Why Plantinga? I've read about 2 of his books, but I wasn't too impressed...Plantinga — Terrapin Station
Have you read De Veritate for example? That's mostly metaphysics discussing the nature of truth. Aquinas has wide ranging works, and he outlines, explicates and corrects Aristotelianism.Once he's done with the praeambula fidei, which doesn't amount to much of his writing, Aquinas is pretty straightforwardly a theologian and not a philosopher. — Thorongil
Indeed a lot seems to revolve around Kant, a man of a kind for certain. Both his "apprentices" - Schopenhauer and Hegel - don't quite reach up to him, although Schopenhauer fares much better, but he also "corrupts" Kant's metaphysics, and gives it a tint that Kant would probably not approve of. I'm not sure what to say about it - I appreciate transcendental idealism but Aristotelian realism also seems an appealing alternative. I can never be decided which conception I favour. Kant seems an improvement upon Plato, but Aristotle goes in a different direction entirely.Kant — Thorongil
"For it is downright impossible that a soul pierced and enlightened with a thorough sense of the omnipresence, holiness, and justice of that almighty spirit, should persist in remorselessly violating his laws. We ought therefore earnestly to meditate and dwell on those important points, so as to become convinced beyond all doubt that the eyes of the Lord are in every place beholding the evil and the good; that he is with us and keeps us in all places to which we go, and gives us bread to eat, and clothes to wear; that he is present and conscious to our innermost thoughts; and that we have a most absolute and immediate dependence on him. A clear view of these great truths cannot but fill our heart with awed caution and holy fear, which is the strongest incentive to virtue and the best guard against vice." — George Berkeley
Have you read De Veritate for example? — Agustino
Aristotelian realism — Agustino
This is so false though - what about Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle's works? On Metaphysica, on De Anima, and so forth?Still, considering his total output, the vast majority of it is theological. — Thorongil
Classify him in relation to Plato. If Plato is the idealist, then Aristotle is the realist. For example, Aristotle didn't believe that the Forms pre-existed in some realm other than this world. In his hylomorphism, a substance was composed by the unity of Form and Matter. Aristotle solved the problem of the One and the Many that Plato started with. Triangularity - if it applies to all triangles (it is universal), then it cannot be applied to particulars - have you ever seen a triangle that is neither scalene, nor isosceles, nor equilateral? And particulars, if they are particular, cannot be applied to more than one object. The way Aristotle resolves the problem is by having the forms present in both the object and in the intellect. Furthermore, triangularity exists in a particular triangle concretely, not abstractly or universally. What is present to the mind on the other hand is triangularity considered universally, as it applies to all triangles. But - triangularity in-itself is neither particular, nor universal - neither one, nor many. For if it was One - then it couldn't be shared by different objects. And if it was many, then it couldn't apply to particular objects - "universals as such exist only in the soul, but forms themselves, which are conceivable universally, exist in things"I'm not actually certain how to classify Aristotle, since he doesn't use the same terminology that realism and idealism are predicated on. — Thorongil
Not at all, for Aristotle it's all one reality, there is no element of transcendence in it. The Forms aren't separate from the world. There is no "realm of the forms". Neither is the Prime Mover separate from the world, but rather, the Prime Mover is always present, and always acting, at all times, and at all places within the world and sustaining it.which distinguishes between reality and appearance, which, in turn, is one way to couch idealism — Thorongil
what about Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle's works? — Agustino
Plato is an idealist with regards to the forms, Aristotle isn't — Agustino
Neither is the Prime Mover separate from the world, but rather, the Prime Mover is always present, and always acting, at all times, and at all places within the world and sustaining it. — Agustino
The forms are immaterial only qua universals - ie in the mind. But the forms as they are in particular objects aren't immaterial. They are just the structure of matter.I'm not so sure. I understand that for Aristotle the forms are inextricably bound with matter in an object, but we can ask: are the forms immaterial? — Thorongil
They aren't any more real than anything else. The Prime Mover isn't more real than the chair you're sitting on. They're equally real, except that the chair cannot exist without the pure activity of the Prime Mover. So in the sense of what depends on what, sure the Prime Mover is more real, and there still is a hirearchy of being. But, ultimately, they are equally real, in the sense that there is no transcendence being referred. Transcendence is what's at stake. If you say that Aristotle is an immanentist, then he certainly isn't a transcendental idealist as Kant or Schopenhauer is. The noumenon, for those two, isn't equivalent with the Prime Mover in Aristotle. For Aristotle, it's not the case that the world as we perceive it through our faculties and senses is the Prime Mover. For Schopenhauer for example, the noumenon doesn't cause the world (as the Prime Mover causes the world in Aristotle), but rather IS the world, ultimately and fundamentally, below the appearances, below the veil of Maya that's drawn over our eyes. There are no "appearances" in Aristotle, and no reality beyond those appearances. There is no transcendence, so there can't be. Aristotelianism isn't compatible with Kantianism.Secondly, he thought we could abstract from particular forms and particular bits of matter to more basic (and real?) things: the prime mover, which is certainly not a material being, and prime matter, which, ironically, isn't exactly material. — Thorongil
He absolutely does this! The forms exist in the object even if there is no (particular) mind to perceive them. According to Aristotle, it's not the mind which imposes space and motion (time) on the world. These are real parts of its structure, which exist independent of the mind.I define realism (at least one kind of it) as asserting the mind independent reality of the objects of sense. Does Aristotle do this? — Thorongil
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.