tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post3874900036347601456..comments2024-03-28T09:52:15.415-04:00Comments on Common Denominator: Bertrand Russell on AristotleKen Schenckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-56736400812531688372011-11-30T10:29:30.049-05:002011-11-30T10:29:30.049-05:00Thank you for your exposition of Russell's his...Thank you for your exposition of Russell's historically and substantially significant critique of Aristotle. His opinion is bolstered by being demonstrably correct in almost all respects. <br /><br />Modern philosophy consists of persistent attempts by the vast majority of professional philosophers to create epicycles to work around indisputable refutations of Aristotle's metaphysics and epistemology by the major philosophers. <br /><br />When Aristotle reversed Plato's metaphysical grounds, he also limited himself to what the Principle of Noncontradiction permits. This is analogous to Euclidean metaphysics. The real world is not fixed, but is subject to change, as Plato pointed out.<br /><br />Kant and Wittgenstein have not really been accepted for the limitations they have demonstrated on the universal possibility of knowledge.<br /><br />Steve G.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-82580657190206423792010-06-25T19:37:02.205-04:002010-06-25T19:37:02.205-04:00Thanks for that, it's astonishing. I would nev...Thanks for that, it's astonishing. I would never have imagined Aristotle's work in logic hadn't been thoroughly addressed and retired long ago. He was still grinding that ax in History of Western Philosophy [http://books.google.com/books?id=Ey94E3sOMA0C]...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-64797020309272238632008-08-25T12:56:00.000-04:002008-08-25T12:56:00.000-04:00"Aristotle, it should be said, has been one of the..."Aristotle, it should be said, has been one of the great misfortunes of the human race." Russell, "The Scientific Outlook." Bertie actually doesn't like Aristotle very much.Schahebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05544001699022189070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-47301132724631487372008-07-25T15:36:00.000-04:002008-07-25T15:36:00.000-04:00Thanks..I'm just a novice...hurry up and finish th...Thanks..I'm just a novice...hurry up and finish that philosophy book so I can buy it and get a clue, haha.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10263524756571593358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-75438715128206151672008-07-25T12:31:00.000-04:002008-07-25T12:31:00.000-04:00Oh, I completely agree that Aristotle's understand...Oh, I completely agree that Aristotle's understanding of form and substance, although an improvement on Plato, can only be seen as peculiar today. Although I am not inimical toward the catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, I consider it a fossil of Aristotle's now vastly outdated metaphysic.Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-53977421200227740252008-07-25T12:29:00.000-04:002008-07-25T12:29:00.000-04:00Jared, you're right, although I get the impression...Jared, you're right, although I get the impression that Russell had to force himself to credit Aristotle for being great in his day.<BR/><BR/>Dan, Russell faults Aristotle's logic as 1) having formal defects (not distinguishing between quite different kinds of premises), 2) over-estimating the syllogism (as if it were the only type of deductive argument), and 3) over-estimating deduction (we're more inductive). I wish I could say more...Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-33180361853545923122008-07-24T21:30:00.000-04:002008-07-24T21:30:00.000-04:00Dr. Schenck,What logic of Aristotle is Russell bla...Dr. Schenck,<BR/>What logic of Aristotle is Russell blasting and contrasting w/ "modern logic"?Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10263524756571593358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-39158050441311447752008-07-24T21:05:00.000-04:002008-07-24T21:05:00.000-04:00Angie, what has that got to do with the post...?Angie, what has that got to do with the post...?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-62715373163061117902008-07-24T16:39:00.000-04:002008-07-24T16:39:00.000-04:00I still believe that there is nothing unlawful in ...I still believe that there is nothing unlawful in itself, but the improper use of it. Moderation is still what character is to be about, because moderation can be rational and responsive, without negating the other with emotional abuse.Emotional abuse happens when one fears identity annihlation.<BR/>This is why it is not about religion, but character. Character is formed by choices and goals we have. And identity should be within our own control of characteristics that we deem worthy of aquiring.Angie Van De Merwehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12617299120618867829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8355052.post-91155934647746721512008-07-24T12:05:00.000-04:002008-07-24T12:05:00.000-04:00Is this really an attack on Aristotle or on the on...Is this really an attack on Aristotle or on the ongoing influence of Aristotle? Other than a remark here and there about clarity or prose style, it seems like Russell treats Aristotle as a trailblazer, but, like all trailblazers, later people have improved upon him. The problem comes when one ossifies the positions of the trailblazers rather dogmatically. Thus, the problem seems to be with Aristotelians. Aristotle's stuffy style may also derive from the nature of his writing--in the sense that it has been postulated that his writings were more like his lecture notes, and he would expand or elaborate, upon his terse statements when speaking.<BR/><BR/>Also, Aristotle does talk about benevolence in Nicomachian Ethics, with "open-handedness" (eleutheriotes) being something that anyone with funds at their disposal should engage in, and "munificence" (megaloprepeia) something that really only the wealthy have enough money to engage in. Russell's definition may differ, but should acknowledge that Aristotle does address it.Jared Calawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09380681998833566514noreply@blogger.com