4 ms·
Aristotle's philosophy died in the 16th century with Francis Bacon. Philosophy it's pretty much full of bullshit. Get over it. Euclid's statements worked well
by anthk 3y ago
Aristotle's philosophy died in the 16th century with Francis Bacon.
Philosophy it's pretty much full of bullshit. Get over it.
Euclid's statements worked well for 17 centuries, while most "facts" about philosophical currents are pretty much subjective garbage.
I've read "Metaphysics" and compared to Euclid's "Elements" the first compendium it's a bunch of nonsense packed together as if they were universal truths.
- thenerdhead 3y agoFound the nihilist.
- eimrine 3y agoNihilists do not respect Euclid, I would rather suppose he is a scientist/mathematician.
- eimrine 3y ago> Euclid's statements worked well for 17 centuries This is a half-true. I mean, Euclid's research really worked well before Newton's research, but this is just because there were no science in middle-ages. All science were pushed out by Christian religion. That begs a question, how can we segregate a real science (Euclid, Newton, you know what I mean) from real bullshits like a religion. That is what a philosophy is. Philosophy was never a bullshit but rather a chickenshit. The only reason to call Philosophy a bs is that generally religions (not only Christian one) is used to be called a part of a Philosophy domain, but of course Christians never really φιλ-ed a σοφία.
- throw0101a 3y ago> Aristotle's philosophy died in the 16th century with Francis Bacon. Some would disagree: > Actuality and potentiality, substantial form and prime matter, efficient causality and teleology are among the fundamental concepts of Aristotelian philosophy of nature. Aristotle's Revenge argues that these concepts are not only compatible with modern science, but are implicitly presupposed by modern science. * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43277412-aristotle-s-revenge https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43277412-aristotle-s-rev...
- anthk 3y agoNot with quantum mechanics.
- throw0101a 3y agoDiscussed in chapter five. See also Heisenberg: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism#Modern_physics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylomorphism#Modern_physics
- anthk 3y agoAristotle had lots of bad points on biology and human nature. I won't have it as a main source. Archimedes, OTOH, had a good set on foundations. Ditto with Euclid in Math, which the statements worked well until the 17th century. Being a 90% right it's not bad for an Ancient Greek dude with just reasoning over Geometry.