Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Peter;
Whilst I can generally warm to where you're coming from, ie: believing something, as opposed to actually 'finding out', through personal exploration is always less beneficial and probably less meritorious … no worries about that … but …
!!!????
Cheers
|
Craig - I meant that purjoritively not literally!
And, fair-enough, his philosophical methodology is sound, that is, it lead to a clearer understanding of
philosophical issues, but he in no way advanced science as discrete study.
Most, if not all of his 'scientific' reasoning methodologies are plagerised from the far more observationally and experimentally oriented Democritus, Hippocrates, Anaxagoras and of course Pyhtagoras.
His view of the material ('real') world was that it was dirty and base and men needed to transcend it in order to achieve enlightenment (I'm seiously simplifying here). This is the principal reason his teachings were so readily adopted by the early Christian church and later Islam.
I confess, I'm no expert on Aristotle and my general aversion to he (and Plato and the other metaphysicists) arises from a couple of philosophy courses I took some 30 years ago at Uni.
I remeber being quite apalled at how wrong they (Platonists) were about everything 'material. and how feeble their general philosophy was.
Granted, Plto's logic is important but he never went anywhere with it!
Perhaps at the time is was revolutionary and did much for the more learned classes emerging from the twighlight of superstition, but to my mind he was of little use and much damage to the field of Science.
I'll shut up now.
