Thread 24554825

What is even the point of studying Aristotle in this day and age? How can his metaphysics, ethics, etc. have any merit when they derive from his empirically false observation of physics?

Ristanon. We summon you. Hear our call.

>>24554825 (OP)
Many philosophical terms and concepts we use today, even outside of philosophy, have their roots in Aristotle's work. Concepts like "substance," "potentiality and actuality," "cause," "teleology" (purpose/end), and categories of being are all deeply embedded in our intellectual vocabulary.

Aristotle is widely considered the father of formal logic, particularly syllogistic logic. His work in the Organon laid down the principles of valid reasoning, deduction, and argument structure. While modern logic has advanced far beyond his initial formulations (e.g., symbolic logic), his foundational work was revolutionary and remains a starting point for understanding the history of logic.

Aristotle called metaphysics "first philosophy" – the study of "being as being," exploring the fundamental nature of reality, existence, and the ultimate causes of things.

>>24554830
>Aristotle is widely considered the father of formal logic, particularly syllogistic logic.
By whom?

bot thread. fuck you janny pick up the pace.

>>24554825 (OP)
Studying philosophy in general is for pseuds with time to waste. The real chad choice is to study history, so you'll learn philosophy and everything else as something valid in its historical context.
Most philosophy is garbage, very little has actual value.

>>24554932
If you study history at any prestigious institution in 2025 you will be forced to write about how Ancient Greeks were not even Greek, barbarians were actually Greek, and how Aristotle was a chud.

It's basically sophistry.

he is actually correct about physics, metorology, cosmology, etc.

>>24554935
I did study history at a prestigious institution for a while and no such thing happened. Maybe it's an American thing.

What is not but it still exists

>>24554825 (OP)
I very much like Schopenhauer's curated quotes of Aristotle, as some are brilliant and profound. I wouldn't study Aristotle for the sake of it, however.

>>24554830
>history of logic.
So there's no point then. I know and use logic in my math in a day to day basis. I wouldn't care to read some fag's (false) observations about the world, with underdeveloped logical reasoning. Even going back in math as far as 100 years ago is a waste of time regarding reading for the utility of it. And if philosophy is useless as of now, what utility could it have to see some two thousand (2000) years old take on it? I'd rather just read something from the last few centuries in philosophy, not that it's worth it.

The problem with Western philosophy is that it is quite literally just some dude's opinion. This is such a basic thing I don't understand why people don't grasp this.

Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hegel, etc. All these guys weren't special. They were literally just dudes with opinions. Very very cleverly-crafted and sophisticated opinions to trick you into thinking they have merit beyond being mere opinions, but opinions nonetheless.

Eastern philosophy like Hinduism and Buddhism does not have this issue. New philosophical insights are arrived at by group consensus. The ideas themselves still might be wrong, but at least they arrive them in a more organic and healthy way.

>>24554825 (OP)
>when they derive from his empirically false observation of physics?
prove him wrong then
>>24555186
brownest indian on lit award

>>24555192
Refute any of my points.
Also, ancient Indians were white people.

>>24555197
you're refuted by reality, no hindu ever achieved anything of note meanwhile hobbes and calvin built civilization

i doubt you were originally white but i guess thats what happens when you spend 4000 years playing with poo while aristotle laid the groundwork for da vinci

>>24555212

>muh achievement
Stay spiritually lost.

>>24555217
good philosophical frameworks result in good achievements, i guess you "win" by being ignorant of ethics and history, enjoy rebirth as a dalit

Jeets cannot grasp classical philosophy. They can only worship.
Asians too have a problem with it. They just don't get it.
Is Greek philosophy European genetic heritage in literary form?

>>24554830
Modern logic is only superior in a few specific areas. Aristotlean logic is still generally more practical. Read Kreeft.

>>24554944
i don't know which third-world country you live in for history to get any more prestige than philosophy, literature or philology

>>24554825 (OP)
What's the point of studying Newton when he didn't know about quantum physics?

>>24555992
>enters the room

>>24555186
hello saar are you brahmin or dalit saar

>>24556232
why all these asian dorks wear leather jackets and are into getting fucked by white men? like Mishima and NVIDIA CEO?

>>24556245
Why are you projecting so hard, there's no evidence he's gay

>>24556249
but I fucked him??

>>24556254
Post body. Post hand. Post gut. Post ass. Post nipple. Post back hair. Post dick. Post scrotum. Post MRI of brain. Post prostate. Post feet.

modern philosophy phds took the side of the pseuds in the platonic dialogues. same shit different meat suit.

>>24556269
What the fuck does that even mean

>>24556272
read the dialogues and you'll make the connection

>>24554932

You need a philosophical framework to interpret history. All historians do that whether they admit it or not. The alternative to philosophy is bad, spontaneous philosophy.

He’s brilliant, find out for yourself. He’s the first scientific philosopher - no woo, no bullshit, hard and dry analysis, and also one of the best even now. He was also the first genuine scientist period. So much shit is said about him which is demonstrably false, such as the slur that he thought all science was deductive. His reputation is also tarnished by Thomists who think he was more Platonist than he was, eg that he thought particular things were limitations of a supernatural essence in God’s brain. He’s a top shelf thinker and you should read him. Like many great philosophers he is attacked or stupidly defended by pseuds who have barely read him, as we see itt. Aristotle gives you an ideal foundation for studying western philosophy in general and struggling with his works will teach you how to think philosophically.

>>24556345
>So much shit is said about him which is demonstrably false, such as the slur that he thought all science was deductive

I've read the Posterior Analytics and he stresses several times that the needed initial premises to build syllogisms are obtained with observation and induction. How can they say that bullshit when he devoted a great deal of his life to observe animals?

>>24554983
why the fuck are the nips so fascinated by jewish mysticism anyway? (at least on the surface level) it's everywhere. some piece of popular post-war media? or is it like how schizos and vapid white girls are drawn to watered-down westernized eastern mysticism?

>>24556403
If you read the Posterior Analytics you also know that the middle term is discovered last. You don’t start with the minor and syllogize your way to the major, you find the middle term (explanation) for a given phenomenon. He says this multiple times but pseuds don’t really study him, what can you do?

>>24556345
oh it's you again

>>24556518
Yup it sure is. And I’m not running around the maypole with you idiots who don’t know Aristotle, don’t know Aquinas, don’t know what the problem of universals was about, repeat arguments from the dialogues (fucking lol), and want to have a debate about what the word “realism” means, even though it has several overlapping meanings. You guys are worthless pseuds, like most people who talk about philosophy online. Go read the Metaphysics, I especially recommend 7.6 where you’ll find Aristotle openly rejecting the essence existence distinction. Who am I kidding you won’t be able to understand it.

>>24556556
Contd, in particular you won’t understand how the Ideas are likened to his own particulars, so you’ll probably say “this is about the Forms what does this have to do with Aquinas’ distinction”, because you’re a fucking retard. “Each primary and self-subsistent thing is the same as its essence”. Do you know what sorts of things Aristotle considered primary and self-subsistent? No, likely not. So you’re not worth arguing with, you’re a pseud.

>>24556518
obsessed

>>24554825 (OP)
idk i prefer plato. more fun.

>empirically false observation
i know this is a ragebait thread but aristotle did many experiments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHTgCXdBohs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAmX0MAjSxs
>What is even the point of studying Aristotle in this day and age?
to these days the organon is ridiculously important, it basically teaches you how to think and write in a systematic way.

>>24556230
newton's physics and mathematics are still useful

>>24556571
There's only one thing that is primary and self-subsistent in Aristotle's eyes if you take his requirements strictly.

>>24554825 (OP)
You're clearly not triviumpilled

>>24558524
He tells you right in the Categories what is primary and self-subsistent. "But... but... what about the unmoved mover you idiot!" Yes, God is a principle of primary and self-subsistent substances. There is a sense in which God is the truly self-subsistent; there is a sense in which the composite is self-subsistent; there is a sense in which the essence, as principle of the composite, is what is really self-subsistent; there is a sense in which the essence is particular, as he openly says in Meta 7 right at the beginning, as well as in Meta 12; there is a sense in which the essence is a universal, because a thing *is* an x, or a thing *is* per se intelligible. This is all quite complicated stuff and Aristotle's vocabulary exhibits excessive homonymousness, especially in the Metaphysics. But with the pseuds here it's: "How could gold not be caused by the Essence of Goldness? That's modernism! Omg!" Seriously you guys don't even know the difference between an essence and a universal WITHIN Aquinas, you think they're the same thing. An absolute disgrace to philosophy.

>>24554825 (OP)
His works on poetics and rhetoric are still quite relevant

>>24558606
>He tells you right in the Categories what is primary and self-subsistent.
And he also tells you in On Interpretation that there are levels to substance. The more immaterial, essencey, and independent something is, the more substancey it is. On this account, artifacts are definitely not substances (and were only ever treated as such analogously), and living beings are surprisingly not substances (if we are staying true to the requirements and thus we can only call them substances analogously, though moreso than artifacts).

What does this leave us? Oh, the only two completely independent and self-sufficient substances identified throughout the entirety of Aristotle's corpus: the active intellect, and the unmoved mover. And those two are the same thing if you believe Alexander of Aphrodisias's interpretation.

Can someone tell me what four books to start with for Aristotle, in order?

>>24558694
Categories, Metaphysics, Posterior Analytics, De Anima. The last 3 can be done in whatever order you want.

>>24558763
Fantastic, I just got the latest translation of the Metaphysics in the mail. Thanks!