How was this nigga so smart?

And how could Plato even compete?

>be Plato
>be essentially the progenitor of written Western philosophy, and thus of the written intellectual tradition of the West as a whole
>write dialogues both philosophers and laymen still love to read 2500 years after your death because they manage to be towering achievements of literature AND philosophy while simultaneously having layers that are accessible to intelligent readers of any intellectual background
>found the school after which the central modern institution of higher learning (academia) takes its name
>introduce basically every philosophical problem that would ever be taken seriously by philosophers for the first time in a relatively systemic form, and offer attempts at solutions to these insoluble problems that still have not been surpassed
>directly and indirectly influence every artist who was ever worth a damn
>mold the mind of a naughty young schoolboy from Stagira who attends your school and he ends up becoming nearly as important a philosopher as you yourself are
>actually be enjoyable to read while also being enlightening instead of being enlightening but overly-technical and a bore

or

>be Aristotle
>"hur dur Plato was actually wrong about the Form of the Good...there are lots of things that are good!"

I hadn't properly looked into his works until semi-recently

The sheer volumes of thought and wisdom he wrote concerning the natural world are fucking astonishing

I would love to someday read all of it

This notion that anything in the past is lacking in 'modern awareness' and is therefore obsolete is bullshit

Perspective is everything. Science refutes nothing that has poetic substance. Aristotle was not a mere scientific materialist by any stretch of the imagination.

I love both of them. They "go together", like yin and yang.

That one painting, whats it called The School of Athens i think, disparages neither, but celebrates both.

>not taking the bait

I always prefer to act as if everyone is sincere

it tends to be more fun.
if they are being sarcastic, all the better.

>Aritotle being smarter than Plato.
>Self-evident.
>Bait.

Both are terrible and ought to be erased from memory

I am of no level of consciousness to believe either conidtion as more real than other..

I am more inclined to feel that they compliment each other

They were friends, and also "rivals" in some sense, and this is important

Both of them gave more clarity to each other in their vision

Truly that specific period of time was one of great evolution of human thought precisely because of this "so-called" dynamic dichotomy

wow rude.

lol wut

owned xD

edifying replies all around..

I already made my case:
The rest has either been "oh well both were important because everybody is special to somebody and we should all be happy because everyone has something to contribute to the world it does not matter who contributes more what matters is that we recognize that both were important and neither were not important"

or shitposting.

I'm waiting for an even moderately thoughtful rebuttal.

Oops I meant:

>my try hard one line declaration wasn't met with edifying replies

oh no!

I see where you are at now.

Let's establish (without your consent) the two conditions the tend, in our thought, to represent.

Spirit and Matter.

I am of the notion that these two ideas go together. The contradictory nature of these things is only ever apparent, and not real. I am quite sure that both Aristotle and Plato could say something more illuminating about this dichotomy than I am inferring, but seeing as we can only go by written historical documents, let us settle here.

Or rather, let us settle not and provide our own subjective experience into the equation.

Spirit and Body...

One is base, one is elevated...

I, personally, would be hard pressed to feel this way in a definitive sense.

The life we are experiencing is important.
If it were not, it would be base and "merely physical".

There is nothing that escapes the intentions of the divine intelligence. All succumbs to the totality of being in the end. Whether you or I disagree on this regard does not change the substance of nature.

It is a kind of linguistic game. Abstract.
And that game also is not without merit.
All things are meritable.
And every individual contributes to the unfolding understanding of the mind of god.
It is a collective endeavor.
Granted, some individuals have more amplitude in their Ripple than others. They echo throughout the historical narrative more, in obvious ways, such as simply attaching an idea to their name.

However, at any rate, regardless of the intellectual titans of the past, they are all dead. The progeny of their ideas is now you and me.

We can disgrace then if we want, cast them into the void. But something of the language of their ideas keeps us from doing so.

THAT condition, I think, is what so many of us aspire to. But characters are always different and distinct. Nobody is always the lead role. And we don't need to be. As far as I am concerned, the lead is just as relevant as any other role. They are all equivalent.

Could not agree more.

I like to hear that. Pardon the spelling errors.

Who knows OP. What I do know however is that the Nicomachean Ethics is probably one of the greatest books ever written on the topic.

...

Because the further back you go in history the less developed and specialised all the fields of knowledge and inquiry are.

Imagine what it would be like to live in a time and society where you could literally read every book in existence in under 5 years.

>all men seek knowledge.

knowledge - proven belief.
men - ???

so he just tries to talk wise and smart and nice, but this quote clearly shows that hes : )

I am struggling to read Aristotle after having the pleasure of Plato's offerings. A lot of ideas in Aristotle's writings are taught to children in school; such as classifications of words, etc. I feel like I'm reading an instruction manual.

exactly

high-iq's realize that any intelligent irony capable actor is a flip of a coin. Heads they are sincere, tails they are ironic.

An intelligent ironic actor is certainly not on the first level of sincerity as he is aware of the first level of ironic criticism, so he may be on the second level of sincerity, a rejection of the ironic criticism, etc. etc. And some levels of ironic criticism are aware that the first sincere notion does not need to be subverted and thus can be simply transposed as a sincere account, since all the parties the ironist is interested in communicating with are aware that caricature or subversion are not necessary to critique the first sincere notion. Similarly, the capable ironic thinker may return to the first sincere notion because he realizes that the 2nd and 3rd level sincere notions as replies to their ironic criticisms are a waste of time, and poor speech, given his belief that the ironic criticism is ineffective, and thus a reply only distracts from his point when in truth the ironist will not actually subvert the first sincere notion. Or, the speaker has become wise to the fact that the ironist is interested in chaos and not discourse, and any level of sincere reply will receive it's paired ironic response regardless of it's validity. In this way of acting the ironist does not fear reproach as it is obvious to most that his goal was not discourse but subversion.

Anyways, the point is, it's a 1-2-1(2)-2(2)-1(3)-2(3) and you never know which one you're gonna land on so don't stress too much about who's sarcasming who,

OP very well could be an intelligent person who is well aware that his post is an ironic critique, but has, through consideration, come to realize that the post is his genuine position, or that his post *as* a perceived ironic gesture with a sincere actuality, serves him in some other way

agreed, as an ethics book it was terrible, but I'll be damned if anyone ever wrote a better nichomachean ethics

If I had a knife, I'd cut off my fucking head right now.

>this is what the stemfag believes

>all of human intellectual development happened in the last 2300 years
>even though anatomically modern humans have been around for 200,000 years
>we know more now than ever before, no humans have been as advanced as us
>access to more information is a good thing, i am optimistic that because of access to information we are going to see human life rapidly progress in my lifetime

i would unironically put my cigarette out in your face nerd

>i would unironically put my cigarette out in your face nerd

Why is my post so upsetting to you? My comments had nothing to do with biology or suggesting ancient humans were inferior.

The amount of information we have accumulated simply makes it almost impossible for Renaissance Men who make genuine and profound impacts to multiple fields like Aristotle to exist anymore.

>progenitor
Hijacker you mean.

What is Aristotle's best work (or works)?

I'm thinking of reading Organon, Ethics and Metaphysics. Are they the best three?

>we started accumulating knowledge 2000 years ago
>human knowledge grows at an exponential rate

think ok: from 1917 to 2017 100 years ok?
now think from 200,000 bc to 2,000 bc ok?

maybe if you had actually read plato or aristotle you wouldn't be saying stupid shit like this.

you make me mad because it's a big fucking problem, people like you, and I still haven't come to terms with it, sorry i'm not a master alpha like you when i post on a ecuadorian securities exchange discussion board

people need to chill in general with the organon, valuable reading but, you're much better off reading
>physics, poetics, on the soul, parts of animals
in that order of priority, instead of reading organon. In fact, people who say that the organon is a necessary prerequisite to the canon are generallyy people you should avoid.

Obviously useful and insightful texts, but to the careful reader it is clear that the projects worked on in the organon are not predated but IN PARALLEL to and in fact SURPASSED by the implied work he does in other texts. If you take your time, you will generally get a better picture, then somebody who thinks they understands aristotle's logic because they read the organon with no prior training in reading. They are exactly the kinds of hubris-granting texts which the untrained reader feeds on, and ultimately will be his downfall.

Point is: read some shit that humbles you my nigga. Read the Sachs translation of Aristotle, this will force you to contend with and take the needed time to actually think about what you're reading. If it takes you "longer" to read the sachs than it does to read a morre traditional translation than you are reading the traditional translations too fast. The obfuscating language sachs uses mimics the bewilderment and confusion a student might have the first time they read the greek, even if it's not any more accurate than a much easier-read translation

sorry i meant
* the implied work he does in other texts are not predated but IN PARALLEL to and in fact SURPASSED by the projects worked on in the organon

wow this is terrible.