The term essence (essentia) was a Latin invention used to translate Aristotle's Greek ousiai, or substance. Substance oressentia is the “the what it was to be” of a thing. His answer was not that what it is is a Form. — Fooloso4

The Latin is wrong. By "essence" Aristotle means "form" or "shape." (eidos or morphê)

What is it that you can point to to say, "I am reading a post in the English language on my computer screen."? — Harry Hindu

I read and responded. Proof.

In relation to the Aristotelian format, "matter" (as the potential for what may or may not be), — Metaphysician Undercover

Where does Aristotle say this? Aristotle defines matter as just the physical stuff.

Are you a p-zombie? — Harry Hindu

Yes.

Sorry for being late to answer. Anyway, it means that virtue ethics tries to tell us how our general personality must be. — Hello Human

Not how I understand it. Virtue ethics is just a list of virtues, good ways to act.

I couldn't endorse a human that demonstrated those behaviors. So why would I endorse a god with the exact same behaviors? — Bird-Up

Agree fully.

The Republic is clear about the limits of reason (dianoia). It does not grasp each thing itself in its singularity (noesis), but always as it is in relation (ratio) to something else.That is to say, it makes use of likenesses (eikasia). Plato repeatedly points to the use of images for mathematics — Fooloso4

I must be missing the point.

But a nation that cannot refrain from indulging in war is unlikely to stifle the production of weapons for its citizens. — jgill

Exactly. Why most gun debates are superfluous.

Although things are said to be images of Forms, the Forms are themselves images. A kind of philosophical poiesis. — Fooloso4

Then reason depends on the imagination. Something which Plato spends his entire career denying.

But zetetic skepticism is not the claim that total comprehension is not possible, but simply that it is not something that anyone possesses. — Fooloso4

I do not see the difference.

This is why the dialogues frequently end in aporia. What is at issue is not simply the problem of Forms but the problematic nature of philosophy. It raises insoluble problems. — Fooloso4

Plato was a sceptic. The forms are totalities which cannot be conceived. But Plato invented the concept, which is based in skepticism.

An aporia is because you believe a total comprehension is possible

Why not? — Joshs

Better things to do.

look up Eugene Wigner. — Joshs

Why?

I think all participants here know about the statement of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics. — Landoma1

Never heard of it before you.

To dead Nature. — Landoma1

Nature is not dead.

Wiki Tiki Toki.

go read wiki

I'll keep The Philosophy of Right in mind if I feel the wild urge to give Hegel a chance again. — Moliere

The Philosophy of Right is amazingly current. I was surprised how relevant it was to contemporary politics.

I've read liberals, fascists and anti-colonial communists claim him in various capacities -- and I honest to goodness couldn't tell you which way it should be read -- it just seems like fair game, a creative grist mill which people read themselves into more often than not. — Moliere

Hegel is rather straight forward in texts like Philosophy of History, History of Philosophy, Philosophy of Right, Lectures on the Philosophy of Art.

But, you are saying you don't really want to read Hegel and that is fine.

Isn't it the nature of Hegel that it can be read whichever way? — Moliere

No. Not that there is one way, but any reading must be justified with reasons.

I prefer the denial of metaphysics as a knowledge, and Hegel at least seems like the sort of ur-philosopher on that front -- a giant system that explains it all, — Moliere

I never read Hegel that way. And I never understood what denial of metaphysics meant. Hegel never argues that there are metaphysical objects.

but I see a lot more value in Kant's epistemology than Hegel's — Moliere

Because?

There's something about it that just feels like you should obey the state. — Moliere

No. The state is just people and customs.

I recently had a disagreement with a friend, a teacher at university, who not long ago ran a course on Hegel, when I said I don't see Hegel as a "progressivist" thinker meaning I don't see the idea that the sublation or synthesis is somehow "better" than the idea it grows out of as being inherent to his thinking, — Janus

That teacher is correct.

Heidegger had some good ideas, to be sure.

But he was mystical about the meaning of being because he was asking a theological question in secular form. The Fuhrer was a messiah figure.

His love of Napoleon Bonaparte — Moliere

I don't know if it is love, but Hegel does seem to praise Napolean.
But it is because of his idea of a World Historical Figure that moves history.
Hegel's Philosophy of Right gives his political views in detail, which I would not describe as conservative.

Its not binary, you can both understand the sentence is that incoherent and not understand the incoherent bit at the same time. You are understanding the part that communicates something incoherent and recognizing that what is being communicated is incoherent. Its not either/or. — DingoJones

Good explanation.

Is there then no such thing as non-sense? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Wittgenstein talks about nonsense. But I think that means incoherence.

My position would be that you didn't actually understand. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Every sentence has a sense.

"I drew a round square."

I can understand what the person is saying. But the concept of a round square is incoherent because by definition a square cannot be round.

Yeah, they have even learned to shout from the pulpit as 'not god told me to' but god commanded me to and now he commands you to....
I caught an excerpt from an evanHELLical style TV channel recently and they were on 'fundraising' mode.
I could not believe the performance, they even brought in speaking in tongues.
It was a shocking litany of hard-sell tactics. At one point a vile preacher suggested that if people were struggling to decide between buying 'necessaries for themselves' or contributing to 'gods holy cause,' they must contribute to god almighty because that can help save their very soul!'
Utter nefarious b*******! — universeness

Years ago I talked to a priest about a religious issue. His only response was that my problem was being Protestant. I had to be Catholic. Helped me decide to drop Christianity altogethere.

I do read Hegel as a conservative — Moliere

What makes him a conservative?

These fables do nonetheless certainly offer a nice easy way to make a good living for those who claim to speak in gods name, such as popes, priests, ministers, imams, rabbi's etc — universeness

Yes. "God told me to tell you...."

Because god is promoted as a superhero who cares about you and will look after you if you comply with its dictates. — universeness

Yes. Probably why there are so many comic book superhero movies.

Ectoplasm. Now there's an insult!

Hegel's Philosophy of Art gives a good description of what he means by dialectic. He defines tragedy as the conflict of two goods. Christian moralists like to oppose good and evil as the moral conflict. Thus, dialectic is the conflict of two goods.

Is it not only the coherent that can be understood? — ZzzoneiroCosm

No.

Is it correct to say that X is incoherent but I understand X. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes.

If you understand it, then you can use it. That's all you need.

Understanding and use. — ZzzoneiroCosm

uh huh

It's not convincing to say you don't understand the phrase. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Never said I did not understand the phrase. I said it is incoherent and nearly meaningless.