The Forgotten Question of Aristotle

[Phil8659]

Plato taught Aristotle, and Aristotle tried to wrap his brain around it, and factually he failed, however he did put his conundrum in a question.

How are the elements, form and material combined to make a thing?

The ability to answer this question, is ground zero for the ability to become literate. Can you answer it without gibberish?

Now, both the Bible and Plato puts this question to the reader, but I am not going to ask it in their terms, I let Aristotle ask it because his intelligence was significantly lower than those who use metaphor.

I will restate his question: How are a relative and a correlative combined to make a thing?

And I am forced to repeat myself. If you cannot answer the question, just do not post anything here.

[Eodnhoj7]

Plato taught Aristotle, and Aristotle tried to wrap his brain around it, and factually he failed, however he did put his conundrum in a question.

How are the elements, form and material combined to make a thing?

The ability to answer this question, is ground zero for the ability to become literate. Can you answer it without gibberish?

Now, both the Bible and Plato puts this question to the reader, but I am not going to ask it in their terms, I let Aristotle ask it because his intelligence was significantly lower than those who use metaphor.

I will restate his question: How are a relative and a correlative combined to make a thing?

And how do you define "thing"?

[Phil8659]

Plato taught Aristotle, and Aristotle tried to wrap his brain around it, and factually he failed, however he did put his conundrum in a question.

How are the elements, form and material combined to make a thing?

The ability to answer this question, is ground zero for the ability to become literate. Can you answer it without gibberish?

Now, both the Bible and Plato puts this question to the reader, but I am not going to ask it in their terms, I let Aristotle ask it because his intelligence was significantly lower than those who use metaphor.

I will restate his question: How are a relative and a correlative combined to make a thing?

And how do you define "thing"?

Are you aware that your question is wholly absurd? That it is complete nonsense?

I asked you once, if you cannot answer it, keep your gibberish to yourself.

[Eodnhoj7]

Plato taught Aristotle, and Aristotle tried to wrap his brain around it, and factually he failed, however he did put his conundrum in a question.

How are the elements, form and material combined to make a thing?

The ability to answer this question, is ground zero for the ability to become literate. Can you answer it without gibberish?

Now, both the Bible and Plato puts this question to the reader, but I am not going to ask it in their terms, I let Aristotle ask it because his intelligence was significantly lower than those who use metaphor.

I will restate his question: How are a relative and a correlative combined to make a thing?

And how do you define "thing"?

Are you aware that your question is wholly absurd? That it is complete nonsense?

So what you are saying is that you have no definition for what a thing is? How is anyone to understand what you are stating if you do not define your terms? From another perspective your question is non-sensical.

[Phil8659]

Aristotle could not figure it out, either.
So, let me give you a hint. Plato said that salvation is afford mankind by the art of measurement. So, let us see what that has to do with binary recursion.

A unit, the number 1 is a binary expression, a standard of measure. To count, we add 1 +1 + 1 etc.
We have turned the elements of a thing to construct a standard thing, and by recursion learn to count. i.e. Counting is one method of combining the elements to make a concrete, i.e. perceptible system of grammar.

Traditionally it has been recognized that all of mathematics has its roots in counting, i.e. binary recursion.

Now many have asked why Aristotle, who spent 20 years as Plato's student was not selected to take his place? Because Plato could see very well, that although Aristotle had a phenomenal memory and could repeat by rote, he could not think his way out of a paper bag.

By simple questions, one can learn if someone can only repeat by rote, or use what they learnt to solve a simple problem. Anyone who studies Aristotle should easily see that Aristotle, talked much, spoke a lot of gibberish, but could not really answer a simple question.

[Age]

Aristotle could not figure it out, either.
So, let me give you a hint. Plato said that salvation is afford mankind by the art of measurement. So, let us see what that has to do with binary recursion.

A unit, the number 1 is a binary expression, a standard of measure. To count, we add 1 +1 + 1 etc.
We have turned the elements of a thing to construct a standard thing, and by recursion learn to count. i.e. Counting is one method of combining the elements to make a concrete, i.e. perceptible system of grammar.

Traditionally it has been recognized that all of mathematics has its roots in counting, i.e. binary recursion.

Now many have asked why Aristotle, who spent 20 years as Plato's student was not selected to take his place? Because Plato could see very well, that although Aristotle had a phenomenal memory and could repeat by rote, he could not think his way out of a paper bag.

By simple questions, one can learn if someone can only repeat by rote, or use what they learnt to solve a simple problem. Anyone who studies Aristotle should easily see that Aristotle, talked much, spoke a lot of gibberish, but could not really answer a simple question.

And, what can be SEEN here is that even 'you' are NOT ABLE TO answer your OWN question. But, what you have ACTUALLY ACHIEVED here is being a HYPOCRITE and doing what you TELL "others" NOT TO DO. That is;

You TELL us; If you cannot answer the question, just do not post anything here. YET you go and keep posting 'things'/gibberish here, WITHOUT answering the QUESTION.

[Age]

YOUR restated question here; How are a relative and a correlative combined to make a thing?

Could be just restated; How are 'things' made?

Which, after all, at least makes some sense.

Asking, How do two things with a mutual relationship make things is like asking how does combining two things together make some 'thing', new?

Combining things together, like bringing separate things into a 'mutual relationship', or seeing or having 'a relationship', OBVIOUSLY, makes some 'thing' new. By HAVING 'a relationship' or 'a mutual relationship', a 'thing' cannot NOT be made.

What you have 'restated' and asking, is like asking, How are a human male's sperm and a human female's egg combined to make a 'new thing'?

1. OBVIOUSLY some 'thing' gets made.

2. If you REALLY WANT to KNOW ALL the DETAILS, then DO what you TELL "others" to DO, that is; go SEARCH 'it' up on the internet, or in its archives.