/lit/ - Literature

>>15106298
What are you even trying to ask?

>>15106298
all of it.

>>15106298
I'm pretty sure the stuff like 5 elements has been disproven.

>>15106298
all of timaeus is real

>>15106298
My $0.02.

Aristotle's work on natural sciences is of historical interest only. It's either wrong or primitive. A more controversial opinion is that Plato's practical philosophy (ethics, politics in particular) is also of historical interest only. I don't think anyone seriously engages with either Plato on rhetoric or aesthetics either, maybe Aristotle a bit more.

Plato and Aristotle are both still relevant for theoretical philosophy like metaphysics, epistemology, and theology (if you don't believe theology is a dead field).

Aristotle is still relevant in ethics and maybe politics, and perhaps the one area where he's still foundational is logic.

Reading Plato as literature is decently popular, too (Socrates as a character, use of rhetoric in the dialogues rather than the theories of rhetoric expounded therein, etc).

neuroscience is psuedoscience

>>15106298
We now know that men and woman have the same number of teeth, that light doesn't come out of human eyes, that the uterus isn't a living thing that moves around the woman's body, that inertia exists and also that heavier things don't necessarily fall faster.

>>15106298
none of plato, all of aristotle

>>15106809
>We now know that men and women have the same number of teeth
Did no one bother to check or what?

>>15106298
>>15106316
yes all of it has been proven

From Road to Reality
The Mandelbrot set was certainly no invention of any human mind. The set is just objectively there in the mathematics itself. If it has meaning to assign an actual existence to the Mandelbrot set, then that existence is not within our minds, for no one can fully comprehend the set’s endless variety and unlimited complication. Nor can its existence lie within the multitude of computer printouts that begin to capture some of its incredible sophistication and detail, for at best those printouts capture but a shadow of an approximation to the set itself. Yet it has a robustness that is beyond any doubt; for the same structure is revealed—in all its perceivable details, to greater and greater Oneness the more closely it is examined—independently of the mathematician or computer that examines it. Its existence can only be within the Platonic world of mathematical forms. I am aware that there will still be many readers who and difficulty with assigning any kind of actual existence to mathematical structures. Let me make the request of such readers that they merely broaden their notion of what the term ‘existence’ can mean to them. The mathematical forms of Plato’s world clearly do not have the same kind of existence as do ordinary physical objects such as tables and chairs. They do not have spatial locations; nor do they exist in time. Objective mathematical notions must be thought of as timeless entities and are not to be regarded as being conjured into existence at the moment that they are first humanly perceived. The particular swirls of the Mandelbrot set that are depicted in Fig. 1.2c or 1.2d did not attain their existence at the moment that they were first seen on a computer screen or printout. Nor did they come about when the general idea behind the Mandelbrot set was Wrst humanly put forth—not actually first by Mandelbrot, as it happened, but by R. Brooks and J. P. Matelski, in 1981, or perhaps earlier. For certainly neither Brooks nor Matelski, nor initially even Mandelbrot himself, had any real conception of the elaborate detailed designs that we see in Fig. 1.2c and 1.2d. Those designs were already ‘in existence’ since the beginning of time, in the potential timeless sense that they would necessarily be revealed precisely in the form that we perceive them today, no matter at what time or in what location some perceiving being might have chosen to examine them.

Saw the Absalom cover and was hoping this would be a Faulkner thread

>>15106298
All of Aristotelian physics, basically

>>15106298Aristotle was a guy that really laid the bedrock for empiricism and the scientific method. He also gets more credit than I think should because he was the guy to formalize logic. He also was the first really evolutionary biologist. He classified animals and plants and he derived his sense of morality from a function follows form and vice versa. I was always more fascinated with Socrates and Plato than I ever was with aristotle. Socrates is someone that came up with arriving to knowledge with nothing but debate and going on long logical deductions to prove his point. I identify more with the geometrical and mathematical approach that plato brings a rationalist approach which I agree with. Knowledge can be aquired through your mental processes alone. Plato comes off as slightly more romantic to me and comes across more as a cognitive psychologist as opposed to Aristotle being a biologist.

>>15106333
the 5 elements are the same as the five greatest kinds.
Being, sameness, difference, motion, and rest.

>>15106936
This is dumb, if anything they are the Strong Force, the Weak Force, Gravity, and Electromagnetism

>>15106298
>I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.
t. Werner Heisenberg

>>15106333
Aristotle’s elements parallel states of matter quite well
Earth is a solid
Water is a liquid
Air is a gas
Fire is plasma
Aether could be viewed as the all pervasive presence of energy in the universe, perhaps electromagnetic fields. He was actually quite good at categorising aspects of reality, but then he was one of the most intelligent men to ever live.
Obviously his characterisation of those states within “spheres” is somewhat archaic but there is truth within his models

>>15108098
>tfw the order and connection of ideas is physically demonstrated to be the basis for the order and connection of things

>>15108098
based Heisenberg

>>15106298
The physics is wrong.
The Ethics is quite good. Neuroscience agrees with Aristotle on habits and with Plato on why hedonism fails.

Their Ethics is actually much better than the stuff that came much later.

>>15106862
>we still couldn't find the full connection between the physical world and the 'mind'
>therefore, there has to be a different and Platonic explaination
Not denying that everything can be put in doubt and a 'non-being-sure' can lead to healthy speculation, but jumping from there to otherworldy and timeless structures is completely analogous to not understanding the changing of seasons and attributing it to the gods.

Though, the rest of it is quite interesting.

>>15106837
hahaha who knows

>>15108098
from what ive heard, heisenberg seems pretty damn cool

>>15110602
The major 20th century physicists were all very cool. I don't know what happened to them that they are now so soulless and anti-intellectual.

>>15110616
carlo rovelli is cool though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ0uPkG-pr4
neil tyson, lawrence krauss and those guys all fucking suck though

>>15106901
SOCRATES: "Hello, I will now prove this theory!"
STRAWMAN: "Surely you are wrong!"
SOCRATES: "Nonsense. Listen, Strawman: can we agree to the following wildly presumptive statement that is at the core of my argument?" {Insert wildly presumptive statement here— this time, it's "There is such a thing as Perfect Justice" and "There is such a thing as Perfect Beauty", among others.}
STRAWMAN: "Yes, of course, that is obvious."
SOCRATES: "Good! Now that we have conveniently skipped over all of the logically-necessary debate, because my off-the-wall crazy ideas surely wouldn't stand up to any real scrutiny, let me tell you an intolerably long hypothetical story."
{Insert intolerably long hypothetical story.}
STRAWMAN: "My God, Socrates! You have completely won me over! That is brilliant! Your woefully simplistic theories should become the basis for future Western civilization! That would be great!"
SOCRATES: "Ha ha! My simple rhetorical device has duped them all! I will now go celebrate by drinking hemlock and scoring a cameo in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!"

I remember reading shit in metaphysics and being like, how tf did he knew that back then? Like that all colours originate from white. Or that there is a law of mass/energy conservation. And some other shit. I have to read it again

>>15106298
They were basically contradictions of each other, so if you disprove one you prove the other correct.

>>15110779
Your post is trying to parody Socrates, but it also supports his ironic method. We can poke holes in every argument - he's less concerned with building knowledge up, and more interested in showing that it can axiomatic or hypocritical.

He's the perfect compliment to a thinker like Aristotle or Plato. He teaches skepticism.

>>15106809
I moved your moms uterus around her body with my dick

>>15110779
>still cant refute him in today's world so you have to laugh at his methods of persuasion.
Very unbased anon.

>>15110779
Cringe and translation-pilled.