Yesterday I saw a thread about Aristotle saying he was based as fuck. Very untrue. If anything Aristotle was actually a huge sophist making fake arguments in order to sound smart. He was nowhere near the level of Socrates & Plato.
Anyone who says Aristotle is actually smart has never read Aristotle and is being edgy.
fite me.
Philosophy was a great meme until the Renaissance. Arguing who the better philosopher was is like arguing which form of autism is the least severe.
I've read quite a lot of philosophy but I'm not sober right now.
Why do you think Aristotle is a huge sophist? What are his fake arguments?
>No Arguments
Yeah, what is there to argue about?
i was blasted in that thread for calling aristotle a fucking idiot.
glad i'm not the only one.
What makes you think he's an idiot?
Diogenes>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>literally everyone else
How so?
Have studied most of his work. He was a badass.
On the other hand, people who litter their sentences with "actually" tend to be frauds and narcissists.
confirmed for having never actually read any philosophy
All three were massive sophists whenever it came to subjects like theology or philosophy though.
I agree. I find the fact that Molymeme hypes him over Plato and Socrates quite telling.
Have any examples in mind?
ehhhh...calling him an idiot is just an exaggeration. the guy was obviously smart, especially for his time.
basically my main problem with him is that whoever rewrote his books (plato or whoever) really didn't seem like they gave too many fucks. it's just long-winded, pompous, and boring. he has the scientific approach to things, which is admirable and is the best way to go about figuring shit out, but that just doesn't make for a good read to me. that just makes me uninterested and not give a fuck.
i much prefer socrates because for one, the dialogues are a great read, and two, socrates never tried to prove anything besides everyone is ignorant to the "truth" along with him. i mean, let's be honest, socrates is the god damn GOAT.
so, no. aristotle is not an idiot. just incredibly dull. it would have been interesting to read his original manuscripts though, not just lectures his students and others passed on. then maybe my opinion would be different.
but socrates >
As for me, pretty much anything we were ever made to study in philosophy for a semester were about socrates, plato, aristotle and another fag. I didn't bother to look further after confirming it was legit in a few quotes. Needless to say the teacher was hyping that shit as the nec plus ultra of logical arguments. This is also from where my disdain of philosophers in general stems.
Hopefully someone will have a better memory than me.
He masturbated in public and lived in a barrel. Alexander the Great met him and Alexander asked if he could do Diogenes any favors.
He told Alexander to get out of his sunlight.
I would have welcomed this a year ago but you're not going to get very serious answers on Sup Forums
Got downs? Implying Plato rewrote aristotles works LOL
Implying Socrates and Plato were not the same person bahaha
poser. fake intellectual.
Not all of his surviving works are student's notes. Style is nice but it's not necessary for good philosophy.
I don't really understand what you're saying.
That makes him better than literally everyone else?
this
diogenes is literally a concept; there are no words from him directly and barely anything anybody else contemporary to him wrote about him
the real best philosopher is kierkegaard
He didn't imply that Plato wrote Aristotle's work. A lot of what we have of Aristotle is his student's notes though. Socrates and Plato weren't the same person. It's widely agreed on that the earlier dialogues present Socrates in a way that's much more accurate to the historical person. By the late dialogues, Socrates is just Plato's mouthpiece.
Yes.
Anywhere from 25%-75% of Aristotles works have been destroyed. What remains is still quite insightful and profound. Reconstruction of his destroyed works (taken from others who quoted his work in their pieces) shows how truly robust his theory of everything really is. He is the father of formal logic, among many other things. There is a great deal one can learn from studying him
you got this idea but where are you facts and examples to convince us
not sure if joking or srs.
most of aristotle's shit was lost, bruh, and i never said anything about plato and socrates being two different people. at all. didn't imply i was an "intellectual" either. in fact i said i hated reading scientific shit and liked the dialogues better because they were a lighter and better read.
seriously, wtf are you talking about?
"basically my main problem with him is that whoever rewrote his books (plato or whoever) really didn't seem like they gave too many fucks"
Aren't Socrates and Plato also sophists? I mean, isn't that their whole shtick?
Plato was a raging dingbat luftballon. This is his theory on Adam and marriage: Daaaa Adam used to be a woman man and God split him down the middle and made Eve and this is why you marry women. Fags marry men because there was also a man man and dykes marry dykes because there was also a woman woman. What the fuck is a "rib"?
They were not sophists and spoke out against sophistry
so philosophy of renaissance is better than the old one of the greeks and romans?
Just pointing out how you don't know sht
>(plato or whoever)
Okay, but I suspect you know the point he was making.
The only sense in which they are is in the general sense of "sophist" as an intellectual. They weren't like what philosophers typically mean by "sophist" though. Sophists tended to be more like paid tutors in rhetoric.
I think you're confused.
He is not a Sophist. Trying to methodically explain everything in what can often is rhetorically dry text is the opposite of Sophistry. You can prefer Plato but calling Aristotle a sophist in response is just ridiculous.
I guess I don't know what a sophist is then. I thought it was just someone who taught philosophy.
He had no theories on Adam, because he never wrote on fucking Judaism. Maybe a Platonist catholic writer did but not Plato
> A struggle with life is the lifeblood of philosophy, not a struggle with words.
-Plato(seventh letter)
Read Plato's Gorgias and Sophist to get a sense of how Plato understood the distinction between sophistry and philosophy.
thats hermeticism
Sophist were teachers of rhetoric and a philosophy in Ancient Greece. They generally believed argument was the most important element of truth, and were paid to teach this. They were greatly criticized as teachers of hypocrisy and lies by Socrates and his followers, and Sophistry now means arguing in a way to obscure the truth
"""fite me"""
Also the Protagoras.
Gorgias is a good one. Plato had his disagreements with Aristotole but would not accuse him of being a Sophist
Exactly, Aristotle was no rhetorician. If anyone was the clever memer playing intellectual tricks it was Plato, still doesn't make him a Gorgias level sophist
I can find no such quote anywhere, but even so writings are not the summary of ones approach to life or evidence of Sophistry especially if no persuasion or rhetoric existed in them
>Okay, but I suspect you know the point he was making.
he does.
>Just pointing out how you don't know sht
i don't. the whole "not-knowing" thing was the main reason i liked socrates, remember? lmao
but forreal. i'm not pretending to be the god damn foremost authority on philosophy, bruh. i just read shit and speak my mind on it. but this shit right chea:
pure cringe. shit reads like middle school book report you wrote for the teacher to make it seemed like you liked the book.
>there is a great deal one can learn from studying him, class
get the fuck outta my office, nigger.
Especially since Gorgias would argue the truth is whatever he could argue and Aristotle would never say such a thing
Aristotle argued far too objective in his mind a truth to be a Sophist
Lol all these hurt feelings just becuz I called you out for speaking about something you obviously know very little about
> There is a great deal one can learn from studying him
YEA, LEARN HOW TO BE AN IDIOT AMIRITE BOYS?Some of you muricans really need to stick to your guns or whatever else you're good at. Stop trying so hard to have an opinion about things you have mediocre at best knowledge.
> fite me
2000 years from now, people will quote your line and argue on 404chan about whether you were trolling or simply retarded.
He does have a point.
No, it was the Symposium.
Hermeticism arose about the same time as Christianity.
Aristotle was a fucking idiot. Opposed common sense ideas, was a mediocre scientist at best, and was pretentious so he could appear smart.
We've accidentally given him too much credit, and since the history books are filled with his name, it's too late to go back.
>this entire thread
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics shows the proper method for investigating ethics--in order to know what makes a good spoon, you need to know what a spoon is for. Similarly, in order to make a good person, you have to know what a person is for.
Aristotle's opinions about ethics end up being wrong because, like other ancient philosophers, he thought that there was ultimately one Good. That is not the case. There are many "goods," and many of them are contradictory. But if we think about virtue in the way Aristotle proposed, and given our own vision of what a good man is, we can find our way through the moral minefield, each for ourselves.
Aristotle's physics and metaphysics were brilliant, but he didn't have enough information to be right. They are worth studying, but it is only Aristotle's ethics that remains relevant today.
>nowhere near the level of Socrates & Plato
Yeah so um code of hamurimbi or whatever is similar to mosaic code just like genesis might be similar to babylonian creation account. The word jew means judean. The word jew is only 150 years old. It is not in the bible
That was an opinion an educated person could have in the 18th Century, but not anymore.
Aristotle was brilliant, but the Western world decided that it wanted to save Christian writings and didn't bother to preserve the philosophy and science of the ancient world. In the 11th Century, knowledge of Aristotle was brought back to Europe, largely through translations of the Arabic philosopher known as Avicenna.
Accustomed by habit and under threat of heavy punishment to accept authority, cucks like Aquinas took poorly translated books of Aristotle and treated them like Gospel.
During the Scientific Revolution, people blamed Aristotle for holding back progress--but it wasn't Aristotle who was responsible, but the Christcucks who used mistranslations of his books to stifle progress.
I don't know man, the worst things are also visual stomach turners
They were all three massive pedos and faggots.
Probably why logical argument was important to them.
Their personal character was a disaster that gets whitewashed, but they had a few extra IQ points to make objective logic structures that work independently of themselves.
Sage
Have to agree with OP here.
The only philosophers worth reading are those who steer clear of metaphysical misogyny, and unfortunately Aristotle does not qualify.