Name one thing Aristotle was ever wrong about

no proof does not equal wrong

bad thread cause aristotle was retarded. og pseud of western phil
go back to plato

He's wrong to believe there is a metaphysical realm with no proof.

he said Sun revolves around the Earth I think

Other than that, he was right about everything.

He didn't say there was

You're wrong to say there is no proof.

>metaphysical

is free choice itself metaphysical (like I know there are maybe 40 different places I like that I can potentially eat lunch at, and they are all equal distance from me, and I like them equally, and I have not eaten at any of these places in over 10 years: isnt what ultimately will determine where I go, beyond purely physics? love. envy. the subjectivity of sexual attraction. the beauty of art. The complexities of what it feels like to exist, for instance, walking down a coldish street in light rain. Are any of these examples of potential metaphysics?

I took a class on philosophy of mind with the philosopher that wrote the encyclopedia britannica entry on the philosophy of mind. He and a lot of other current philosophers believe that our mental experience can be explained by a computational representation of the mind. Meaning that love, pain, envy, etc. can be explained as a computational process. Consciousness lives in your brain the same way that software "lives" in a computer. There isn't any qualitative experience that one cannot fathom building a computer that does the same thing. This is horribly simplified. If you are interested you could read more about it online or read his textbook Contemporary Philosophy of Mind: A Contentiously Classical Approach.

Plato is the guy who fucks up all of the fundamentals of his thought but incidentally, somehow, manages to get most of the details right.

Aristotle is the guy who basically gets all of his core ideas right but gets lost in the weeds and fucks up all of the details and smaller points he makes.

Of course it's a bullshit generalizing reduction but I find it to be generally accurate from my perspective.

Knowledge, and the limits of negation.

and the differences between choices people make, is totally based on predictable particle physics?

What did he say about the limits of negation?

The Earth being a round ball spinning through space.

Your brain is chained to its physical composition. There is no force compelling you to make decisions that are immaterial.

Or if there is there needs to be a lot of proof put forward to make that claim.

So are you arguing from the presupposition that free will to any degree is impossible?

How come some people may get envious while others not, some fall in love etc. some think this is beautiful etc. Is this pure explained by the quantity, location, and momentum of hormones and chemicals, and I guess the totality of previous physical information that pressed against the being?

what about thoughts about the future, thoughts about potential feelings of the future, which impact plans now, meta physics?

I am not denying the possibility or likelihood the term metaphysics is incoherent, meaningless, and I guess i could just google, but am just trying to think of if I can think of anything that might fit under what was trying to be pointed at with the term.

When people evoked that term, what did they think they were talking about, primarily spirit and god?

In my 40 restaurant example, I, ultimately, whatever that I is, chooses which one to go to, how is this not meta physics? Of course I am obeying the laws of physics, operating in them, but physical quanta themselves, are not the ones forcing this event to occur: that I am.

And I have power, to choose. I have 40 different choices.

That 40 forks in the road to build the real future, is kind of meta?

I am a meta physical being, because I am not absolutely just particles absolutely determined? The fact of self determination, self creation, is a meta physical fact? Because knowing all the laws of physics and all the locations of particles, could not predict what I will choose?

If you are going to try to come back at me with neuro jargon, do not do so confidently because I will successfully fend it

>There is no force compelling you to make decisions that are immaterial.

I would never claim immaterial, we would have to get carful about semantics and defining our terms.

If you define metaphysical as = immaterial

and define immaterial as = impossible to ever exist as having any coherent relation to anything having to do with reality

yeah, you quickly win. But I do not share those notions of terms necessarily. Unless in fact, that is all the term metaphysics is suppose to mean.

Though, there are interesting things maybe, such as "movement" and "platos forms, or just like, the facts of geometry"

This was kind of hard to understand. You are physical data. A computer can do a lot of things. It schedules which programs or tasks to execute based on a wide variety of factors and can run a multitude of programs. This doesn't mean that there is anything in the computer that is apart from itself or metaphysical.

>"movement"
I don't understand.
>the facts of geometry
The logic behind computers is based on a priori mathematical principles.

Does 'movement' exist?
Is 'movement' material?

(I know.. material moves, I know movement cannot occur, without material: but is movement/motion itself, material?)

Are the facts of geometry material? Or as plato though, timeless, immaterial facts?

If absolutely nothing eternally existed only: would the facts of geometry not still equal what they do?

Because of the "imperfections" of atoms, absolutely perfect circles cannot be made (maybe), because if you zoom in, you might see little bumps, and if really wanna nitpick, they are vibrating around: But the formulation, when taking material that is a triangle, and pressing the 3 corners, and then rounding this material, towards circlehood, is that concept of circlehood, not abstract, meta physical, beyond physicality?

Physics, chemistry, and biology.

Material things are governed by physical laws.

The thoughts people have about geometry are material. Geometry doesn't exist without people thinking about it because it describes a world which we do not inhabit.

Firstly I am asking, what does the word metaphysical mean/refer to?

You seem to be suggesting, that it is a word that should not exist, because it is eternally impossible to refer to 'anything'? If it should exist, only as a sign to express that 'nothing that can not exist can exist'

You did not take what I said and directly respond to it.

What is movement/motion? Is movement/motion physical (ly existent)?

If nothing eternally existed, would the laws of geometry still be true?

Metaphysics in terms of metaphysical questions are alright. I'm attacking the definition of metaphysical as transcending physical matter or the laws of nature. I don't care about whether or not the word should exist.
Yes, motion exists and it can be explained by physical law.
>If nothing eternally existed, would the laws of geometry still be true?
I don't know if something that doesn't can be true because geometry doesn't exist without someone thinking about it. If someone were to think it then it would remain to be true thereafter but they would have materialized it in that moment. Does 2 + 2 = 4 if no one created a number system? I don't know it's hard to say. I would say the same thing about geometry that someone would need to create the system first.

>I don't know if something that doesn't can be true
*exist

>I don't know if something that doesn't exist can be true
Actually, it's vacuously true.

lol read de anima

he was wrong about 90% of the shit he wrote on that book, it's mostly just bs

for his time i mean yeah it could have made sense but in our days just the concept of "soul" as he understood it is obsolete

in my opinion though the thing he was mostly wrong about was in his statement that all living beings want to participate in the divine and blah blah. Also he thought procreating was the ultimate purpose of all human life which is also not true

1) if all living beings want to participate in the divine in orden to become immortal how'd we be able explain suicide?
2) the thing about reproduction doesn't even deserve to be addressed;personally i think it's one of the many functions a living organism has the capacity to perform, not teh most important function

lol read de anima

he was wrong about 90% of the shit he wrote on that book, it's mostly just bs

for his time i mean yeah it could have made sense but in our days just the concept of "soul" as he understood it is obsolete

in my opinion though the thing he was mostly wrong about was in his statement that all living beings want to participate in the divine and blah blah. Also he thought procreating was the ultimate purpose of all human life which is also not true

1) if all living beings want to participate in the divine in orden to become immortal then how'd we be able explain suicide?
2) the thing about reproduction doesn't even deserve to be addressed;personally i think it's one of the many functions a living organism has the capacity to perform, not teh most important function

Not being good at art... Same with schoppe, his modern retrieval evil twinec.

that being said, i think he deserves to be regarded as one of the best thinkers in the history of philosophy and i like most of his other treatises

in fact i like de anima too

but to think he was right about everything is just being naive

+ the concept of unmoved mover has also been convincently refuted many times by different authors

He didn't understand Heraclitus at all.

he said white people lacked intelligence and skill

so no he was never wrong about anything

>implying he'd consider himself lacking of intelligence and skill

that's true though

You're dumb.

If we were to operate according to this principle, it'd be impossible to just explain -among other things- the existence of math for example

how could numbers exist in the material world? no one has ever seen a number, yet we are all able to think about the *idea* of a number and operate under that idea

the explanation of math is almost metaphysical, there's a reason it had a reputation of being one of the most mystical matters in the old times (the pitagorics were totally mystic) and i doubt you'd question the existence of math or think it's just a societal contruct right?

>how could numbers exist in the material world? no one has ever seen a number, yet we are all able to think about the *idea* of a number and operate under that idea
Because we usually have a head, which is part of the physical world too

greeks weren't white tho

aristotle said that the greeks combined white spirit with asian skill and intelligence

realism

>Name one thing Aristotle was ever wrong about.

Males can't impregnate each other, humans cannot produce offspring without females.

my point was more about asserting that the point of metaphysics in general is not to try and explain some sick hidden principle that exists by itself outside of the real world and doesn't have anything to do with the real world, but to try and justify the things that do exist in the real world

without metaphysics we wouldn't be able to explain a lot of the things that do exist in the material world because they just don't have a clear material cause. it's necessary to theorize and sometimes resort to meta-physical principles in order to be able to have a full understanding of them.

>greeks weren't white tho

they weren't northern europeans which is what everyone means by white

>they weren't northern europeans which is what everyone means by white

only North Americans

Not this shit again. The Greeks and Romans were both white.

greeks and romans were NOT white

they killed and enslaved whites