on natural selection Augustine held that the results of the evolution were already present in the initial creation. Creation was set up to evolve by God in a determinate way in the beginning.

This is distinct from Aristotle, who believed that the world and all of its species were eternal. Augustine believed that new species would come about and had been coming about, not out of nowhere, but from other species gradually.

>>1047554
Interesting paper. I've had Kuhn recommended to me before, for good reason it seems.

>>1047406
You mean philosophy fags can't into basic logic
>hurr durr who needs evidence when you can just say everything is subjective
How does it feel knowing you fags haven't been iseful in 500 years?

>>1047006
Nothing says trash than a superstitious idiot willing to throw all logic and reason aside for muh feels

So is anyone gonna defend this shit he said or just make up bullshit about how it's not his fault?

Philosophy really is no better than guessing.

>>1048421

But that's literally what logical positivism is. They just created a mythology about science that felt good and then ignored that their positions were logically contradictory.

>>1048411
No one said that everything is subjective.

>>1048447
Read through the whole thread before commenting. If you can't pick out the points where people showed why OP's criticism is unfounded then go back to 8th grade reading comprehension. Also, study philosophy before you embarrass yourself trying to comment on it.

>>1037702
In case you're not trolling.

The methods Aristotle used to derive his claims about were logically unwarranted. The scientific method used to derive claims in modern physics are very much warranted,

If this isn't plain as day obvious there's just nothing I can do for you.

>>1048499
>Read thread
>No one proves any of the shit he says right

>Study philosophy
lel, what does that have to do with objective truths of right and wrong faggot?

>>1048508

By whose logic ? And if this is the case then please show by logical demonstration how Aristotle's method commits a deductive fallacy, and how modern scientific method can be justified with a sound deductive argument.

I agree that modern physics at the moment has more going for it, but I demonstrated with several arguments why this ultimately does nothing against the position I put forward in that post.

>>1041007
>>1042440

>>1048543

I offered a variety of positions that I am still waiting on others to make a case against, since the op claimed that Aristotle got almost everything wrong, which should include most of these positions. >>1037785

I made a case for why essentialism and the positing of objective qualities in Aristotle's ontology was justified >>1042520 , and in the exchange beginning here >>1043541.

The problem is that you don't know anything about Philosophy but are trying to discuss it. So the solution is that you actually go learn about Philosophy so you know what you are talking about.

>>1048636
Nigger, we are talking about objective sciences. Philosophy doesn't matter. What matters is if what he said about nature (or anything objective) was right or wrong.
So far anything he said about physics, chemistry and biology has been dead wrong.
I don't deal in subjectives because they are duh subjective.

He invented the *concept* of physics in the first place.
His ontology is an accurate and full encapsulation of folk ontology, it just turn out actually our brains are illusion generating machines and reality is fucking different than the way we construct it.
All the ancient greek paradoxes you learn about ? Turns out actually Aristotle solved all of them. Ship of theseus? solves with hylomorphism. Zeno's paradox? solves it the same way we do with calculus now.

>>1041430

Implying anything could stop Alexander getting some wasted on dank ass ancient wine.

>>1048688

Please explain how you justify your objective/subjective distinction, and how Philosophy only deals with subjective things and Science objective things. And since philosophy is supposedly subjective you aren't allowed to do this with any philosophy.

his limited stuff on aesthetics is great imo, but there's hardly any of it left so that sucks.

>>1049008
Objective is something that can be tested with either experiments or proofs.

>>1049008
Name how philosophy can show something to be objectively true without using deductive reasoning and without assuming that the premise is true.

Isnt his philosophy only useful in proving the existence of God?

>>1049032

Ok, but philosophy uses proofs. So the way you justify your claim doesn't work according to your own definition. You also have yet to justify why someone should agree with you on this definition.

>>1049032
Why would I give up deductive reasoning? I asked for a justification that uses no philosophy, because the thing being justified is that philosophy isn't something that you can use to justify your beliefs with.

You can't even get anything close to an objective truth through induction or abduction alone. Induction only gives us a higher degree of probability with every bit of evidence we gain, and abduction is just an educated guess used to create hypotheses. What other kind of reasoning should I use if not deductive or some combination of the three ? Do you think that logical inferences like

If A then B, then C and D
Not, if A then B
So: Either not C or not D, or not C and D.

are entirely subjective ? Deductive inferences hold necessarily and objectively. You can't do any better than taking your best shot at your premises, however you think this should be done, and then using deduction to see what follows. And this is what actual philosophers and scientists do. There is always some sort inference going on from initial empirical data that both use to derive further conclusions from the data. The distinction here isn't between philosophy and science as much as it is between people who have some clue about epistemology and those who don't.

>>1049172

No.

Check out page 1-2 for a brief overview of where Aristotle is being utilized in contemporary philosophy.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=VX8hAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=Aristotle+on+Method+and+Metaphysics&source=bl&ots=dM2y_hz-oU&sig=XMHITVJzN8yx13ak9tFPPrrJllI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnyvKNj67MAhUFx4MKHbWfDpwQ6AEIRjAG#v=onepage&q=Aristotle%20on%20Method%20and%20Metaphysics&f=false

But he wasn't wrong about almost everything. He got a great deal right, and even in the places he was wrong he laid down useful foundations.

>>1049189
So he has a therapeutic use for people who have a need for a complete metaphysical system?

>>1038981
Wasn't Aristotle the one who thought the concept of zero was blasphemous and needed to be banished and never contemplated again?

Pretty sure when he declared that, he single-handedly set Mathematics back by hundreds and hundreds of years.

With his PHILOSOPHY.

So much of philosophy can't even be wrong or right. Dispel with this romanticism and harmonic desire. The only "wrong" works of his are those that concern natural philosophy.

>>1037646
He was right about the best form of government thoug. Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Rousseau all read his work Politics and based part of their theories at least partially on his, giving us what is now the Presidentialist Republic. The most popular form of state in the Western world.
Moderation and hybrid governments ftw

>>1049174
Deductive reasoning requires a statement to be true to begin with which requires empirical math or science to base it on.

>>1049455
He also believes in metaphysical bullshit like the soul

>>1051240
Not necessarily true. A lot of philosophy is based off of definitional truths. Not empirical evidence.

File: Laughing-Tom-Cruise-Meme-01.jpg (35KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x333px

>there are people, right now, on this board, that actually, seriously and unironically take teleology seriously
>mfw

>>1051267
I am interested in why you believe conclusively that the soul doesn't exist. Do you study philosophy of mind? Nevertheless, much of the ancient philosophers used "soul" to just describe parts of what today scientists would probably call consciousness. For example Socrates had a tripartite notion of the soul, which consisted of the intellect, the spirited, and the emotional. He didn't necessarily believe in dualism, and if he did, his notion of the soul is still important to study today.

Aristotle BTFO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57oKnziHF2Q

>>1052061
>Do you study philosophy
Are philosophy fags so stupid they think their bullshit would be able to prove the existence of something like a soul where science has yet to find any evidence of it?

>>1052924
You sound like an idiot who doesn't think for himself.

Science is the new religion for people like you, and through science you'll only become more and more ignorant.

>>1052954
>Trusts philosophy to the point of thinking it can prove the existence of a soul
>Calls others religious
You are such an idiot it hurts.

>>1044350
If the size and the shape of the object are equal, the heavier one falls faster.

File: lokkelookie.gif (460KB, 465x244px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 465x244px

His Rhetoric and Poetics are good.

>>1052924
Science uses only empiricism to figure out answers. Philosophy uses all methods, but favors deductive reasoning. So I'm not sure what your point is there.

>>1052993
>Philosophy uses all methods
Kek, then is that why it has not even discovered 1% of the useful things math or science has?

Is it why retards like you think it shows that the "soul" exists and other such nonsense?
Philosophy is for idiots who are too scared to know what it's like to be wrong so they circle jerk over something that they can't be objectively proven wrong in.

>>1053021
Let me put this in a language you can understand.

>Comparing the usefulness of philosophy and science
Kek. Science serves two purposes, to increase human understanding/knowledge, and to increase human development/technologies. Philosophy only does one of these, it focuses on increasing human understanding/knowledge. So you can't compare the two because they do vastly different things unless you only compare the knowledge part of science with philosophy.

Furthermore, science IS philosophy. Who do you think came up with your beloved scientific method?

>>1053039
>Science is philosophy
kek.
>Who do you think came up with your beloved scientific method
Arabs and then Europeans thousands of years after the greeks.

Now go ahead and show me where philosophy proves the existence of the soul.

>>1053021
You do realize math is a logical expansion of a priori principles, it is philosophy.

And science used to be known as natural philosophy.

The reason why "philosophy" hasn't come up with anything is because things that used to be called philosophy got their own special words. So now what's left in "philosophy" is metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, politics, and epistemology and shit. Things that are either concerning humanity, or things that have little direct application in the world as we know it.

>>1053114
>Math is philosophy
Haha, no it's not. It's retarded as shit when philosophy fags try to pretend math and science is philosophy when it is never considered to be so by most math majors or places of higher learning. It's just philosophy fags trying to feel better about themselves.

>>1053084
If you truly don't think science is philosophy then it's not even worth arguing with you.

European philosophers. Key word, philosophers. Science is the result of the combination of natural philosophy and empiricism when the empirical philosophers of the early modern period rose to prominence.

You want a proof of the soul? Otherwise known as dualism. Where do I start? There are so many proofs for the existence of a soul and so many proofs for materialism. None truly prove one way or the other. I recommend reading Descartes's Meditations, it will simultaneously correct your faulty understanding of science as infallible and will also give a decent and one of the first arguments for substance dualism.

File: 1451905198497.png (104KB, 1650x1122px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1650x1122px

>>1053084

>>1053141
> Science is the result of the combination of natural philosophy and empiricism when the empirical philosophers of the early modern period rose to prominence.
This does in no way make science a philosophy. You are going to be a huge faggot and pretend every form of thinking is a philosophy to make yourself not feel stupid.
Tell me anon, what philosophy is there in reading data sheets and reporting them?

>>1053147
Listen, I don't give a fuck if science is considered a philosophy. Scientists are mostly ignorant twats, I would never want them representing philosophy. But the fact remains, much of what scientists engage in is philosophy. Sure, a lot of it is looking at data, but any logical deduction done thereafter is philosophy, you can't argue against that. Do you think philosophers don't look at the world and then argue based on what they've seen in the world? Or is everything in philosophy completely separate from the natural world?

His approach to perceiving and explaining reality was revolutionary for the time period. Galileo and Kepler were wrong about almost everything too.

>>1053188
> Scientists are mostly ignorant twats
Oh, i'm sorry they actually had to learn something in college rather than get a useless bullshit degree.
Yeah anon, they are ignorant because they didn't learn the meaningless bullshit you "learned".
Yeah, I would hate if you useless hipster faggots without a single life skill had to be represented by someone with a brain who had to work hard to get a degree.

>>1053188
"Using" philosophy is misleading and begs on the fact that any sort of critical thought could be considered philosophy. You don't gain any sort of skills in the scientific method from pure philosophy, you gain it through actual human interaction and practice. Basically, a philosophy major couldn't even begin to understand what to do on any research facility.
>scientists are mostly ignorant twat
I bet you can only grab direct quotes from le science guy and le smoke weed black meme cosmos man.

>>1053188
Holy shit philosophy tards are delusional.
>Philosophy majors
>Basically take piss easy classes paid for by their parents where they do nothing and learn nothing
>Think they are superior to scientists
holy shit kek.

>>1053212
I would argue that any form of critical thought is philosophy. Though I never did say the words, "using philosophy."

Obviously I did not mean the scientists that are held in the highest regard are all ignorant twats, I was mostly meaning the scientists that I know personally. Though I have never met a scientist that knows or seen one on the tele or internet that knows that science is limited by the narrow scope of empiricism. Also many of them have horrid understandings of philosophy but choose to talk shit about it anyways. I'm sure there are philosophers that do the same with science, but I doubt there are many.

>>1053211
>Scientists learn something in college
You mean how to be a lab rat?

>>1053259
>the scientists thay I know personally
Read as STEM majors.

>>1053263
Do you have any idea what many scientists do?
It's amazing that a retard thinking himself a philosopher should try to even compare himself to someone who knows a thing in science or math.

>>1053263
Even a lab rat with a low tier degree knows more than a philosophy major.

>>1053270
No I have no idea what they do, what do they do?

>>1053275
You've convinced me.

>>1053281
Considering a lab rat has to actually learn a bit about how the universe around him and technology works before doing his job I think it's safe to say he's above a dumbshit group of circler jerkers who are mostly made up of weed smokers and only requirement is that the person have an IQ above 70.

>>1053307
You're right, in order to get a job in philosophy you can just be a retard. How many of those "weed smokers" do you think make it anywhere in philosophy? I don't know where you live but where I live everyone is allowed to go to school for whatever they like.

A lab rat doesn't have to know anything, just how to perform simple procedures. My brother got his bachelors in biology and philosophy and is now working as a lab rat for a major company in the meantime as he decides on if he wants to attend medical school or not. Anyone can do his job with a little common sense. He does complex procedures but a "high IQ" is hardly needed for those.

What the hell is this conversation even about anymore? Which is "better?" Who has higher IQs? What a dumb conversation. Why don't you use your empiricism and find those answers out for me. Make yourself useful, rat.

>>1053344
>>1053307
Both of you are wrong and ignorant.

>>1053344
>Get a job in philosophy
This nigger has to be kidding right?

>>1053364
Professor...

File: laughing01__1_2_3248[1].jpg (34KB, 400x283px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 400x283px

>>1053344
>Job in philosophy
It's so obvious you are mad over your brother actually doing something with his life.

I know you are underage so you probably don't know but if you actually think learning philosphy will get you a job then you should change majors to something more useful like gender studies.

>>1053372
So you learn philosophy so you can get a job teaching philosophy? Do you see the problem with this? If not philosophy tards are even dumber than I thought.

>>1053372
>Professor
>Studying philosophy for 6-8 years so you can try and fail to get a job since every other philosophy major is trying to get the same job because it's the only thing the useless degree in philosophy can get you

>>1053376
So obvious? Maybe hold off on the hypothesizing until you get back to your science lab.

I am also double majoring like my brother. Though in economics, not science. Either way you have no idea of my plans. Even if I only majored in philosophy I'd be able to get a job. Lawyer, politician, local gov, human resources, sales, etc.

This motherfucker founded the logics.

>>1053391
>Lawyer
>Politician
Kek, sure you could. I could imagine someone becoming a lawyer or politician without any degree in law.

>>1053399
Well I would have to go to a law school... I am only an undergrad. Christ, save the premature assumptions.

>>1053405
So you admit philosophy is useless and anyone who majors in philosophy is an idiot right?

>>1053399
But what ever happened to a job in philosophy anon?

>>1053418
Where'd that come from? Wanting to be a lawyer is stupid? Are all lawyers who majored in philosophy idiots? No, those are some of the best lawyers. Anyone who goes into philosophy that doesn't go to a top university and doesn't double major is either stupid or doesn't care about the money, I'll grant you that. Most philosophy majors that I know have several backup plans or are going to college for free on a scholarship and don't care about the money or are confident enough in their personal skills to land a normal job that only requires any old bachelors degree.

>>1053426
>Wanting to be a lawyer is stupid
No, but that isn't a "job in philosophy" now is it?
But yeah, lawyers who majored in philosophy are idiots because they majored in philosophy instead of law.
>Majors in philosophy
>Goes to a top university
You are wasting your parents hard earned money child and are disgracing higher learning with your bullshit.

>>1053439
Major in law? Where are you from? The only other major that I know of in American universities that lawyers take is political science.

It's really not worth it listening to you tell me your opinions. Go back to the science threads or something.

>>1053444
>Go back to your threads where people actually know shit
Kek. Have fun with your useless degree then.
Also
>Never heard of the term Pre-law

>>1053444
What ever happened to a job in philosophy anon?

>>1053488
Pre law is like pre med. You can major in philosophy and be pre law. Fucking idiot.

>>1053492
What did you major in advanced faggotry?

>>1053492
Huh? All I was saying is that philosophers with jobs are much smarter than scientists with jobs because philosophers all work in academia and scientists are typically lab rats. Not sure why you're fixated on this. People who study philosophy don't do it for the money.

>>1053501
>>1053504
>All this goalpost moving and butthurt
I guess I would be mad too if I wasted time majoring in something useless.

This all started because someone said they wanted to get a job "in philosophy" and I'm explaining why that's retarded.

>>1053511
>Philosophers are smarter than scientists
holy shit. These idiots keep going.
>Philosophers with jobs
You mean idiots who studied the wrong major or do you mean someone who practices philosophy which is literally everyone past the age of reason?

>>1053511
>Someone who day dreams about vague bullshit is smarter than someone who had to learn difficult non humanities or general ed classes
Lets see you say that after taking a calc 3 class and pretend it's easier than a logic class.

>>1053553
If you don't know what I meant by philosophers with jobs then you're not engaged in this discussion nearly enough. I meant professors. Just read my other posts or something, I'm done with this thread.

>>1053557
>he took calc in college

>>1053559
>Professors
See >>1053557
I really hope you don't mind me screen capping your posts because of how amazingly stupid you are.

>>1053557
>Calc 3
>Hard
Haha! Calc was invented by a philosopher you absolute fucking cuck.

>>1053559
>Getting a masters in philosophy makes you smarter than getting a masters in math, chem, physics or biology
ek
>>1053560
>Calc 3
>Taught in highschools
You are so stupid it's amazing.

>>1053571
>Calc 3 is easy, muh humanities classes where no opinion is wrong is totally hard!

>>1053574
>being American
Kek nigger, real anal all the way through.

>>1053582
>Butthurt humanities major still pretending his classes aren't pisseasy
There is a reason they make up a good percentage of required general ed.
You are no different than gender studies majors.

>>1053582
America has many of the best colleges in the world you tard. Stop pretending your shit opinion matters since you never had to deal with actual challenge in a college before since you think philosophy means anything.

>>1053587
>>1053593
Kek faggot, I'm a physics major. I just found it pathetic you think calc 3 is hard.

>>1053578
Calc 3 is easy. Most school is easy, especially at the undergraduate level. That's why I would rather do something that is interesting and thought provoking than sit in a lab all day crunching numbers or using pipets.

File: dccbdir[1].jpg (204KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 960x640px

>Humanities

>>1053600
>>1053605

>I'm a physics major I swear
>Calc 3 is totally easier than philosophy classes!

>>1053605
>Philosophy is thought provoking compared to actual science
Kek, sure it's not that you are a retard or anything, no you are so smart you have to take the worlds easiest major

>>1053610
>putting words in my mouth
>He cannot count the amount of posters in an anonymous thread

With a philosophy degree you can pretty much do anything.

>>1053621
>B-But it's easy, now philosophy that is so hard, I have to write an essay sometimes!

>>1053627
As long as the job isn't specialized or involve philosophy or higher thought.
It's no different than getting a liberal arts degree.

>>1053615
Reveal something about yourself and I guarantee based on what little information you provide anyone with a philosophy degree could shit on your entire existence but since your a coward with a big mouth I won't imagine you will share.

>>1053629
For fucks sake, I'm not him you retarded twat. I'm just acknowledging the fact that considering calc 3 as a hard subject is about the plebiest shit any undergrad xan sau.

>>1053637
>Someone with one of the easiest degrees in the world will shit on you
Nigger, I could say gender studies and it would be more impressive.
Philosophy majors are below history majors in difficulty.

>>1053638
Nigger, go jerk yourself somewhere else. Someone just said that calc 3 is harder than anything philosophy majors have to deal with.
You going
>Hurr durr but it's easy
Isn't proving anything. Go back to /sci/ and solve random anons math questions if you want to feel smart.

>>1053642
Lol you are cringe worthy

>>1053637
Considering all he has to say is the world STEM and you would get BTFO I wouldn't pretend to be such a big man on the internet anon.

Aristotle stated that the earth was round and that it revolved around the sun. He was way ahead of his time.

>>1053647
You sound like a little kid.

>>1053650
This is amazingly ironic coming from a humanities major pretending he is worth shit and doesn't have a useless degree.

>>1053654
People knew the earth was round for some time anon.

>>1053655
I'm not the anon trying to make people think i'm smart by going
>Lol calc 3 is easy
Out of no where to try to expand my Epeen.

>>1053658
You are a rabble rouser and a loser. You have nothing better to do than try to put other people down because of your own failures. It's cool man no one cares if your ugly or have a small dick because at the end of the day you will be alone.

>>1053650
>Humanities major hippie calling anyone else cringe

>>1053665
>My own failures
Like what? All i'm doing is laughing at the idiots claiming philosophy majors are idiots for thinking they are smarter than scientists.
I'm not the idiot trying to justify my horrible life choice of going to college with a useless degree.

>>1053671
No you are the loser who keeps badgering on about uselessness when we could be doing something like having an intelligent conversation, but you wouldn't know anything about that because your balls haven't dropped yet.

>>1053188
>Scientists are ignorant
Science is literally the exact opposite of ignorance you idiot.

>>1053678
>Intelligent conversation

>Say or defend stupid shit like how philosophy majors are smarter than science majors
>Get beat down
>N-No guys let's stop this plz

>>1053684
Cool man you can greentext you must be an oldfag.

>>1053678
A group of retards thinking they are smart for being self claimed "philosophers', something literally everyone could say are trying to pretend they are the mature ones.

>>1053691
It's not a group you idiot it's just me. The other bro left now I'm just here to make your life miserable.

>>1053691
You don't even know what philosophy is.

>>1053680
They are ignorant because they know nothing about the epistemology of science or philosophy and then claim that the only answers to the universe are the ones that science gives.

>>1049419

He was also the first one in the west to consider the idea that there could be a zero. Basically he went

> He guys I have this idea, the number "zero".
> Wait a minute that doesn't make sense, never mind.

For all we know the west may have not even gotten the concept of zero until the Indians passed it on to the Muslims who would then pass it on to the Latins. Funny thing is, thats around the time we accepted zero anyways. So I don't think that Aristotle considering zero for the first time and dismissing it is really much of a black mark against him.

>>1053732
>epistemology

Dont use words they dont even understand.

>>1053128
You're dumb. This is a history board primarily, having philosophy discussions is secondary. Just because current math and science people are historically illiterate doesn't mean they're right.

Diogenes eats whenever he pleases.
Aristotle eats whenever it is most convenient for the King.

Checkmate Aristotlefags.

>>1053805
Plato thought he should be king.

Checkmate Diogenes.

>>1053805
please, he eats and shits and sleeps in a barrel

>>1053902

Too bad he was never a king.
Meanwhile Diogenes got captured to be a slave, only to become the great teacher to his master's children.

>>1053923

No, he also shit and ate wherever he had to.

>>1053948
which was almost always in his barrel "home" because he spent most of his time there accomplishing nada

>>1053959

He spent most of his time rustling jimmies.

File: 220px-Socrates_Louvre.jpg (20KB, 220x293px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 220x293px

I smell Platonist bait....

>A man is defined by his wrongness
Being the father of Biology is enough to make him hugely important. Destroying forms, making the categories, and his basically in-escapable analysis of virtue theory are just icing on the cake.

Most important western thinker of all time of you as me.

>>1053983
>destroying forms
no, all he did was inverse universals and particulars, and his entire "revision" falls apart in the realm of mathematics, where platonic theory remains victorious.

>>1053128
They arent strict philosophies, but they entail philosophical knowledge.

Theres a reason there is "Philosophy of Science" and "Philosophy of Math" at most Uni's but no "Math of Philosophy" or "Science of Philosophy."

Philosophizing is the starting point to all inquiry.

>>1053988
>Platonism
>victorious in Math
Care to explain? Aristotle said himself that math is eternal and fundamental to all else: everything since him has seemee to affirm that, especially if we look at the Pragamatists or Analytics.

>>1053996
I don't know about philosophers, but ask any mathematician, physicist, or CS guy what numbers "are" and he'll mumble something sounding like Platonism before skulking off from the uncomfortable line of inquiry.

>>1053996
Any mathematician worth his salt will tell you mathematical objects and proofs are discovered, not constructed from existential objects.

>>1037646
>This is why philosophy is retarded

I couldn't agree more.

Philosophy is just being indifferent.
And indifference is the same as non existences.
Waste of fucking space and time.
Only God can fathom how much I hate it.

>>1051240
What the fuck is "empirical math"? I don't see any numbers floating around in space

>>1053732
Can you actually give me a few examples where philosophy has given people answers to the universe in the 21st century?
I don't mean vague spiritual bullshit, I mean actual objective answers.

>>1053771
No, they are right because they have evidence to back up their claims. Something philosophyfags wouldn't know about.

>>1053994
No you idiot, the reason there is no math of philosophy or science of philosophy is because science and math deal with the real world.
Same reason there is no science of theology.
Objective truth doesn't have to react to subjective bullshit, subjective bullshit has to react to objective truth.

>>1055347
>>1053994
You guys are both wrong because you failed a spelling test in 5th grade.
t. OP

>>1055347
To be fair, its pretty arguable math is real world.

>>1037646
Rousseau was wrong about more things.

>>1055945
Everyone hates Rousseau tho.

>>1053655
This is coming from the anon randomly interjecting about how smart and cool he is. You seem really mature.

>>1055338
What is your obsession with this romanticism? The only objective truth that exists in this world is A=A. Everything boils down to A=A. The only reason that science claims to have objective truth is because it takes empiricism to be incontrovertibly true. So that means that scientists take whatever knowledge gained through empiricism to be akin to objective fact, when really we know that there is the problem of induction and things like that.

>>1056480
>Didn't answer the question
kek

>>1057528
>Doesn't realize that the answer is that objective fact is only of the form A=A.
Therefore, neither science nor philosophy can attain the type of objective fact you're looking for. What more of an answer do you want? Do you want a yes or no answer? No, neither science nor philosophy (but especially science) can attain objective fact outside of the form A=A.

>>1057636
Holy shit you are an idiot.
Same logic hardcore christfags go to when they are getting proven wrong.
>What answers has philosophy found?
>HURR DURR THERE ARE NO ANSWERS YOU CAN'T ANSWER ANYTHING
Go be a retard somewhere else.

>>1057636
It's idiots like you that prove that philosophy is useless.

>>1057636
>A=A
That is one postulate yes, but there are definitely others. Have you never taken a geometry class?

>>1057717
Not in a while, what are the others?

>>1037785
>Positing a theory of the "the soul" that was neither strictly a matter of physicalist reductionism, nor dualism. Since both of those theories fail quite easily.

Why do these fail easily?

How does the rather impersonal soul of Aristotle become the soul of Chrisitanity which seems to be very different.

>>1058547

The problem with physicalist reductionism is that it can't handle the problem of qualia: that aspects of our mental experience can't be quantified ( showing quantifiable material patterns that correspond temporally to particular instances of qualia is not the same as fully subsuming the qualia into what is quantifiable). Once you try to reduce it down to quantifiable materialist structures by abstracting what is quantifiable from it you miss out on some of the content inherent in our experience of it. So there is no reason to believe that the physicalist account is complete and correct.

Dualism fails because of the unity of mind and body, if you get hit in the brain your qualia alters. Your qualia changes when you are thirsty and hungry, etc. And theories of how two seemingly totally distinct things: mind and body, interact rarely get any better than something like occasionalism, where God is determining each thing at once in a way that makes them seem as if they were linked, while really they are not.

The Aristotelian theory of the soul is that the soul is to the body what sight is to the eye. In fact, the Greek word for soul also means "life" - "soul" is literally just that qualitative animation of the body. Ultimately there just is a living body, that is what is ontologically primary, "matter" and "form" are features of it that are never actually apart from one another, it is just two aspects we can abstract out of one real substance, form is that which gives them definition and matter is what they inhere in, but the substance is what is most real and important.

1/2

>>1058606

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a11.htm

>If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you.535
990 The term "flesh" refers to man in his state of weakness and mortality.536 The "resurrection of the flesh" (the literal formulation of the Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life again.537

Aquinas held that the soul stays in some semi-existent but not fully existent state until its body is resurrected by God and they are reunified through the resurrection. The idea that people are fully identical with their souls alone, and go to "heaven" seems to be to be a later thing. Though Christianity was originally built around Platonism, and Plato's idea of the soul fits into this kind of view. For Aquinas and the Medievals you had what was "the heavens" with the heavenly spheres and all that, and perhaps some Angel's up there being the horrifyingly powerful and mysterious creatures they were, doing their thing. The idea that humans would ever go to "heaven" was not something that was really widespread until a later time as far as I can tell. Aquinas also had some interesting comments, like that because all of our knowledge is rooted in sensual experience that souls probably do very little while disunited from the body, they at best would just be a collection of memories, if that. Though I have only looked into this issue a little bit.

>>1058124
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EuclidsPostulates.html

>>1058647
What is qualia? How can you be sure that just because we cant quanitfy it with our current technology we can never quantify it and hence must accept the soul theory?

>Dualism fails because of the unity of mind and body, if you get hit in the brain your qualia alters. Your qualia changes when you are thirsty and hungry, etc. And theories of how two seemingly totally distinct things: mind and body, interact rarely get any better than something like occasionalism, where God is determining each thing at once in a way that makes them seem as if they were linked, while really they are not.

Why is God aligning them not a valid argument or reason?

>The Aristotelian theory of the soul is that the soul is to the body what sight is to the eye.

A process it can be used for? Something produced by material interaction? Im not sure what is meant here.

>>1058647
But doesn't that mean that saints and the like arent in heaven as their bodies are not resurrected? Does that also mean that people who were burned or mangled have lost their souls in full or in part?

If souls can do so little how can hell be a thing?

>>1058691
Do these not all reduce to A=A? Wasn't it Leibniz who said this?

>>1058772
>Does these not all reduce to A=A
No.
But even if they somehow did that would mean all other things can be derived from it and there fore you are an idiot.

How many more posts are you going to dodge the question of what philosophy has done?

>ITT: people complain that science isn't philosophy and vice versa

>>1058697
The argument would be that it isn't a matter of technology, it is rather the kind of thing that it is that means that in principle it could not be quantified. We don't experience the world in quantities, quantifying is something that we do to the raw experiences themselves with our minds.

The Occasionalist solution has the issue of eliminating any efficacy from the world, including in us. Theologically you really have to account for why God actively killed all the innocent people we thought were killed by other people. The other issue is that before we had two distinct kinds of things, and if God is either one of them then we are back in the same problem, so we now have to posit God as a third kind of thing which is such that it can interact with both of these other things, and we are left with a kind of mysterious solution that opens up even more questions about how exactly God is acting on matter if he is not matter, and mind if he is not mind. There is perhaps a case to be made - Occasionalists like Malebranche and Al-Ghazali were obviously smarter than anyone in this thread, but - at least on first glance - it seems to take one problem and multiply it into two problems.

Sight is the activity of the eye itself, soul is the animation of the body itself. The activity itself isn't totally reducible to the material parts and the quantities abstracted from its motion and composition, there is that qualitative structural "whatness" of it that exists along with those material components as their ordering. The structuring and quality that we find with the material components are even more real than the matter itself, since even fundamental particles have formal, qualitative aspects to them, particular ways they act, etc. "Matter" is just substratum for Aristotle, where "form" is the content. Pure matter to him would be a being of reason with no existence in the world.

1/2

>>1058697

It is a totally alien way of looking at this issue for us, but I think it is spot on. I discussed why I believe that qualities are needed for a correct ontology with another anon earlier as well. Here
>>1043514
>>1043541
>>1043557
>>1043576
>>1043598
>>1043627
>>1043665
>>1043723
>>1043753
>>1043770
>>1043775
>>1043986
>>1044280
>>1047851

That definitely pertains to this discussion.

As far as the theological stuff goes.

>But doesn't that mean that saints and the like arent in heaven as their bodies are not resurrected?

Yes

>Does that also mean that people who were burned or mangled have lost their souls in full or in part?

No, it is a bit tricky but the general idea is that form = actuality, the real content ( the soul is the form of the body) matter = potentiality, being able to become something. Now each soul is directly united to and "for" a particular body, but only in the sense that each body is defined by a certain set of potencies. After all , regular bodies do lose parts of their matter all the time, they stay together so as long as they gain new material parts with the same kind of potencies needed to so the souls, or animation, of the bodies can be actual. So as long as God recreates the right set of potencies for a soul the soul can be actual again even if the body was mangled before. After all, he is completely recreating the body all over again for those who have been dead for a long enough time anyways if this account goes through.

>If souls can do so little how can hell be a thing?

I forget the name, but one 17th century thinker just replied that: God just makes us a new body and burns us in that when the time comes.

2/2

>>1058898

Missed this response. But you can follow from the first post and this one will come up.

>>1043723

>>1058803
These are all definitional truths. Therefore, A=A. Here's an example of a definitional truth that boils down to A=A. "All Bachelors are unmarried men." As that statement stands it looks like this, A=B. But when we add in the definition of a bachelor the statement becomes this, "All unmarried men are unmarried men." And thus becomes A=A. I think all of the postulates in that link boil down in similar ways, as geometry is based on definitional truths.

So you want me to name some things that philosophy has done recently? Can you not just look this up yourself? I don't know what the new discoveries in astrophysics are but that't because I don't go looking for what astrophysics has accomplished. If I wanted to, though, I'd be able to find something. I suggest you do that for philosophy. I'll tell you what I can, though. I study political philosophy mainly and in the past 40 years we've made some great strides in this field. Both Rawls's, "A Theory of Justice," and Nozick's, "Anarchy, State, And Utopia," are great examples of what philosophy "has done" recently. Nozick's piece specifically was influential to even the average person as its main purpose was to argue for libertarianism. Other than that, he gave us the "Experience Machine," which I am sure you're familiar with. This thought experiment had a great effect on contemporary ethics and has been talked about in pop culture.

For anything else you're going to have to do a little bit of your own digging. Philosophy doesn't have the media on its side so the average person usually does not hear about new discoveries and arguments. Furthermore, most people nowadays don't want to read a long treatise or book. Analytic philosophy tried to remedy this but hasn't done the best job.

>>1058958
>These are all definitional truths. Therefore, A=A.
That is so false it hurts.
You basically used basic postulate of a a slightly tweaked A=A to show that all postulates are A=A which is simply not true. Look at the link I posted.
Not only that but there are non math truths that defy your bullshit. For example.
>I think therefore I am

>>1058985
I urge you to read some Leibniz. His "Primary Truths" treatise talks about this issue extensively. This is what he says, "The primary truths are those which assert the same thing as itself or deny the opposite of its opposite. For example, "A is A," "A is not not-A."" etc. He then goes on to say, "Moreover, all remaining truths are reduced to primary truths with the help of definitions, that is, through the resolution of notions; in this consists a priori proof, proof independent of experience." He then goes on to give some examples, but my bachelor example I think was good enough. So if you'd like to argue with Leibniz then go ahead and read his work and then talk to a Leibniz scholar. But seeing as Leibniz created calculus and was a huge mathematician that undoubtedly was familiar with Euclid's postulates, it seems likely that any argument you could come up with would not match his. If you feel that I have misinterpreted Leibniz, that is another issue entirely, and I am open to debate.

>>1059089
Are you ever going to give examples of philosophy finding anything in the last 16 years?

>>1059105
16 years? What a random time frame. I just gave you something from the 70's that philosophers are still talking about and drawing new ideas from today. I don't study modern philosophy very much, but there are always people writing books and articles and whatnot. If you want to find some new material then I'm sure you could in any old philosophy journal. I've already mentioned why philosophy isn't as popular as science; the media doesn't cover it and people don't regularly read it anymore because nobody has the time. We live in a time where people want quick answers. Philosophy does not offer quick answers; science does. Therefore, science is more popular. Also science furthers human advancement in terms of technology, which was one of my very first points in this thread. You can't compare science to philosophy when a huge measurement of science's usefulness is its ability to find new inventions and technologies. Philosophy does not do that nor claim to do that.

Also your question is flawed. "Finding" things almost implies empirical findings. Philosophy does not "find" things in the way that science does. Every so often people argue for new things, but rarely are people searching for things. If there ever is a question in science then scientists will go looking for the answer by empirically measuring the world. In that way scientists have a goal, philosophy is much different than this. If you want to argue about who has "found" the most things in the last 16 years, then obviously science is going to win, no one would argue against that. In fact, any respectable person wouldn't argue about anything like this in the first place because if you don't see the respective value that science and philosophy hold then you aren't looking hard enough and you're just naive. Both are incredibly valuable to furthering human understanding.

>>1059105

http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/9768/have-professional-philosophers-contributed-to-other-fields-in-the-last-20-years

Here is a list, taken from the thread in the link.

>Here are some examples from the last twenty years of philosophers of biology contributing to biological knowledge:

>Paul Griffiths's work on what emotions are;

>Roberta Millstein's and Peter Godfrey-Smith's work on what biological populations are;

>Elisabeth Lloyd's work on adaptationism in evolutionary explanations;

>Kim Sterelny's and James Maclaurin's and Sahotra Sarkar's work on the “biodiversity” concept in conservation biology;

>Elliott Sober's work, and that of many of his former students, on probability and game theory in evolution;

>James Justus's work on ecological stability and mathematical definitions of stability.

The rest of the thread is more historical, but shows how many innovations in math and science ultimately were grounded in Philosophy.

I would suggest reading Nancy Cartwright's work, she has done wonders for clearing up philosophy of science so to be based on scientific practice. She has also cleaned up modern notions of causation and "natural laws".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Cartwright_(philosopher)

In contemporary logic people have been using paraconistent logic to make discoveries and applications outside of philosophy.

>A team of researchers centered in São Paulo have been putting paraconsistent logics to use in artificial intelligence, in both top-down and bottom-up approaches. The autonomous robot EMMY III is designed to be able to navigate through dilemmatic situations, e.g. when one sensor detects an obstacle in front of the robot, while the other detects the presence of no objects (Abe et al 2009). In medical science, an artificial neural network based on paraconsistent logic has shown some potential for detecting Alzheimer's disease (Lopes et al 2011).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/

File: Kant.png (146KB, 1173x392px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1173x392px

Are the thoughts of Kant and Aristotle mutually exclusive?

>>1047894
Didn't Augustine also maintain that mankind was around 6000 years old and directly descended from Adam?

>>1059599

I would imagine so.

>>1059105
Science is just confirming what Buddha said thousands of years ago. Step it up stemfaggs.

>>1037653
He thought women had less teeth than men

He didn't even take the time to look in a woman's mouth

>>1060281
word i can't believe science just confirmed the cycle of rebirth and the existence of nirvana

>>1060302
thats a pending task for science. I doubt the scope of science reach it ,but maybe.

god made aristotle so he could get BTFO by diogenes

>>1060316
>aristotle

>>1060302
There have actually been studies on reincarnation or "past lives", Google Dr Ian Stevenson.

Not sure I buy it but it's interesting stuff