What does /lit/ think of Aristotle's dialectic

Honestly guys this is so hard to understand ;_; exodas principles propositions demonstrations phenomenons first principle universal concept eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Plato was so much easier to understand guys ;_;

>>9130495
Blame the shitty medieval arab translations.
Aristotle himself was one of the most versatile speakers in the ancient world.

>>9130795
Fuck man. I'm reeding Reeves translation. I like how he, despite admitting to be Aristotlean is critical of him and points out Aristotle's leaps in logic/assumptions, but damn this is fucking hard to read.

Plato was like "simple English" version of a Wikipedia page compared to this (I'm Finnish myself)

>inb4 why aren't you reading Finnish translations
I like English language for topics such as philosophy because all the discussion in the Internet is, in English, about the subject.

File: 4354354354353.jpg (24KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 333x499px

>>9130495
This will help you

>>9131224
Thanks bratan, I'll read that.

What's up with this guy and his analogies to human body, geez.

>>9130466

If I remember, Aristotle didn't even write his works as treatises or books. It's rather a collection of notes, and the structure with books, chapters etc., was made afterwards by some librarian. It can be read like you would read a friend's notebook when you missed the class.

>>9132439
I'm reading the Reeves translation of Politics and he said that massive parts of what he wrote is lost.

Maybe they were indeed notes that he just threw in the dumpster after teaching something.

But boy does it make for a hard reading for a retard like me.

>>9132448
I read the beginning of Politics quite recently because I was working on slavery... French translation though.

"There are slaves by nature and masters by nature... However those who don't agree are kind of right too..."

Fuck you Aristotle, make it clear.

I don't know what dialectic means (i see the word trhown around a lot but everyone seems to have their own definition)

I struggle to read a paragraph by him, but it's always worth it

>>9132510
Did you skip Plato? It's the process of thinking things through to discover the truth.

>>9132574
So, just reasoning/racionalization? Ok.

I've only read the republic, and that after my third aristotle; but i think i did the right thing. Aristotle is more rewarding

Aristotle is the endgame of philosophy

All Platonism needs to burn.

>>9132510
>I don't know what dialectic means (i see the word thrown around a lot but everyone seems to have their own definition)
That's because it can indeed mean different things.
Aristotelian "dialectic" is more or less an early form of (formal) logic. It is something Plato teached in the Academy but only to people older then 35 years, because he thought younger people would abuse it just to make fun with it out of sophistry. Therefore, Plato never made it public. Aristotle, who learned it in the Academy wasn't that cautious himself.
Hegelian and Marxist dialectic are other things - they are what we normally call "dialectic" nowadays.
But there are other kinds of "dialectic" when it comes to eastern philosophy, too.

Dialectic is just 'dialogue'- with another person or persons, as in Plato, or with the world at large (man's conversation with nature, for instance) as in Aristotle, Hegel, Marx, and modern science (where numbers get thrown in). There is alot to it, but 'conversation' is the ruling idea.. That said, what I personally find interesting about Aristotle is the entelechy. Any thoughts?

>>9132712
You basically justw rote what I was too lazy to say. But I'm also wondering - isn't there, in Aristotle, a more specific meaning of "dialectics" sometimes ? I'm thinking of Metaphysics G, when Aristotle states that the contradiction principle cannot be "demonstrated" in a pure logical way, but it can still be proven from a dialectic point of view. I'd say dialectic, logic, rhetoric are distinct fields, all of them rational (more or less). - so they require different thinking schemes.
Dialectic -> you can use what the other person just said
Logic -> you just try to be rational so that your reasoning is valid
Rhetoric -> you can use the audience's beliefs

>>9132712
> because he thought younger people would abuse it just to make fun with it out of sophistry
This is how continental philosophy came to be.

D-d-dialecti-ti-ti-tic?

>>9132905
Not that guy, but i know what you're talking about. He said more or less that dialectics means, if something exist, so does it's opposite. (Up, down; heat, cold)

>>9133067
>something exist
>this means that something doesn't exist exists

wat

>>9131197
Aari Stotelainen