Question. Do you think the copyrighting of ideas/inventions inhibits the development of our species or advances it from a commercial/capitalistic point of view? — Deus

This is interesting!

I think that the human drive to copyright something comes from the desire to claim it as his own. I think that doing so may have advanced us to a certain point from simply that - a materialistic base level of existence. But then for us to continue to attempt to grasp these ideas and try to keep them within our own little houses of self instead of sharing and spreading them toward the whole would ultimately inhibit the spiritual development of humanity and keep us remaining in a more primitive and rudimentary state of consciousness.

My suspicion is that we will be eventually be guided to learn how to let go of this sense of ownership over ideas in the same way that death will show us how to let go of our bodies and adapt to states of transition as we change and from one form to another in the kosmos.

It does seem fascinating that individuals feel a sense of possessiveness over ideas that are simply flowing through them. It is almost as though we are plagiarizing the universe.

As though the wave in the ocean thinks that it is the ocean.

Given that any human advance to that is build when others lay the groundwork and then others after that it does certainly make sense.

Most ideas can be refined and improved upon in terms of efficiency such as the internal combustion engine.

Walking off such developments stalls progress and eventually another independent thinker will develop the same invention independently. See the development of Calculus for example Newton/Leibniz.

And to quote the gravity man himself Isaac

"if I have seen further [than others], it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

In its simplicity it describes the innate curiosity of human beings or even cats. — Deus

I am pretty sure Aristotle would object to this on the basis that the desire for knowledge is for its own sake. Wondering what is happening may be related to the instinctual curiosity of many species but Aristotle is doing something else. The desire to understand has its own life.

I threw the cat into the equation because hey if Schrödinger can do it why can’t I?

In any case the curiosity between cats and us is not as far fetched as you think Albeit us being better able to articulate it and less obsessed with catching mice.

I wasn't putting forth what I think may be different but observing that Aristotle intended to highlight knowing for the sake of knowing from solving practical problems with a view toward specific ends.

I don’t think you can really know what Aristotle intended with that statement but feel more than free to speculate on it.

After all he died a few thousand years ago and probable can’t be bothered to offer what he did or did not mean?

*Deus - Gently pokes Aristotle’s bones, hey mr philosopher someone’s got a bone to pick with you

Have you read Aristotle?

I am very familiar with his thought that of Plato and the subsequent martyr to the cause.

What’s your point ?

I did not have a point. I was only asking if you had wrestled with his text.

Edit to add: I am not asking that to establish some kind of authority but to flesh out what you understand to be Aristotle's thinking.

Without incentives, mediocrity. With incentives, paywalls. Lose-lose! :sad:

Aristotle was great on trivial detail, hopeless on the big moral or metaphysical questions. Like Descartes, a philosophical impostor.