วีดีโอ

I’ve not heard of him before your comment. A quick look up and the search result is my initial exposure: “David Bolotin argues in this book that Aristotle never seriously intended many of his doctrines that have been demolished by modern science.” I’m somewhat of this view as well but uncertain if what he focuses on is the same thing(s) that I see. I listed several absurdities from the moderns in the video on Academic Refutations which I find regarding many of the works on what is called Aristotle and I did a presentation on The Physics specifically. I drilled down further on another search result and see that his work regarding The Physics was from 1998 and that his next books were not until 20 years later regarding The Small Naturals and On The Soul. Of note, these are translations by himself. I like this, both that, he knows Greek (my presumption) well enough to tackle the task of improving the knowledge of the subjects (there is no better reason to re-translate than for the aim of improvement) and that he has not published many books. As much as I would like to nibble I have to refuse, for now, getting hooked. The reason is that I plan on doing The Physics, The Small Naturals, and, maybe, On The Soul, in my own style of Aristotle In One Take. The mind is tricky and I cannot risk introducing someone else’s analysis into my thoughts before I’ve considered the source material first on my own. Although I am familiar with The Physics already, much more so than the other two works just mentioned, the risk is too great. The best way how not to find myself meandering through a rabbit hole is not to go down it in the first place. I’ll have to look forward to his works as reward for finishing the projects I have left to do. The same goes with Jonathan Barnes. I know he has works that are his analysis and review of Aristotle and I have not yet read them for the same reason. If you know me yet you know my opinion of Barnes is higher than that of W D Ross and this was no simple conclusion to draw. I’m still walking on air from just discovering a few weeks ago that Barnes’ Posterior Analytics is a 1990s second edition, not the 1975 edition I thought it was, and that it includes a lengthy analysis of his take on PA. I won’t read it! Posterior Analytics is on my list of projects. A couple of years ago while I searched for videos of Jonathan Barnes, I came up almost empty (the exception being his Death and the Ancient Philosophers presented at Berkely (?)) which was the only reason, to my good fortune, that I discovered Strauss. My familiarity with his works is only the sessions recorded and preserved by the Leo Strauss Center, which is mostly his classes given at the University of Chicago. I’ve never yet read any of the published works by Strauss, for the same old reason. If by esoteric we mean contrary to reputable opinion then I do find Strauss with regards to Aristotle to be a fellow wolf. If Bolotin is of the same nature then I’m sure I’ll embrace his affinity for Aristotle as well. A friend of the truth can be a friend of mine. Thank you for your suggestion.

@WolvesOfApollo Bolotin is an emeritus tutor at St. John's College, my alma mater. The Straussians don't get a lot of attention so I only know about them from my teachers at St. John's. An example of a reading attentive to the esoteric, hidden nature of Aristotle might be on his doctrine of the eternity of the universe. I am convinced that his argument in the Physics for this doctrine is so weak that he could not have believed it was true. Combine this with the Topics when he says that it is a merely dialectical question which we cannot know the answer to, and his contention in the Posterior Analytics that only demonstrations about eternal things can be true, and it becomes clear that the eternity of the universe is only an implausible but necessary hypothesis for the possibility of science to progress. Bolotin provides much closer readings than this in his book. For example, his method is sometimes to pay close attention to the conditions for a definitoon which Aristotle gives, and then seeing if Aristotle's definition (e.g. of place, or motion) lives up to these. Another book which does this for the Metaphysics is Christopher Bruell's Aristotle as Teacher. Almost no one reads this, not least of all because it gives no impression from the title or from most descriptions of it, to be what it actually is! It is a chapter by chapter commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. It doesn't even have a table of contents, despite being published by Notre Dame. Anyway, I've recently decided to get a complete foundation for Aristotle by going through the Barnes volumes myself. I wondered if anyone else had done this and said anything about it, and so I found your channel.

@@jackparker8759 I see. Going through The Complete Works of Aristotle is quite a task but it keeps me out of trouble. At least I like to think so! I hope you download it from the link on the About page. Scroll down to page 3381 and there is one of my favorite passages regarding the principles of eternal things. I do purport that nature is eternal based on the fact that it actually exists and that there is nothing contrary to existence. This is also reviewed in First Philosophy that contraries are predicable of a subject, that there is a substratum that stands under, sub-stance, all things, and that in this respect the first principle of all principles is no contrary, that there is no thing contrary to substance. This much from the opening of Book 14. ...But to point to any one passage or quote is not evidentiary but directional and indicative of the context

@@WolvesOfApollo Thanks, I'll take a look, though fortunately I have a hard copy. Merry Christmas, good to make your acquaintance!

It is an appetizer with all the dressing that 1 minute can pour. For the full course and dessert, you are invited to pull up a chair and feast: This is a passage from Aristotle's First Philosophy (what academics renamed to Metaphysics), Book 1, Part 2, paragraph 3, line 982b12. You can download The Complete Works of Aristotle for free, click on Metaphysics, and see for yourself (and gather the larger context): www.pdfdrive.com/the-complete-works-of-aristotle-the-revised-oxford-translation-one-volume-digital-edition-e177432578.html Mmmm...yummy...

I forgot to note the exact reference. This is a passage from Aristotle's First Philosophy (what academics renamed to Metaphysics), Book 1, Part 2, paragraph 3, line 982b12. You can download The Complete Works of Aristotle for free, click on Metaphysics, and see for yourself (and gather the larger context): www.pdfdrive.com/the-complete-works-of-aristotle-the-revised-oxford-translation-one-volume-digital-edition-e177432578.html

I wasn't born well and I have fall off my bike quite a few times but maybe I do not do the best that I can. The content is not pretentious, but I am. What do you advise that I can do to improve my delivery? ...Nature is quite the scene.

​@@WolvesOfApollo Perhaps you're performing for the camera too much, or trying to appear overly articulate and intelligent

@@user-qy5je7fr2c Thanks. I know what you mean. I don’t think I always come off that way and this was more the exception than the rule? This one is much more subdued th-cam.com/video/eLTgMxDabWE/w-d-xo.html and one of my favorites as far as delivery goes. I always liked that one for the scenery, as you noticed too. It was my first recording of that material and is over 6 years old. Its about 25 minutes long and if you thought this was bad, there is good reason I don’t release the whole thing again. There are far worse moments then these!

Contact Binance support

I may not know all things but I do know all the things that I know.

@@WolvesOfApollo true

A dialectical refutation of the term multiculturalism. It does not deduce to the true and the primitive, what greets our senses, and instead is contrary to the things from which the term is supposedly induced. "For with a true view the facts all harmonize but with a false one they soon clash." The term culture was turned to mean what was originally meant as tribe and the original meaning of culture was dropped. Culture means undergoing a process of education and is analogous to the cultivation of land. Education is a cultivating of the mind, to take care of an eclectic and sometimes chaotic space and to bring it into an order of understanding that when nurtured can yield results beyond compare. Multiple tribes, or multiple societies (society, probably a better allocation of the term's word here), can not be multiple cultures because culture is singular. For any tribe or society to have culture means the same thing and that the are similar in this respect; their education.

Did you get here by one of the hashtags, or maybe yt just recommended this for you? Thanks for the sub

Thanks. I could make enough shorts to supply an Endless Summer! ...I'll post a surfing video I just found. It would be out of to scope of what I usually release, but for less than a minute, all in good fun.

lol. thanks!

I get it. For Aristotle, the art is induction resulting in the universal judgement. It is a symbol crafted by a word, spoken or written. For Rand the crafted object of sense, conventionally known as a work of art, the physical thing created, has been commandeered, knowingly or not, admittedly or not, by the artist's universal judgement. Sort a twist in there, too. The line from First Philosophy is "Art arises when from many notions gained by experience one universal judgement is produced." He doesn't mean a judgement about the universe! lol. But a judgement about what unifies similar particulars as one, the one word that refers to them all at the same time and in the same respect. But Rand IS talking about the artist's judgement of the universe. Something I left out of this video, but mentioned it in others, is that when Aristotle is criticizing Plato's theory of Ideas in the Eudemian Ethics the theme of the argument is that Plato says that numbers have desire to which Aristotle responds how can there be desire where there is no life!? ...That did it for me, from then on I replace the word value with the word desire (unless we really are talking about numbers!). This skirts around the trap of ever having to say the term intrinsic value. A precious metal, or any commodity / thing has intrinsic value as much as it has intrinsic desire.

Thanks for that! I've always viewed them, Aristotle and Rand, as similar means to the same end. I've been stuck on it lately though when I hear objectivists so frustrated that their way of saying things is not getting recognized and admitted into the University system. I see it as already there but as Aristotle. They're less than a year old still. They follow me around and shimmy up and down the trees. If I can't find them, I have them trained to come to me by my whistle. They are fun to have around.

I attend quite a few Objectivist conferences over the years. Up until 2011 or thereabouts the concentration seemed to really be on how to reach your potential as an individual. Somehow, it morphed into “how are we gonna save western civilization?” I’ve moved on from the Objectivist movement but I certainly carry Ayn Rand ideas with me all the time. She introduced me to Aristotle, Victor Hugo, Dostoevsky, Rostand and so many other great artists and thinkers. I’m checking out one of your long videos on Aristotle now. Excellent stuff. Things I did not know. 🎸😎👍

Me too. I was saying the same thing before I'd heard of Strauss; about just skipping Plato and going straight to Aristotle. My first introduction to Philosophy course was at a community college. We spent 3 classes on Plato, The Republic and Phaedrus. And on Aristotle, nothing on Politics or Ethics to counter Plato but instead almost one class about how Aristotle was that crazy astronomer that said there are 10 circles around earth. That was it! The same thing happened in an English Literature course. On an on about Plato and Neo Platonism and then Aristotle strafed over as that crazy astronomer. ...Academics be damned.

Funny you say that. I just finished reading his opening lecture at Claremont from 1968 on The Socratic Question. ...No, I'm Scottish. (I like Strauss for his choices not his accidentals.)