Aristotle vs Plato - Understanding "Understanding"

[ThePoliticalMoose]

@JericoMovie,

A friendly suggestion, either slow down or repeat yourself more. I did not understand this video until I consulted other sources. YouTube is typically a place where people come for an initial taste of the philosophy and your concept introductory videos should be as such.

That being said, great video! very insightful. It's really helped me to bring my paper together. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!

[jericomovie]

@ThePoliticalMoose

Thanks for the suggestion. I hope you read the annotation at the beginning of the video before incorporating any of this in your paper.

[steppenthewolf]

thanks mate. 

[ligerman30]

@jericomovie Ok! Saying existentialism is true because the universe was created and in order to understand something you must create it is therefore a creator must exist is a circular arguement and does not advance your position. Not only is it circular it isn't sound. We CAN create a universe if we find a way to make a singularity and we CAN create life from non-life and we have. Finally this is an arguement from ignorance which is a terminal logical fallacy. The logical conclusion is idk.

[kakosuranosx]

I agree. They were definitely idealists. I think the main difference between Platon and Aristotelis is the fact the first one constructs his point of view from the upside down (which means he desobeys Sokratis good) while the 2nd one constructs his point of view from the inverse. It's like he asks Sokratis for a wax tutorial on how to figure the substancial reality of the Greek man in the physical world. Maybe because Plat was more like Math teacher and Ari was more like a Naturalist guy. :)

[fulekkei]

So, "understanding" would be: I create a painting. I "know" every (relevant) thing about the painting, e.g., the symbolism, my motivation, etc. Contrarily an observer could only know parts of everything to know about the painting and would thereby have "noble ignorance." Correct?

But to call the universe a creation (a painting) is simply romanticizing it, is it not? The fact that we cannot understand a thing (ie kno it in totality) does not necessitate a creator capable of total understanding.

[HaleyMary]

If people are to remain ignorant of the first cause, how can it be known either way whether there is some higher power /being or not? or, do the people,energy that remembers the higher world, would they not go down to Earth if they understood existence/awareness/the universe?

I always found Aristotle interesting, yet confusing. His ideas are good, but Aristotle seems to ramble on too much sometimes in his philosophies.

[stefanlittle]

I think that was utterly circular.

[trick0171]

"We cannot have perfect knowledge of god"

I would suggest we cannot have any knowledge of god, but you are right - Aristotle was a step up from Plato in that regard.

[theepsilon2010]

@trick0171 Does not the reasonable assertion for a necessary uncaused infinite being justify SOME knowledge of God, even if it is asserting God's existance?

[trick0171]

@theepsilon2010

"reasonable assertion"?" necessary"? "uncaused infinite being"?

[theepsilon2010]

@trick0171 I apologize but I cannot explain Aristotle's uncaused cause in these comments. Watch Jerico's video before this one.

My point being is that if we come to the reasonable conclusion that an infinite, unchanging, uncaused cause (which we call God - try not to be so befuddled by the Christian sense, I am using the term more broadly here) does it not therefore follow that we have some knowledge of God already and perhaps can pursue more, yet we cannot know God perfectly and completely

[trick0171]

@theepsilon2010

If you had a reasonable assertion of such things, of course.

My first statement, however, is that we do not have such a reasonable assertion of any such "necessity". In fact, we do not need to assert ANYTHING being "uncaused" or "infinite".

(MORE 1)

[trick0171]

But even if we did assert those traits (I assert them as possibilities), there would be absolutely no (reasonable) reason to assert the uncaused infinite things as a "being" - or anything with any sort of intellect or sentience what-so-ever.

The cosmological argument (used by aristotle) is flawed in multitudes of ways.

(END 2)

[jericomovie]

@trick0171

not "a" being. just being.

[trick0171]

@jericomovie

It appears as if "being" is being used as a noun here: "a necessary uncaused infinite being". The "a" is before the three adjectives..and then the noun. If "being" is not a noun, then what is it..and what are the adjectives describing? If it is a noun, then give me a synonym for it.

Much appreciated,

Trick

[egoistorms]

great upload. thank you for making this.

[cyxgun]

True, we cannot understand the world perfectly; the truth will always evade us to some degree. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and it doesn't mean we won't get very close to the truth.

As far as 'pure being' being God, I think you're mistaken here. I believe Aristotle was addressing the 'observer of thoughts' within our own minds. 'Pure being' sounds suspiciously like the 'oneness' that Buddhists speak about approaching through meditation, by removing the idea of self.

[askirojadu]

I don't see the link between causation and completely knowing. We cause billions of things without knowing that we even caused them. Is this a one way street? And if so the term "completely knowing" is just a foreign idea and just doesn't make sense.

[jericomovie]

@askirojadu

well, we can't cause things to happen in physical reality that weren't already possible. that's the difference.

[FlowCell]

The cake really is a lie, in other words.

[BespokeGroupUK]

Its always good to have a depth of thought and analysis on youtube :) keep it up to counteract the power of the fluffy vloggers

[Dogschach]

1) What work is this passage from? 2) Sure you aren't conflating "God" with "the Good"? I mean, just because you believe "pure being" is "God' does not mean it is what Aristotle meant so if you are going to claim that Aristotle is talking about a"communion with God" you either a) have to find a passage where is specifically says that or b) Explain why "God" being "pure being" is compatible within the context of Aristotle's teachings.

[Dogschach]

@Dogschach Also, the passage you quoted sounds more like an argument for agnosticism than any attempt to form a communion with anything since, as you quote it, his is clearly saying we cannot know it. So, another interpretation of why it is a "noble ignorance" is because it is more noble to know your limitations than to act as if you have none.

[AnotherMasterMind]

"sigh". I feel a little dumber now, but thats probably a good thing.

[theprodigy2186]

"We are truth, that sought un-truth, and thus found ourselves in an eternal search for truth once again, having lost that which we are, yet refusing to accept that we are what we have been searching for all along." - Anon E. Moss

"Truth once grasped, fiction becomes the desire. The fiction tightly held, our lust for truth again arrises. A 1 for a 0, an "on" for an "off". A binary machine running on bits made of "I!" and "why?"" - Anon E. Moss

[Riyuzakisan]

first