Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics book 6 | Truth in Theory and in Action | Philosophy Core Concepts

[@ryanfrizzell736]

Interesting video about the truth in theory and in action. It can be a good thing to know more about the truth.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, or rather about truths, plural

[@Rahvin1230]

Hi Dr. Salder, thanks again for another great video. I greatly enjoyed your mention of correspondental concepts of truth. I am well on my way to finishing Kevin Hector's Theology Without Metaphysics, which is primarily focused on this topic. Your video was helpful in organizing my thoughts.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad it was useful for you

[@MrMarktrumble]

thank you again

[@MrMarktrumble]

dia-noia: through mind, a-letheia= lack of forgetfulness or sleepiness. The correspondence theory of truth assumes a) objecitve real essences or universals and b) the ability of the mind to conform ( or correspond) to these essences "conforms to the way things actually are." okay. Aristotle would make an arche ( first principle) of the principle of identity and the principle of non contradiction This is the metaphysical basis of the kataphasis and apophasis. And yet, there seem to be denials to the metaphysical veracity of these arche. In the realm of Quantam physics water can be "in two places at once". If all reality is reduced to physics, and if the most accurate account account of this reality is articulated by Quantum mechanics, then Aristotle's arche do not hold. The justification for arche is " i see into them". And yes, I can see into them as well ( thank you Aristotle for pointing them out). The apex of the most fundamental truths that orders all sciences ( by supplying the most basic of all presuppositions) is a matter of perception (aesthetic). Thus, the most primary truths are aesthetic. Nietzsche thought the same, except he had the taste for the dynamic , the tragic and would wonder why anyone would have a taste for the static and the self-same., and would state that only a very few can claim the content of their perception are first principles ( he would of course claim that privilege himself, being such a profound psychologist, into seeing into the motives of others for their metaphysical perceptions). Aristotle's Biology has no room for what is conceived of as "natural history", or an evolution of types in responce to their environment and each other, once again, favoring the dynamic and ever changing in contrast to the eternal and self-same. My response at this point is: I do not live at a quantum level. I would not reduce all reality to the most subtle levels of matter in physics. While it is questionable where Aristotle has come up with the first principles of truth in episteme or maybe even sophia ( will we develop a quantum logic, and thus a quantum metaphysics. I am ignorant. Perhaps it has already been done) , I tend towards him having done so in phronesis and praxis. IN the everyday lived world, you cannot have your sandwich and have also eaten it. While I know Aristotle favors sophia and episteme over phronesis and techne, and our society reverses this evaluation, and there may be wisdom in that. Even Thales demonstrated that if he desired, he could use his knowledge to make money, giving an objective, practical and economic test of his knowledge. Desire that is inhabited by reason. Now, is reason instrumental to desire, (desire fixes ends) or does reason fix ends, and desire is trained by reasons ends? Of the two, I say the second is the better choice.Good lecture.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Mark Trumble Which one point in this would you like me to respond to

[@MrMarktrumble]

yes...sorry for the long comment. Let us address the question that the justification for the truth of arche as perception. Does this mean that both logic and metaphysics rests ultimately in a private and subjective event?

[@GregoryBSadler]

No. There are multiple kinds of archai

[@MrMarktrumble]

thus the multiple kinds of archai have different means of justification and intelligibilty? As archai, they cannot be argued for, they are assumed as axioms in demonstrations.(here comes the dialectic as apologetics) In analysis, they may be argued to, but analysis can lead to empty dead ends where a positive concept should be. If neither argued for, nor argued to, they would then be asserted. As asserted, it is a question on how the content of the assertion was obtained. But I am going to look into what the multiple archai are,( how many are there? I assume the list is finite, and thus countable) and try to see more carefully how Aristotle justifies each, and if it is the same or different in each case. Hopefully the computer will help in this.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Aristotle points out that, e.g. in practical matters, as well as general principles, particulars are used as archai - and we get those through perception. He doesn't speak at all about "justification", so I would drop that framework, if the goal is to understand his position on its own grounds. Archai are used in multiple ways. You'll find them as you dig around through his works.

[@MrMarktrumble]

thank you again. rational desire....eros sophia to be a lover of wisdom. I am open to be that.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@JoshV74656]

Hmm, thinking of desires and avoidance as being truthful to oneself does seem to be a backbone of acting ethical. if your false in your pursuits you probably aren't going to end up being fair and true to yourself or others. I can think of times in my life where a more honest and reasonable understanding of my desires would have saved both myself and others some grief.