Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Aristotle
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Aristotle

post #1 of 18
9/12/09 at 2:20am
Thread Starter 
I would have put this in DT, but it's about Aristotle, so I'm not sure that it can be in there.

Aristotelian metaphysics are so incredibly boring. His categories only serve the function of pissing me off. On the plus side, it helped to spawn discussion in my seminar of the possibility of a woman giving birth to a baby who has none of the characteristics of a man, but all the characteristics of a chair.


In conclusion, Plato rocks and Aristotle sucks.



Carry on.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 18
9/12/09 at 2:24am
Seneca
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 18
9/12/09 at 2:30am
I see you aren't intelligent enough to appreciate the paradox of substance and forms, irrespective of who was "correct."
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 18
9/12/09 at 2:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonHecht View Post
On the plus side, it helped to spawn discussion in my seminar of the possibility of a woman giving birth to a baby who has none of the characteristics of a man, but all the characteristics of a chair.


It makes me think of a joke I've heard several times (in different forms):

A philosophy TA proposes a single problem for the final exam. Standing in front of his class, he points to a chair standing next to him and tells them that they must prove that the chair exists. The test begins and everyone starts worrying about what they're going to do. A single student looks at the chair, quickly scribbles something down on paper, turns it in to the TA and then leaves. Amazed at how quickly the student finished, the TA looks at what he wrote. It was a single sentence: "What chair?"
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 18
9/12/09 at 2:33am
Thread Starter 
I appreciate it just fine. It is simply the case that Aristotle's writing is so horribly boring that it is nearly impossible to read. It doesn't help that I've never been a big fan of metaphysics in general. I tend to prefer philosophy that deals with normative analysis. Edit: By the bye, "Universals are always instantiated." That explains why no species has ever gone extinct.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 18
9/12/09 at 2:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonHecht View Post
It is simply the case that Aristotle's writing is so horribly boring that it is nearly impossible to read.
A different translation might help. Some are less dry then others.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 18
9/12/09 at 2:39am
Thread Starter 
Eh, I'm reading Ross' translation of Metaphysics. It's kind of sad, because I think that Ross is a fantastic philosopher and didn't think that his writing was particularly boring. In fact, I found it fascinating and am, thanks to both him and Audi, a convert to intuitionism.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 18
9/12/09 at 4:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonHecht View Post
I would have put this in DT, but it's about Aristotle, so I'm not sure that it can be in there.

Aristotelian metaphysics are so incredibly boring. His categories only serve the function of pissing me off. On the plus side, it helped to spawn discussion in my seminar of the possibility of a woman giving birth to a baby who has none of the characteristics of a man, but all the characteristics of a chair.


In conclusion, Plato rocks and Aristotle sucks.



Carry on.

i assume you're new to university and philosophy. welcome to it.

two things i will learn you right now.

1. we have none of aristotle's writings. what you're reading are his students' notes. you have no idea how he writes, nor does anyone else.

2. you're wrong. aristotle is awesome. and him and plato do not differ all that greatly.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 18
9/12/09 at 4:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by robin View Post


It makes me think of a joke I've heard several times (in different forms):

A philosophy TA proposes a single problem for the final exam. Standing in front of his class, he points to a chair standing next to him and tells them that they must prove that the chair exists. The test begins and everyone starts worrying about what they're going to do. A single student looks at the chair, quickly scribbles something down on paper, turns it in to the TA and then leaves. Amazed at how quickly the student finished, the TA looks at what he wrote. It was a single sentence: "What chair?"

Diogenes would grab the chair and smack the TA upside the head with it.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 18
9/12/09 at 2:26pm
Thread Starter 
Oldseed, I'm going to be presenting research on Plato at the society for ancient greek philosophy and the illinois philosophical association in October. I am not saying this to imply that I know a lot about philosophy or any such thing (because I really don't); I simply am trying to say that I am not *completely* inexperienced with regards to philosophy, and particularly ancient. I just have a thing against Aristotle. I understand that he was brilliant, important, and fantastic--not to mention the fact that he got a lot of stuff right, IMO... but he is still boring. Then again, perhaps being boring is the sign of a great philosopher--Rawls comes to mind.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 18
9/12/09 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonHecht View Post
Eh, I'm reading Ross' translation of Metaphysics. It's kind of sad, because I think that Ross is a fantastic philosopher and didn't think that his writing was particularly boring. In fact, I found it fascinating and am, thanks to both him and Audi, a convert to intuitionism.

you fail not aristotle by reading the translation of the text in language that you should be able to read.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 18
9/12/09 at 2:37pm
Interesting stuff but generally too much mental masturbation without enough application to real life. I guess the the Nicomachean Ethics kind of goes into it but the whole idea of the Golden Mean is a bit bland. I prefer modern thinkers and Eastern philosophers for applying philosophy to living, which is the only meaningful application for it, in my eyes.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 18
9/12/09 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroStyles View Post
Interesting stuff but generally too much mental masturbation without enough application to real life. I guess the the Nicomachean Ethics kind of goes into it but the whole idea of the Golden Mean is a bit bland. I prefer modern thinkers and Eastern philosophers for applying philosophy to living, which is the only meaningful application for it, in my eyes.

aristotle wrote a million books. if you want something more "applicable", the Rhetoric is, i would say, the starting point for all rhetorical/communication theory/legal theory/presentation/marketing/etc. it certainly vastly improved my own skillz as a lawya.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 18
9/12/09 at 3:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonHecht View Post
Oldseed, I'm going to be presenting research on Plato at the society for ancient greek philosophy and the illinois philosophical association in October. I am not saying this to imply that I know a lot about philosophy or any such thing (because I really don't); I simply am trying to say that I am not *completely* inexperienced with regards to philosophy, and particularly ancient. I just have a thing against Aristotle. I understand that he was brilliant, important, and fantastic--not to mention the fact that he got a lot of stuff right, IMO... but he is still boring. Then again, perhaps being boring is the sign of a great philosopher--Rawls comes to mind.

ok.. i'm saying it's not him that's boring, it's his student's notes, which you are reading, that are boring. aristotle was, to his contemporaries, a great writer and a speech-maker; i believe cicero said aristotle had a "golden flow of speech". even that said, i think some works, like the rhetoric and nicomachean, are interesting, if rhetoric and ethics are your thing. also i'd encourage you to get, or check out, the complete aristotle books. he has some crazy ass shit, some questionable attributed to him, in his lesser known works, plants, dreams, problems, etc. i mean crazy ass.

anyway different peeps find things interesting..i thought rawls was alrite. i suppose the question we should be asking (thread drift) is what you DO find interesting, apart from plato... if you're a fan of plato and u've read his parminedes, then you know that aristotle basically fucked up plato's whole theory of the forms, which leads to aristotle's categories... which makes aristotle's categories more interesting, at least to me.

all that said, the existentialists are by far the most "interesting", at least ot me..
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 18
9/12/09 at 3:26pm
Thread Starter 
I've read Rhetoric, as well as Nicomachean Ethics, Poetics, Politics, Metaphysics, and Magna Moralia; my particular concern, though--as noted in the initial post--is Metaphysics. And I understand that they are student notes due to the Greek oratory tradition. This whole damnable grad seminar is on Metaphysics, unfortunately. I was expecting it to be partly about Nicomachean Ethics. What do I find interesting? Ronald Dworkin is wonderful, Joel Feinberg, Magaret Gilbert, Daniel Dennett, Russell is interesting, Thomas Nagel, and many others.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Aristotle