"This knowledge per se", as in "this knowledge alone, as it exists in this mind. "Grammatical", as attributive to that specific scrap of that substance of knowledge in your mind Again, just trying to sort ot out. Is this off-base? Ill shut up now
Hi Dr. Sandler, should not "this knowledge of grammar" or "this white/ness" fall under [not in a subject, but predicated of a subject] (individual non-substances)? However, [in a subject, but not predicable of a subject] should be the universals substance such as "man" or "horse"?
I don't really understand the difference of the second and third combination. When I say "this book is green" why is it in one case predicated of it, but not in it and in the other case in it, but not predicated of it.
That's one way to characterize it. But Aristotle isn't a nominalist. If you're still mixed up about this - and it is a tricky section of the work - I'd suggest booking a tutorial session. If that's of interest to you, here's my site - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/
Thank you so much for your videos, Dr. Sadler. They're of great help to me in my studies. I don't have much beyond my student budget now, but I've bookmarked your Patreon in case I run into some for money later this year.
Not predicated: This book is this book (as in *this particular book* is, rather than attributive of, this book) Not in a subject: the book is this book, therefore it can't be *in* this book (as part of the whole of this book, since this book *is*, as in a pure state of being, this book) Prolix, I know, but am I in the ballpark? I cant go any further until I can grasp this. Help?
Hi Dr Gregory Thanks for very useful videos. If the substance is the subject ( not in a subject or predicated in subject), what about the essence? Where do you put it this classifications?
I'm taking a 400 level class on sophism and this video was a great help to clear up my confusion of this topic during reading. It would be awesome to hear some examples of the fallacies that arise with incorrect use of predicates as well!
Hi Mr Sadler, When aristotle says “the individual man” does he mean the entity man without any language prescribed to that entity, literally the entity or the existence itself or am I wrong here? should we just ignore the language when he says “individual man” and only imagine an entity? And how do we differentiate when he talks about the entity itself and the prescribed language of that entity? sorry for the trouble please answer all of these 👍
I have no idea what you mean by "language prescribed to that entity" or "the existence itself". I suspect you're confusing yourself about this pretty straightforward matter.
@@GregoryBSadler I am in a habit of doing that in vain, you are not wrong. Now I think I understand a bit better and correct me if I am wrong; By individual man, aristotle means literally a particular sample from the species -man. One particular individual, who is distinguished from other men by his individuality(different interests, bodies, etc). (seems like this conclusion should have been obvious but wasn’t for me)
According to Kant, if I am not mistaken, being is not a predicate but a condition that makes predication possible. I think that's how he refuted the Ontological Argument.
Gregory B. Sadler I was referring to this one. Aristotle in general, "Categories" more specifically. I want to go in order so I can follow better but there are multiple chapter 6s and 8s. Its no big deal, thanks for the reply and all the hard work.
Yep. What you're talking about goes beyond having the videos "in order". You should be reading and rereading the book, going back and forth between topics. You'll get way more out of it that way. Still have zero idea what playlist you'd be referring to by "this", though - good chance to think about equivocal terms. There is no "Categories" playlist I've created.
Thank you so much, Professor! Your videos are really helpful to me. They are obviously more understandable than reading a bunch of articles.
Glad that the videos are useful for you.
If you'd like to give back a bit and support my work, here's my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler
"This knowledge per se", as in "this knowledge alone, as it exists in this mind.
"Grammatical", as attributive to that specific scrap of that substance of knowledge in your mind
Again, just trying to sort ot out. Is this off-base? Ill shut up now
Hi Dr. Sandler, should not "this knowledge of grammar" or "this white/ness" fall under [not in a subject, but predicated of a subject] (individual non-substances)? However, [in a subject, but not predicable of a subject] should be the universals substance such as "man" or "horse"?
No.
And it’s Sadler
I don't really understand the difference of the second and third combination. When I say "this book is green" why is it in one case predicated of it, but not in it and in the other case in it, but not predicated of it.
Greenness is not the same thing as "is green". One is a property in the subject, the other is linguistic or conceptual.
Wow thanks for the quick reply. So the second combination refers to nominalism and the third to the actual being that is there, is that right?
No. Nominalism is the name of a philosophical doctrine
Well, that's obvious. But isn't nominalism the doctrine that assumes universals, like greenness, to be just words i.e. "linguistic concepts"?
That's one way to characterize it. But Aristotle isn't a nominalist.
If you're still mixed up about this - and it is a tricky section of the work - I'd suggest booking a tutorial session. If that's of interest to you, here's my site - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/
Thank you so much for your videos, Dr. Sadler. They're of great help to me in my studies. I don't have much beyond my student budget now, but I've bookmarked your Patreon in case I run into some for money later this year.
That's very nice of you. You're quite welcome!
Not predicated: This book is this book (as in *this particular book* is, rather than attributive of, this book)
Not in a subject: the book is this book, therefore it can't be *in* this book (as part of the whole of this book, since this book *is*, as in a pure state of being, this book)
Prolix, I know, but am I in the ballpark? I cant go any further until I can grasp this. Help?
I’d just stick with the examples already provided. And you certainly can move on, and come back to this later
Hi Dr Gregory
Thanks for very useful videos.
If the substance is the subject ( not in a subject or predicated in subject), what about the essence? Where do you put it this classifications?
You don't
Are substance and subject the same thing?
Depends on the substance and subject in question. So sometimes yes, and sometimes no
Thank you so much for your work! You are an amazing teacher!
You’re very welcome
According to Aristotle, all nouns are Ousia? The first substance?
No
So the bottom left quadrant. Its something that is in a subject but can be predicated of another subject?
Yep, that's what it says, and what the example illustrates
Hey Dr. Sadler! I love your works. Can you give 1 example for each one? Im a foreign student, so i couldnt fully follow on these examples.
Read Aristotle's text and think about the examples provided more, until you do follow them
@@GregoryBSadler ok, thank you for your answer Dr.
I'm taking a 400 level class on sophism and this video was a great help to clear up my confusion of this topic during reading. It would be awesome to hear some examples of the fallacies that arise with incorrect use of predicates as well!
Glad it was useful for you.
Hi Mr Sadler, When aristotle says “the individual man” does he mean the entity man without any language prescribed to that entity, literally the entity or the existence itself or am I wrong here? should we just ignore the language when he says “individual man” and only imagine an entity? And how do we differentiate when he talks about the entity itself and the prescribed language of that entity? sorry for the trouble please answer all of these 👍
I have no idea what you mean by "language prescribed to that entity" or "the existence itself". I suspect you're confusing yourself about this pretty straightforward matter.
@@GregoryBSadler I am in a habit of doing that in vain, you are not wrong. Now I think I understand a bit better and correct me if I am wrong;
By individual man, aristotle means literally a particular sample from the species -man. One particular individual, who is distinguished from other men by his individuality(different interests, bodies, etc).
(seems like this conclusion should have been obvious but wasn’t for me)
Yes, an individual human being is just that.
is being a predicate ?
Depends on your metaphysics
According to Kant, if I am not mistaken, being is not a predicate but a condition that makes predication possible. I think that's how he refuted the Ontological Argument.
Greatly enjoying the series, Gregory. If you have spare time, could you order the playlist?
I have dozens of playlists. You'll have to be more specific
Gregory B. Sadler I was referring to this one. Aristotle in general, "Categories" more specifically. I want to go in order so I can follow better but there are multiple chapter 6s and 8s. Its no big deal, thanks for the reply and all the hard work.
Yep. What you're talking about goes beyond having the videos "in order". You should be reading and rereading the book, going back and forth between topics. You'll get way more out of it that way.
Still have zero idea what playlist you'd be referring to by "this", though - good chance to think about equivocal terms. There is no "Categories" playlist I've created.
is being present in a particular instance of a quality?
As you've written it, that question doesn't make sense
@@GregoryBSadler what are the things that exist in this way? instances of qualities or what? im kind of confused.
You’re still expressing your confusions in a confusing way
What exactly are the things that Aristotle means by not said of a subject and present in a subject? Is it maybe instances of qualities?
@@jhoanosorio Qualities are predicated of subjects
thank you
You're welcome!