/lit/ - Literature

>Reads Aristotle but doesn't bother to read the people before him

rly mks u tink

Yeah a major flaw of aristole is that he didn't write for laymen living in the 21st century

>>9003420
>DUDE everything is made of fire, earth, water, and air
>DUDE everything is made of numbers
>DUDE everything is made of contraries
>DUDE everything is made of atoms

Yeah, no thanks. I'm not reading those retards.

>>9003424
Okay, then why make a thread whining about those parts?

I mean, you only have yourself to blame you imbecile.

>>9003424
>implying Aristotle is any better

>>9003435
Because they add nothing to his philosophy and are only there because he was a contentious and prideful?

>>9003470
More like every single philosopher on the planet stands on the shoulders of the thinkers before them, and it's arrogant not to give them their dues.

>>9003424
Read Nietzsche's "Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks".

>>9003424
>Giving Presocratics an extremely uncharitable view
Why would you bother with philosophy at all, then?

>>9003418
1/Read the Dao De Jing
2/Compare all available translations
3/????
4/Profit

>>9003424
>Not noticing that the metaphysical assumptions of the current way of doing theoretical physics boils down to "everything is FIELDS".

>>9003424
>DUDE everything is made of fire, earth, water, and air
>DUDE everything is made of numbers
>DUDE everything is made of contraries
>DUDE everything is made of atoms
they're ways of understanding how the world works dumbass, don't be so literal

you probably could say everything is made of fire, earth, water, and air and you'd still be correct

>>9003500
>3/????
>4/Profit
I'll allow it on account of the dubs, but don't do it again.

>>9003592
anon who knows does not speak
anon who speaks does not know

>>9003420
>Thinks you need to study all the authors that influenced a particular author before reading that author.

So I guess you'll never get to studying anything eve semi-modern, eh?

>>9003470
That's a massive misreading. Very often he takes on other philosophers as examples of positions that may seem very reasonable, and which usually have some element of the truth to them, but which have to be dialectically moved past. Further, half the time he's crediting them for getting *something* right, even if not the whole thing (the opening examples in the book when taken as recognition of the causes).

>>9003504
>everything is FIELDS
It's not even metaphysics, it's literally what current physics states.
t. physicist

>>9003424
>didn't read the presocratics
>"guys why am I having so much trouble understanding aristotle's responses to the presocratics?"

Are you dumb?

>>9003797
physics doesn't say anything about whether fields are ontic or a convenient shorthand for complex calculations relating to a body's charge at a specific location

t. philosopher of physics

>>9003418
Because Aristotle was writing for people in his own time and place and probably not thinking that neckbeards 2300 years in the future would read it?

>>9003424
>>DUDE everything is made of fire, earth, water, and air
Plasma. Solid. Liquid. Gas

>>DUDE everything is made of numbers

Quanta. And Qualitya.

>>DUDE everything is made of contraries

True. Or... is that false?

>>DUDE everything is made of atoms

Much. Not to shabby for middle eastern goat herder neets who spent all their time on a Grecian neuron firing marble

I wonder if you were born without any knowledge of the history of science, if you could have deduced, 'the atomization of the world'

>>9003797
>>9004371

What physics means by fields, is what surfers mean by ocean and waves, its not a groundbreaking or disorienting concept. And yes, Noumena.

>>9003553
>>9004925
>People are actually defending fire earth water air theory
You can't defend the fact that the four temperaments spawned from this

>>9003424

>DUDE everything is made of atoms

Isn't that literally the case?

>DUDE everything is made of numbers

Again, like above, the universe is increasingly viewed in mathematical terms.

>DUDE everything is made of contraries

Maybe not everything, but perhaps in terms of human perception, which is arguably 'everything' as far we're concerned - that is to say, our whole existence is an interpretation. That phrase suggests something dialectical to me - "everything is defined in opposition to something else" - which makes for an interesting debate. Is there a "thing in itself"? What is hunger, the absence of satiety?

>>9005013
What are electrons made of?

>>9005061
strings of course

>>9005061
48% Trumponium, 52% Clintonium, but thee Trumponium has a stronger charge overall

>>9005061
Electrons are not made of anything. Electron is a portion of space with specific physical properties and it's current state described by a probability density function.

>>9005095
>my epistemology and concepts map onto ontology and reality

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>9005112

What is everything made of then, if not atoms?

>>9005112
It very much does map.

>>9005112
>clumsily obfuscating a simple thought with philosophical terms
How is that freshman year going?

>>9003418
because Aristotle had a historical sense, which you lack

>>9005118
Quarks and leptons. Alternatively, fields of force with quantic excitations.

>>9003418
Because these are lecture notes and not his actual writings

>>9005233
Even if they were he'd likely still comment on other philosophers. I don't see why OP sees it as so odd.

>>9005061
>What are electrons made of?

Eventually when substance is broken down, reduced, as much as possible, there must be reached, quanta, which can no longer be broken down, fundamental substance. Electron is a type of that.

They intuited, "everything is made up of little quanta, bits, irreducible parts" they called them atoms.

Scientists discovered """""Atoms"""", thought they were irreducible most fundamental bits... called them atoms,

turned out they were made of smaller parts. If the greeks were in charge, what scientests called atoms, would be "something like a molecule", made up of "atoms", something like electron.

>>9004971
>You can't defend the fact that the four temperaments spawned from this

Describe it a bit further, maybe I can. Temperaments, as in, moods, dispositions, attitudes, feelings, vibes?

>>9005836

>there must be reached, quanta, which can no longer be broken down, fundamental substance

Prove it.

>>9006031
1=1
0=0

1/∞ ≠ 0

>>9006404
>>9006031

1/∞ ≠ (theoretically, hypothetically, physically) possible

>>9006404
>>9006031
>>9006416

To maybe put better. At any given moment, there cannot be infinite things. So more obviously, you certainly cannot take 1 thing, and divide it infinitely.

If all the things cannot, in total..innumerable number, be infinite. Then certainly not 1 of those things (which is part of all the things, which cannot be infinite) cannot be infinite, for if it could, then when addressing the total (all the things), it could be said, it contained an infinite number of things.

But an infinite number of things existing at once, is a priori impossible and meaningless. (one can always just keep metaphorically adding a 1, or multiplying by 9999 to the 999999 power to the 9999999 power to the 999999 power every second.

The totality of quanta must be finite. Therefore, any quanta, must be composed of a finite quanta of parts. Therefore, there must be a smallest possible quanta.

>>9003468
>implying you've read Aristotle.

>>9005836
>>9006031

Oh I guess I should also put down, it might be technically possible for electrons to be broken down further. I mean I believe they must take up some space, 3 dimensionally, which implies, that if anything technically takes up 3dimensionals, it should be possible to break it in half,
theoretically, there should be volume there, to even scrap off a spark, eventually it is though there must be, tiniest possible indestructible, tiddiest tid bit, but its not like one thinks, eventually the last possible theoretical split/cut/halving of this tiniest possible tinsy shred/flake/fleck of the dustiest infintesmial dust, that it will turn into 2 pieces of 2d material/quanta/substance.

I dont think it ever makes sense trully, for a 2 dimensional object to exist:

sure activity which occurs 'at boundaries' are in somesense, ultimately if you narrow it down i guess, the exact middle point of contact between the two objects, down the their atoms, and below, where there is most focal touching occurring, is a 2d focal point of object interaction, creating a 2dish zone of energetic-material eventitude. But there is no object, there is no 2d activity without 3d object, 2d object cannot exist independently, it is not a thing,

>>9006453
>>9006031

1/∞ ≠ ∞
(in terms of the object world, most likely theoretically, as far as we can tell experimentally)

>>9005134
>the wave function is a real entity
>there are no unique experimental outcomes
>things do not have definite properties
>action at a distance is real
>absolute simultaneity
>pilot waves
>backwards causation

LOL

>>9003424
You act like knowledge of a microstructured is trivial since you're raised to know it.
But to conceptualize this with nothing but you're own deductive reasoning, especially when it fly's in the face of what would have been many other more readily accepted ideologies, is pure genius. It takes a mental strength that most in this day and age would classify as 'triggering', were it expected (it of course is), stating that the task required is 'unfathomablely impossible' and 'personally oppressing'.