14:33 In my own philosophical terminology I don't say that everything moves from potentiality to actuality but rather than everything moves from femininity (the word "Matter" comes from the Latin word for "Mother,"i.e., "Mater") and moves towards masculinity, or orderly form.
Does this work for anybody? I had arrived at a definition for an "individual" before my acquaintance with this work, and mine arises moreso out of my studies of Jung and Hegel, and also Holograms and fractals. In short, I say that the individual is neither the part nor the whole, but somehow both simultaneously. I don't if that could be considered a "definition" in the Aristotelian sense, but, having studied the Trivium by Sister Meriam Joseph, I could subject it to her test of definition by inverting the terms and seeing whether what we end up with is essentially a tautology. Thus: "An individual is simutaneously the part and the whole; and, on the other hand, wherever or whenever we cannot distinguish between the part and the whole of any given thing, we have percieved its 'individuality'. "
My shitty strawman: "You can't define your friend outside of the universals or forms in which he participates, as these are what you recognize in him. Yet what you know is not your specific friend, but an aggregate of universals. You must therefore disregard any and all forms getting in the way of the truly individual specifics which constitute your friend. Doing this reduces your friend into something utterly unrecognizable (prime matter) in which he may as well not exist." Yes and no. According to the scholastics, you fundamentally are a form. Your soul is a form, so this presents little issue. Specific forms can and indeed do exist, according to most realists. If you apply the same logic as the video to, say, a brick house, and not a person, the subject becomes more interesting. The speaker would appear to be correct in his presentation of Aristotle: there is only a formless primary substance. It is as if nothing individual exists (or at least, is understood by form) unless perceived and defined by a higher Intelligence. Note that this does not necessarily imply nominalism, much less materialism. Edit: as an aside, the speakers disdain for Plato creeps through and is hilarious. Would expect nothing less from a Libertarian.
Leonard Pekioff is not a Libertarian but an objectivist, the distinction is very clear, Libertarians do not deal on philosophical grounds, only anarchist do and they suck even more then Libertarians The distain for plato is rightly justified, however he isn't as bad as I used to make out to be, especially in comparison to the much later kantian shenanigans of their subjectivist bullshit
@@CathDamienn1776 the ayn rand types are better than the weed libertatians, I'll grant you, but there's far more overlap than I think you give credit for Speaking of Rand, Plato will live on and the world will forget her. In fact, it already largely has. Something in Plato has stuck around for 2.5 thousand years, probably for a reason.
@@midnightexpress8347 if that's what you truly believe then why be here? Why even respond to my comment if you believe the works of Rand and of her philosophy of objectivism as just a momentary murrmurr in history? A forgettable philosophy
@@CathDamienn1776 i wasn't aware that the video was inspired by her philosophy until towards the end. I do like Ayn Rand, and I like her supporters. I just think Plato's a better philosopher. But you're right, I shouldn't get factional about it. Hope that's not what I was doing.
@@midnightexpress8347 well fair enough, I don't quite see how you could like Ayn Rand and her ideas while thinking plato is objectively better in terms of ideas as they are fundamentally opposed to each other but if you can find some kind of liking to each, who am I to say otherwise as simply another individual
I like the one question/answer at the end, made it all come together, in a way
14:33 In my own philosophical terminology I don't say that everything moves from potentiality to actuality but rather than everything moves from femininity (the word "Matter" comes from the Latin word for "Mother,"i.e., "Mater") and moves towards masculinity, or orderly form.
Comes round to Plato's...
But, boy, what a thinker!
Does this work for anybody?
I had arrived at a definition for an "individual" before my acquaintance with this work, and mine arises moreso out of my studies of Jung and Hegel, and also Holograms and fractals. In short, I say that the individual is neither the part nor the whole, but somehow both simultaneously. I don't if that could be considered a "definition" in the Aristotelian sense, but, having studied the Trivium by Sister Meriam Joseph, I could subject it to her test of definition by inverting the terms and seeing whether what we end up with is essentially a tautology. Thus: "An individual is simutaneously the part and the whole; and, on the other hand, wherever or whenever we cannot distinguish between the part and the whole of any given thing, we have percieved its 'individuality'. "
Excellent playlist... where is th ebook?
Funny that prima materia is the worst thing in Aristotle's hierarchy but it is in fact the supreme goal of the alchemists.
I was surprised to learn that Catholics took Aristotle as on of their champions. Now it all makes sense.
14:03
14:00 Does this mean that man ought to strive to move in perfect circles lol
My shitty strawman: "You can't define your friend outside of the universals or forms in which he participates, as these are what you recognize in him. Yet what you know is not your specific friend, but an aggregate of universals. You must therefore disregard any and all forms getting in the way of the truly individual specifics which constitute your friend. Doing this reduces your friend into something utterly unrecognizable (prime matter) in which he may as well not exist."
Yes and no. According to the scholastics, you fundamentally are a form. Your soul is a form, so this presents little issue. Specific forms can and indeed do exist, according to most realists.
If you apply the same logic as the video to, say, a brick house, and not a person, the subject becomes more interesting. The speaker would appear to be correct in his presentation of Aristotle: there is only a formless primary substance. It is as if nothing individual exists (or at least, is understood by form) unless perceived and defined by a higher Intelligence. Note that this does not necessarily imply nominalism, much less materialism.
Edit: as an aside, the speakers disdain for Plato creeps through and is hilarious. Would expect nothing less from a Libertarian.
Leonard Pekioff is not a Libertarian but an objectivist, the distinction is very clear, Libertarians do not deal on philosophical grounds, only anarchist do and they suck even more then Libertarians
The distain for plato is rightly justified, however he isn't as bad as I used to make out to be, especially in comparison to the much later kantian shenanigans of their subjectivist bullshit
@@CathDamienn1776 the ayn rand types are better than the weed libertatians, I'll grant you, but there's far more overlap than I think you give credit for
Speaking of Rand, Plato will live on and the world will forget her. In fact, it already largely has. Something in Plato has stuck around for 2.5 thousand years, probably for a reason.
@@midnightexpress8347 if that's what you truly believe then why be here? Why even respond to my comment if you believe the works of Rand and of her philosophy of objectivism as just a momentary murrmurr in history? A forgettable philosophy
@@CathDamienn1776 i wasn't aware that the video was inspired by her philosophy until towards the end.
I do like Ayn Rand, and I like her supporters. I just think Plato's a better philosopher. But you're right, I shouldn't get factional about it. Hope that's not what I was doing.
@@midnightexpress8347 well fair enough, I don't quite see how you could like Ayn Rand and her ideas while thinking plato is objectively better in terms of ideas as they are fundamentally opposed to each other but if you can find some kind of liking to each, who am I to say otherwise as simply another individual