Its been many many years since I studied Plato's forms. In gathering Aristotle's arguments against them into this video Dr. Sadler not only sheds some clarity on Aristotle's logical mind as they relate to Forms and substance but on Plato's concepts themselves, two birds with one stone so to speak. Understanding that Aristotle thinks the essence of something is at least in part in the thing itself, while Plato thinks the essence of the thing is "from a greater plane of understanding", really sets the two philosophers apart in a clear metaphysical way.
Just started reading the Metaphysics, your videos have helped a lot! Thank you. I'm currently going through Aristotle's works, I'll read Nicomachean ethics next
I know you are very busy and probably don't have time to take requests. Are you ever planning to get back to more of the metaphysics lectures? I am reading his metaphysics, and I am having a hard time understanding a lot of what he is stating.
@@GregoryBSadlermaybe to hint that plato us still far ahead of our time? windows is on like windows 11 rn, so i guess hes saying that this video is only to educate and doesnt discredit plato’s philosophy?
First of all, thanks for this Video! So there's a passage in this part of the metaphysics (at about [990b20]) where I can't seem to follow his line of reasoning, where he states that there can only be ideas of substances/ ideas can only be substances, since the things don't participate in them incidentally - but then he goes on to state that, through participating in the Double-itself something participates also in the eternal, but only incidentally. -> so that's my first hangup; since he goes on to talk about non-eternal things that are double, my guess was that the bit about "participates also in the eternal, but incidentally" was supposed to be a deductio ad absurdum, which he then goes on to show through the existence of non eternal things that are double, thus proving his first statement, namely that they can't participate incidentally Also, I understand the problem about a thing having to participate in many things which follows from this part, "double" and "eternal" in this case. Maybe I am reading him too close haha, but I spent an entire Monday morning on this exact paragraph already and didn't get my head around it. Cheers, I hope you will continue this series since I'm tackling his major works right now, actually had quite a lot of fun with the physics and am now reading the metaphysics!
![[Live] ศึกมหึมันส์มวยไทยสังเวียนเดือด เวทีมวยชั่วคราวสวนสยาม | จันทร์ 30 กันยายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pM1k6f7JXUc/mqdefault.jpg)
Aristotle probably had his bad days where he got overwhelmed from being taught by Plato and sounded just like 4:59
Its been many many years since I studied Plato's forms. In gathering Aristotle's arguments against them into this video Dr. Sadler not only sheds some clarity on Aristotle's logical mind as they relate to Forms and substance but on Plato's concepts themselves, two birds with one stone so to speak. Understanding that Aristotle thinks the essence of something is at least in part in the thing itself, while Plato thinks the essence of the thing is "from a greater plane of understanding", really sets the two philosophers apart in a clear metaphysical way.
Yes, they definitely have two different schemes
I have my antique philosophy exam tomorrow morning, so this timing couldn’t be any better! Thanks for the clear & structured explanation!
Just started reading the Metaphysics, your videos have helped a lot!
Thank you.
I'm currently going through Aristotle's works, I'll read Nicomachean ethics next
Glad the videos were helpful
I know you are very busy and probably don't have time to take requests. Are you ever planning to get back to more of the metaphysics lectures? I am reading his metaphysics, and I am having a hard time understanding a lot of what he is stating.
No plans in the near future. Right now I'm concentrating on videos for the classes I'm teaching. Later down the line, most likely
how and why did artistotle rejected plato's rationalism?
Here you go - th-cam.com/video/OV_T8Emyf6I/w-d-xo.html
Brilliant lecture prof!
Thanks!
Thank You. Mr. Sadler.
You're welcome
What did happen here, a few days ago, there where much more video's on antique philosophy?
Here where?
How can i find the imperialist objections of Plato's Theory of Form
th-cam.com/video/OV_T8Emyf6I/w-d-xo.html
Thank you so much. Great video
You’re very welcome
interesting critique
Indeed
Only to hone your own thinking folks. Plato otherwise is like windows 2000.
No idea what you're trying to say
@@GregoryBSadlermaybe to hint that plato us still far ahead of our time? windows is on like windows 11 rn, so i guess hes saying that this video is only to educate and doesnt discredit plato’s philosophy?
@@shinu._.9713 You should just let him explain himself
@@GregoryBSadler youre right, but amazing video. It was really informative
First of all, thanks for this Video!
So there's a passage in this part of the metaphysics (at about [990b20]) where I can't seem to follow his line of reasoning, where he states that there can only be ideas of substances/ ideas can only be substances, since the things don't participate in them incidentally - but then he goes on to state that, through participating in the Double-itself something participates also in the eternal, but only incidentally.
-> so that's my first hangup; since he goes on to talk about non-eternal things that are double, my guess was that the bit about "participates also in the eternal, but incidentally" was supposed to be a deductio ad absurdum, which he then goes on to show through the existence of non eternal things that are double, thus proving his first statement, namely that they can't participate incidentally
Also, I understand the problem about a thing having to participate in many things which follows from this part, "double" and "eternal" in this case.
Maybe I am reading him too close haha, but I spent an entire Monday morning on this exact paragraph already and didn't get my head around it.
Cheers, I hope you will continue this series since I'm tackling his major works right now, actually had quite a lot of fun with the physics and am now reading the metaphysics!
what are the criticism
In the video, buddy. . . or in the text. . .