/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13234670]

For me, it’s Aristotle

:3

[Anonymous No.13234722]

Categories, Physics and Metaphysics should be required reading for high school upperclassmen and undergrads tempted by Nietzsche. Save Nichomachean Ethics and Politics for when they're capable of thinking for themselves.

the principle of non-contradiction should be taught to every naive relativist

[Anonymous No.13234733]

>>13234722
Fuck it, just make them read the whole Organon

[Anonymous No.13234739]

>>13234722
Poetics and the Rhetoric are his best works for normal people senpai. Being able to articulate a critique of media while also convincing others it is so is mad power gains in highschool and college senpai

[Anonymous No.13234785]

Love the Stot!

[Anonymous No.13236524]

>>13234670
I like Diogenes!
I want dog daddy to pee on me~~
:3c

[Anonymous No.13236599]

Then write another commentary on him you fucking medieval faggot

[Anonymous No.13236914]

>>13234670
For me, it’s Plotinus

[Anonymous No.13236921]

>>13236914
It's funny because Plotinus uses that exact metaphor of the sun peeking over the horizon to make his point about the relationship between the upper two hypostases

[Anonymous No.13237036]

>>13236921
This nigga gets it

[Anonymous No.13237560]

>According to Spengler, Kant and Aristotle were the philosophers of understanding, whereas Plato and Goethe were the philosophers of intuition. Or, in Spengler’s own words: ‘Plato and Goethe accept the secret, Aristotle and Kant wish to destroy it’ (1918:174). Plato and Goethe did not try to analyse ‘words’ like ‘destiny, undoing, chance, fate, purpose… No hypothesis, no science can touch upon that which one feels when losing oneself in the meaning and sound of these words. They are symbols, not concepts’ (1918:164). Aristotle and Kant, on the other hand, developed a systematic philosophy, at the heart of which was ‘a logic of the inorganic and the rigid’ (1918:164). This type of philosophy was based on ‘fear of the world’ (Weltangst), it was full of ‘hatred against that which cannot be understood’, and it aimed at ‘submission, [and] mechanisation’ (1918:174). It sought to neutralise the inevitable contingencies of life by conceptualising chance as ‘that which has not yet been brought into the scope of a physical formula’

>“Plato and Goethe stand for the philosophy of Becoming, Aristotle and Kant the philosophy of Being… Goethe’s notes and verse… must be regarded as the expression of a perfectly definite metaphysical doctrine. I would not have a single word changed of this: “The Godhead is effective in the living and not in the dead, in the becoming and the changing, not in the become and the set-fast; and therefore, similarly, the reason is concerned only to strive towards the divine through the becoming and the living, and the understanding only to make use of the become and the set-fast.

[Anonymous No.13237605]

>>13234670
Without Eriugena, Aristotle is useless, and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.13237858]

>>13237560
>Plato stands for becoming, Aristotle for being
What retarded horseshit. It was Plato that posited the unchangeability of the ideal essence of things, the nature of knowledge as recollection, different personalities as reflections of the prototypical human etc. while Aristotle always deals in processes of motion, change, causality, becoming (poiesis and physis, bringing forth) etc. and turns to the particular things as opposed to unchanging ideals. Schopenhauer himself criticizes Aristotle for positing that one's character may change through habituation instead of being inborn, which he thinks must be the case. Goethe's openness to the things themselves in his various scientific endeavors is also far more akin and indebted to Aristotle than Plato.

>Aristotle aimed at mechanization
Funny, Heidegger contrasts the modern mechanization of nature with exactly Aristotle's life-embracing, dynamic view of it.

>It sought to neutralise the inevitable contingencies of life by conceptualising chance as ‘that which has not yet been brought into the scope of a physical formula’
Not at all, Aristotle was the one to bring chance and contingency into attention in the first place.

[Anonymous No.13237881]

>>13234670
have you tried Ayn Rand? shes really the next step in the evolution

[Anonymous No.13238115]

>>13237881
This but unironically

[Anonymous No.13238147]

>>13237858
Becoming and being have specific meanings in his phllosophy, and the concept of unchangeable ideal essences corresponds to Becoming, his prime symbols of cultures reflected in the various endeavors of the people.

Being is not 'stillness' or whatever it's the 'dead' world of facts that can be analyzed by science