Aristotle VS Plato

[Anonymous No.18809219]

Which is the superior philosopher?

[Anonymous No.18809260]

>>18809219
Socrates

[Anonymous No.18809295]

Aristotle, but Plato was correct about most of his ideas.

[Anonymous No.18809310]

Test

[Anonymous No.18809421]

>dude, did you ever think about how, like, the option between two extremes is like, sometimes the best option?
Aristotle contributed nothing of value.

[Anonymous No.18809439]

Aristotle. No discussion.

[Anonymous No.18809513]

Plato. No discussion.

[Anonymous No.18809528]

>>18809219
>horseness is a thing
lmao pseuds both of them

[Anonymous No.18809554]

>>18809219
Plato got trolled by the greek equivalent of a shitposter with chickens, so Aristotle

[Anonymous No.18809561]

>>18809528
horseness is contained in the things

[Anonymous No.18809594]

>>18809554
who?

[Anonymous No.18809632]

I read A. C. Grayling's A History of Philosophy and I've realised I don't give a shit about metaphysics. Is there any point in me reading them anyway if I want to learn about other areas of philosophy? I have a very basic understanding of their philosophies.

[Anonymous No.18809693]

>>18809561
Was there a modified essence of horse for the horse's evolutionary precursors? Were there an infinite number of them?

[Anonymous No.18809725]

>>18809594
epic chungus reddit doge man

[Anonymous No.18809732]

>>18809219
Objectively, Aristotle.
Subjectively, Plato.

[Anonymous No.18809743]

>>18809594
Not that anon but look up Diogenes the Cynic. If you're lucky someone will post highlights but tl;dr: he was basically just ancient Greek degenerate troll.
He's been memed so much that he has become somewhat passé among /lit/ pseuds but he is fucking hilarious. Honestly surprised there are people who browse this board and don't know who he is.

[Anonymous No.18809906]

>>18809632
Yes. You can't really do philosophy in any way without making metaphysical statements, but they both have a lot of stuff that is more than just arguing about the forms or how many layers of prognomoisitkoipolytropohoipoloigraiostopioikoi is in between Zeus and man.

[Anonymous No.18809958]

>>18809219
>LaRouche's philosophy references an old dispute between Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle believed in knowledge through empirical observation and experience. Plato believed in The Forms. According to LaRouche, history has always been a battle between Platonists—rationalists, idealists and utopians who believe in absolute truth and the primacy of ideas—and Aristotelians—relativists who rely on empirical data and sensory perception. Platonists in LaRouche's worldview include figures such as Beethoven, Mozart, Shakespeare, Leonardo da Vinci, and Leibniz. LaRouche states that many of the world's ills are due to the fact that Aristotelianism, as embraced by British philosophers like Locke, Hume, Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham and represented by "oligarchs", foremost among them wealthy British families, has dominated, leading to a culture that favors the empirical over the metaphysical, embraces moral relativism, and seeks to keep the general population uninformed. LaRouche frames this struggle as an ancient one, and sees himself and his movement in the tradition of the philosopher-kings in Plato's Republic.[32]

>LaRouche and his followers use Neoplatonism as the basis for an economic model that posits "the absolute necessity of progress". Economies evolve in stages as humanity devises new technologies, stages that LaRouche compares to the hierarchical spheres in Kepler's model of the solar system based on the Platonic solids. The purpose of science, technology and business must be to assist this progress, enabling the Earth to support an ever-growing humanity. Human life is the supreme value in LaRouche's world view; environmentalism and population control are seen as retrogressive steps, promoting a return to the Dark Ages. Rather than curtailing progress, because of dwindling resources, LaRouche advocates using nuclear technology to make more energy available to humanity, freeing humanity to enjoy music and art.[33]

[Anonymous No.18810384]

>>18809958
Based.

[Anonymous No.18810398]

Platostotle

[Anonymous No.18810411]

Aristotle

[Anonymous No.18810416]

>>18809219
Plato.

[Anonymous No.18810505]

Depends on your disposition. If you're a spiritual-religious person then naturally you would gravitate towards the philosophy of Plato. If you're a skeptic-scientific person then you would naturally gravitate towards Aristotle.

I'm a Platonist because understanding that abstract objects (like mathematics and even morality) exist eternally and independently of time and space is mind-blowing. Aristotelianism just doesn't blow my mind as much. I wonder why most people aren't Platonists.

[Anonymous No.18810562]

>>18810505
I'm more spiritual, but Aristotle doesn't divide the world but tried to make it an interactive whole. Since I'd say Hegel is my greatest influence, Aristotle takes it for me.

[Anonymous No.18810578]

Which one is more important to the artist?

[Anonymous No.18810617]

yeah for me it's Diogenes

Not even memeing, that faggot Plato thought up the false theory of evolution which Diogenes immediately BTFO of with a chicken. It's not just a funny story it's "evolution" getting it's ass handed to itself

[Anonymous No.18810784]

>>18810505
I'm a practical person so I would gravitate towards Aristotle. I'm not a skeptic-scientific person though. I'm very spiritual-religious. However, there's a lot of shit that needs to be done and Aristotle's ethics and rhetoric are pretty practical in this respect because the masses are dumb and you would continuously have to navigate through or around them. Platonism appeals to a life of inceldom and solitude. That's not really a life I want.

[Anonymous No.18810798]

>>18810505
I think even scientific people with an epistemological bent also gravitate toward Plato from the sheer fact that Aristotle doesn't clarify where his primal categories come from. It's so frustrating so try to figure out what he's basing things on. I think there is a certain kind of mind that reads Aristotle's theories about, say, biology, and just goes "nice try Aristotle, good for the time, and now thanks to you we've progressed to better understandings." But I can't inhabit that view, because our understandings are just as arbitrary.

I always end up trying to find the platonist within the aristotelian or to situate the aristotelian within the platonist, like some medievals did (not all, since some just took Aristotle for granted as the Best At Thinking guy). I know some modern transcendental thomists and phenomenological thomists are interested in grounding something like an Aristotelian realism within a basically Neoplatonic metaphysics. Someone told me Thomas Reid tried to do this as well.

[Anonymous No.18811139]

>Will precedes Intellect (Platonism) Vs Intellect precedes Will (Aristotle)
Since I'm an autodidactfag I would agree with Plato

[Anonymous No.18811174]

Plato explicitly confronted and wrestled with the dilemma that writing as a form of communication is extremely limited in all the ways that his teacher fully understood, but that Plato could only understand to the point of internal anguish.
He ultimately decided "I do not know what the right thing to do is, but I feel that I must do something".
Plato's student, Aristotle, only got a further diluted notion of this dilemma, from no fault of his own. But that means that Aristotle is a purely rhetorical force, despite mentioning dialectics by name a few times (in the surviving materials). He does not understand dialectics as integrally as Plato.
That Plato offers us a window into the realization of the utter madness and self-sabotaging nature of rhetoric, secures the value of his early dialogues as higher than most other things ever written.
Somewhere in his mind, however, remained that doubt: have I forsaken my master? He did, and he recognized that he was self-sabotaging, which we all do as well, but which we do not recognize that much, if at all.

[Anonymous No.18811492]

>>18809594

[Anonymous No.18811501]

[Anonymous No.18811544]

>>18809219
Plato could break any philosopher in two with his bare hands.

[Anonymous No.18811577]

I don't know. I'] having a hard time understanding Nicomachean ethics. Maybe I'm not really fit for this

[Anonymous No.18811648]

>>18811577
Try Plato. Contemplate wisdom and all other virtues will follow.

[Anonymous No.18811715]

>>18809439
>>18809513
>/lit/. No discussion.

[Anonymous No.18811777]

>>18811174

Good post

[Anonymous No.18811883]

>>18809219
>Aristotle VS Plato
Outta the way, shitters, here comes the real Chads of Greece, The Presocratics (peace be upon them).

Plato and Aristotle destroyed philosophy for 2000 thousand years, with the tradition of their betters only being revived for short episodes in history (Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empiricus, Protagoras, Lucretius, etc.)

All of philosophy is a footnote to the Presocratics.

[Anonymous No.18811897]

>>18811883
Leucippus* (not Lucretius. freudian slip, I've been readingon the nature of things)

[Anonymous No.18812043]

>>18809958
>Aristotelians
>relativists
?

[Anonymous No.18812081]

>>18809594
>>18809743
The legend says when Plato was asked what a human was he answered:
>A man is a featherless biped.
Everyone around clapped.
Everyone but Diogenes, who killed and plucked a chicken and threw it to Plato saying.
>Here it is. Here is the Plato's human.

I don't know how much about Diogenes is true but one infamous encounter where he told Alexander the Great to get out of his way and stop blocking the sun was well-documented:

>Thereupon many statesmen and philosophers came to Alexander with their congratulations, and he expected that Diogenes of Sinope also, who was tarrying in Corinth, would do likewise. But since that philosopher took not the slightest notice of Alexander, and continued to enjoy his leisure in the suburb Craneion, Alexander went in person to see him; and he found him lying in the sun. Diogenes raised himself up a little when he saw so many people coming towards him, and fixed his eyes upon Alexander. And when that monarch addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, "Yes," said Diogenes, "stand a little out of my sun."[7] It is said that Alexander was so struck by this, and admired so much the haughtiness and grandeur of the man who had nothing but scorn for him, that he said to his followers, who were laughing and jesting about the philosopher as they went away, "But truly, if I were not Alexander, I wish I were Diogenes." and Diogenes replied "If I wasn't Diogenes, I would be wishing to be Diogenes too."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_and_Alexander

[Anonymous No.18812082]

>>18811883
actually a helpful graph for following the without any gaps podcast desu

[Anonymous No.18812107]

>>18811883
Empiricus did more harm than good. Just look at what modern science has become.

[Anonymous No.18812145]

>>18810505
You don't have to be spiritual or religious to tend towards Plato. All you have to do is reject naive realism and the idea that essences can be found in a state of profound becoming (without essentializing becoming itself - process philosophy etc.). This is why Deleuze, I think it was, ended up trying to "complete" Plato's "project", and all philosophy after Hegel (who was the "final boss" of Aristotle's distortion of reality) can be seen as a gradual tendency back towards Plato. This isn't to disparage Aristotle too much; he is good as a challenge to what might otherwise be seen as Platonic dogmatism, but stopping with Aristotle is foolish, and the history of philosophy has shown us how weak and prone to deterioration it is (most notably starting with Descartes's disillusionment, and his attempt to fix it without resorting to the sensible Platonic view).