May 19, 2017.

Aristology (360 BC). Aristotle. Philosophy of Aristotle. On Aristotle.

…

• As soon as there is a principle of Opp Bardva, if it is scientifically-supported, what follows naturally is that one then has a principle of Bardva.
• Ethics is the undecided option according to Modern-Day Aristotle.

…

One of the earliest sayings on Aristotle was that he said (I) would never know what it meant that fish are so much like birds… Explanation: The soul of Fish: Flying fish. Sometimes the fish are in English.

Typical Aristotle summed up:

I think he’s just saying math is important, though in a very instructive way. There is something about qualities like peacekeeping or vengeance or whatever that involves a quantity of things, otherwise, it is probably not infinite. The argument is not derived from objective truth or science, but more like introspection about the world. However, Aristotle is considered a very rational person, that is why the phrases still seem to matter. The best introspection might not be Aristotle. There is a way where open-ended inquiry and guesswork can be something Aristotle does not even approach. For reasons like this, some call Aristotle ‘the most academic of academic philosophers’. —What does Aristotle mean by the following: For the infinite is in the category of quantity, whereas substance or quality or affection cannot be infinite except through a concomitant attribute, that is, if at the same time they are also quantities?.

Interesting question. I would be more interested in whether the work contained any interesting content.

Title: “To Conceptualize” [by Aristotle, lost work]

Soul: If you [attempt anything] [you have no concept] therefore the meaning of this is [a difficult theory].

Essentially, Aristotle was saying that the quest for knowledge is difficult, and it is a worthwhile quest, and one with many satisfactions and special gifts (which he probably enumerated at length). He also explained the general importance of philosophy which is it’s difficulty (at the beginning), involve episteme and the study of the aspects of the world and the non-sensorial (something magical about this). At the end he discussed that philosophy is ultimately theoretical, and that it can be no more than theory, yet theory can be the grandest thing. Though misunderstood to mean that philosophy is sad and hopeless, it could also mean that philosophy is ultimately highly useful.

…

• Latest research in Aristology suggests in study of past-lives, magical animals do not count towards reincarnations. Also, the experience of being an animal often seems magical. This suggests that the separation between De Nomine and De Anima was intentionally a contrast, with De Nomine representing legitimate reincarnations, and De Anima representing reincarnations as a magical animal.
• Here’s what I might say when people try to explain Kripke as being the ultimate philosopher: Aristotle’s logic isn’t even absolute, and Kripke is an obscure limb of what may be that dying tree. Popularity is all that could support Kripke or Aristotle at this point, if it weren’t for the effort and souls doled out to computing systems. Maybe there is an exception to the alternatives (coherentism), but it has not been explained very clearly anywhere. If you’re looking for truth, absolutes *might* be where to look. Where they get me wrong is there is no *might* there is only truth. There is no *might* but there is a *mote* conditionality says the mote is pain. The mote is truth. A possible exception is if you see conditionality as a post-VR philosophy, in which truth doesn’t have to be real, then it could be called conditions. There is a heavy-handed argument that says *there is no post VR*. Or we could just study innovations and extinctions. What Kripke really means is *things couldn’t be better*. It’s either a lie or it’s true, but it’s not going to be very interesting to other people.

Tips: Aristotle’s metaphysics, the last time I read it, set me back a bit, maybe because it was reinterpreted by religious translators.

A point of earlier pre-2000 education was that the point was to impress someone more so than actually learn a subject.

Telos (…)

Some characteristics of Aristotle:

• A posteriori reasoning primarily: proving what already exists after the fact, using evidence from causes. A basis for early science.
• Value for absolute REASONING, not absolute FACTS. If one could prove something deductively, one would NO LONGER NEED TO REFER TO THE EVIDENCE.
• Adventure in causality (entelechy, teleology). Interest in the domain called THE WORLD as a PHILOSOPHICAL ADVENTURE, with ABSOLUTE CONSEQUENCES.
• CLASSICALLY ANALYTIC: Effort to solve the hardest problems by laborious efforts, with a willingness to mark off many things as intrinsically futile or impossible, often using exaggerated situations.

Entelechy

Which ideas of Aristotle have stood the test of time?

Aristotle, The Art of Knowing

Here is an outside link that may help with his Ethics: Aristotle's 11 virtues

Logic of Aristotle: Causal Inference

Blog Pages Creatively interpolated by Nathan Coppedge:

The Lycian Lecture

Alien Principles (Principia Ethica)

What are Aristotle's greatest works?

How did Aristotle develop logic?

Which of the Aristotelian ideas are still valid today?

Logical Syllogisms (Formal and Logical systems)

How was the proof system with axioms proven to be valid in making proofs?

Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle by Nathan Coppedge.

Posterior Analytic.

Study of Ends.

Aristotle’s Magical Metaphysics, Part 1.

Aristotle's Magical Metaphysics, Part 2.

Critiques of Aristotle’s Metaphysics.

Aristotle’s System of Ontolechy.

Parapetetic Arguments.

Nathan's Four Causes

Possible insight into intellectual causes:

(META TAB):

1. General: Master Disciplines

2. Formilitics: Viable Theories Formilitics

3. Radical: Radical Extension (Methodology): The Meta Disciplines

4. Dialectic: The Coherent Dialectic

Also known as General, Formal, Meta, Final.

A Meta-structure for the Method for Completing Disciplines.

A Nefarious Argument Against Aristotles Ethics.

…

A Kind of Postscript to Aristotle

…

Hegel anticipated by what I call Aristotle's Calculus:

There is something to be ssid for the cosmos overhead.

The void is worth considering.

We depend on absence.

All integration involves absence.

The greater thing is created out of the lesser thing.

There is no other way it came to be.

Nature is a spiritual absence.

Thus we know nature is human.

---Notes on Ancient Calculus (the void, at least, is an Aristotelian concept).

…

[So] therefore, as far as expressions in logic taken alone, we can make brilliant points along the lines of flying luggage is not always luggage for flying or something like that: there are some cases where the luggage is flying but it should not. —What would be the negation of this statement: "John thinks that Shakespeare was a genius"?

…

Intellectual Soul of Aristotle: Knowledge is a special problem.

…

LOCATING THE LEGACY OF ARISTOTLE

Knowing is represented by wisdom, knowledge, intuition, self-searching.

Not-knowing is represented by innocence, ignorance, and perhaps what is problematic, such as being unwise.

I can detect four forms of not-knowing:

(1) Obtusity, inability to grasp surroundings.

(2) Fallacious reasoning, use of poorly-constructed arguments.

(3) Lack of experience with the world and/or with ideas.

(4) Can’t detect the quantum background, not sufficiently fair-minded, or not omniscient.

—What is the term that represents knowing and not knowing what it is like not to know?

Plato and Aristotle might be superficial knowledge seekers? Do Aristotle and Plato apply the same method to arrive at true knowledge? How? in Philosophical Cave

HISTORICAL BLACK SWAN ISLANDS:

1A Big Ideas: Genius (9)

1B Foundations (7, 8)

1C Fluency (12, 17, 13, 18)

1D Products (14, 19)

1E Magic (24)

2A Adaptation (15, 20)

2B Standards (25)

3A Logics (10)

3B Sci-Fi (2, 3)

[Other more common areas:

4A: Analogy-Symbols Loop.

4B: Universal Games-Functions Loop.

4C: Sci-Fi, Primitive, Knacks, Universal Games, Functions.

4D: Universal Games, Nuances, Analogy

…

A PARTIAL REFUTATION OF ARISTOTELIAN LOGIC

1. Statements are not always true or false.

• True or false are not the only concepts, QED. Therefore, expecting everything to be true or false is a simple way of shooting yourself in the foot. It assumes the consequence that those concepts are de re understandable. Example: although you may not have to accept that someone who has a romantic ‘affair’ is being false, it is easy to imagine the possibility of other examples of falsehood such as having a definition for what is false which would still be considered true. And if false does not have a definition, as is suggested by the idea that there is nothing false, including nothing false that is false (e.g. if ‘false’ is ever true, as opposed to false), then there is really no way to logically assume rationally that ‘true’ and ‘false’ are the only concepts, or not exclusively. It is easy to see that if ‘false’ does not accept all definitions of what is false, then it is not a universal definition, and may even be a poor choice of words. And since such paradoxes must also be logically exclusive in a universal system,, the assumption that everything must be true and false for coherence is obviously once again an act of shooting oneself in the foot, e.g. blatantly assuming one’s argument must be wrong to be right. The sheer possibility of acknowledging a paradox regarding truth and falsehood as a semantic concept already assumes semantically at the bare minimum that there is a third concept other than true and false. Even logical symbols such as conjunction may in fact exhibit some properties which are not merely true or false, but perhaps neutral, universal, quantified, qualified, complex, efficient, etc.

2. Secondly, if we assume a statement must be a ‘well-formed sentence in a logical language’ that seems to assume that the sentence only exists in that language, which in effect assumes that the language is not universal.

• Therefore, it seems obvious that language must be used not only descriptively, but also representationally: it must have an agreed-upon representation. At the bare minimum, a concept ought to be able to be represented differently. But then, this begs the question of why truth tables in particular would be so important as an object of study. How arbitrary is the concept of truth table? Many would say it is not arbitrary at all, yet if the truth representation is a construct designed to represent truth that only exists as syntax, that sounds like circular reasoning. And if there were other requirements for understanding a concept other than universalizable representation, those other requirements might hold too. If there is no universal representation, then the clear option is to treat universals as though they are one of many representations. Although this poses a semantic danger, it does not assume universals are universally wrong, it simply says they are not the only perspective. Thus, for most purposes a universal system will be a matter of degrees of absoluteness. While this may not seem satisfactory at first, if we stretch our imaginations to the point where we have various formal standards of reasoning, it is possible by some high standard absolutes come in degrees. After all, if the concern for everyone is education, there is no point in assuming anyone has absolute understanding of universals, therefore, universals must exist first as a representation, at least if the goal is to represent truth as an objective symbolism. Nor will we do well if we reject the idea that truth is symbolic, as if we determine that truth is not symbolic it will be hard to find any significance for it at all, and without significance there will be no way to verify any significance however subjective as far as how definite it is, and therefore, there would be no way to assert truth whatsoever without symbols of some kind.

3 ‘You say’ every well-formed formula (wff) is meant to have a truth table in a universal system. This is true enough, but I take issue with the idea that it must be a truth table.

• By well-formed formula you mean rational formula, like a formula that is well-grounded or logically reasonable, perhaps even expressed in the most parsimonious language. However, if the truth table is to have advantage on every other method it will need to have a structured logical reason to be preferred over all other systems (Aristotle or David K. Lewis may have mentioned this), which requires an independent argument. Although it seems possible to prefer the truth table over other methods, to gain one point of advantage it will need an additional method on top of merely representing true and false. Not only will it need to acknowledge that there could be better systems, but it must also have a key advantage which it is thought no other system has, otherwise another whole system could be preferred. This is the minimal standard, but a truth table as such is not so different from word-labels, analogies, or other syntactical relations (as Peirce may have said), therefore if truth tables are to express true and false universally they will need at least some type of advantage which holds them quasi-absolutely above other forms of syntax. And such a claim must be done formally, not merely frivolously. As a result, what I suggest is that truth tables are not adequate by themselves, they at least need some linear argument, and some form of exponential advantage. You see, text by itself is just text unless it claims it is exponential text.

—A Partial Refutation of Aristotelian Logic

…

A somewhat creative view of moderation by Coppedge:

Selfishness:

• Do you want to be superficial?
• Or do you want to be authentic?
• Or do you just want happiness?

Work:

• Do you want to do something big?
• Or do you want to do a lot of little things?
• Or is it about doing the best thing?

Efficiency:

• Do you want reliability?
• Or do you want to improve performance?
• Or do you want exponents?

Wealth:

• Do you want reliable investments?
• Or are you willing to take risks?
• Or do you just want to maximize opportunity-cost?

Popularity:

• Do you want to be a wise man / remembered after you’re dead, or live forever even if you experience pain?
• Or do you want to be a hedonist / populist, or enjoy your life a short time and then die?
• Or do you want to be popular just as a means to an end?

Originality:

• Do you want to be remembered for ideas?
• Or do you want to be remembered for emotions?
• Or are you wild and careless?

—How can we design wiser technologies instead of only smarter ones? (…)

…

A KIND OF PARTIAL POSTSCRIPT: UNIFIED METAPHYSICS

Extraordinary Metaphysics (amazing qualities),

Metaphysical Systems (meaningful qualities),

Metaphysical Metabolism (metabolic qualities), and

The TOE (Coherent Metaphysics).

The exceptions are typologies greater or less than four efficiencies, which would still consist of efficiencies.

—Unified Metaphysics

See also:

Categories (Aristotle)

Logic Links

History of Philosophy Links

Ethics Links

The History of Coherence