Actually all men are immortal. All will be resurrected. Death in Scripture is a synonym for separation. Substitute the word separation for death and it works every time. Set the definitions and you are likely to win any philosophical argument.
Would Aristotle say that there are a minimal number of qualities an item must have in order for it to participate in “its”ness? I know he was a realist and a nominalist, but I would think that categorizing something to the point of naming all of its characteristics would lend itself to an object having the most characteristics in the category of its “it”ness and if an object exhibited ALL of the qualities, it would be considered ideal. Did he see Plato’s argument that if it is named a chair, it must exhibit enough qualities to be considered a chair, and if it exhibited all the qualities of being a chair, it would participate in chairness? Why did I call it a chair? It exhibits qualities of a chair. In Aristotle’s mind, would it be possible for a chair to be more chairy than another chair or did it matter to him at all how many chairlike qualities an object has as long as it has enough to consider it a chair?
Aristotle leaned in the direction of nominalism, though by no means to the extent of the later medieval nominalists (e.g. Wm of Occam). He maintained that we see various objects, and by noting similarities we abstract themes that give rise to names. The categories are a means whereby this process takes place. In many ways, this approach is at the heart of all scientific observational inquiry.
Aristotle is a nominalist? He is turning over in his grave! Aristotle was a realist who believed there were real essences that can be abstracted from many particulars. Nominalist do not believe in essences.
Well, I think I qualified that generalization in the lecture. Aristotle was a nominalist compared to Plato, but you are quite correct...he was not a nominalist in the sense to Occam was a nominalist.
Good catch Robert, my other studies indicated that he is somewhere between realist and nominalist in the group of conceptualists. Aristotle believed there were universals though in name only yet did not agree with Plato on this point.
@@mrow9863 I usually tend to think of conceptualism as light or moderate nominalism, as opposed to a midway point between realism and nominalism. I've usually heard Aristotle describe as a "moderate realist". Doesn't hylomorphism mean that the form of the thing exists in that particular thing, rather than in the mind of the observer, as conceptualists think?
Your students are really lucky, and so am I for finding your page. I am learning so much, I had no idea about any of this.
I'll be sure to pass that on to my students. Sometimes they have their doubts!
Still watching your videos...And btw, Mr.Gore, we live in Abu Dhabi, so your reach is world wide :)
+Rebecca L Wow! Thanks for the feedback!
Great lecture, professor! Greetings from Brazil!
Form, substance, matter... actuality, and potentiality
Any idea about the spanish guitar at the beginning?
Im confused... Sometimes Aristotle speaks of Univocal, Equivocal and Analogical and sometimes he speaks of Univocal, Equivocal and Derivative?
Actually all men are immortal. All will be resurrected. Death in Scripture is a synonym for separation. Substitute the word separation for death and it works every time. Set the definitions and you are likely to win any philosophical argument.
Would Aristotle say that there are a minimal number of qualities an item must have in order for it to participate in “its”ness? I know he was a realist and a nominalist, but I would think that categorizing something to the point of naming all of its characteristics would lend itself to an object having the most characteristics in the category of its “it”ness and if an object exhibited ALL of the qualities, it would be considered ideal. Did he see Plato’s argument that if it is named a chair, it must exhibit enough qualities to be considered a chair, and if it exhibited all the qualities of being a chair, it would participate in chairness? Why did I call it a chair? It exhibits qualities of a chair. In Aristotle’s mind, would it be possible for a chair to be more chairy than another chair or did it matter to him at all how many chairlike qualities an object has as long as it has enough to consider it a chair?
Aristotle leaned in the direction of nominalism, though by no means to the extent of the later medieval nominalists (e.g. Wm of Occam). He maintained that we see various objects, and by noting similarities we abstract themes that give rise to names. The categories are a means whereby this process takes place. In many ways, this approach is at the heart of all scientific observational inquiry.
Aristotle said that particulars participate in the universals.
Aristotle is a nominalist? He is turning over in his grave! Aristotle was a realist who believed there were real essences that can be abstracted from many particulars. Nominalist do not believe in essences.
Well, I think I qualified that generalization in the lecture. Aristotle was a nominalist compared to Plato, but you are quite correct...he was not a nominalist in the sense to Occam was a nominalist.
Good catch Robert, my other studies indicated that he is somewhere between realist and nominalist in the group of conceptualists. Aristotle believed there were universals though in name only yet did not agree with Plato on this point.
@@mrow9863 I usually tend to think of conceptualism as light or moderate nominalism, as opposed to a midway point between realism and nominalism. I've usually heard Aristotle describe as a "moderate realist". Doesn't hylomorphism mean that the form of the thing exists in that particular thing, rather than in the mind of the observer, as conceptualists think?
if that IS what conceptualists think!