Thank you so much, Professor! Your videos are really helpful to me. They are obviously more understandable than reading a bunch of articles.
@GregoryBSadler7 жыл бұрын
Glad that the videos are useful for you. If you'd like to give back a bit and support my work, here's my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler
@lucascarvalho28492 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for your work! You are an amazing teacher!
@GregoryBSadler2 жыл бұрын
You’re very welcome
@GreggMikulla25 күн бұрын
In a subject: this thing as it is (I can't predicate Secretariat of Secretariat (unless I attribute 'Secretariat' as the name of the horse, for example) Predicated: what can be said about it (the coat of Secretariat is dark brown) The terms then are applicable or modified as necessary to one of each variation of situations within the quadrant (as brownness can be said of the subject, but *that* particular brownness is also in the subject) Is this along the right line?
@melindanelson16606 жыл бұрын
I'm taking a 400 level class on sophism and this video was a great help to clear up my confusion of this topic during reading. It would be awesome to hear some examples of the fallacies that arise with incorrect use of predicates as well!
@GregoryBSadler6 жыл бұрын
Glad it was useful for you.
@TheFirstFewLeaves7 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for your videos, Dr. Sadler. They're of great help to me in my studies. I don't have much beyond my student budget now, but I've bookmarked your Patreon in case I run into some for money later this year.
@GregoryBSadler7 жыл бұрын
That's very nice of you. You're quite welcome!
@sebastianhelm17186 жыл бұрын
I don't really understand the difference of the second and third combination. When I say "this book is green" why is it in one case predicated of it, but not in it and in the other case in it, but not predicated of it.
@GregoryBSadler6 жыл бұрын
Greenness is not the same thing as "is green". One is a property in the subject, the other is linguistic or conceptual.
@sebastianhelm17186 жыл бұрын
Wow thanks for the quick reply. So the second combination refers to nominalism and the third to the actual being that is there, is that right?
@GregoryBSadler6 жыл бұрын
No. Nominalism is the name of a philosophical doctrine
@sebastianhelm17186 жыл бұрын
Well, that's obvious. But isn't nominalism the doctrine that assumes universals, like greenness, to be just words i.e. "linguistic concepts"?
@GregoryBSadler6 жыл бұрын
That's one way to characterize it. But Aristotle isn't a nominalist. If you're still mixed up about this - and it is a tricky section of the work - I'd suggest booking a tutorial session. If that's of interest to you, here's my site - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/
@doomoday1 Жыл бұрын
So the bottom left quadrant. Its something that is in a subject but can be predicated of another subject?
@GregoryBSadler Жыл бұрын
Yep, that's what it says, and what the example illustrates
@revoltagainstfear4 жыл бұрын
Hi Dr Gregory Thanks for very useful videos. If the substance is the subject ( not in a subject or predicated in subject), what about the essence? Where do you put it this classifications?
@GregoryBSadler4 жыл бұрын
You don't
@dosto_viski8292 Жыл бұрын
Hey Dr. Sadler! I love your works. Can you give 1 example for each one? Im a foreign student, so i couldnt fully follow on these examples.
@GregoryBSadler Жыл бұрын
Read Aristotle's text and think about the examples provided more, until you do follow them
@dosto_viski8292 Жыл бұрын
@@GregoryBSadler ok, thank you for your answer Dr.
@marcusw.a.598 Жыл бұрын
According to Aristotle, all nouns are Ousia? The first substance?
@GregoryBSadler Жыл бұрын
No
@jhoanosorio Жыл бұрын
is being present in a particular instance of a quality?
@GregoryBSadler Жыл бұрын
As you've written it, that question doesn't make sense
@jhoanosorio Жыл бұрын
@@GregoryBSadler what are the things that exist in this way? instances of qualities or what? im kind of confused.
@GregoryBSadler Жыл бұрын
You’re still expressing your confusions in a confusing way
@jhoanosorio Жыл бұрын
What exactly are the things that Aristotle means by not said of a subject and present in a subject? Is it maybe instances of qualities?
@GregoryBSadler Жыл бұрын
@@jhoanosorio Qualities are predicated of subjects
@JoeF4806 ай бұрын
Are substance and subject the same thing?
@GregoryBSadler6 ай бұрын
Depends on the substance and subject in question. So sometimes yes, and sometimes no
@vexxo79982 жыл бұрын
Hi Mr Sadler, When aristotle says “the individual man” does he mean the entity man without any language prescribed to that entity, literally the entity or the existence itself or am I wrong here? should we just ignore the language when he says “individual man” and only imagine an entity? And how do we differentiate when he talks about the entity itself and the prescribed language of that entity? sorry for the trouble please answer all of these 👍
@GregoryBSadler2 жыл бұрын
I have no idea what you mean by "language prescribed to that entity" or "the existence itself". I suspect you're confusing yourself about this pretty straightforward matter.
@vexxo79982 жыл бұрын
@@GregoryBSadler I am in a habit of doing that in vain, you are not wrong. Now I think I understand a bit better and correct me if I am wrong; By individual man, aristotle means literally a particular sample from the species -man. One particular individual, who is distinguished from other men by his individuality(different interests, bodies, etc). (seems like this conclusion should have been obvious but wasn’t for me)
@GregoryBSadler2 жыл бұрын
Yes, an individual human being is just that.
@AdamWParkerDotCom7 жыл бұрын
Greatly enjoying the series, Gregory. If you have spare time, could you order the playlist?
@GregoryBSadler7 жыл бұрын
I have dozens of playlists. You'll have to be more specific
@AdamWParkerDotCom7 жыл бұрын
Gregory B. Sadler I was referring to this one. Aristotle in general, "Categories" more specifically. I want to go in order so I can follow better but there are multiple chapter 6s and 8s. Its no big deal, thanks for the reply and all the hard work.
@GregoryBSadler7 жыл бұрын
Yep. What you're talking about goes beyond having the videos "in order". You should be reading and rereading the book, going back and forth between topics. You'll get way more out of it that way. Still have zero idea what playlist you'd be referring to by "this", though - good chance to think about equivocal terms. There is no "Categories" playlist I've created.
@SmiteYaBgs7 ай бұрын
Hi Dr. Sandler, should not "this knowledge of grammar" or "this white/ness" fall under [not in a subject, but predicated of a subject] (individual non-substances)? However, [in a subject, but not predicable of a subject] should be the universals substance such as "man" or "horse"?
@GregoryBSadler7 ай бұрын
No. And it’s Sadler
@greefer96456 жыл бұрын
is being a predicate ?
@GregoryBSadler6 жыл бұрын
Depends on your metaphysics
@galaddamodred11104 жыл бұрын
According to Kant, if I am not mistaken, being is not a predicate but a condition that makes predication possible. I think that's how he refuted the Ontological Argument.