Wrong about almost everything he said

>You are an idiot if you think there is any likelyhood of this being true.

Why? People thought that it turned out that Parmenides was right due to Einstein after thousands of years of people thinking that Aristotle completely destroyed his ideas. Why couldn't the same thing happen with Aristotle ?

Also: what is wrong with Aristotle's solution to the problem of future contingents ? What is wrong with his hylomorphism ? What is wrong with his claim that you could reduce all the syllogisms in his logic into either Barbara or Celarent? What is wrong with his conception of Virtue ethics ? What is wrong with his statistical theory of modality ?

Dude, you're wasting your breath. OP has never read anything by Aristotle, at most he's browsed a Wikipedia page or listened to John Green shit talk him and Plato.

Using the four causes, act/potency and form/matter as ontological building blocks for his metaphysics. They work out the best with our prima facie experience of the world - which you at the least need to be able to reconcile your theories with , even if you move beyond it.

Positing metaphysics as the "first philosophy" that grounds everything else.

Positing a theory of the "the soul" that was neither strictly a matter of physicalist reductionism, nor dualism. Since both of those theories fail quite easily.

Allowing for logics that have more truth values than T/F - ( though Lukasiewiczs would use Aristotle as a means to actually do this rather than just suggest it).

Realizing that you can't get truly categorical moral statements, but need to root it in teleological structures that we pick out by noticing the properties of the being in question.

Aristotle's logic, while incomplete, was technically correct ( he basically invented deductive logic through his predicate logic - the innovations of the 19th century were just to combine his logic with Stoic propositional logic at first. His predicate logic was and still is technically correct though)

Out of stuff I mentioned here I do personally disagree with his modal theory since it relies on induction too heavily. Still it is a good one, and probably better than the current one based on conceivability - rooted in the principle of non contradiction, and not having too much more to it than that.

Your post isn't about "what people thought back than" you said your speficially had trouble with how people see him TODAY. Than when asked you bring up his physics. No one today thinks his physics are what you should study.

Let me guess, you don't know anything about his philosophy just a few bit of trivia about physics he got wrong and use that as a reason to dismiss everything else.

>Why would mathematical laws that have been proven time and time again have a higher chance of being true than some random guys guises
Aristotle fags everyone.

>He's so cool and smart
>Got most of his shit horribly wrong and in many cases even hurt thinking for thousands of years to come
>N-No guys he got a few vague things not wrong so he's the best

There have been 3 posts by you asking for what philosophy you think he was wrong on and 3 times you evaded the question. You keep going back to his physics, something nobody still studies. This is beating a dead horse and shows that you have no knowledge of his actual philosophy. The fact that you think his physics hurt development when it served as the model which Newtonian physics budded from also shows you have no understanding of science either.

Stop getting your education from youtube.com

please tell me you're baiting, there's no reason to stick with your dense opinion on an anonymous imageboard

That we can make mathematical abstractions based on certain phenomena doesn't gaurentee that we have gotten to the truth of that phenomena, only that we have abstractions with predictive power based on it, that corresponds to it qua the features of it that are predictable and quantifiable. This leaves allot to be desired. Secondly, because these "laws" ( a silly metaphor, there are no magical non-spatio-temporal "laws" "governing" things from the beyond, things just act in certain ways because of the kinds of things that they are - their natures, Aristotle was right on this) are justified by induction, it is impossible to actually prove them. Induction gives us evidence, but no amount of inductive evidence actually constitutes a proof, you just get higher and higher degree of probability. Aristotle did not "guess" , he looked at our prima facie view of the world and deduced from there. He lacked the experimental equipment that we gained during the scientific revolution which means that, yes, his cosmology and physics ( insofar as what we call "physics" is tracking the ways in which bodies move) is outdated. But this was a small part of his enterprise. You have yet to demonstrate how he got any of things I mentioned. wrong. You should if you want to claim that "Aristotle was almost always wrong."

Can you justify your claim that he hurt thinking for thousands of years ? How so when the Scientific Revolution was based on the advances made by the Merton Calculators, who could have only existed due to the sophisticated Medieval University system that became that way due to their using Aristotle as a base at first before moving beyond him.

Finally it is hilarious how you call his advances in logic "vague" when Aristotle's logic was the first time someone clearly gave us a science whereby if the premises are true then the conclusion will come necessarily. Logic is the least vague discipline possible, it is hyper precise and exact.

>read the republic and aristotle's politics
>literally 7th grade edgy fanfic shit

Hot argument slave.

Actually I would have probably been a philosopher king fag

Yeah and who studies Aristotle's ideas on physics today? No one you dingus.

I think his ethical philosophy has at least some relevance today, even if maybe it needs a bit of tweaking.

Posterior analytics, On Interpretation, Metaphysics (especially his law of Non-Contradiction), and On the Soul remain very relevant today imo.

The problem is, OP, you just haven't read enough Aristotle.

word. no wonder alexander died young and his empire collapsed.
if he were tutored under someone intelligent instead - like plato - we'd all be speaking greek on a hellenistic vase painting forum.

Now show that there is any likely hood at all that Aristotle was anywhere as close as qctual scientists.

Of course no one would study his wrong bullshit so why do you fags think he is worth anything other than being charismatic?

>metaphysics
>soul
Kek, you aren't making the man seem any less wrong

>Essentialism—what I’ve called "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind"—stems from Plato, with his characteristically Greek geometer’s view of things. For Plato, a circle, or a right triangle, were ideal forms, definable mathematically but never realised in practice. A circle drawn in the sand was an imperfect approximation to the ideal Platonic circle hanging in some abstract space. That works for geometric shapes like circles, but essentialism has been applied to living things and Ernst Mayr blamed this for humanity’s late discovery of evolution—as late as the nineteenth century. If, like Aristotle, you treat all flesh-and-blood rabbits as imperfect approximations to an ideal Platonic rabbit, it won’t occur to you that rabbits might have evolved from a non-rabbit ancestor, and might evolve into a non-rabbit descendant. If you think, following the dictionary definition of essentialism, that the essence of rabbitness is "prior to" the existence of rabbits (whatever "prior to" might mean, and that’s a nonsense in itself)

Anything involving physics, chemistry and metaphysics. Other people have said it in this thread. Learn to read.

Greek philosophy was amazingly anti science, especially Aristotle and Plato.
If it weren't for their bullshit being the dominate greek philosophy we probably would have had something worse a shit years ago.

I did in the post - as far as making ontological claims goes Aristotle already has a leg up by not positing "laws of nature" as if they we not something apart from the substances that are supposedly affected by them. Our current physics is valuable because by abstracting what is quantifiable we can utilize those mathematical relations and apply them to manipulating things - that doesn't translate into good ontology though, at least not without argument. Regardless, I already agreed that much of his cosmology and physics are outdated given the current evidence. But since we are dealing with contingent truths that are found through induction,there is little security in them. If you asked Newton if there was any chance that Parmenides could be correct he would have said no, and given the scientific enterprise at the time he was right to say that, but once new evidence came in from relativistic physics it made Parmenides' claims more plausible. This is because none of our physics has the power of being deductive truths, they are limited to probability. So this opens up space for Aristotle to take on a role like Parmenides did.

70 years of getting positive inductive results in physics: that f -> g seems like a solid inductive case to us. But for a being that existed for 10 000 000 000 + years , 70 years of f -> g would seem like a much weaker inductive case, it would be like what rolling seven ones on a die in a row would be to us. There is no such thing as an objectively strong inductive case - its power from the psychological effect it has on us. It is potentially infinite how great an inductive case could be, you can always add evidence, but a feature of infinity is that every finite number is equally distant from it. This shows that every inductive case has an equal chance at becoming the superior one, as each one is equally capable of reaching the same inductive strength. Thus there is as good of a chance of one theory being the better one as any other.

Pre-Socratic Greek philosophy was heavily pro-science though. Everything was based on rationalization through observation, the world had to have a natural order to function.

You haven't showed any evidence of Aristotle being right. For someone who should understand philosophy you shoukd realize going
>hurr durr modern science could possibly be wring maybe one day
Is nor evidence of Aristotle being right.

Actually, if anything supports Aristotelian essentialism, it is the members of the periodic table of elements. H2O works out fine with Aristotelian essentialism. Aristotle was also fine to admit that some things may not have essences. Some have also suggested that DNA is an easy enough fit for essence in living organisms as well.

>If, like Aristotle, you treat all flesh-and-blood rabbits as imperfect approximations to an ideal Platonic rabbit

Yeah that's not Aristotle. Species were defined by sharing in several foundational causal features - that was there "essences", nor did he posit "ideal" rabbits in another world like Plato did. He simply pointed out that in order for us to actually pick out a general type of thing correctly, and not mistake it for something else, we need to be able to pick out what it is in itself that allows us to correctly define it as such. Essences are just the metaphysical principles that account for correct definitions, and unless you have a strong account of nominalism you need something like essentialism or platonism in order to account for attribute agreement in the world.

Aristotelean essentialism can hardly be blamed for our not catching on to evolution sooner when Augustine believed in evolution in the first place, despite being trained in Aristotle's philosophy to a degree and existing close in time to Aristotle than Darwin.

>t. Thomas Hobbes

You asked

>Now show that there is any likely hood at all that Aristotle was anywhere as close as qctual scientists.

I demonstrated that

>every inductive case has an equal chance at becoming the superior one, as each one is equally capable of reaching the same inductive strength. Thus there is as good of a chance of one theory being the better one as any other.

Which shows how exactly that there is a likelihood that Aristotle was anywhere as close as "actual scientists" are.

people who lived along time ago are going to be wrong about stuff

So you admit that the likely hood is so amazingly low that it isn't worth mentioning?

I am the most stereotypical positivist neckbeard STEMtard boogeyman around and I still don't understand all the shade thrown at Aristotle. Yeah, he was wrong about a lot of things, but being wrong in a logical way is what builds a framework for future generations to test against and learn new things, only for them to be corrected in turn and so on. Mocking Aristotle for his "mistakes" seems as petty to me as mocking Newton for the innacuracies of classical mechanics. They were doing the best they could with what they had.

>mfw

No, I demonstrated that given how induction works every theory based on induction ultimately has an equal chance at turning out to be the better one in the future. Which means that the likelihood that Aristotle was anywhere near "actual scientists" in correctness is very high since both sets of theories have an equal chance at being the better one in the future. Of course this is still just talking about his physics, not even getting into all the other stuff I mentioned that you have yet to demonstrate anything wrong with.

Have you seen any decent criticism of his work?

Scholastics and atheist logicians of quality seem to both stay in isolated in academic circlejerking safespaces with each side only leaving it to smite laughably weak arguments made by novices.

Didn't Aristotle create the first model of what would eventually become the scientific method? I don't know about you, but I'd consider that a pretty big right.

Aristotle himself was rather humble as well. In the Prior Analytic where he invented logic he basically says: "so guys this is the first time we've ever had a science like this, needless to say, there is probably going to be a fair amount more work to be done after I'm gone". Aristotle was aware that while he did have an all encompassing system of sorts, that it was'nt totally complete. I'm pretty sure he was hoping that in the future people would have improved on his work in places.

I think though that the idea is that we should now only care about Aristotle for historical reasons. But people more well versed in intellectual history realize that knowledge is never a straight line - many times after people thought Aristotle was entirely outdated people have gone back and found aspects of his work to be worth supporting in their own setting, and have tried to develop from that point again after noticing some errors in the first time people did so.

I think for what ever reason Veeky Forums posters have a tendency to view everything in " all or nothing" frameworks. Either Aristotle's works must be infallible or they must be completely worthless, when in reality no work is ever like either of those options. Even most works that are wrong have some of the truth in them, if they had read their Aristotle they would know that, as he was one of the first to point it out.

Holy fucking shit you are serious. You seriously believe that the random bullshit to come out of an uneducated mans mouth is just as likely to be true than math and physics with dozens of proof backing it up? Are you serious? How can you be this stupid? Out of all of the paragraphs of dribble you posted you have yet to post a single bit of proof showing anything aristotle has said about physics are even close to true.

You seriously believe that modern beliefs of trajectory and physics are just as likely to be true as pic related because hurr durr a famous guy from the past said it would be so!
Why are so many philosophy fags so ignorant they think their subjective bullshit is anywhere on the same level as actual science or math?
You literally believe pic related is just as likely as what ACTUALLY FUCKING HAPPENS

My mind is blown by how stupid some people are willing to go to defend their history crush.

No, that was the Arabs over a thousand years later. Aristotle didn't do jack shit and was very anti scientific.

faculty.fordham.edu/klima/SMLM/PSMLM10/PSMLM10.pdf

There is some nice back and forth between Feser and Rota here, though it isn't exactly a heated debate. To be fair in academia most of the quality discussions on these topics are just that, discussions, as opposed to debates. In Feser's case he is fairly new on the scene - so to my knowledge not too many have bothered writing to refute him, because most people write to refute the big names.

Thanks, do you have any other good links regarding quality discussions on scholasticism and its validiy?

>You seriously believe that modern beliefs of trajectory and physics are just as likely to be true as pic related because hurr durr a famous guy from the past said it would be so!

That isn't what I said though, and you know it. I gave an argument based on the nature of induction to ground my conclusion. If it is wrong then show what is actually wrong with it.

You have yet to give an argument against anything that I said. Stop deflecting with substance-less shit talking and deal with my points, or just admit that you have nothing to retort with.

Go outside and throw a ball or watch a stream spout. That disproves aristotle trajectory

Goddam what happened to the fucking Arabs

>that was the Arabs over a thousand years later.
It is my understanding that they improved on the idea, then had their idea improved upon by Europeans in the enlightenment. Am I mistaken on this?

>Aristotle didn't do jack shit
According to this article...
plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/#Sci
He made very significant contributions in the areas of logic, ethics, and science. Is this information incorrect? Or have I been misled?

>and was very anti-scientific.
When you say Aristotle is "anti-scientific" do you mean to say he's anti-scientific by modern standards, or by those of his own time?
>Aristotle says, “better known by nature”, or “more intelligible by nature
>By this he means that they should reveal the genuine, mind-independent natures of things.
These quotes I got from the article I mentioned earlier seem to suggest the opposite, that Aristotle was in fact very pro-science, and adhered to empiricism much like modern scientists do today. Is this information mistaken?

Except nothing aristotle said was a good argument of induction. Most of the shit he said was easily proven wrong unlike modern physics which have laws that make sense both mathmatically and in the real world.
The likelyhood of aristotle being right is so close to 0 it's not worse talking about.

he thought flies had 4 legs and he thought snot was brain tissue

Most of the advancements of the Islamic Golden Age were the fault of Persian and North Africans.

If you asked someone who didn't know Quantum Mechanics and you told them that something could be in two distinct places at once they would tell you to go try to put a ball in two places at once and use that to claim that the idea is absurd and soundly disproven. Yet electrons can be in two places at once according to QM. No matter what, these kind of knowledge claims are totally defeasible. And given that they are, my argument still holds.

As I demonstrated in my second argument:

>There is no such thing as an objectively strong inductive case - its power comes from the psychological effect it has on us.

Likewise I pointed out the issues with considering that being able to abstract out models with predictive power is a guarantor of strong ontological claims in my first argument.

Also, I would like to point out that given the evidence we have now I do think that Aristotle's physics are probably wrong. I'm just pointing out that this absolutist attitude and idea about how science and epistemology works is demonstrably ungrounded.

There is also the issue of how much of modern physics actually refutes Aristotle, and how much of the conflict is actually illusory. Edward Feser has a good paper demonstrating that Aristotle's "law of motion" and Newton's inertial principles are reconcilable, and that the latter does not really refute the former in any way. It is the first paper in the link I posted here .

Though, it would be much more interesting if people would show how the other 9/10ths of Aristotle's work is wrong, rather than just harking on the physics.

I'm still waiting to hear about how Aristotle's answer to the problem of future contingents is wrong. That would be an interesting discussion.

How are things like the soul and form not just the result of humans thinking that their abstractions need to exist objectively?

Why would they be in the first place ? Form is the content that informs the matter and makes a thing what it is, the soul is the "form" of the body, like sight is the form of the eye. Form/Soul describe qualitative features of reality, matter describes the quantitative substratum that the qualitative things inhere in.
There isn't any obvious reason to embrace complete materialist reductionism, it would at least need some argument to support it.

On hand no. But really, most secondary literature you can get on Scholasticism from the anglosphere is pretty balanced. Anthony Kenny, for example, is a proponent of analytic Thomism while also thinking that none of his five ways to demonstrate God's existence actually work.

>Form is the content that informs the matter and makes a thing what it is,Form/Soul describe qualitative features of reality, matter describes the quantitative substratum that the qualitative things inhere in.

Because those seem to be lables our mind creates to make sense of the world and that these labels have no existence outside of our minds. Hence they cannot really tell us anything about the thing itself only what we label/attribute to it

>Because those seem to be lables our mind creates to make sense of the world

But how are you reaching this premise ? I don't see any reason to believe that.

Because they do not appear to have an objective existence outside of the human mind or social consensus and how their construction seems to be very similar to that of words.

What is the obvious reasoning to belive the qualities you describe have an objective existence?

>Because they do not appear to have an objective existence outside of the human mind or social consensus and how their construction seems to be very similar to that of words.

Why though ? You haven't explained what criteria you are using to make this distinction.

>What is the obvious reasoning to belive the qualities you describe have an objective existence?

Because prima facie they seem just as real as anything else we would posit as being real. And to my knowledge there is no defeater that would deny it. You would have to deny that balls are actually round to make this claim go through, is roundness not an objective feature of a ball ? How is the qualitative content of something subjective ?

>Why though ? You haven't explained what criteria you are using to make this distinction.

Because they like words their content shares the inconsistency that we see with things that are derived wholly from abstract reasoning alone.

>Because prima facie they seem just as real as anything else we would posit as being real.

Time, words and measurement are real even though they are mental constructs are they not?

>And to my knowledge there is no defeater that would deny it. You would have to deny that balls are actually round to make this claim go through, is roundness not an objective feature of a ball ? How is the qualitative content of something subjective ?

Or just admit that it relies on tautological thinking we call it a ball because it has a collection of traits we assign to ballness. Those kind of categories like roundness are just ways of organizing and making sense of all the different objects we perceive.

Its why things like that can never be observed and why you can get strange things like cultures without a distinction between traits like green and blue

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue–green_distinction_in_language

>Because they like words their content shares the inconsistency that we see with things that are derived wholly from abstract reasoning alone.

I don't get what you mean by this comment.

>Time, words and measurement are real even though they are mental constructs are they not?

Time is a mental construct ? Can you elaborate ? If time is a mental construct rather than actually being something mind external then how did we construct it ? If we "construct" something then that implies that at one point it was unconstructured and another time constructed, unless the passing of time is objective then how can we go from one state to the other ?

That I assign a certain conjunction of sounds to certain ideas is true, and this entails that words exist. That a certain word is assigned to an idea in a contingent matter doesn't entail that a word in itself is a mental construct though. We really use that word, it is just that what the word denotes is arbitrary.

>Or just admit that it relies on tautological thinking we call it a ball because it has a collection of traits we assign to ballness.

But once you admit that there are certain objective traits we pick out in objects that allow us to meaningfully categorize them then you've already admitted that qualities exist. If not then there would nothing more objective about saying that " the thing we call "ball" has the features we call "round" " and " that thing we call "paper" has the features we call "round" " - unless the features denoted by "round" are actual qualities. Our definitions have to actually match up with things in reality for them to work and actually succeed in organizing and making sense of our perceptions. If there was no objective basis in reality then doing this would be totally arbitrary.

The fact that some cultures don't have a blue/green distinction just means that they don't use language the same way we do. It doesn't constitute any sort of challenge to the idea that qualities exist.

>Because they like words their content shares the inconsistency that we see with things that are derived wholly from abstract reasoning alone.

That the traits you talk of have an existence just like that of words when it comes to their formation and and use.

>Time is a mental construct ? Can you elaborate ? If time is a mental construct rather than actually being something mind external then how did we construct it ?

I meant to say the measurement of time.

>That I assign a certain conjunction of sounds to certain ideas is true, and this entails that words exist. That a certain word is assigned to an idea in a contingent matter doesn't entail that a word in itself is a mental construct though. We really use that word, it is just that what the word denotes is arbitrary.

I agree.

>But once you admit that there are certain objective traits we pick out in objects that allow us to meaningfully categorize them then you've already admitted that qualities exist.

Like I said they only exist in the mind as the words do. You can never observe any of these traits nor can you ever seperate them from being bundled with out concepts.

> If not then there would nothing more objective about saying that " the thing we call "ball" has the features we call "round" " and " that thing we call "paper" has the features we call "round" " - unless the features denoted by "round" are actual qualities.

They act as actual qualities just as the words do, once you create these subjective categories you can derive an degree of obejectivity in them but in the sense that one can say that in soccer its objectivly better to kick the ball into your opponents goal.

>Our definitions have to actually match up with things in reality for them to work and actually succeed in organizing and making sense of our perceptions. If there was no objective basis in reality then doing this would be totally arbitrary.

They only have to match up with the categories we have made for ourselves or have been taught for them to be consistent. Hence why those people can still have a consistent approach to the world despite not being able to make a green blue disticition.

>The fact that some cultures don't have a blue/green distinction just means that they don't use language the same way we do. It doesn't constitute any sort of challenge to the idea that qualities exist.

It does as this is an example of one of your objective qualities not existing for people who do not lack some sensory difference.

>*It does as this is an example of one of your objective qualities not existing for people who do not have some sensory difference.

The color issue doesn't move past language though. Having the words "blue" and "green" combined is only evidence that blue and green aren't real qualities only if you already hold that they are mental-linguistic constructs. Each exact shade between blue and green still can count as a quality, and must since several examples of one and the same shade show up in nature, and if the different shades don't share anything at all objectively then you would have to agree that light teal and dark teal are no more similar to each other than dark red and light teal are to each other, unless you admit this then you have to admit that there is some shared quality that dark and light teal partake in that is inherent in nature.

Also, literally everything could be given this same critique. Electrons, atoms, arrows, you can just as easily claim that all quantifiable things are just linguistic constructs that are only objective insofar as we determine a framework and then parse reality into them. So your thesis doesn't just deny form, it also denies matter, and any determinable content that could be found in science and philosophy alike.

You can't parse out reality with language and thought that actually corresponds to it by conjoining and dividing things ( the root of quality: that round things are like other round things but unlike triangular things), unless there is something about the things parsed by your language/thought that objectively makes it justifiable for us to parse them into the categories we do in the first place. Your thesis would mean that it was impossible to parse reality with our thought and language in any way that actually corresponded to it, all parsing would be equally arbitrary. That would mean that both of these two propositions would be equally true.

" Balls are round"
"Balls are not round"

And you violate the principle of non-contradiction.

>The color issue doesn't move past language though. ect

Can you express this in another way?

>Also, literally everything could be given this same critique. Electrons, atoms, arrows, you can just as easily claim that all quantifiable things are just linguistic constructs that are only objective insofar as we determine a framework and then parse reality into them. So your thesis doesn't just deny form, it also denies matter, and any determinable content that could be found in science and philosophy alike.

I dont think it would go so far as to deny matter as that is something that can exist independently of perception and value and indeed produces them.

>You can't parse out reality with language and thought that actually corresponds to it by conjoining and dividing things ( the root of quality: that round things are like other round things but unlike triangular things), unless there is something about the things parsed by your language/thought that objectively makes it justifiable for us to parse them into the categories we do in the first place.our thesis would mean that it was impossible to parse reality with our thought and language in any way that actually corresponded to it, all parsing would be equally arbitrary. That would mean that both of these two propositions would be equally true.

Can you express this in a different way?

All I am saying is that the the qualities we attach to items only have existence in our minds and not on the material object itself even if these objects which prompt us to do so. I don't see how this violates your principles it just acknowledges the limitions of our ways of understanding

Except for when he said heavier objects fall faster than slower ones. He was right about that.

(in b4 in the void)

You do realize magenta is not a real color right?

>e said heavier objects fall faster than slower ones. He was right about that.
You must live in some weird alternate universe

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo's_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment

> I don't understand that disciplines such as physics and ethical philosophy have different levels of objectivity.

Everyone who has ever said anything has been wrong, humans are not capable of discovering objective truth, only slightly less pernicious lies.

On what grounds do you make that claim

>I'm going to ignore all of the wrong he was and pretend the subjective ethics weren't wrong

You could make up all the bullshit you want to pretend that observational confirmation doesn't matter but in the real world bullshit philosophy will never stand against claims that have been tested and proven.
>B-But what if it gets proven wrong later
Well until that time comes Aristotle is wrong and physics is right.

Logical positivist trash detected

>Greek philosophy was amazingly anti science, especially Aristotle and Plato.

Science didn't even exist until 2000 years later you fucking faggot.

That doesn't mean their beliefs weren't at odds with it.

>Augustine believed in evolution
What did user mean by that

>>Wrong about almost everything he said
This is why STEMfags can't into philosophy

units.miamioh.edu/technologyandhumanities/kuhn.htm

You are reading Aristotle wrongly. But well what did you expect reading something from an insanely different physics paradigm.

I'm not really sure how to state the argument in a significantly different way. If you want to say that qualities never actually exist apart from the material subjects they exist in then that is fine with me, that is Aristotle's position. Them being distinct from the material objects they constitute is a mental construct - but the fact that those qualities really are features of material objects is not a mental construct.

To say that qualities don't exist because some languages don't have as tight of distinctions in the way they divide up the color spectrum doesn't show that qualities are mental constructs. You don't move past language with that example. Each shade on a spectrum of "blue and green" has repeated instances in the world, if you can find two examples of the same shade in the world, then those features that allow them both to have the same shade are really existing things in the objects we are considering, or else you can't claim that there is any similarity in the two instances of the one shade and that they really are more alike to each other, and to other shades close to them on the spectrum, than an instance of dark red is to either of them. With real qualities existing we can work on this spectrum of shades we call " green to blue" - with some languages we will parse out the "green" from the "blue", in others we will not parse them out, but in both cases we would be working on the same really existing set of qualities picked out of the world so to be able to do this in the first place. If qualities don't exist then we have no objective grounds to make these kinds of distinctions and unifications that are needed for our construction of reality in the first place. To even make the claims that one language parses out "blues" from "greens" and that another language does not requires that one language really constructs a structure based on real qualities in one way, and another language constructs on this same set of qualities in another way.

Yes. But some qualities being mental constructs is not the same as all qualities being mental constructs. Aristotle never claimed that all qualities were objective, by the 17th century Scholastics they had an intricate theory of "entia rationis" to account for this.

I already claimed that given the evidence right now that contemporary physics has the better supported theory.I was asked what the likelihood was that Aristotle's theory could turn out to be the better one in the future, I demonstrated that given the nature of induction, there was a very high likelihood by default. If you have a problem with my argument actually deal with it instead of attacking strawmen, giving no argument, and being vitriolic.

christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html

Augustine maintained that creatures developed from creatures distinct from them. Just rather than it being based on natural selection Augustine held that the results of the evolution were already present in the initial creation. Creation was set up to evolve by God in a determinate way in the beginning.

This is distinct from Aristotle, who believed that the world and all of its species were eternal. Augustine believed that new species would come about and had been coming about, not out of nowhere, but from other species gradually.

Interesting paper. I've had Kuhn recommended to me before, for good reason it seems.

You mean philosophy fags can't into basic logic
>hurr durr who needs evidence when you can just say everything is subjective
How does it feel knowing you fags haven't been iseful in 500 years?

Nothing says trash than a superstitious idiot willing to throw all logic and reason aside for muh feels

So is anyone gonna defend this shit he said or just make up bullshit about how it's not his fault?

Philosophy really is no better than guessing.

But that's literally what logical positivism is. They just created a mythology about science that felt good and then ignored that their positions were logically contradictory.

No one said that everything is subjective.

Read through the whole thread before commenting. If you can't pick out the points where people showed why OP's criticism is unfounded then go back to 8th grade reading comprehension. Also, study philosophy before you embarrass yourself trying to comment on it.

In case you're not trolling.

The methods Aristotle used to derive his claims about were logically unwarranted. The scientific method used to derive claims in modern physics are very much warranted,

If this isn't plain as day obvious there's just nothing I can do for you.

>Read thread
>No one proves any of the shit he says right

>Study philosophy
lel, what does that have to do with objective truths of right and wrong faggot?

By whose logic ? And if this is the case then please show by logical demonstration how Aristotle's method commits a deductive fallacy, and how modern scientific method can be justified with a sound deductive argument.

I agree that modern physics at the moment has more going for it, but I demonstrated with several arguments why this ultimately does nothing against the position I put forward in that post.

I offered a variety of positions that I am still waiting on others to make a case against, since the op claimed that Aristotle got almost everything wrong, which should include most of these positions. I made a case for why essentialism and the positing of objective qualities in Aristotle's ontology was justified , and in the exchange beginning here .

The problem is that you don't know anything about Philosophy but are trying to discuss it. So the solution is that you actually go learn about Philosophy so you know what you are talking about.

Nigger, we are talking about objective sciences. Philosophy doesn't matter. What matters is if what he said about nature (or anything objective) was right or wrong.
So far anything he said about physics, chemistry and biology has been dead wrong.
I don't deal in subjectives because they are duh subjective.

He invented the *concept* of physics in the first place.
His ontology is an accurate and full encapsulation of folk ontology, it just turn out actually our brains are illusion generating machines and reality is fucking different than the way we construct it.
All the ancient greek paradoxes you learn about ? Turns out actually Aristotle solved all of them. Ship of theseus? solves with hylomorphism. Zeno's paradox? solves it the same way we do with calculus now.

Implying anything could stop Alexander getting some wasted on dank ass ancient wine.

Please explain how you justify your objective/subjective distinction, and how Philosophy only deals with subjective things and Science objective things. And since philosophy is supposedly subjective you aren't allowed to do this with any philosophy.

his limited stuff on aesthetics is great imo, but there's hardly any of it left so that sucks.