Aristotle 2: The Philosopher

[@franklinmolibasese7965]

I like the way you break down this lesson. Is really easy to learn with online rather than in campus class. Best understanding. Thanks so much for making this available for everybody.

[@Kristofferan]

Could you have uploaded your powerpoint to your lectures? That would be great! :)

[@williamberry7380]

Great for my understanding

[@NomisRebbew]

So according to Aristotle water is earth because when you drop water it falls to the ground? ps the four causes look like the construction of a sentence ie 1) Material = Object, 2) Formal= Verb, 3) Efficient = Subject, 4) Final = Subordinate clause. For example -The STATUE(1) WAS SCULPTED(2) by the ARTIST(3) TO GET A STATUE WITH A CERTAIN SHAPE(4)

[@Arasieus]

Hello Dr Brown, thank you for your lectures. I have question: I wonder if Aristotle ever though something like fallowing: say we have two sculptures, one made of marble and one made of copper. Now the copper sculpture has the potential to become rust but the marble doesn't possess this potential. However when ongoing this so to speak Form change, they are both considered as Sculpture as Material so they should also have the same potentials, doesn't it? Its seems to create a contradiction here, I wonder if Aristotle has ever given thoughts on this.

[@alwaysincentivestrumpethic6689]

Great work

[@apoelellas623]

Dear dr, firstly you have done a very good work online. I am doing an academic research and I found these lectures really helpful. I have a question for you and I'm begging you to answer me so I can continue the research...

[@apoelellas623]

What I mean is the following question : CAN CHANGE HAPPENS WHEN FORM COMING TO HAVE A MATERIAL THAT IT DID NOT HAVE BEFORE?

[@tennisball2012]

if my virtues come in my way to achieve my goal?....do I need to break my virtues or follow it

[@NomisRebbew]

pps does the sentence 'a photon is a particle' break the non contradiction rule? (most physicists answer this in the following way "yes and no"

[@apoelellas623]

What happen when a form stay the same and the matter is changing. Can we give a corresponding answer to this?

[@annklar]

RB, Thanks a lot!

[@Mrdavidt363]

again: outstanding!

[@WalyB01]

That sculpture was Michelangelo about the David.

[@apoelellas623]

Is there any philosophical argument about this that I can have access to. Please Help :)

[@WalyB01]

PS you can't get heat out of a chemical reaction without it already being their. In thermodynamics this is called the Enthalpy.

[@TarekFahmy]

thanks a lot...great video

[@alceguy]

Aristotle's critic of Plato's Theory of Forms seems a bit fishy to me. He says that, since both the Forms and it's Instances have the same name, there should be another category [something like a Meta-Form] which explains why they share the same name. But as far as I understood, the Form alone can explain it. If the instances have the same name because they share common traits with the Form itself, it is exactly this common traits between the Instances that justifies they having the same name as the Form. I don't see why a third category is needed.

[@hyperduality2838]

A third form is not needed, it defies energy conservation the first law of thermodynamics! Forms are objective or absolute, eternal or constants which are singular in nature. Objective is dual to subjective, absolute is dual to relative. A third form would defy the conservation of duality! If Aristotle is correct then energy is not being conserved and the laws of physics are in disrepute! Energy is dual to mass -- Einstein. Potential energy is dual to kinetic energy. The conservation of duality is the 5th law of thermodynamics! Forms are dual to formlessness!

[@rameezwaniii]

you didn't define rationality and logic explicitly. could you please articulate these terms?

[@thestevensfamily2463]

Did Aristotle believe that morality was the parameters or guidelines for rational action?

[@charlesgodwin2191]

All principles ate axioms, self - evident truths. 1. Law of Identity 2. Law of non - contradiction 3. Law of the Excluded Middle There is that which is. There is not that which is that is other than that which is, for if there was anything other, it would still be that which is - that we 'call' other - thus not other at all. Therefore, that which is, is all - inclusive. That which is always was (potential) and will always be (actualized). That which is not, never was and will never be. The template or pattern is the general blueprint of the particular. It is a conceptualized integration of regularities found in collections of perceptions. The nature of the Absolute is to function/serve as a diversified unity (continuum of being) that actualizes as a unified diversity or Uni -verse, and is therefore, the One Absolute Being in which all relative beings live, move and have their being. What appears as separate and opposite things are in reality the twin poles of a continuum. The conceptual opposites of hot and cold are the twin poles of the continuum of temperature. The all - inclusive Absolute includes all relative differences as extensions of itself. We are as the infinity of sunbeams shining forth from the same eternal sun. The many facets of the same diamond. That which is nothing in particular (actual) is by definition everything in general (potential).

[@hyperduality2838]

Truth is dual to falsity, all axioms are dual in nature. Yes is dual to no, the one cannot exist without the other. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@amigojapan]

I can love someone and hate them at the same time, I can want to go to the movie theater and not want to go to the movie theater at the same time, so it seems to me the law of non contradiction is not valid. people's feelings can have contradictions in them.

[@Mary42877]

your example is more like two feelings at once, though. so maybe it's not the same thing. unless you defined "hate" as the absence of "love".