Which one was more correct?

Allegory of the Cave is the only piece of philosophy anybody ever needs to know.

They're both wrong so why does it matter?

What about imagining Sisyphus as happy and that God is dead and we killed Him?

...

Alcibiades.

the virgin plato

the chad aristotle

this is not true of you have actually read a lot of plato, modern philosophy departments put a lot of emphasis on the forms but he actually doesnt mention them that much.

the virgin plato

the chad diogenes

They're equally correct about different things.

Aristotle.

So Aristotle?

No. Platonists. Aristotle was good, and the father of serious inquiry, but he was not and will never be "more correct" than the ineffable truths sussed out by the students of Socrates.

Ave, true to Caesar.

The sophists btfo both of them

>Aristotle believed in nothing beyond what you could actually experience

Please tell me where I can find the prime mover

>indicative of the perfect Forms which no one has not only never experienced
WRONG, why would you know a table for a table if you had no notion of the perfect form of tableness?

what a bunch of narcissists walking around with their own books looking sooooo self important.
my granny told me once that it doesn't matter how correct you are, you live in a world surrounded by other people with which you have to interact with. being this egocentric really defeats the purpose of their points if they can't share it with others without being dicks. BAKA greeks

>Why don't we just appeal to the lowest common denominator in society

Everything overhyped, overrated, and wrong in philosophy, from fear of irrational numbers to half of Wittgenstein's output, is merely footnotes to Aristotle

plato believed in forms, aristotle in primary substances. a chair is still a chair whether it's the one or the other. the "big picture" remains the same while the explanation for the picture differs.

Aristotle said that the prime mover was something that was necessary because everything has a cause.

Wittgenstein bashed metaphysics, therefore destroyed a good part of Aristotle's work. However Aristotle was the true big deal and Plato was an ordinary fuccboy

I'd say Plato. Objectively, Aristotle was wrong on almost all his physical descriptions of physics, chemistry, astrology, etcetera. He only got the most basic math correct.

Plato's frameworks and ideas, although often overshadowed by later philosophical developments, are still vital to our culture and to our understanding. The ideas and the approaches still work. Aristotle's don't.

This, how can other philosophers even compete?

In the basic conflict portrayed in that picture, Aristotle came out right.

Aristotle in some things.
Plato in some things.

It's not a question of either/or, user.

Aristotles contribution to science wasn't the "objective facts" he gave but the method of categorization and systemization itself.

You could just as easily say "Newton was objectively wrong, he missed relativity." The point isn't whether an idea aligns perfectly with "Truth," it's whether it offers a pragmatically justified foothold we can use to continue the climb towards "Truth."

I agree completely. I think Plato's framework holds more true for that same climb.

To be perfectly honest, I've read a lot more Plato than I have Aristotle. I'm biased.

Yeah, he didn't deduce the existence of such an entity empirically, friend. Aristotle's philosophy is grounded in rationalism from which his proto-empiricism springs forth. See his principle of non-contradiction in Metaphysics, in which he directly states that "demonstration does not begin with demonstration" and his analysis of literally every natural concept in the Physics, as well as his insistence on analyzing the most general of concepts first before arriving at the particulars in Topics. He reasons from a-priori suppositions.

On that note, Aristotle and Plato are both essentialists, they only differ on the nature of essence. Plato locates essence outside of the subject, while Aristotle points to the subject itself. They're not much different

big if true

>if

diogenes

this

Plato

Aristotle was restrained by a materialistic world view

>the allegory of the cave is the only piece of philosophy I have ever read

Yes, prime movers and essences are certainly materialistic. Why don't you actually read Aristotle instead of skimming the wiki page?

I'm taking advantage of this thread to ask you all a question: if I read Eutyphro, will I have a great grasp of the ideas in the book? Would I understand it?
I've read about greek mythology, the Iliad and the Odyssey. I'm planning to read about the Pre-Socratics and the Sophists, and I'd read many things more to understand the corpus platonicum much better, but I don't know if the struggle will be worthy.

so the sophists were actually legit philosophers?

A sycophantic, salaried, pedophiliac, flute-playing, Athenian sophist and acclaimed rhetorician was teaching a class on Gorgias, known nihilist.

"By Zeus! Before the class begins, you must all get on your knees and pay your respects to Gorgias, and accept that he was the most demonic being the world has ever known, even greater than that of Heraclitus!" At this moment, a wise, ironic, pro-Spartan disciple of Socrates who had courted 1500 young boys and understood the necessity of free education and fully supported all intellectual writings made by the Academy stood up and held up a rock.

"I say to you, does this rock exist on the true plane of reality and being, dear teacher?"

The arrogant sophist smirked quite relativistically and replied "Certainly, for how else could you bring it into being here, you foolish foreigner?"

"Wrong. The Forms are the only true reality and exist beyond this realm of material perception. If it was real, and being, as you say, is contingent to our realm of perception, then it should be identical to all other rocks in 'existence'."

The sophist was visibly shaken, and dropped his stylus and copy of On the Non-Existent. He stormed out of the room crying those ironic sophist tears. The same tears sophists cry for the "learned" (who today live in such a state of ignorance that most think they 'have knowledge' of what is pious) when they jealously try to claw justly earned true knowledge from the deserving philosophers. There is no doubt that at this point our sophist, Hypocrites, wished he had pulled himself up by his sandal straps and become more than a sophist, paid-for-hire teacher. He wished so much that he had a sense of objective truth to console himself from embarrassment, but he himself had argued against it!

The students applauded and all enrolled into the Academy that day and accepted The One as the incarnation of truth and the Good. An owl named "The Socratic Method" flew into the room and perched atop the Priestess of Delphi and shed a tear on the stylus. Plato’s Republic was read several times, and Socrates himself showed up and claimed that he knew nothing. The sophist lost his standing with the Athenian wealthy and was left homeless the next day.

He died in the Thirty Tyrants' Rebellion and reincarnated as a Bronze soul for all eternity.

wat

Because you can deconstruct rocks into all metaphysical fuck, we now ought to share toothbrushes.

>Sisyphus as happy
Socrates defeated this stance already. Unhappiness or happiness - who cares? Be a man!

The implication being that if you're a man and you understand that, you'll be happy.

Even when it pain and under duress, a man who acts like a man is always happy.

A japanese hosso monk and zen master was teaching a class on Lao Ze, known riddler

”Before the class begins, you must adopt a meditation stance and reverence Lao Ze and accept that he was the most enlightened being the world has ever known, even greater than Heraclitus!”

At this moment, a brave, phenomenologist, continental German philosopher who had published over 1500 papers on hermeneutics and understood the necessity of an ontological characterization of human beings and fully supported all deconstruction of metaphysical thinking stood up and held up a rock.

”Does this rock have buddha nature?”

The arrogant professor smirked and smugly replied “mu, you stupid Westerner”

”Wrong. An existential analysis of the rock reveals that it has no language and therefore it is not opened to the disclosure of Being . If it was neither Dasein or not Dasein and its ontological nature, as you say, was indeterminate… then its rock-Being should be a concern to it!”

The monk was visibly shaken, and dropped his bonsai and copy of Tao te Ching. He stormed out of the room reciting those obsolete buddhist sutras. The same sutras buddhists recite for the “souls of the deceased” when they jealously try to devalue responsibility over their finitude from the deserving authentic Daseins. There is no doubt that at this point our monk, Gautama Boddhidarma, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than an inauthentic onto theological thinker. He wished so much that he had a non metaphysical characterization of truth to reconstruct his ontology over a groundless ground, but he himself had petitioned against it!

The students applauded and all registered with the university of Freiburg that day and accepted Nietzsche as the last and greatest western crypto metaphysician. An eagle named “Ereigenis” flew into the room and perched atop an ancient oak and shed a tear on the now standing reserve of timber. The Ister was read several times, and Being itself showed up and spread existential angst across the country.

The monk lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the technocratic plague nihilism and was tossed into the impossibility of possibilities for eternity.

Ex nihilo omnia
p.s. It rests by changing.

This is nearly the same thing, but just kicking the can a few feet ahead of you first

dear Veeky Forums,

Please let me know of as many of the old, traditional "groupings" of Plato's and Aristotle's work as you are aware of:

Example: The /Corpus Aristotelicum/ refers both to the body of surviving work by Aristotle, as well as to a particular grouping of that material according to its themes. This grouping is what is used to present the two-volume Oxford/Princeton edition:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Aristotelicum

With Plato, things seem to get goofier. There are attempts to put the works chronologically and/or thematically, and Hackett's general editor Cooper discusses these groupings at length.

books.google.com/books?id=Fv9AKY_DBVYC&pg=PR3&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

The business about "tetraologies" and "trilogies" is simplified here:

plato-dialogues.org/works.htm

And one suggested chronology of Plato is given here:

csun.edu/~hcfll004/platochron.html

Is that about it, or are there other ancient "groupings" of the works?

>a sophist would be a redditor
>a platonist would be a 4fagger

Right?

>plug a chicken

Top notch

No

>courted 1500 young boys
Was that what made a Chad back in the Athenian days?

>It rests by chaning
You know this modern metaphysical nihilism sounds a lot like the zen philosophy of the east. The whole using contradictory phrases to annihilate a mental position thus opening the mind up to a greater contradiction than before.

literally who?

Where does Aristotle place universals then, such as goodness?

in his ass