A Dose of Aristotle

[@logiclane9550]

5:30 Mixes up the formal and material causes. The formal cause tells us what a thing is, the material, what it is made of.

[@HudBug]

Aristotle was the first philosopher i read. I have this sort of nostalgia for reading ethics.

[@MrGamerman16]

Fantastic Video, the music is also great.

[@VCT3333]

The unmoved mover sounds like Plato's idea of ideal form, which Aristotle argued against!

[@hakmagui9842]

Aristotle didn't believe in ideal forms. The Unmoved Mover didn't transcend the intelligible structure of the universe for him, as the Forms (allegedly) did for Plato.

[@pierredutilleux9550]

There are actually lots of unmoved movers in Aristotle's philosophy - God is just one of them. For instance, causes of desire are unmoved movers. If the sight of a chocolate bar causes you to desire it, the chocolate moves you but it itself is unmoved. So there's no mystery. There is some debate about whether God is the efficient cause of the universe in Aristotle, but really it seems that God is the final cause of everything. If you accept the rest of Aristotle's philosophy, then you also have to accept something like his idea of God. It's unlike Plato's "ideal" Forms because Aristotle's God is actuality pure actuality, not "ideal" at all. It is precisely for this issue that Aristotle criticizes Plato's Forms, namely that there is a contradiction in Plato claiming that the Forms are prior in being but at the same time not actualized in the physical world, implying that they are merely potential and thus not prior in being.

[@fadinglightsarefading]

@@pierredutilleux9550 Would 'unmoved-mover'-as-God rather be better described as 'un-caused causer'? The chocolate caused you to desire it, but something caused the chocolate to come into being. Whereas Aristotle's God is an unmoved mover but more ultimately uncaused causer (or pure actuality).

[@pierredutilleux9550]

@@fadinglightsarefading Yeah God is the only pure actuality, but again I think there are other self-causing entities in Aristotelianism. One of the causes of the flight of birds is the nature of birds. However, you can also divide animals into parts and see which parts act on the others. It's important that God is partless.

[@tylerhulsey982]

Looks like they got the material and formal cause mixed up on the graphic.

[@ronmackinnon9374]

I see what you mean. Mixed up in the accompanying narration as well (5:17). They should have 'What is it?' corresponding to formal, and 'What is it made of?' corresponding to material. Instead, they got those reversed.

[@mojdemarvast2366]

Thank you ...

[@ronmackinnon9374]

(3:05) Engraving fron Andre´ Thevet's 'True Portraits and Lives of Illustrious Men' (1584).

[@ronmackinnon9374]

(1:56) Woodcut illustration from a work by Charles de Bovelles (or Bouvelles), 1510. Ascending, left-to-right (related to what is discussed at 7:30), from the mineral (which merely exists) to the vegetable (which lives and exists) to the animal (which feels, lives, and exists), to the rational ('homo,' or man -- which thinks, in addition to feeling, living, and existing) -- most virtuous of which is the man who devotes himself to study. Then descending from there, through the vices of lust, gluttony, and sloth -- risking the loss not only of thought, but of feeling, even of life itself.

[@studyphilosophy3629]

the GOAT

[@kw0103]

I think I know

[@evenesteven]

The Greek word for substance is ousia, meaning that through which a given reality exists, in other words the principle of being. The word substance comes from the Latin substare, to hold below, and decadent scholasticism stuck to the etymology of this Latin translation, retaining then first substance, that is to say the subject as the first principle in the order of being.

[@evenesteven]

The first substance is what we reach through concrete experience, in other words the "this" of the judgment of existence, Steven, while the secondary substance is what we abstract from reality, man. However and necessarily, upstream of the first substance "Steven" and the secondary substance "man" there is substance-principle. Thus, beyond the concrete mode of experience (Steven) and the abstract mode of experience (man), there is Being, which is neither concrete nor abstract: it is.

[@evenesteven]

Let us recall this rather extraordinary sentence from Aristotle: if all realities were works of art, substance would be the idea of ​​the artist. Therefore, denying substance amounts by analogy to looking at a painting or a text without grasping any signification. Many of us enter into metaphysics through philosophy of art, especially since todays' culture is artistic, or pseudo-artistic. The artistic approach predominates almost everywhere, with man looking to be the creator of all things. And what is the fundamental determination of the work of art? It is obviously the idea and the project of the artist. So Aristotle's short sentence (which he writes in the Zeta book of Metaphysics) is quite lovely as it helps to understand what substance is.

[@ronmackinnon9374]

So thinking is capable of existing in isolation from living and sensing? How could we, as corporeal beings, ever establish that?

[@curcumin417]

Perhaps it only applies to the divine thinker- the Unmoved Mover (God, universe, pure thought)- who can Create from thinking alone, but we cannot.

[@ronmackinnon9374]

@@curcumin417 Perhaps that's what he meant; though that would seem to me to be strictly a matter of belief, rather than of logical deduction, which Aristotle meant for his whole philosophy to be grounded in.

[@curcumin417]

@@ronmackinnon9374 Fair enough, but then who is the Unmoved Mover? (Sorry I haven't read Aristotle directly).

[@hakmagui9842]

​@@ronmackinnon9374 Even if that was what Aristotle meant by the "Unmoved Mover" (the unmoved mover is not a creator), there are serious problems with thinking idealism is a "matter of belief".

[@hakmagui9842]

​@@curcumin417 For Aristotle, the Unmoved Mover is both the formal and final cause of motion, which he expresses in Platonic terms in Book Lambda of his metaphysics. It is not a theological principle of his, and has no real place in his metaphysics. It belongs more strictly to his physics and astronomy. This means it isn't a transcendent Proto-Christian creator of the universe. The truth is that Aristotle was not interested in religion at all.

[@ZYX84]

You know what I know… I know a dog even knows when he’s been tripped over by accident, or kicked on purpose!😐

[@ZYX84]

🧩🌏🧩🌎🧩🌍 my true love is Schopenhauer… But my crush is definitely Aristotle… Thank you!✨🏹✨🏹✨🏹✨

[@Anicius_]

Love the misogyny?

[@ZYX84]

@@Anicius_ I enjoy unpleasant people.😐. Perhaps we could hang out.😒

[@dann5480]

@@Anicius_ yes I do, very much. 🤣🤣😆😆😆🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

[@Anicius_]

0:53 yes like views on women. Stop exaggerating

[@suzaneoriordan4366]

Yea, judge from 2000 years ago with your now today accepted values. Everyone was like that, also Aristotle equalised and emphasised the happiness of women the same a men. He was a genius whether you like it or not

[@juliakos6009]

@@suzaneoriordan4366 exactly

[@Anicius_]

@@suzaneoriordan4366 you obviously haven't read him. He didn't value the happiness of women as well as men, in his books the génération of animals and politics he makes this very clear.