Did Aristoteles actually claim a separation between subject and object ?
I mean, difference does not necessarily imply separation. The flower in a still life, for instance, is certainly not separate from the painting, nevertheless, there is certainly a difference between the painting and the flower it depicts - or else, if the picture would also show a chair, you would have to conclude that the flower shows a chair.
Good illustration of metaphors of knowing; merging and separating. I don't think "separation" is a destructive metaphor. Disspassion is an important way of thinking.
Dualism is an important weapon of philosophy. By dualism we make distinctions. And with distinction we make decisions. As plato has it.
I can agree that "separation" is not necessarily destructive, if we follow the axiom "distinguer pour unir" ("distinguish in order to unite", from a book by Jacques Maritain). The sword of dualism eventually turns back on the one who wields it, but maybe we need this metaphysical wound in order to recover an ontological wholeness and a unitive consciousness, without necessarily going the way of Spinoza.
In the end you are right. The One is the Good. And the Two is the divide (or the diabolical). But for an intellectual one must try to truely embrace the Two, as one "love thy enemy".
Btw, I never understood the attraction of Spinoza except that he was a dedicated monist. Maybe you could explain.
I really like how Aurobindo sees duality as one of "God's" primary methods. In this sense I think duality as a phenomenon has a useful place within unity. The mistake of a false and destructive literal interpretation, such as creation in 7 days, has it's erroneous counterpart in abject or unbridled metaphorical interpretations. I see it as a tuning process. Where scientific schools reject metaphor because of the margin of error, Mysticism demands it for encountering the eternal.
I've heard others fault Aristotle in objectifying the world, but I'm not sure why this is. Do you think he would have made the same mistakes that are presently made in the metaphorical disconnects, or is this a method of his that was misused?
Since you have been reading Philosophy In The Flesh, I thought I might check it out myself. Then, I learned exactly how voluminous the text is and decided to put it off until I have more spare time. I will look forward to your reflections as you move through the text yourself. :)
I think the "deviency" of metaphor is really rooted in Logical Positivism which only dates back to the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. I would agree with you that to say all of western thought is "anti-metaphor" is wrong.
thank you for sharing...^^
VIRTLANTIS 4 months ago
Did Aristoteles actually claim a separation between subject and object ?
I mean, difference does not necessarily imply separation. The flower in a still life, for instance, is certainly not separate from the painting, nevertheless, there is certainly a difference between the painting and the flower it depicts - or else, if the picture would also show a chair, you would have to conclude that the flower shows a chair.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
man cannot live by bread alone.
leezus83 2 years ago
Good illustration of metaphors of knowing; merging and separating. I don't think "separation" is a destructive metaphor. Disspassion is an important way of thinking.
Dualism is an important weapon of philosophy. By dualism we make distinctions. And with distinction we make decisions. As plato has it.
Israe5l 3 years ago
I can agree that "separation" is not necessarily destructive, if we follow the axiom "distinguer pour unir" ("distinguish in order to unite", from a book by Jacques Maritain). The sword of dualism eventually turns back on the one who wields it, but maybe we need this metaphysical wound in order to recover an ontological wholeness and a unitive consciousness, without necessarily going the way of Spinoza.
thomasmatus 3 years ago
In the end you are right. The One is the Good. And the Two is the divide (or the diabolical). But for an intellectual one must try to truely embrace the Two, as one "love thy enemy".
Btw, I never understood the attraction of Spinoza except that he was a dedicated monist. Maybe you could explain.
Israe5l 3 years ago
extremely intelligent being of light!
beatbrain 3 years ago
5* faved and listed
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
I really like how Aurobindo sees duality as one of "God's" primary methods. In this sense I think duality as a phenomenon has a useful place within unity. The mistake of a false and destructive literal interpretation, such as creation in 7 days, has it's erroneous counterpart in abject or unbridled metaphorical interpretations. I see it as a tuning process. Where scientific schools reject metaphor because of the margin of error, Mysticism demands it for encountering the eternal.
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
I've heard others fault Aristotle in objectifying the world, but I'm not sure why this is. Do you think he would have made the same mistakes that are presently made in the metaphorical disconnects, or is this a method of his that was misused?
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
Excellent Video Thomas, great analysis. Nice work with the etymological contexts. I'm going to post some thoughts on this in the form of text.
I bet you'd really love Kate Bush's song "Under the Ivy".
patternsinchaos 3 years ago
Since you have been reading Philosophy In The Flesh, I thought I might check it out myself. Then, I learned exactly how voluminous the text is and decided to put it off until I have more spare time. I will look forward to your reflections as you move through the text yourself. :)
AmericanAscetic 3 years ago
I think the "deviency" of metaphor is really rooted in Logical Positivism which only dates back to the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century. I would agree with you that to say all of western thought is "anti-metaphor" is wrong.
AmericanAscetic 3 years ago