Aristotle's Metaphysics (A History of Western Thought 14)

Our website: www.justandsinn...
Patreon: / justandsinner
This video is part of our ongoing series which overviews Western thought through an exploration of philosophy beginning with the presocratics. In this presentation, I begin a discussion of Aristotle, explaining the basics of his metaphysical system. I explain his approach to hylomorphism, and accidental properties in relation to his teacher Plato.

[@Lay-Man]

One of my favorite philosophers.
Him and Aquinas.

[@larianton1008]

This video was really good. Thank you

[@kjhg323]

William of Ockham is a common villain on this corner of UA-cam (and rightly so), but the real villain should be Aristotle. Ockham just took Aristotle's metaphysics to its logical conclusion. The West went wrong when Aristotle won over Plato.
I'll let Luther explain: "That Plato’s philosophy is better than Aristotle’s philosophy is plain from the fact that Plato always strives for divine and immortal things, separate and eternal things, insensible and intelligible things. Because of this, he held that particular, inseparable, sensible things should be forsaken, since they could not be knowable on account of their instability. Aristotle, being opposed to him in every way, mocks those separate and intelligible things, and ascribes them to sensible and particular and entirely human and natural things."
Aristotelians are only considered realists because they simply assert themselves to be realists. If only individual substances exist, then there are no universals in mind-independent reality. Obfuscation and assertions about universals being present in material substances "in some way" fall apart upon serious analysis unless you postulate the existence of Ideas separable from matter.

[@vngelicath1580]

I've found that to be the case to a degree. Aristotle is the foundation for Enlightenment materialism. I don't think that has to be the case, but that's what ultimately occured.

[@StoicHippy]

Kind of important to remember the medievals did not have the best understanding of either Aristotle or Plato, as they kind of old at that point anyways. Aquinas for instance was reading Neo-Platonists (Proclus, mostly, I think) in what he thought was Aristotle and Dionysius.
(I will admit that I believe Aristotle's metaphysics was more important to Neo-Platonism than Plato, especially the flavor that Aquinas was reading. Not the first to notice that, but of course that view is subject to debate).

[@BOB_EDC]

I would love to see you and Bryan Wolfmueller have a discussion.

[@Mygoalwogel]

I agree, but I wonder what they'd even talk about? Wolfmueller is pastoral to a fault and Cooper is bookish to a fault. It's really great to have them both on the same side. They complement each other well, but I can't think what they'd want to discuss.

[@lordschild5748]

Finally!

[@DrJordanBCooper]

I'm planning to get out the rest of the videos on Aristotle soon. Hopefully it won't be as long between these in the future.

[@lordschild5748]

@@DrJordanBCooper I'm glad to know it. I am studying more about him and those videos really help.

[@toddvoss52]

Was waiting for this one for a long time! Thank you

[@balanvladut3696]

Throughout the video, I couldn't stop thinking of that quote from Brok, God of war "it is the nature of a thing that matters, not its form"....

[@believingfriend2467]

Dr. Cooper, could you do a video on church discipline in the Lutheran church? If two people are cohabitating in your congregation and are not married, do you still let them attend the church? Are they able to get communion? I am an evangelical and I was just curious how church discipline works in a conservative Lutheran church.

[@smallscreentv1204]

This philosophy is stupid for a number of reasons. 1) Plato talked of essential and accidental qualities in The Republic, so that's not his idea. 2) His idea of FORMS doesn't relate at all to concepts like justice, beauty, courage, virtue etc. These things require a FORM or an absolute definition. 3) His idea that you can just change matter around and it becomes another FORM is easily refuted. Try taking parts of a human being and altering it somehow to be in the shape of a DOG? Does that mean you've created a DOG? no.
Seriously, hard to listen to.
Long story short, Plato had it right the first time and Aristotle has plagiarized his teacher and worse, completely botched his attempt to do so because in changing Plato's ideas he's created a philosophical system that is incoherent and easily refuted.