/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16830362]

How do I refute Aristotelian epistemology as a neoplatonist? I believe in the One and its transcendental simplicity, but I'm struggling to come to terms with the Platonic epistemological arguments. Are there any valid arguments to justify the existence of a collective Intellect from which individual intellects draw knowledge?

[Anonymous No.16830383]

>>16830362
Take the Gersonpill

[Anonymous No.16830390]

>>16830362
>How do I refute Aristotelian epistemology as a neoplatonist? I believe in the One
How retarded are you? Fuck off this board.

[Anonymous No.16830407]

>>16830390
>How retarded are you?
As retarded as the tradfags believing in Aquinas' dogmatic hogwash which make about half of this board.
>Fuck off this board.
No, fuck your gatekeeping and eat shit. Don't expect another reply from me.

[Anonymous No.16830409]

>>16830362
hmmm no there is no arguments, because arguments are a spook, just like ''collective Intellect'' and ''the one''. Rationalists are seething at this.

[Anonymous No.16830410]

>>16830362
>a collective Intellect from which individual intellects draw knowledge
Isn't this just the Neoplatonic nous?

[Anonymous No.16830430]

>>16830410
>Isn't this just the Neoplatonic nous?
It is

[Anonymous No.16830459]

>>16830362
What are you on about, OP? Aristotle was a platonist and his epistemology is platonic, he poses Intellect, Intellection and Intelligibles as one and the same, this is reality: Intellect thinking itself. The only thing he missed was the spatial metaphors Plato employed to convey the ontological difference between the Forms and their instances; he also ignored the utter apophatic nature of the Divinity which is beyond Intellect, that is, the Good.

[Anonymous No.16830532]

>>16830459
>Knowledge is strictly intuitive and immaterial, and consists in "recollecting" the Forms in the Nous
>Knowledge is the subject of sensible experience, acquired through the activity of the Nous, Forms are completely tangible
I see the similarities between the two, but can't bring myself to call them both Platonists because their arguments clearly differ on many points.

[Anonymous No.16830548]

>>16830362
>How do I refute Aristotelian epistemology as a neoplatonist?
Kant has already done it for you. Take the Schopenhauer pill for post-Kantian Platonism.

[Anonymous No.16830588]

>>16830548
>Kant has already done it for you.
I'm still reading Aquinas and working my way up to modern philosophy chronologically.

[Anonymous No.16830604]

>>16830588
Well then, if you're concerned with Aristotle, know that early moderns take turns attacking Aristotle one way or another. Probably aside neoplatonism medieval philosophy isn't worth it though. You can safely skip them.

[Anonymous No.16830658]

>>16830604
Already thought about that and regretted skipping straight to the rationalists because it felt like missing a huge slice of history of philosophy. I'm eager to start reading about Renaissance neoplatonism, but Scholasticism is also fundamental to understand how Christianity was fleshed out by theologians and philosophers throughout the ages and shed light on some Aristotelian theories.

[Anonymous No.16830676]

>>16830658
If that's the case you could also read an anthology that collects their most important arguments. "Basic Issues in Medieval Philosophy" is a good one. Otherwise scholasticism might take a lot of time to master.

[Anonymous No.16830689]

>>16830409
>arguments are a spook
You have to be 18 to post here

[Anonymous No.16830833]

>>16830409
Plotinistic hands wrote this

[Anonymous No.16830852]

>>16830676
I'm about to finish the Summa Contra Gentiles and I think I spent at least a full month on Aquinas alone, but I'm hoping Scotus and the works of the successors of Aquinas aren't as voluminous as the Summa Theologica because that would actually take longer than expected.