/lit/ - Literature

>>13392146
Why do you think so?

>>13392146
He was a gay ass pedophile faggot

>>13392146
No retard he was the father of logic, all his slight mistakes and platonic carryovers can be dismissed as simply a product of his time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANV57jEuwvg

He argued that the highest human good is eudaimonia (flourishing, wellbeing, or prosperity) and that eudaimonia isn't merely wealth or political power, rather, he believed it to be philosophical contemplation, effectively providing an answer to the question of life's meaning before it was even formulated.

>>13392424
Enlighten me on Rand.
This board is going to turn me into a right wing dingdong isn't it...

>>13392536
>Rand
There's nothing to be gleamed from it.
Read Bronze Age Pervert.

>>13392536
I'll give you my copypasta
>The Objectivist Theory of Concepts
>solved the "Problem of Universals"
>the discovery of the intrinsic/subjective/objective trichotomy
>the formulation of psycho-epistemology
>the identification of several new logical fallacies
>Rand's Razor
>providing LfCap's (Laissez faire Capitalism) then lacking philosophic base and further developing it
>the, not solving, but invalidating of Hume's Is/Ought problem
>coining of the meta cognitive tool of critique; the "Anticoncept"

Academia doesn't like her for a reason I have named this phenomenon "Collectathon Philosophizing".

>>13392146
He was wrong about almost nothing actually

>>13392536
Protip: you should question the validity of the terms right and left themselves. No this is not a centrist position, not the way I mean it at least. No this not to say I agree with that hippie crap of "r-rejecting all labels" labels can be useful and objectively warranted by they can also be deceptive anticoncepts.
Individualism and capitalism but also nationalism and traditionalism all being classified under the same concept is backwards and a broken theory of political philosophy.

>>13393121
sexist.

>>13393121
low IQ
>>13392146
Pretty much, yeah. It's through being wrong a lot that we actually learn stuff, though. He's still an important philosopher.

>>13393273
Nonexistent IQ, Aristotle is the soil of proper philosophy. His conceptions of contingency and the prime mover ended up being wrong yes, but his formulations logic and method cannot be understated. Any philosopher who is not at base an Aristotlean is wrong and always has been.

>>13393494
>Aristotle is the soil of proper philosophy
top laff

>>13393519
Chuckle away retard.

>>13392146
No.

>>13392146
not really, hylomorphism is still influential in metaphysics, and virtue ethics is having a revival

>>13392146
when you become smart like me, you are able to develop accurate opinions based on selected readings, foreword reflection and an acknowledgement of the limits of your own understanding. You are excited to continue learning, to build upon what you already understand and find validated by every reading, also to negate the misunderstandings and come to a clearer view of what you only understood initially. Philosophers and writers, in generally, are not like sports teams. Theres no win or lose. I can't stand some philosophers, like Russell, but i would rather spend an hour talking to him than a minute talking to some quack scientist or model, or bodybuilder. We like to rag on thinkers here because its fun, but the truth is we all belong to the same small fringe group of people willing to think, read, and correct. To wonder, ponder at the yonder

>>13392146
he thought of everything correct before anyone else did

>>13392146
Oh yes, please, tell us how Aristotle was even worse. Tell us anon. What have you read of Aristotle? The Wikipedia page of the Nichomachean Ethics for your compulsory Philosophy 101 course?
Now sit, shut the fuck up and listen: Aristotle was one of those minds that are so smart you should be afraid of them. And I mean this literally. I mean that the average citizen from Athens would have had walked away shaking in pure terror after talking with Aristotle. Now I want you to imagine a world was most people are fucking peasants and believe in Gods who look like humans and transform into things, they believe that if you put a woman on a tripod and you make her smoke a lot she will tell you the future in one of her trips. I want you to figure out a world were believing this stuff is common. Do you know that feeling you got the first time you heard that there are still flat earthers in 2018? Now imagine a city were the basic level of understanding of the world is inferior to that of a flat earther and imagine that the people of that city are among the most educated on the planet you are on.
And then in the middle of all this stupidity - stupidity so deep and embedded in thousands of years of repeating the same fucking stories about naked women running in the woods and transforming into trees and shit - imagine that a man comes and he has such a superior intelligence that he formulates the basic rules of logic. He formalizes for the first time the rules to make a valid argument. Can you fucking imagine the level of abstraction it would take? Can you fucking imagine the intelligence it would take? You are unable to do that and you are probably in your prime, living in the middle of a storm of information Aristotle would have gladly killed to have at his disposition. You know he was the first guy to actually build something like a university library in Western history? Books were copied on fucking scrolls by slave and transmitting and preserving even the most banal information was extremely difficult, and yet he managed to come out with something like the formalized rules of classical logic. I gave you ten thousand years and you knew nothing about logic, you wouldn't be able to formalize shit. You know why? Not because you are fucking stupid, no. You are probably average. But Aristotle was so much of a genius that he can barely be considered human.

>>13392525
That was argued by Plato before and most other ancient Greeks, it was a cultural phenomenon.

>>13392146
He was only right insofar as close as he was to Plato. The direction he went in was horrid but he was inundated in good questions and influence

>>13394564
Any quotes to support this?

>>13394594
About eudaimonia?
Sure in Republic Plato argues that the happiness necessarily comes from being good. It's one of the first several books, I can look for a quote.

>>13394594
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia#Socrates

>>13394496
God i was wondering when id see this tasty pasta again

>>13394606
>>13394611
Those quotes would be great, but I'd appreciate presocratics even more since I'm familiar with Plato.

>>13394660
Yeah Parmenides necessitated a hard eudaimonia, his ethics were based on an extreme moral realism in which everything that is good is necessarily eudaimonistic but I have no doubt pythagoras had these thoughts as well. I would assume the ionian philosophers held this as well (empedocles argued the world was motioned or put into by force of the dualism of love and hate) because Homer anticipated this as well. That being said I don't accept it, I think goodness is objective and outside humans.

>>13392146
yes, but shit is useful too, he fertilized the soil for other better philosophers
hes also a sexist incel

>>13395390
He had a wife and children brainlett. read.

>>13392146
Aristotle was right about almost everything.