Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

YehYeh wrote: Aristotle is an iconic figure of Western civilization, and foundational in the theology of the major religions. To even suggest that he may have been mistaken even on a single point is practically criminal. Perhaps it will take another 50 years of spectacular scholarly research to at least level the field.

This may well apply to theology and religion but philosophy questioned some of his methods long-ago, namely his metaphysical ontology and from it came sciences. But his logic has been pretty much unassailable albeit updated in a formal way.

In current practice, philosophy is Aristotle. A course in Metaphysics starts with Aristotle's Metaphysics. That book is read like the Bible, and its arguments are similarly quoted as accepted truths.

It wasn't always so, and it will not be so in the future. Uncritical dogmatism in philosophy is unfitting to today's scientific environment, and is fundamentally unphilosophical. If we want dogma, we can just appeal to its proper place in religion.

What's wrong with good ole Aristotle? What could possibly be wrong if the vast majority of today's professional philosophers are deeply Aristotelian? Wouldn't it be easier to just say that YehYeh is ignorant, illogical, or just contrary? Unfortunately, and I say that sincerely, that won't do. Modern analytical techniques will prevail, whether YehYeh and Dr. Beillard like it or not. Those techniques, like an X-ray machine, reveal the skeletons of all philosophy. As a consequence, Aristotle's stature and importance will shrink drastically in relation to his predecessors: the great, great Plato, and the Presocratics.

~~~~

On the positive side, I can place Aristotle as a Platonic Realist, in a considerably diminished version from Plato's own Realism. I could also agree that Aristotle was a great, great scientist, a pioneer of his day.

On the negative side, I can point to Aristotle's overblown assessment of his own philosophy, and the blunders and fallacies of his claims and arguments. Really, with a bit of critical analysis, almost anyone can. Not good.

analytic techniques are circular

-Imp

What you see is what you get.

Circular? how so?

We have to start somewhere.

It is easier to criticise someone else´s assertions than to make good ones oneself.

Someone starts a mental game and a mental struggle should issue, in fairness and mutual respect.

Perhaps the ghost of Aristotle is waiting for some of his critics in the beyond, in order to continue the clarification process of philosophical problems.

YehYeh wrote: A course in Metaphysics starts with Aristotle's Metaphysics. That book is read like the Bible, and its arguments are similarly quoted as accepted truths.

Dunno where you did your course in Metaphysics, but apart from etymology, Aristotle hardly got a look in on mine.

YehYeh wrote:What you see is what you get.

Circular? how so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E ... istinction

-Imp

duszek wrote:We have to start somewhere.
It is easier to criticise someone else´s assertions than to make good ones oneself.

I'm not sure if you meant that for my critique of Aristotle or for Impenitent's suggestion of circularity.

In any case, Aristotle is the Man in philosophy, and all praise and therefore all critique is fair. Aristotle is revered by a billion people, which makes it immensely more difficult to critique him in near isolation than to praise him to an adoring crowd. Surprisingly, even experts in ancient philosophy have encountered this problem, when they just try to make fair and well considered commentary. Aristotle is an untouchable.

tillingborn wrote:

YehYeh wrote: A course in Metaphysics starts with Aristotle's Metaphysics. That book is read like the Bible, and its arguments are similarly quoted as accepted truths.

Dunno where you did your course in Metaphysics, but apart from etymology, Aristotle hardly got a look in on mine.

Really? I'll bet most everything they taught you was a paraphrase from Aristotle.

I went to an American Pragmatist school. They taught that anyone who arrives on time can know with certainty that they know how to bicycle to work.

Impenitent wrote:

YehYeh wrote:Circular? how so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E ... istinction

And I thought you meant all arguments that are based on propositions or employ classical binary logic are (circularly) presuming realism.

Back then, Quine was engaging Carnap, in a intra-mural modern realist controversy. I am more interested in the proper grounding of all Aristotelian metaphysics, which is analytical in that it is founded on the purely logical version of the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC). In contrast, this is not true for Plato. Plato's realism is based on an empirical reduction, an amazing trio of restrictions on the Heraclitean world of constant change which results in Plato's version of the PNC..

analytic arguments are based on the definitions of the terms...

presuming realism? of course...

the trick is: "What exactly did you mean with that statement?"

the thing, the impression of the thing, and the language used to describe the impression of the thing are totally different...

you can never step in the same river once.

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:analytic arguments are based on the definitions of the terms...

Which, and the particular logic, is what makes them objectively true or false.

Impenitent wrote:the thing, the impression of the thing, and the language used to describe the impression of the thing are totally different...

you can never step in the same river once.

That's a horse of a different feather. Both you and the river are changing. But each at its own particular rate. Yet, it is also possible to take one or more instantaneous or historical cuts through that world, and look only at the slices.

I meant you, YY.

I praise A. for giving me something substantial to practise criticism on.

Nobody is perfect.

Aristotle is touchable for many things.

His theories about master and thrall, husband and wife.
I recently started his "Politics".

YehYeh wrote:

Impenitent wrote:analytic arguments are based on the definitions of the terms...

Which, and the particular logic, is what makes them objectively true or false.

Impenitent wrote:the thing, the impression of the thing, and the language used to describe the impression of the thing are totally different...

you can never step in the same river once.

That's a horse of a different feather. Both you and the river are changing. But each at its own particular rate. Yet, it is also possible to take one or more instantaneous or historical cuts through that world, and look only at the slices.

and your agreement with the second destroys any semblance of objectivity in the first

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ... and your agreement with the second destroys any semblance of objectivity in the first.

Nope. That would only be logical if one presumes either one or the other, the PNC.

However, that need not be the case. BOTH stances are quite objective. When two opinions are in conflict, either one can be correct, neither one, or both, depending on their premises.

This is the deeper meaning of the fly bottle metaphor. The view from within is not wrong. It is merely on a different scale from the overview from outside, which is also correct.