Aristotle and Kant

[Anonymous No.18761210]

So Aristotle believed in a separation between passive intellect and active intellect. The active intellect is declared unmixed in the body, and declared basically indestructible, persisting past death. It is responsible in some way for the possibility of all thought. And moreover, interpreters connect it due to its qualities to the prime mover. Prime movers for Aristotle think, but only of themselves (self-consciousness): they alone are incorruptible and immaterial substances. Assume for a moment that the active intellect is in this sense a prime mover, then it is self-consciousness, and also responsible for thought (had by the passive intellect) through its activity. This last sentence sounds an awful lot like the role of spontaneity and the transcendental unity of apperception in Kant. What's going on here?

[Anonymous No.18762403]

Imagine my disappointment waking up the next day and this thread on Aristotle and Kant still has no replies. Wow /lit/ you sure do read everyone you say you read huh.

[Anonymous No.18762415]

>>18761210
What's going on is that you've stated something most readers of Kant know. Kant himself once stated that he understood Aristotle better than Aristotle himself.
>>18762403
make better threads, nigger.

[Anonymous No.18762440]

>>18762403
>What's going on here?
to what kind of discussion should this question lead in your mind? Yes, there are parallels between Aristotles notion of the intellect and Kant's notion of the rationality, so what? What follows? Looks like you had a brainfart which made you happy, and I'm happy for you, but this leads nowhere. formulate a better discussion question and come back.

[Anonymous No.18762453]

>>18762415
>make better threads
Not a single thread on the catalog right now is better, and certainly not the majority. Don't posture about knowing Kant and then simultaneously make such a stupid comment like that.

[Anonymous No.18762460]

>>18762440
Do you seriously engage literature like this? You read, absorb, and stop thinking? Do you think that's the way all the people you read actually work? You're supposed to make connections and make discussions. What do you think the secondary literature scholarship does? The amount of comparative discussions about two philosophers is huge.

[Anonymous No.18762466]

>>18762440
>>18762415
faggot ass nerds

Op, read Monism, Mysticism, and Metapsychism by Philip Merlan. It goes into rigorous detail about the nature of the active intellect, its relation to the nous, and how that implies the existence of a universal mind that thinks thinking the way we think thoughts. Not a lot of Kant I'm afraid.

Nothing, and I repeat NOTHING, makes Kantians seethe quite like implying Kant was "just" a Platonist, or "just" anything else. And he was. So they can seethe all they want.

[Anonymous No.18762495]

>>18762453
>Not a single thread on the catalog right now is better
even the chris chan thread is better than this shit.
>>18762440
this.

[Anonymous No.18762505]

>>18762460
you're insulting someone for not opening a discussion whilst you don't open a discussion. You are a dumb faggot.

[Anonymous No.18762511]

>>18762495
>>18762505
Put a sock in it you fucking cunts. I want to grind you and the armchair jannies into fucking paste

[Anonymous No.18762520]

>>18762460
making unproductive connections is the sign of a midwit, of a boring armchair scholar who wants to write a lot of papers so he keeps his cushy position.

[Anonymous No.18762579]

>>18762511
Dumb nigger. Go and make better threads. It's clear you can't discuss shit, otherwise you would have already responded to >>18762466
You're a posturing faggot that's unable to open a true comparative discussion. You add nothing. Your thread is the equivalent of someone stating 'Kant talked about how we can't know the noumenon'. You are scum. You should go and hang. nigger.

[Anonymous No.18762599]

>>18762579
>being this fucking mad for no reason
miserable wagie cunt has work tomorrow and takes it out on others

[Anonymous No.18762629]

>>18762466
Thanks anon I'll look into that, sounds interesting.

[Anonymous No.18762673]

>>18762629
Do you seriously engage literature like this? You give thanks, read, absorb, and stop thinking? Do you think that's the way all the people you read actually work? You're supposed to make connections and make discussions. What do you think the secondary literature scholarship does? The amount of comparative discussions about two philosophers is huge.

[Anonymous No.18762687]

>>18762579
The anon you are replying isn't me (OP). And since there are only 4 people posting so far, one of whom is the book anon, one me, and I presume two more here >>18762415 and >>18762440 then someone is playing around replying to themselves with two personas, pretending to be doubly outraged and using slurs all the same. Freaky shit honestly. It's not worth making up stupid drama in a thread like this. If it's not you, just ignore it.

[Anonymous No.18762695]

>>18761210
>active intellect
>passive intellect
None of this have any (not just infinetesimal) confirmation by empiric or rational study. Fuck of with your magic.

[Anonymous No.18762696]

>>18762673
Don't be petty.

[Anonymous No.18762700]

>>18762687
no one is replying to himself you paranoid cuck

[Anonymous No.18762704]

[Anonymous No.18762721]

>>18762695
retard

[Anonymous No.18762754]

>>18762695
>empiric or rational
I don't think you understand those words

[Anonymous No.18762786]

>>18762754
Check a dictionary, let me rephrase for you
>None of this have any (not just infinetesimal) confirmation by [based on experiments or experience rather than ideas] (empirical) or [based on reasoning] (rational) study

[Anonymous No.18762812]

>>18762786
>Check a dictionary
Oh, so you truly don't understand those words

[Anonymous No.18762825]

>>18762812
I advised you to check it if you don't understand the meaning of that sentence...damn so many arrogant dimwits here nowadays

[Anonymous No.18762857]

>>18762786
>prescriptive usage
>lack of hermeneutical understanding of the development of the words
Dictionary cucks should off themselves

[Anonymous No.18763656]

>>18761210
>kant
You need to understand that these people simply low IQ. They lived on a time of medical inneficiency, bad nutrition, and terrible educational system, even for the high class. While IQ is hereditary, you can depress it with inadequate conditions, and that was exactly the case for Kant and other philosophers. Kant was probably 89-91 IQ. It's why his text is convoluted and dry, he doesn't know how to express himself because his neurological structures are underdeveloped (thus his 89 IQ). He was also writing for an average of 78-82 IQ, which's why his text seems so innovative, compared to his contemporaries. But for a 100-120IQ educated man nowadays, his and most of the texts of the past, feels obvious and immediate, puerile, ridiculous even. Anyone who has 100IQ plus, has thought about things like "the thing in itself" and how it isn't really knowable; the division between sensory experience and mental apriori knowledge etc.
Disregard philosophy and go to STEM.