Aristotle or Plato

DU DUMME SAU

Attached: 15073995.jpg (480x360, 31K)

Remember kids, Platonic = super moronic.

Guys, c-come on, we're only five votes behind! Show these poopoo platonists who the real megalopsychos is

7 to 8!!!! we're doing it, fucking platonists eat shit

nooooooo

Attached: fuckfuckfuckfuck.png (686x268, 8K)

Good results, so far. This only vindicates the superiority of Aristotle. The plebs always have the numbers on their sides.

Attached: plebs.png (996x453, 26K)

Yeah it's pretty unsurprising to see the immediate "Aristotle is better" left untouched.

this is unfair, aristotle is on the list twice

I feel like most people are just more familiar with Plato.

we need a scholastic renaissance on Yea Forums

Attached: quote-how-significant-is-aristotle-well-i-wouldn-t-want-to-exaggerate-so-let-me-put-it-this-edward-f (850x400, 81K)

How tf does Aristotle have half the votes of Plato? I would've at least thought it would be close

Aristotle was a pretty shit philosopher, top rate scientist (natural philosopher) though

t. brainlet

Are you fucking kidding? His metaphysics, rhetoric, logic, poetics. Top tier stuff

What’s your opinion on him as an ethicist?

>imagine thinking Aristotle was shit when all we have are his lecture notes and none of his actual published writing

Not him, but it's great. The problem is that people don't seem to have actually read it but talk about it like they hve. They think it just boils down to some folksy wisdom about "the golden mean" but there's a lot more going on in that book. It also shows his brilliance as a psychologist imo. His politics is even better. Fucking genius work.

he had no higher ought, only smaller contingent oughts based on personal constitution, basically making him not an ethicist in the proper sense but rather the original psychiatrist (he conflated the Good with the "objective" measure of flourishing)

higher oughts are delusional platonic fanaticism. morals =\= metaphysics. morals is a relative, contingent, and human domain. aristotle got that one right

They were both retarded old white men that stole the works of African and Middle Eastern work

>morals is a relative, contingent, and human domain
spoken like a shit philosopher

Attached: 1524514832113.jpg (500x414, 24K)

you have to be retarded to believe that something so obviously human and psychological in its character is of universal/metaphysical significance. that's pure anthropomorphism, almost a human hubris. the world is not moral, let alone metaphysical principles, only man is. morality is psychological, poltical, and cultural. it has no higher significance in that. any higher attribution is fairy tale tier escapism

>in that
than that*

>the world is not moral, let alone metaphysical principles, only man is
that wouldn't mean morals are relative, read Kant you brainlet

Yeah, they are relative. That's what I'm saying. I've already read his Metaphysic of Morals, twice in fact. It's the flimsiest shit ever. Not convincing at all.

come on I'm Gay you can do it

come oooooooooonnnn

Greek science man says things be like it do; convincing.
German science man revolutionizes metaphysics while simultaneously solving the issue of metaethics; flimsiest shit ever.

Attached: Kant_gemaelde_3.jpg (1009x1317, 271K)

Idk what to tell you, bro. Thinking that there could possibly be anything metaphysical except in the most indirect and incidental fashion about morals strikes as so obviously retarded that I offhandedly dismiss it without even thinking about it at this point. Like you have to be a literal babby, to my mind, to give morality a metaphysical significance. I just can't take it seriously. Deep down I don't eveb believe that anyone sincerely thinks that way. I feel like you guys must be larping or just fucking around for the fun of it, maybe becaue the idea strikes you as fun and original, but I can't accept that anyone would genuinely believe that as an adult, I just don't get how that's possible

This board is about literature, not philosophy. Plato is a much better writer than Aristotle.

that means i'm actually the greatest philosopher of all time, because not one (1) soul has ever suggested that i'm the greatest philosopher of all time

It "strikes you as"? I thought you read the book twice, you never bothered to come up with an argument against it? Your feelings just made you dismiss it because you are too intellectually immature to entertain an idea? hmm... reminds me of a quote from a certain Greek scientist...
>it is the mark of an educated person to search for the same kind of clarity in each topic to the extent that the nature of the matter accepts it

Of course I thought of arguments against it lol, but it was years ago that I read. Almost a decade. I don't take that stuff seriously anymore.

Epicuro

t. Relativist

I'm a relativist when it comes to morals, sure. That doesn't mean I'm a relativist about EVERYTHING. I'm not relatavist when it comes to metaphysics or mathematics, for example.

>I-it's not like I have no arguments or anything

Plato: ancient myths, mysticism, contemplation, idealism, goodness, beauty, truth, etc
Aristotle: I FUGGIN LOVE SCIENCE

Plato: no fun allowed autist
Aristotle: bon vivant with a sense for moderation

Plato: qt 2D waifu
Aristotle: ugly bimbo gf with plastic basketball boobs

kek, ok enjoy life in plato's republic where only gigachads are allowed to breed after winning literal rigged breeding lotteries (did you skip that part?)

Plato: Fucking normies, reeeeee!!
Aristotle: Just take a shower bro

I have excellent genes and can trace my ancestry to several noble bloodlines

well i hope you have a fetish for muscular women who don't wear makeup or shower regularly then

Aristotle's politics and ethics make far more sense that Plato's and are better developed. But in terms of metaphysics I have to give it to Plato. Aristotle misunderstood Plato's position on a fundamental level.

Plotinus is better than both on metaphysics

I don't know much about Plotinus. But it seems to me that the neo-platonists took the Idea of the forms too literally and tried to analyze them as objects. That's not what Plato does , Plato is a metaphysical realist and a philosopher of nature. His object is not some mental reality up there in the clouds as is often misconstrued.

He barely acknowledges that there are people who don't care about experiential pleasures, so not only does he make less sense but he is transparent in his poor thinking overall.

Such people almost don't exist. Maybe they don't exist. They must be extremely rare.

Plato. Aristotle is the root of all evil we confront today, as proved by Lyndon LaRouche in the 90s.

youtube.com/watch?v=CTZoq6OmcvQ

>t. Aristotelian
you're not supposed to read that book seriously user

Yeah you are. Lots of people in antiquity tried (and failed) to replicate it. Plato tried to convince the tyrant of Syracuse to adopt his measure, but also failed. A good friend of Aristotle's tried to set up a Platonic republic but was killed, and Aristotle wrote a poem commemorating his death.

>da wapubwik wad a mitt aboud da sooowwwl
And other retarded reasons to downplay The Republic

Except that you are :^)

the whole thing was a joke, read Strauss. he was just memeing because Plato is /ourguy/

Where is my boy Diogenes?