Eric

How do you LIVE? How do you make CHOICES? ETHICS is the answers. Answer YOUR questions. Here are my answers. What did I get wrong? Let's read it together: a book preview. For Sale on Amazon, click: a.co/d/bC2iWJx

What about the metaphysics of each? Plato maintains a primacy of consciousness to existence. A separate dimension of pure thought that exists prior to experience and carries forward through a Pythagorean cycle of rebirth. Aristotle maintains the this world is what is real. We are born a blank slate and form our concepts from our experience. That this is the real world. Existence exists and we are conscious of it, aware of it through our senses. Not a supernatural world. Sure, Aristotle was a student of Plato for many years, he still maintain some Platonism in his system, but what remained was just inconsistencies within his system. Their metaphysics are completely different. And th epistemology shows it afterwards. Plato is a rationalist, he deduces everything, everything. Aristotle used induction and deduction.Their theories of universals, or how concepts are formed are completely different. Thanks for the discussion, I apologize in advance if our mutual passion for the exchange of philosophical ideas gets me into debates on them. I never thought I would be interested in epistemology, but I do love it these days.

@basedball_ @EP_Freely Hegel’s point gets neglected somewhat because the left Hegelians typically want to minimize his Platonism because of their views on sublation.

If you ever worry about being original in philosophy just remember Foucault, Ripped of N, N ripped of Schopenhauer, Schopenhauer ripped of Kant, Kant ripped off Hume and Leibniz, Hume ripped off Cicero Leibniz Ripped of Aquinas, Cicero ripped off the Stoics, Stoics and Aquinas1/2

@No5mallf3at @basedball_ Thanks for the discussion.

@EP_Freely @basedball_ Plato and Aristotle both believe the Good is the first principle of philosophy. They both believe universals forms shape matter. The differences between them are on the univocity of being and intelligibility of the Good. Besides that they’re almost the same.

@_Shall_Not_Pass @PhysInHistory Thank you, love to discuss epistemology and philosophy in general. Appreciate it.

@EP_Freely @PhysInHistory It was still a good conversation. Thank for the friendly back and forth.

"I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy." - Max Born

@_Shall_Not_Pass @PhysInHistory Results is not a good word in this context, I agree.

I absolutely agree for the most part. Epistemology follows metaphysics and concept formation is central to how we know. It really is the basis for all higher knowledge. That said, while theories are built from those concepts, I still see them as explanatory models rather than conclusive 'results.' Results are the facts and observations that theories explain and organize, and theories themselves can evolve with new evidence.

@basedball_ @No5mallf3at The battle between Plato and Aristotle’s ideas is very significant in the history of philosophy.

@EP_Freely @No5mallf3at Aristotle is definitely not the opposite of plato. They disagree but their systems are still developed from the same foundation

@basedball_ @No5mallf3at I would disagree. Aristotle was Plato’s student, then went on to found a philosophy the opposite of Plato.

@alexeixbt Intelligence would be connecting the patterns.

pattern recognition is the highest form of intelligence

@veritasvates If it's Platonic, then it's recall the Forms.

gun to your head, recall the forms

epistemology, the second branch of philosophy after metaphysics, the answer to the question: How do you know? Concept formation is the crucial issue in epistemology. The ability to form concepts to use in thought and subsequent communication of thought is the basis of all man's knowledge.

@EP_Freely @PhysInHistory Close, I'll give you that. But I'd like to add that concept formation doesn't presuppose everything, it's a key process within epistemology. Theories arise from it, but epistemology (and philosophy as a whole) provides the broader framework.

@MadeInAncapia UNLV professor, who would have thought that.

🖋️| "El Estado nada produce. Solo puede confiscar lo que otros han producido." - Murray Rothbard

@_Shall_Not_Pass @PhysInHistory yeah, everything is presupposed by concept formation.

I wouldn't even call it that because theories aren't 'results.' Results are conclusive (facts, observations, proofs). Theories are explanatory models built on concepts; they can and do evolve as knowledge grows. Facts are what theories explain and organize; they aren't usually "calculated ideas" in the same integrative sense.

@JMGreerWriter There were all bad. Objective morality is the result of having a proper standard of value: x.com/EP_Freely/stat…

The amusing thing about Schopenhauer’s hard dichotomy between morality and self-interest is that it comes straight out of Lutheran moral theology, and also appears in Kant. I consider that approach to morality to be radically false. Nietzsche was correct in pointing out that nearly all moral philosophy consists of using bad logic to prop up traditional beliefs, though his attempt to create an alternative morality flopped pretty badly — he was using bad logic to prop up an alternative to traditional beliefs!

@mathemetica Exactly why I wrote my 5 books on philosophy for all ages. The current crop of philosophers, to quote Nietzsche, "muddy the waters to make them appear deep." Simple explanations

“Simplicity isn't the lack of complexity; it's the clarity of understanding.”

@No5mallf3at Aristotle's philosophy was the opposite of Plato's. It's not so much ripping off one another but advancing knowledge through responding to the previous ideas and moving them forward in history.

Ripped off Aristotle. Aristotle ripped off Plato. Plato ripped off Parmenides. Parmindes ripped off the One. 2/2

@LisaChristiePhD False. What are you going to solve any problem with, your emotions? Emotions are the result of reasons. You cannot escape reason.

Relying solely on our rational mind to solve complex problems is like trying to eat spaghetti with a knife.

@QuoteJung Without consciousness there is no need for morality.

Morality presupposes consciousness.

@QuoteNietzsche Both are mystics, Spinoza the more rational of the two.

Who are you?

@33StrategiesBot Neither

Which way?

@normonics Will is the ability to focus the intellect. Free is the freedom to do it. Free will

One of the things that reductionist materialism has done to us is to give the false impression that the WILL is not real. This is to our massive detriment. Philosophy used to understand the central role of will in our lives -- our desires and intentions drive our actions. And so many of our political problems stem primarily from a lack of will. Look no further than El Salavador's incredible transformation under Bukele to see the proof of that. Where there is a WILL there is a WAY.