33 ms·

No. Aristotles 4 element theory was that there are two dichotomies of matter: wet/dry and hot/cold. From these they derived the 4 elements: * cold + dry: earth

No. Aristotles 4 element theory was that there are two dichotomies of matter: wet/dry and hot/cold. From these they derived the 4 elements: * cold + dry: earth * cold + wet: water * hot + dry: fire * hot + wet: air These were not states of matter. They were the base components of matter - everything was made by some combination of these 4 elements, and everything could be broken down into some proportion of these 4 individual elements. A big part of what caused humanity to stagnate for 2000 years post-Aristotle was the tendency to back-propagate discoveries and attribute new knowledge to the ancients. Aristotle was wrong. The Greeks were wrong about most things. That’s fine - we are too. Even if you can twist their conclusions in an attempt to reconcile them with modern constructs - their methods used to reach their conclusions very much missed the mark. Trying to give them more credit than what is due is how you cause society to stagnate for another 2000 years. In the 1600s a spin off of Alchemy proposed the 3 element theory - and found quite a bit of success using it for medicine: Quicksilver, Alchemical Mercury, and Alchemical Salt. A lot of people were really upset about this theory. They’d never really had to defend ancient wisdom before - they’d spent 2000 years assuming ancient wisdom was complete. They went to work attempting to disprove the 3 element theory, which they successfully did. But, in their attempt to disprove the 3 element theory, they accidentally laid the groundwork for disproving the 4 element theory. For a concrete example. It turns out the alchemists were correct: transmutation is possible. When you split an atom (I.e. in a nuclear reactor) you transmutate the element. That’s not the same as saying the Alchemists were right - they were looking for a red dust made from a pulverized piece of pure earth that could turn copper into gold. They were correct for the wrong reasons - that is not the same as being right. They were lucky in their conclusion and wrong in their methods.

dr_dshiv 4y ago
> A big part of what caused humanity to stagnate for 2000 years post-Aristotle was the tendency to back-propagate discoveries and attribute new knowledge to the ancients. Aristotle was wrong. The Greeks were wrong about most things. That’s fine - we are too. Even if you can twist their conclusions in an attempt to reconcile them with modern constructs - their methods used to reach their conclusions very much missed the mark. Trying to give them more credit than what is due is how you cause society to stagnate for another 2000 years. I disagree. Not that ancients can be wrong, but the idea that appreciating their knowledge held back society for 2000 years (I think it is just the opposite, as seen by how the rediscovery of Plato, Aristotle and Hermes catalyzed the enlightenment). If you understand Plato, you appreciate that it is a dialectic—there isn’t a singular truth presented, but provocations for thought. Now, Aristotle doesn’t leave so much room for that, but I’m less an expert on Aristotle than the Pythagoreans— who originated the four element theory, heliocentrism, emergence from a singularity and the notion that the world is composed of math, not matter. For instance, the idea of the 5 elements came from the idea that there are only 5 simple Platonic solids. The simplest mathematical 3D shapes should be the simplest physical forms, right? And the geometry of their construction should lead to their material properties, right? They got this right— except that it took nonEuclidean geometry— atoms are composed of the simplest geometries (spherical harmonics in the electron shells) and their geometric properties do govern their material properties. And, the universe did come from an ineffable oneness or singularity. And the harmonies in the cosmos do derive from harmonies in basic mathematics. It was precisely these ideas, when rediscovered, that led to Kepler’s discovery of the laws of planetary motion, kicking off the scientific revolution. Their core method was dialectic. Their conclusions are modern science. Many other issues stagnated science — dictatorship, religion, economic collapse, war. Appreciation for ancient philosophy was almost always a basis for advancement of the dialectic, not dogmatism.

dr_dshiv 4y ago

> A big part of what caused humanity to stagnate for 2000 years post-Aristotle was the tendency to back-propagate discoveries and attribute new knowledge to the ancients. Aristotle was wrong. The Greeks were wrong about most things. That’s fine - we are too. Even if you can twist their conclusions in an attempt to reconcile them with modern constructs - their methods used to reach their conclusions very much missed the mark. Trying to give them more credit than what is due is how you cause society to stagnate for another 2000 years. I disagree. Not that ancients can be wrong, but the idea that appreciating their knowledge held back society for 2000 years (I think it is just the opposite, as seen by how the rediscovery of Plato, Aristotle and Hermes catalyzed the enlightenment). If you understand Plato, you appreciate that it is a dialectic—there isn’t a singular truth presented, but provocations for thought. Now, Aristotle doesn’t leave so much room for that, but I’m less an expert on Aristotle than the Pythagoreans— who originated the four element theory, heliocentrism, emergence from a singularity and the notion that the world is composed of math, not matter. For instance, the idea of the 5 elements came from the idea that there are only 5 simple Platonic solids. The simplest mathematical 3D shapes should be the simplest physical forms, right? And the geometry of their construction should lead to their material properties, right? They got this right— except that it took nonEuclidean geometry— atoms are composed of the simplest geometries (spherical harmonics in the electron shells) and their geometric properties do govern their material properties. And, the universe did come from an ineffable oneness or singularity. And the harmonies in the cosmos do derive from harmonies in basic mathematics. It was precisely these ideas, when rediscovered, that led to Kepler’s discovery of the laws of planetary motion, kicking off the scientific revolution. Their core method was dialectic. Their conclusions are modern science. Many other issues stagnated science — dictatorship, religion, economic collapse, war. Appreciation for ancient philosophy was almost always a basis for advancement of the dialectic, not dogmatism.