You are a great teacher! You actually managed to make me enjoy the Metaphysics of Aristotle! It's always easier to learn when a teacher is passionate about what he does! Cheers
Thank you once more for your videos, professor! It made even more clear to me how Spinoza was the one who came up with the only possible answer which ultimately fulfilled all the criteria for substance. Very interesting!
You are an excellent instructor who leads and inquiries at Same time, the most important that you are as a student to learn and asking self by clarify what you know what you are not sure. I am learning from you as a teacher to teach with enthusiasm ! Want to watch move videos from you ! 🌟
I love Aristotle. There is something right about his concept of substance, but I sincerely think it needs to be updated to cohere with current physics.
This was a pretty badass explanation of hylomorphism I think universals are ultimately the only substance… everything else is particulars… there is nothing “distinct” about an individual that persists / has identity through time (or space)… and is basically no different than Heraclitus’s river Ultimately Aristotle’s utter struggling with this issue is proof enough of this… or at least that it’s a perfectly reasonable assumption no better than aristotle’s weak ass solutions… his requirement of non-predicability is arbitrary & based in his obsession with disagreeing with Plato… the fact that he literally retracts / contradicts his original composite “this dog” definition for further analysis & unpacking shows how convoluted & inherently non-serious his handling of the issue is & only meant to set up the issue for future philosophers & only appreciated for it’s more solid achievements & takeaways (10 categories being properties of being… persisting beings & substances should be believed in & looked for… etc) Ultimately Aristotle was correct over Plato that universals are in some way immanent in & not outside of matter
I think Bonevac has done a good job here in explaining Aristotle's ideas. I have not studied Aristotle. Bonevac's Aristotle makes a good start but unless we just want to hold to Aristotle, that we think Aristotle has the best take, we are then looking at what is the best approach. And there are certainly many other philosophers who have presented ideas in this area. Here are my suggestions. We have language, the logic of language, and human perception of an assumed reality. Everything I do here is language. I may speak about reality and aspects beyond language but there is nothing here beyond language. I commonly make the assumption that the listeners of my language attach references beyond language to my words and in that sense I may think that my words have meaning beyond language. But however that may be, my meaning is bounded by language. That is, whatever I say, a listener thinking of a reference external to language only has the detail I provide between us through language. To make this more clear, I may say 'horse' and you may conjure up an image of a horse in your mind, but to what degree is your horse the same as mine? We could think that our horses are the same until I say that my horse has a property that you see as different from your horse such as the color of my horse. In the beginning we have the idea of horse in the abstract and then we may add detail through language as we go along. The point here is that even though we may each reference an image of a horse in our minds, the degree that we are talking about the same idea of horse is completely determined by the language we apply. For language, whether or not there are horses or slithy toves in reality is not relevant to our ability to use language to come to an agreement on what those terms mean. Logic, a component of language, in the classical sense only has elements on which to hang properties and relations. These logical elements have no inherent properties in themselves except that we may have any number of them we find useful. They are merely points of no dimension to which we attach whatever meaning (properties and relations) we wish. Now in my reality and I expect in yours, I can choose what an object is that I can attach as an external reference to the elements in my language. The object may be a composite of other objects or be part of a larger object. But to talk about an object requires that I choose what object to talk about. As I perceive the object in reality, it will commonly exhibit a variety of properties and relations that I may describe in my language. Those listening to my language would use those words to fill out my meaning from their similar physical experience. But realizing they may not have the same experiences in reality for the same words I am using to describe my reality. Now Bonevac and Aristotle are using language and to a large degree we have the sense they are talking about reality. But as I have just explained, language is separate from reality. What we do in language is only what language can do and only exhibits the properties of language. The remainder is in the manner of how we perceive reality and how we attach those perceptions to language.
Can't resist… bronze is a collective term for copper alloys, often with tin, except when the minor constituent is zinc (in which case the alloy is called brass). Also, I've never seen a cat with articulated hands and opposable thumbs. I'm reminded more of a baboon or some other old world monkey. 🙃
Couldn't you say that reducing the most primary substance to matter is the same as saying it's uncategorized? Identity-less? Pure potential. The irony makes it confusing.
The 3 indicates the number of credit hours-basically, that it meets three hours a week. At a lot of other universities it would be Philosophy 1 or Philosophy 101.
@@PhiloofAlexandria the smile took me by surprise. It was funny. I didnt see it coming. I guess thats the reaction someone has when they love their jobs.
![J.P., NLE Choppa - Bad Bitty (Remix) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rBDa6BCvw10/mqdefault.jpg)
Very substantive
You are a great teacher! You actually managed to make me enjoy the Metaphysics of Aristotle! It's always easier to learn when a teacher is passionate about what he does! Cheers
I love lectures that are clear but still refuse to make things simpler than they are. Thank you so much.
Thank you once more for your videos, professor!
It made even more clear to me how Spinoza was the one who came up with the only possible answer which ultimately fulfilled all the criteria for substance. Very interesting!
Thank you sir you are great professor
Beautiful !
great lecture
Thank you sir!!! I feel so priviledged to watch a video of a passionate professor
Thank you Sir
Thank you.
beautiful
You are an excellent instructor who leads and inquiries at Same time, the most important that you are as a student to learn and asking self by clarify what you know what you are not sure. I am learning from you as a teacher to teach with enthusiasm ! Want to watch move videos from you ! 🌟
I love Aristotle. There is something right about his concept of substance, but I sincerely think it needs to be updated to cohere with current physics.
This was a pretty badass explanation of hylomorphism
I think universals are ultimately the only substance… everything else is particulars… there is nothing “distinct” about an individual that persists / has identity through time (or space)… and is basically no different than Heraclitus’s river
Ultimately Aristotle’s utter struggling with this issue is proof enough of this… or at least that it’s a perfectly reasonable assumption no better than aristotle’s weak ass solutions… his requirement of non-predicability is arbitrary & based in his obsession with disagreeing with Plato… the fact that he literally retracts / contradicts his original composite “this dog” definition for further analysis & unpacking shows how convoluted & inherently non-serious his handling of the issue is & only meant to set up the issue for future philosophers & only appreciated for it’s more solid achievements & takeaways (10 categories being properties of being… persisting beings & substances should be believed in & looked for… etc)
Ultimately Aristotle was correct over Plato that universals are in some way immanent in & not outside of matter
I think Bonevac has done a good job here in explaining Aristotle's ideas. I have not studied Aristotle.
Bonevac's Aristotle makes a good start but unless we just want to hold to Aristotle, that we think Aristotle has the best take, we are then looking at what is the best approach. And there are certainly many other philosophers who have presented ideas in this area. Here are my suggestions.
We have language, the logic of language, and human perception of an assumed reality.
Everything I do here is language. I may speak about reality and aspects beyond language but there is nothing here beyond language. I commonly make the assumption that the listeners of my language attach references beyond language to my words and in that sense I may think that my words have meaning beyond language. But however that may be, my meaning is bounded by language. That is, whatever I say, a listener thinking of a reference external to language only has the detail I provide between us through language.
To make this more clear, I may say 'horse' and you may conjure up an image of a horse in your mind, but to what degree is your horse the same as mine? We could think that our horses are the same until I say that my horse has a property that you see as different from your horse such as the color of my horse. In the beginning we have the idea of horse in the abstract and then we may add detail through language as we go along. The point here is that even though we may each reference an image of a horse in our minds, the degree that we are talking about the same idea of horse is completely determined by the language we apply. For language, whether or not there are horses or slithy toves in reality is not relevant to our ability to use language to come to an agreement on what those terms mean.
Logic, a component of language, in the classical sense only has elements on which to hang properties and relations. These logical elements have no inherent properties in themselves except that we may have any number of them we find useful. They are merely points of no dimension to which we attach whatever meaning (properties and relations) we wish.
Now in my reality and I expect in yours, I can choose what an object is that I can attach as an external reference to the elements in my language. The object may be a composite of other objects or be part of a larger object. But to talk about an object requires that I choose what object to talk about.
As I perceive the object in reality, it will commonly exhibit a variety of properties and relations that I may describe in my language. Those listening to my language would use those words to fill out my meaning from their similar physical experience. But realizing they may not have the same experiences in reality for the same words I am using to describe my reality.
Now Bonevac and Aristotle are using language and to a large degree we have the sense they are talking about reality. But as I have just explained, language is separate from reality. What we do in language is only what language can do and only exhibits the properties of language.
The remainder is in the manner of how we perceive reality and how we attach those perceptions to language.
Do you have a discussion about Aristotle's Metaphysics book X?
I guess my question would have to be, what is the difference between an essence and a substance? Or is there even a difference?
What would be the difference between individual thing and the Matter + form complex? Thanks
What are the substances that comprise man?
state of a system ... the way in wich it is prepared ... the condition in which it is ... = substance
Can't resist… bronze is a collective term for copper alloys, often with tin, except when the minor constituent is zinc (in which case the alloy is called brass).
Also, I've never seen a cat with articulated hands and opposable thumbs. I'm reminded more of a baboon or some other old world monkey. 🙃
Couldn't you say that reducing the most primary substance to matter is the same as saying it's uncategorized? Identity-less? Pure potential. The irony makes it confusing.
Why is intro to philosophy a 300 level course
The 3 indicates the number of credit hours-basically, that it meets three hours a week. At a lot of other universities it would be Philosophy 1 or Philosophy 101.
@@PhiloofAlexandria Thank you, love your lectures btw
Ahh
Was curious about that too
I appreciate the video, I really do,...but that beginning was quite creepy.
In what way?
@@PhiloofAlexandria the smile took me by surprise. It was funny. I didnt see it coming. I guess thats the reaction someone has when they love their jobs.
I would call that refreshing, not creepy
Speaking of substance...YANG 2024!
Thank you sir