Why did he hate Forms so much?

>>8974022
Because hylomorphism was the better metaphysics

>>8974022
Didn't play with Play d'oh much.

I dunno. I wish we knew more about the day-to-day substance of Aristotle's milieu and what it must have been like to be in the shadow of Plato's academy.

I'm inclined to believe in mystical readings of Plato, that Plato in person and to his closer confidantes was probably openly Plotinian-ish in nature. And we can clearly see from what Aristotle studied, his universal curiosity about all "particular" manifestations of everything, that he would have been the opposite of this sort of interpretation of Plato.

Usually when I picture Plato's thinking, I think of a guy who has a high level of mystical faith that knowledge itself, epistemology, is the arche of ontology, and that we're directly tapped into it as knowing beings. So for him, dialogical clarification of rational truths was necessary to jostle our mind closer and closer to Being. But when I picture Aristotle's thinking, it's more of the empiricist strain where there's a bare minimum sensus communis. I don't doubt that he thought ontology was intelligible or isomorphic to epistemology, but I think he probably intuitively pictured mind as mere potential, and external ontology as needing to be "consumed" in order to be constituted in mind.

Both were realists, but Plato felt that the real would open itself up to you holistically if you continually clarified it. Aristotle's system was messier but also more elegant and grandiose, because for him all the complexity of the world isn't some afterthought (maybe even literally, depending on whether you think Plato prefigured emanationism), it's isomorphic its knowing. Humans are "rational creatures," creatures which can experience, remember, order, and ultimately know reality, but only if they work at it. Ontology is out there, the forms are out there. You don't sit around in a grove with a bunch of stuffy old pricks and clarify reality by chatting.

>>8974061
I think that's a very simplistic view of Plato. After all, he relies on many real-life examples to explain his ideas (like the horse training as a symbol for love, or the yearning for pussy as a sign of former unity.) Aristotle mostly comes off as a very flashy guy, trying to impress you with his trivia knowledge.

It's like a difference between a professor of mathematics and a bar trivia afficionado. And when it comes to what might be the most important aspect of practical philosophy-ethics-Aristotle crashes and burns, because all he can say about it is that one must watch and learn it on their own. Which is an infuriating cop out.

>>8974022
Because there can be a cup that is a chair that looks like a bipedal dog... ever think of that Potato?

>>8974032
underated