SkorpivoMusterion said:

Hmm. I guess we should've asked if he was a "Platonist or Aristotlean", so to speak. Well, Sherman, what sayeth thou?

---

Quote:

Plato held that the Ideas, the Forms of things, are self-existent, and not dependent upon the ever-changing objects of the senses. The noumenon, according to Plato, is the real, the phenomenon only appearance. Aristotle wrote extensively in criticism of Plato's doctrine of Ideas, affirming that "no universals exist over and above the individual objects and separate from them." He refused any substantial reality to "the unity which is predicated of many individual things." Universal principles, he held, are real, and are the objects of our reason, as distinguished from the physical objects of sense-perception. Yet universals are real only as they exist in individuals. "It is," he said, "apparently impossible that any of the so-called universals should exist as substance." This conflict between Plato and Aristotle on the subject of reality led to almost infinite controversy and confusion among later philosophers. To the extent that Aristotle endows universals with reality, he is Platonic in thought. His commentators have endeavored to interpret Aristotle according to their predilection. One writer maintains that "according to Aristotle, the formal aspect of universality is conferred by the mind, and therefore, the universal, as such, does not exist in individual things, but in the mind alone." (William Turner, History of Philosophy, p. 132.) Another points out that while both the Categories and the Metaphysics are based on the assumption of the reality of individual substances, "the Categories (cap. 5) admits that universal species and genera can be called substances, whereas the Metaphysics (Z 13) denies that a universal can be a substance at all." Yet Aristotle is constrained to regard as "substance" the universal essence of a species of substance, "because the individual essence of an individual substance really is that substance, and the universal essence of the whole species is supposed to be indivisible and therefore identical with the individual essence of any individual of the species." (Encyc. Brit., "Aristotle," 11th ed.)

In maintaining this Aristotle seems to invalidate all his arguments against the existence of universals independent of particulars. It was doubtless such difficulties in the comprehension of Aristotle's real meaning that led H.P.B. to remark upon the abstruse character of his writings, asking, "What do we know so certain about Aristotle?" (Isis Unveiled I, 320.) It seems that in spite of his demand for research into particulars, Aristotle was forced to return to the Platonic view of origins. This is indicated by H.P.B.'s explanation of his theory of Privation, Form and Matter. As Lange points out in his History of Materialism, Aristotle's admission of the reality of the universal, in things, "leads, in its logical consequences, little as Aristotle cared to trouble himself with these, to the same exaltation of the universal over the particular which we find in Plato. For if it is once conceded that the essence of the individual lies in the species, the most essential part of the species must again lie on a still higher plane, or, in other words, the ground of the species must lie in the genus, and so on." (I, 88.) Thus, as one of Aristotle's translators has observed, "he is ultimately driven back to the very standpoint he derides in Platonism." This writer, Hugh Tredennick, makes clear the internal contradictions in Aristotle's thought:

He is emphatic that form cannot exist in separation from matter; and yet the supreme reality turns out to be a pure form. He blames the Platonists for using metaphorical language, and yet when he comes to explain the ultimate method of causation he has to describe it in terms of love or desire. The truth is that Aristotle's thought is always struggling against Platonic influences, which nevertheless generally emerge triumphant in his ultimate conclusions. His great contribution to philosophy was on the side of method; but it was Plato, acknowledged or unacknowledged, who inspired all that was best in the thought of his great disciple. (Metaphysics, Introduction, I, xxx.)

---

Sherman901 said:

Yes, very intelligent sounding title don't you think? I'm trying to expand my understanding of certain things. I'm trying to read more, become a little bit open minded, etc. Anyone know of any good books? Preferably with philosphical literature or something that's worthwhile to know or learn. Thanks.

---

Striving to become open-minded and all, I would suggest randomly reading books pertaining to any subject, and beginning to form one's own philosophy. Philosophical literature is great, and probably essential to start with anyways, in order to understand what it is, in order to be able to start forming it, but the more encompassing worldview that you bathe in, the more understanding you will have access to.

At the same time you are retrieving knowledge and taking on new perspectives, focus inward and start asking questions. Who are you?, What is creating my experience of life?, etc. etc. Become aware of your thoughts, and begin to exercise the ability to create new ones and make thinking a conscious act. This is quite truly the only way to become open-minded.


Peace.

fireworks_god said:

Sherman901 said:

Yes, very intelligent sounding title don't you think? I'm trying to expand my understanding of certain things. I'm trying to read more, become a little bit open minded, etc. Anyone know of any good books? Preferably with philosphical literature or something that's worthwhile to know or learn. Thanks.

---

Striving to become open-minded and all, I would suggest randomly reading books pertaining to any subject, and beginning to form one's own philosophy. Philosophical literature is great, and probably essential to start with anyways, in order to understand what it is, in order to be able to start forming it, but the more encompassing worldview that you bathe in, the more understanding you will have access to.

At the same time you are retrieving knowledge and taking on new perspectives, focus inward and start asking questions. Who are you?, What is creating my experience of life?, etc. etc. Become aware of your thoughts, and begin to exercise the ability to create new ones and make thinking a conscious act. This is quite truly the only way to become open-minded.


Peace.

---

That was sweet and sound advise for him FG!

fireworks_god said:

Sherman901 said:

Yes, very intelligent sounding title don't you think? I'm trying to expand my understanding of certain things. I'm trying to read more, become a little bit open minded, etc. Anyone know of any good books? Preferably with philosphical literature or something that's worthwhile to know or learn. Thanks.

---

Striving to become open-minded and all, I would suggest randomly reading books pertaining to any subject, and beginning to form one's own philosophy. Philosophical literature is great, and probably essential to start with anyways, in order to understand what it is, in order to be able to start forming it, but the more encompassing worldview that you bathe in, the more understanding you will have access to.

At the same time you are retrieving knowledge and taking on new perspectives, focus inward and start asking questions. Who are you?, What is creating my experience of life?, etc. etc. Become aware of your thoughts, and begin to exercise the ability to create new ones and make thinking a conscious act. This is quite truly the only way to become open-minded.


Peace.

---

Sherman901 said:

That's what I've been thinking of doing too. I'm planning on picking up a book by Marx or Lenin, a couple of these philosophy books that have been recommended like Nietzsche and I'm reading "To America" by Stephen Ambrose.

---

No.

Dont read those books now. One, Communism is bullshit, two, you're confused enough as it is. Once you've got more or less a stable outlook on life, maybe start off with the Communist Manifesto and move on to Das Kapital. Right now though, it'll just leave you wandering more than when you came in.

Want a good book to read to give your life meaning?



I'm still taking it in right now, bits and pieces, and I can feel that it's making me a better and more positive person.

Also, there are two good book threads here, and in the Music, Art, and Lit forum. Search them.

Sherman901 said:

I'm planning on picking up a couple of these philosophy books that have been recommended like Nietzsche

---

fireworks_god said:

As if someone who has never met another is in a position to assume where they are at mentally and what is proper and what is not for them to read.

---

Fospher said:

I walk with cat's eyes baby, flowing in motion in the transcedental reality 99% of the population are too ignorant to acknowledge.

---