Is it possible to truly separate Aristotelian physics and Aristotelian

Aristotle sucked ass at physics let's be honest ok I mean he was a smart dude but jesus man go back to fuckin philosophy or whatever because sheesh that shit is wackk

>>7826667
Probably not. A lot of his physics would today fall within the domain of metaphysics, and there's nothing wrong with that.

>>7826717
this is the future

>>7826880
it's satire and bait, just let him get bored and hell prob fk off back to r-ddit

>>7826667
Yes. Inductive reasoning can only take you so far.

>>7826667

Certain insights of his remain integral to the theoretical reasoning guiding scientific research. Teleology, for instance, is essentially identical with the scientific use of equilibrium. An individual's telos, or end, is how it reaches equilibrium.

You can introduce an identical efficient cause to different substances, and to explain why they react differently (assuming they do) you must postulate that they have distinct natures which come to equilibrium under different conditions.

Consider: if you were required to identify a substance which you couldn't otherwise identify by your immediate senses, how you do it? Think chemistry for an example how to do it. This reasoning presupposes that distinct substances have distinct states of equilibrium they are acting/would act to obtain.

>>7827584
>Teleology, for instance, is essentially identical with the scientific use of equilibrium. An individual's telos, or end, is how it reaches equilibrium.

Except teleology is derived backwards and idealistically rather than empirically

>>7826880
>>7826892
He's actually absolutely right. Through iteral millenia of advancement and refinement of older ideas and techniques we got the scientific method and you still even consider revisiting fucking Aristotle?

>>7827702

Quite easy to infer teleology from empirical study. How is our concept of equilibrium inferred from empirical study? Then you would have your answer as to what teleology is.

My point is basically this: if you believe in equilibrium, you believe in teleology. Your idea that they are essentially distinct is mistaken. Same idea, different notation.

>>7827729
>Quite easy to infer teleology from empirical study.

Not at all, at least not with any of the universality as Aristotle would ascribe to it.

>How is our concept of equilibrium inferred from empirical study?

Generally observing when large changes cease happening. When it comes to teleology the author comes up with what their ideal humans should be and then works backwards to derive virtues. Nothing empirical about that at all.

.