/lit/ - Literature

>>22938497
Based and Aristotle-pilled.

Aristotle vs. Plato is the Super Bowl of Western Civilisation...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk9HZBX3qrg

>>20374049
Start with the Greeks.

>>20135316
>People become deists basically because they don't want to think about the topic.

How necessary is to study logic in order to read and write philosophy ?

“Furthermore, every ethical virtue is a condition intermediate (a “golden mean” as it is popularly known) between two other states, one involving excess, and the other deficiency (1106a26–b28). In this respect, Aristotle says, the virtues are no different from technical skills: every skilled worker knows how to avoid excess and deficiency, and is in a condition intermediate between two extremes. The courageous person, for example, judges that some dangers are worth facing and others not, and experiences fear to a degree that is appropriate to his circumstances.”

Does /lit/ agree with The Philosopher?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#DoctMean

Ignore the retards in this thread arguing against logic, these are the same faggots that get filtered by fucking Aristotle and then complain about how it's all just pointless anyway, lmao.

Why do modern philosophers no longer speak of substances and essence? it seems pretty obvious to me that these are legitimate conceptions but philosophers nowadays don't. Is it from sucking to much cock? what's up with that?

Where to start with Aristotle? And what should I read after him? I think I'll skip everything before Descartes. Is it a good idea? My ultimate goal is to read Heidegger.

here's another leak for you bro
*burrrrrrrrrrppppfffffffffffff*

I am soon going to start reading him in depth. What's the best way to tackle his work? I am most interested in his metaphysics. Also, any recommended commentaries?

Has anyone ever made a convincing case against logic and reason?
I've heard that Derrida (a name I know though I haven't read him) has written on this subject and was immediately intrigued but I thought I'd come here to see if there were not better arguments against it which I could read.
Certainly, it strikes me as anti-philosophical, against everything that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were working towards, and I wonder whether any philosophy which denies reason is not just pure sophistry, but if I'm under some illusion of logical truth, I would really like to know.

Was he right about some people being natural slaves? Is this the same as Nietzsche's idea of master/slave morality and the last men?

Systemitizers are pretty much the only real worthwhile philosophers.
For an abridged course on philosophy you can pretty much just read the books of the major systematizers and read a summary of the rest and get a pretty good idea of philosophy.

> @@@@@@@@ PROVED! That the Spirit is eternal @@@@@@@@
> @@@@@@ As Is Want To Be Denied By Faggot Atheists @@@@@@
> @@@@@@@@@@ S O L I D E O G L O R I A @@@@@@@@@@
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
We are the finite of the infinite God substance everywhere within us and everywhere without us.
The change from will be to is being to has been is ever happening to all things around us, the corporeal substance known as matter, but our souls are eternal cannot become, will always be, and shall never have been, for it cannot be called matter but RES COGITANS.
I AM THE POWER OVER MATTER, THE MOVING FORCE, SUBSERVIANT TO HE, THE PRIME MOVER.
MOVER MOVES SUBSTANCE IS MATTER. WE SEE THE SUBSTANCE, IT IS EVERYWHERE.
MY FATHER, MY FATHER, PAISE BE TO THEE.
In Book VII of Physics Aristotle says:
> Everything that is in motion must be moved by something. For if it has not the source of its motion in itself it is evident that it is moved by something other than itself, for there must be something else that moves it. If on the other hand it has the source of its motion in itself, let AB be taken to represent that which is in motion essentially of itself and not in virtue of the fact that something belonging to it is in motion. Now in the first place to assume that AB, because it is in motion as a whole and is not moved by anything external to itself, is therefore moved by itself-this is just as if, supposing that KL is moving LM and is also itself in motion, we were to deny that KM is moved by anything on the ground that it is not evident which is the part that is moving it and which the part that is moved. In the second place that which is in motion without being moved by anything does not necessarily cease from its motion because something else is at rest, but a thing must be moved by something if the fact of something else having ceased from its motion causes it to be at rest. Thus, if this is accepted, everything that is in motion must be moved by something. For AB, which has been taken to represent that which is in motion, must be divisible since everything that is in motion is divisible. Let it be divided, then, at G. Now if GB is not in motion, then AB will not be in motion: for if it is, it is clear that AG would be in motion while BG is at rest, and thus AB cannot be in motion essentially and primarily. But ex hypothesi AB is in motion essentially and primarily. Therefore if GB is not in motion AB will be at rest. But we have agreed that that which is at rest if something else is not in motion must be moved by something. Consequently, everything that is in motion must be moved by something: for that which is in motion will always be divisible, and if a part of it is not in motion the whole must be at rest.

The books of Aristotle's the Organon.

"as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject"

>>19521933
> Yeah, I'm thinking """she's""" a tranny.

All real philosophers are systemitizers.

>>19145090
pic related

>>19145247
dont worry anon even if there was no age of consent you'd still be a virgin

Where to start with him?

What are the best books to answer this question?

What should I read to understand Aristotle, particular as he is relevant to Heidegger and his project?

what's the meaning of life?