Reminder that you're not a true scientist or mathematician until you have read the complete works of both Aristotle and...

Not sure about Plato, but Aristotle was wrong about literally everything

Agreed. Anyone who genuinely seeks wisdom should at least read the Greeks. Science is a failed system of understanding; philosophy alone produces absolute truth through deduction. It is itself the study of logic, from which all science and mathematics stem.

You're right to not be sure about Plato, because he is still relevant today, and no, Aristotle was not wrong about "literally everything", can't you just wikipedia him and see for yourself?

Did i imply that you should read them because they were right about everything?

I don't think so.

They did nothing wrong.

Everyone who followed them tried to improve upon their work and failed.

Hence, the entirety of Western thought is a footnote to them.

Everything Aristotle postulated in every field was blown out of the water. And he was a very very bad mathematician.

All he did right was setting the principles of empiricism.

Science uses induction, not logic.

Damn, didn't know the law of non-contradiction and excluded middle are wrong.

Really makes you think huh...

Plato and Aristotle *are* footnotes. Hell, there are better and older philosophers around who contributed more deeply to science and math (think Archimedes)

It's really no more than a meme. Everyone holds them on high stem because literally everyone in the West in the past 2000 years has started with Plato and Aristotle.

Fucking meh. What great insight to you draw from Aristotle classification of causes? Except that he and the people who followed him unironically believed "final causes" were a thing and that you should never, ever follow their example?

Philosophy doesn't produce truths. There is no point at which certain schools are proven wrong. At best they fall out of fashion.

>Aristotle

He set back humanity by 2000 years

He's talking about science using induction (aka a formal fallacy) whereas philosophy and math are formal systems that use deductions from axioms (aka truth)

>long obsolete

It's really sad that there are people out threre who still believe a^2+b^2=c^2

that's Pythagoras, not Plato or Aristotle

Both Plato and Aristotle were bad mathematicians

From Plato:

Plato wrote The Republic in around 375 BC, so about 75 years before Euclid wrote The Elements. In this work Plato sets out his ideas about education. For this, he believes, one must study the five mathematical disciplines, namely arithmetic, plane geometry, solid geometry, astronomy, and harmonics. After mastering mathematics, then one can proceed to the study of philosophy.

>After mastering mathematics, then one can proceed to the study of philosophy.
>After mastering mathematics, then one can proceed to the study of philosophy.
>After mastering mathematics, then one can proceed to the study of philosophy.
>After mastering mathematics, then one can proceed to the study of philosophy.

Philosophers BTFO

Wouldn't you say final causes are a thing in evolutionary biology?

Also, any proposition or set of propositions that wants to explain an artefact should contain final causes.

Yeah but that's it, a bunch of different system relying on different axioms. It's no different from different competing systems on physics. That's like saying physics rely on principles because individual physical theories have principles from which you derive the rest.

The only difference is in physics what decides between competing systems are experiments, while in philosophy what decides the success of a system is how popular it becomes with philosophers.

>mastering mathematics
kek

I never thought about it.

If you define induction as an axiom, then science is a formal system that produces truths...

Good catch

>(think Archimedes)
First off, Archimedes was not a philosopher, and second, he lived AFTER Aristotle and Plato.

jesus man, at least google things before posting, it's the most basic requirement to having a historical discussion

The reason people hail them is because not only did they start a great number of NEW fields of study on their own, but they also went as far as was possible for that era in each field. Aristotle delved in more fields than you can conceive right now, let alone know something about. He didn't postulate the theory of relativity because he didn't have the preceding knowledge and technology, nor the singular focus on one field of study. But he contributed so much to knowledge and science that you basically can't ask anything more of him. He is undoubtedly one of the most influential (if not THE most) influential person who ever lived.

>Wouldn't you say final causes are a thing in evolutionary biology?
I'd say quite the opposite, that final causes reasoning is the biggest trap that awaits the evolutionary biologist, as Gould warned them.
Final causes are the reason evopsych remained a pseudoscience for so long in particular.

...

Well, Jesus was the most influential person that ever lived, i think that's pretty clear.

>mastering mathematics
Good one Plato.

So let's say i want to explain the eye, shouldn't a satisfactory explanation of the eye contain its function or purpose, i.e. the final cause?

Or the material and efficient cause will exhaust literally everything there is to know about the eye?

I will troll Veeky Forums with this picture for ever

>didn't even know about calculus
>thinks he "mastered" anything

>he non-ironically believes that calculus started with newton/leibniz

keeeek

>shouldn't a satisfactory explanation of the eye contain its function or purpose, i.e. the final cause?
nay
>Or the material and efficient cause will exhaust literally everything there is to know about the eye?
yes. If you're thinking about the evolutionary advantage of the eye it will appear in your efficient account of the eye development.
But some aspects of our biology don't even have a "use", that is why thinking in terms of final cause is making unwarranted assumptions.

Also explaining things in terms of final cause leave a massive hole in the middle of your theory: how come all the things that could have a use are not there? If you think final causes have any explanatory value, you have to explain why all those potential features with a final cause are absent.
This is of course a massive, pointless endeavour. And if you're not gonna do it, you might as well drop final causes entirely because they don't teach you anything.

>Republic 527a:

“This at least,” said I, “will not be disputed by those who have even a slight acquaintance with geometry, that this science is in direct contradiction with the language employed in it by its adepts.” “How so?” he said. “Their language is most ludicrous, though they cannot help it, for they speak as if they were doing something and as if all their words were directed towards action. For all their talk is of squaring and applying and adding and the like, whereas in fact the real object of the entire study is pure knowledge.” “That is absolutely true,” he said. “And must we not agree on a further point?” “What?” “That it is the knowledge of that which always is, and not of a something which at some time comes into being and passes away.” “That is readily admitted,” he said, “for geometry is the knowledge of the eternally existent.” “Then, my good friend, it would tend to draw the soul to truth, and would be productive of a philosophic attitude of mind, directing upward the faculties that now wrongly are turned earthward.” “Nothing is surer,” he said.

Mathematicians BTFO

The only person he BTFO is himself, we don't talk like that anymore.

He was right. Greeks used to do math with words. Now we have symbols. So it doesn't apply to modern math.

>the evolutionary advantage of the eye it will appear in your efficient account of the eye development.

I don't get that, could you elaborate on how you can exhaust the evolutionary advantage of something with efficient causes alone?

Also, shouldn't evolutionary advantage itself contain final cause types of elements in it?

You could say the first organisms that got a random mutation that gave them photosensitive cells detected the presence of predators, therefore them and their descent had a statistically lower rate of death by predation, which led them to reproduce more, and so on.

There is no inversion of time here as there is in final causes.

>Also, shouldn't evolutionary advantage itself contain final cause types of elements in it?
I really don't believe so. Thinking about final causes is what lead Durkheim to unwarranted asumptions. That if something is there it MUST have some use.

>He was right

Nah, he conflated the prose of mathematical texts with what is trying to prove.

Prose x Proof.

>a random mutation that gave them photosensitive cells detected the presence of predators, therefore them and their descent had a statistically lower rate of death by predation, which led them to reproduce more, and so on.

You don't take reproduction and survival as teleological elements at all?

What about teleonomy, what do you think about that?

people don't do math with words anymore? color me surprised

>What about teleonomy, what do you think about that?
I think it's a lazy shortcut, but eh maybe someone will come along and make a bunch of fruitful predictions with it and prove me wrong.

>when you try to become a true scientist by spending countless hours reading all the works of Plato and Aristotle but you forget to publish any research so your scientific career is dead in the water and you have to become a high school teacher but at least you can impress retards from Veeky Forums on a taiwanese cave painting imageboard

das it mane

Socrates didn't write down any of his works. Everything we know about Socrates came from Plato.

>one must study the five mathematical disciplines, namely arithmetic, plane geometry, solid geometry, astronomy, and harmonics

So high school level stuff?

>thatsthejoke.jpeg

In Plato's time that is all mathematics.

In the Republic Plato describes his ideal city, where a person should only be a governor after studying at least 50 years, 10 years being focused on mathematics.

>t. Psychology major

You are not a scientist try /soc/ or Veeky Forums

t. STEM neckbeard

I think it could be a toss up between him and Genghis Khan, depending on what you mean by "influential."

>You're not a true scientist or mathematician until you have read the complete works of both Aristotle and Plato
>you are STEM

Brainlets strike again

>Ok I read his books what do i do now OP
>Hmm... well i don't know how they're any relevant to modern times but you have to convince people that you read them and are now super smart
>How do I do that?
>Oh just throw around quotes from this couple thousand year old book
>Like in real life?
>Yeah like when people are trying to have a normal conversation about last night's basketball game make sure to add a comment about "Plato blah blah blah cave blah blah slaves to society"
>Neat. I'll try it out on my friends at my next Autism Speaks meeting

>i don't know how they're any relevant to modern times

You are a complete idiot.

Look m8
The fact that the whole joke that Psychology is was based on the tabula rasa/ cave new wave Platonic Aristotelian bullshit doesnt make them relevant for real scientists

You clearly have never read a single line of Plato or Aristotle...

>if you dont agree with me you havent read it
I want Humanities to go back to Veeky Forums

It's not that i don't agree with you, you're just vomiting senseless bullshit, i couldn't agree with you even if i wanted to...

>Psychology is was based on the tabula rasa/ cave new wave Platonic Aristotelian bullshit

Like wtf... wake me up.

I mean, if your field has characteristic 2...

I think the essence of his point is that mathematicians tend to only look at concrete models of philosophical principles. Not all are guilty, especially looking at Grothendieck, Lawvere, Lurie, Schreiber, and Thurston, but a bad philosopher makes for a crippled mathematician. The truths underlying our deductions are what we are after, but far too many are devoted to working internal to their models rather than opening up to the deeper interactions going on upstairs.

Fortunately, it seems like mathematics is moving in a good direction, with acceptance of category theory and, as Lurie puts it, "theory for the sake of other theory." Eventually we will be to the point where the community as a whole recognizes that the deeper truths are what we really are searching for (or should be).

If you're a scientist you don't have time read books that aren't relevant to your field..

>Any year
>Doesn't even know about Xenofon

Yeah, if you're a low iq dumb scientist you don't...

Don't worry, you don't have to read it, this reading is for smart people only :^)

>only 5000 pages
So holiday reading?

Illuminate me the reasons as to why should I waste my time on it.

Not him, but having knowledge in philosophy will give insight on how to properly call bullshit with philosotards in their own stupid language. So they have no grounds on which they can "trick" you into a retatded discussion about science or math.

I agree with that but I don't see a reason as to why should I read their complete works.

>Aristotle
>Plato

Because every proper academic field has its origin on Plato and Aristotle, except math (which is like the sister of philosophy).

You know the scientific revolution? That can be considered as Aristotle winning the battle against Plato.

You know postmodern fags like Foucault or Derrida? That's Plato's influence.

People say every human being can be considered (on a fundamental level) as Aristotelian or Platonic.

Or you can go on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and read the summaries.

Apparently you never made it as far as Gödel..

>slacker who doesn't actually read his field literature detected
You can be le ebin Renaissance man while we actually get shit done.

>[math]a^{2+b^{2}} = c^2[/math]
Are you retarded? Stupid American

It's easy to laugh at pioneers now.
Aristotle made some missteps but he had some great insights. He set the ground for the whole idea of scala naturae, developmental biology and pharmacology.

>we actually get shit done.

Shut the fuck up you illiterate subhuman piece of shit, you think you're getting shit done when solving your cute differential equations?

Fucking kill youself you uneducated faggot, a trained monkey can do what you do...

Any barrista can read up a bit of everything because "every academic field is like, connected, maaaaan" and do absolutely nothing productive with it.

DiffyQs are DiffyQTs

You probably wouldn't do anything productive, that's because you're clueless and dumb...

Do you think that the big guys you suck dick for, like Einstein, Newton and Darwin, didn't read any Plato or Aristotle?

Just get out, faggot.

Probably more urgent that they read Hume.

Just tell us your field so we can laugh at you
I bet my right ball it is some made up humanities meme

They didn't try to use general culture as some sort of argument for their intellectual superiority. You don't get a prize for having hobbies.

Nice comeback, shitlord.

If you had taken a look on Aristotle and Plato your rhetoric wouldn't be so laughable...

>I'm a master of maieutics you guize
>the best I can come up with is calling people shitlord
You could have read the Wiki article on greek philosophy and you'd be at the same intellectual level you are now.

Really? Do you really think Aristotle didn't have any impact on Darwin's thinking?

Stop discoursing on stuff you don't know, it makes me cringe...

Many of their works are filled to the brim with obvious and blatant fallacious arguments by analogy. It's not very good.

Similarly, any grad student of bio knows more about evolution than Darwin did. That's why we no longer use "Origin Of Species" as a textbook.

>what im doing is maieutics

Do you have any idea how clueless you are about greek philosophy?

>Nice comeback, shitlord.

Yep, thats humanities
ABANDON THREAD

Western philosophy is inferior to the east.

Point me out a single logically fallacious argument present in Aristotle and Plato.

Protip: You can't.

>east
>""""""philosophy"""""""

There is no such thing as "east philosophy"

I know this is a troll, but

Like, the entire of Plato's Republic is nothing but a collection of arguments by analogy, which are fallacious, such as the comparison of a population to sheep and the leader to a shepherd, and reaching weird and bizarre conclusions about the proper role of leaders and their "purpose".

>OMG I CAN'T ARGUE WITH HIM, BETTER CALL HIM HUMANITIES

You're deplorable to be honest...

You better abandon this thread, my soul will feel great relief knowing that there isn't a complete brain dead faggot lurking the thread.

Post the argument.

>soul
Are you retarded or something? If you're pretending you've mastered all of Plato yes it does imply you know maieutics.
All this time wasted and you can't do basic logic. Wew.

>Argue with being called a shitlord
I asked you your field and you got all worked up, of course you are humanities