Intellectuals have had a big hateboner for Aristotle since the

> but has there ever been a thinker who contributed more to western thinking and the fundamentals of science?
Bacon, Hume, Popper
>his works continue to be relevant
lol

>>1378269
Dear anon, here is a thought experiment: without this Aristotle how much thinking and fundamentals of science would not be as it is today.

I think the contribution to Western thinking is more integrated into our culture psyche as it is to science from this man Aristotle.

>>1378291

All respond explicitly to his work. Without Aristotle there would be no enlightenment because there would be no theory so comprehensive and compelling to merit such a response.

It's enough to say that Aristotelian logic was de facto complete logic until the 17th century. Aristotle's influence is very hard to overstate. Without him, there is no 13th century intellectual reneissance that leads to scholasticism, and no early modern philosophy that explicitly responds to those systems.

>>1378269
> big hateboner

I don't think so. They mostly acted like he didn't exist and kept arguing over pseudo-problems that Aristotle never fell into.

I could see the 21st century having a hateboner for him because his semi-relativist philosophy already sounds like fascism to an SJW. To say that certain things excel at specific functions is blasphemy for the 21st century SJW/post-structuralists.

>>1378414
SJW are relativists...

>Intellectuals have had a big hateboner for Aristotle since the 17th century
Where are you getting this from

>>1378269
Hume, Bacon, Newton, etc,

>>1378780
The list could go on really

>>1378633
Aristotle is SEMI-relativist, in the sense that he doesn't produce universal rules but he still thinks there's right or wrong.

I mean, in the Nichomachean Ethics he says homosexuality is a 'degenerate' compulsion like people who eat dirt, pull their hair out or chew their nails.

But he simply never lays out a rule that he claims will work 100% of the time (like Kant and Mill do).

>>1378269
>And his works continue to be relevant in many fields.

Legitimately curious, what is still relevant and where?