6. Aristotle's Understanding of Reality

[@JestEducation]

It might be worth emphasising that Aristotle did NOT argue that the universe has an efficient cause. He believed it to be eternal -it is just there.

[@KvltSlaw]

The build up from Telos to induction was really well done and resonated with me. Ty

[@yqafree]

Excellent synopsis, this caused my remembering that modernity was in large part born out of Aristotelian ideas. What a very influential person he was for the 7 liberal arts

[@masn8680]

Love your lessons. 🙏

[@JestEducation]

Awww, thank you. That is very kind.

[@daranikhil5101]

Brilliant explanation

[@JestEducation]

Thank you!

[@andrew-vo9hi]

all this presumes the purpose, if any, behind the desire for knowledge . for example, if I desire to achieve and have no means of copying another achiever, does that mean I am the primordial achiever or that the primordial achiever is either dead or hidden

[@McRingil]

What you're talking about sounds more like Plato than Aristotle. But I don't know exactly what you mean.

[@vishnuburla4434]

why has natural science gotten ride of telos, there are some references such as the teeth are for grinding and the eyes for seeing but generally scientists no longer look at the purpose of a thing?

[@JestEducation]

I wonder if this might be related to telos implying intentionality of creation...

[@asimplemuser6461]

Because, if all things are reduced to "cause and effect" inferred by merely our senses, then "cause and effect" is ultimately unknown. If "cause and effect" are ultimately unknown, then we cannot assign a "goal" or "purpose" to anything, for to do so would be to assign the necessary "link" (or goal) between two objects. Therefore, natural science, followed consistently, cannot account for a "true" "telos" to things.

[@vishnuburla4434]

@@asimplemuser6461 but natural science explains things in term of efficient causes, mechanics of billiard balls. Your argument would get rid of all the types of causes.

[@asimplemuser6461]

@@vishnuburla4434 That is correct. This insight from David Hume is what woke Immanuel Kant from his "dogmatic slumber." While we practically live and make observations based on habit, habit alone cannot sufficiently account (rationally justify) for "cause and effect." In order to rationally justify cause and effect, you would, ideally, need to demonstrate the exact cause and effect for every known thing in the universe. This is because, in effect, this is exactly what you are doing anyway when you say that one thing "caused" another thing to happen. You are essentially saying: "this thing has embedded in its nature a universal, objective, and forever consistent link to do this thing and therefore be this thing." Hume said, unless you are God and can demostrate this "link", this assertion cannot be rationally justified by any human. Therefore, cause and effect has no epistemological grounding, other than pure habit and chance (rationally speaking). Followed consistently, by all human accounts, if cause and effect is done away with, so is all of metaphysics (that is, we cannot "prove" metaphysical realities). This, of course, is based upon the assumption that part of "proving" a thing is rationally demonstrating its necessity and empirically demonstrating its necessity. With all this being the case, since we cannot sufficiently "prove" cause and effect about any object, metaphysics is also "unprovable," since almost all metaphysical claims/objects (except pure logic/math) are by nature intrinsically "linked" to their cause and effect upon the world. Admittedly, Hume recognized that this conclusion would lead to radical skepticism. And it certainly does. Nevertheless, Hume asserted that this conclusion is the most consistent view and cannot be disproven. Kant tried to disprove it by granting the mind all the necessary powers in order to establish cause and effect but some argue that this was arbitrarily founded and also cannot be "proven" in the strict sense (Hume's sense). This skepticism is commonly called Hume's Problem of Induction.

[@mirouu13]

Thanks

[@joecurran2811]

N/A likes?

[@GuyPearce217]

veoma krejzi

[@JestEducation]

Tell me more...

[@leonardarumenjak1924]

Meni je ovo presmiješno kak su vam odgovorili

[@thomassmith3945]

​@@leonardarumenjak1924 činjenica da su vam odgovorili

[@Giabroni1]

A philosopher speaking intelligibly? It's almost as if there is an objective reality and she is capable of observing and explaining it. Why can't most philosophers do that? Does bad epistemology destroy one's ability to understand the universe conceptually? Hint hint wink wink**

[@McRingil]

This is real philosophy, understanding the real world and its ultimate cause.