Thank you. This video reminded me of the many boring hours I spent reading Aristotle. He was by far the most boring philosopher. "A chair is a chair, therefor all chairs share a common property blah-blah-blah"
....[But] to avoid contradictions the Ideas must be considered universal inherent in the particulars....the universal does not exist apart from particulars.” See Hahm, David E., The Origins of Stoic Cosmology, (Ohio State University Press: Ohio; 1977), 6-7, 42.
David Hahm supports my case: Plato’s “conclusion was the theory of Forms, according to which universals, including ethical predicates, exist apart from the particular manifestations of them, and these transcendent ideas are the only true beings...Aristotle brought many arguments against the theory of Ideas, showing that Plato’s theory leads to contradictions, namely, that Ideas exist separate or apart from the individual particulars...
“Suppose that you do not buy the Theory of Forms (you see all the difficulties in it about what the Forms are and so on)...Adherents of the Theory of Forms who hold that the Forms are numbers assume that each is a single thing by dint of its being one over many...The idea is that each of the numbers is a Form and that the Form is the cause of being for the other entities...But, of course, far from being necessary, these assumptions are not even possible.” 1090a-1090b.
...and "particulars." Incorrect, they are "universals" inherent and innate to the "particulars" in materialism from Aristotle to Marx. In the Metaphysics, Aristotle criticizes the "Theory of Forms" if we understand these as existing apart from their manifestations.
She conflates so many terms in this third part. First of all, she claims, correctly for once, that what distinguishes Plato from Aristotle (and, I would add, Idealism and Materialism, Hegel and Marx, etc.) is simply the fact that, for the latter camp, the "form" is, as she says, "immanent in the particular"--- viz., in the concrete embodiment, rather than transcendentally only in some ethereal realm. However, immediately after that she goes on to conclude that these forms are "individuals"....
it's a nervous jodie foster
ScaryLairy 6 days ago
What is the program this is from?
MutleeIsTheAntiGod 4 months ago
@MutleeIsTheAntiGod It's a TV series called The Great Philosophers. It aired in 1987. :)
Blodhosta 3 months ago
@Blodhosta Thank you! I wish there was something like this on T.V today.
MutleeIsTheAntiGod 3 months ago
other-wordly-spirit-dog.
OR, IS IT?
inaneRexx 1 year ago
Thank you. This video reminded me of the many boring hours I spent reading Aristotle. He was by far the most boring philosopher. "A chair is a chair, therefor all chairs share a common property blah-blah-blah"
FaaarLeft 1 year ago
....[But] to avoid contradictions the Ideas must be considered universal inherent in the particulars....the universal does not exist apart from particulars.” See Hahm, David E., The Origins of Stoic Cosmology, (Ohio State University Press: Ohio; 1977), 6-7, 42.
DobroHounddog 1 year ago
David Hahm supports my case: Plato’s “conclusion was the theory of Forms, according to which universals, including ethical predicates, exist apart from the particular manifestations of them, and these transcendent ideas are the only true beings...Aristotle brought many arguments against the theory of Ideas, showing that Plato’s theory leads to contradictions, namely, that Ideas exist separate or apart from the individual particulars...
DobroHounddog 1 year ago
“Suppose that you do not buy the Theory of Forms (you see all the difficulties in it about what the Forms are and so on)...Adherents of the Theory of Forms who hold that the Forms are numbers assume that each is a single thing by dint of its being one over many...The idea is that each of the numbers is a Form and that the Form is the cause of being for the other entities...But, of course, far from being necessary, these assumptions are not even possible.” 1090a-1090b.
DobroHounddog 1 year ago
...and "particulars." Incorrect, they are "universals" inherent and innate to the "particulars" in materialism from Aristotle to Marx. In the Metaphysics, Aristotle criticizes the "Theory of Forms" if we understand these as existing apart from their manifestations.
DobroHounddog 1 year ago
She conflates so many terms in this third part. First of all, she claims, correctly for once, that what distinguishes Plato from Aristotle (and, I would add, Idealism and Materialism, Hegel and Marx, etc.) is simply the fact that, for the latter camp, the "form" is, as she says, "immanent in the particular"--- viz., in the concrete embodiment, rather than transcendentally only in some ethereal realm. However, immediately after that she goes on to conclude that these forms are "individuals"....
DobroHounddog 1 year ago
I love her.
strider255 2 years ago
'But it's just there. It's just what the dog in fact is...It's right there. It's what the dog really is. It IS THAT DOG!
Hehe!
2Emile 2 years ago
What does Aristotle's metaphysics say for the individual's continued existence through quantum teleportation?
malchichikov 2 years ago
Is that like storing your pattern in the transporter buffer?
GorterPoss 2 years ago
I like her dress and the colour of her hair and i think that her face is beauty
berthos2 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'd fuck her
Chay216 2 years ago 3