>>7720557
>Isn't this really just semantics?

I'd have to see the text in the original language, and not some hack translation worth 'nada.'

I don't think you know what 'semantics' really means.

He's talking about the Law of non-contradiction and the principle of explosion in the first, and Modal Logic in the second. Basically, he was light-years a head of you in terms of intelligence and as you can see it for yourself, your pathetic "rebuttal" "Isn't this really just semantics" plus asking others for validating whether or not it really does rebut him, is laughable. So that you know, explicitly: No, it can't really be considered as an serious counterexample to Aristotle.

Now, please, choke yourself with the phrase "Isn't this really just semantics", and kill yourself.

File: 73747766-man-with-suitcase-in-hawaiian-shirt-against-gettyimages[1].jpg (72 KB, 338x507) Image search: [Google]

72 KB, 338x507

>>7720572
>>7720599
Wow, /lit/ got even more autistic while I was away.

>>7720599
I WALKED DESCARTES UP ON STAGE IN 1644
youre a MISERABLE PRESUMPTUOUS NO TALENT

>>7720557
>If Socrates is both a man and not a man
Whoops right at the start

>>7720557
>>If Socrates is both a man and not a man, then it also follows that he is neither a man nor not a man
Like the other anon said, this is the talking about the concept of explosion, and law of non-contradiction. In classical logic, if a proposition and it's negation (literally a contradiction) are both true, then rationally, any conclusion can be derived.

>>7720668
For that to happen OP would have to demonstrate an acceptable behaviour for this.

Ridiculing and patronizing an author (OP's post literally screams "Lol what could that fag Aristotle really know back in 200 BC? xDDD fugen greeks am i rite") without any explanation whatsoever is not the way to do this.

If you're discussing literature and philosophy in terms of shitty catch phrases and memes like OP in his OP and >>7720614, does, then I'll react as I reacted in >>7720599. There is no excuse for such juvenile horseshit.

>>7720674
Thanks for the reasonable answer. To be honest, my statement was supposed to inflammatory (and it looks like it worked). Aristotle's intentions are even laid out very plainly before each book in the edition I'm reading.

I suppose what I was trying to get at is that these expositions seem almost pointless to us, since we take the principles for granted, and so Aristotle's arguments do look like quibbling over semantics.

>>7720706
What an insufferable twat you are.

We take these principles for granted because your stupid ass cannot empathise with its pioneers, how hard it must have been for them to lay down these principles RAW--without any predecessors to help them out--and so on. Again, you need to stop throwing the word 'semantics' around until you can actually articulate what you mean by the term. Thus far, it doesn't look like you know what you're talking about.

>>7720723
woo wee lad, I bet you were educated in a private school in surrey. By semantics I mean that superficially it seems like Aristotle is making great pains to examine how we articulate basic concepts through language, though, as you rightly said, he had no predecessors, so it is these basic concepts themselves that he is describing.
I'm not disrespecting his work (is he ur dad or something lol?) It's just that now we take for granted his logic.

>>7720745
Well we don't really take it for granted. Sure, if you're trained in propositional logic, you'll be aware of Aristotle's foundational work, but the common layman has no clue how rational thought is systematised through logic. It might seem obvious, because logic tried to make our intuitive thoughts rigorous and defensible.

>>7720658
kekd

File: Traumgarten-large.jpg (124 KB, 800x660) Image search: [Google]

124 KB, 800x660

The second quote makes me think about athleticism and sportsmanship, what makes an able player and a good sport.

>>7720557
The first is nicely solved with a Venn diagram.
The second is just common sense. It's a crime to waste talent, yet there are always thing to do that we can't delegate to someone who's better at them. It depends on the task at hand.

>>7720557
I'm reading Nicomachean ethics at the moment. I understood the first few books, but when it got to Justice and Intellectual Virtues I just didn't get it.

Can someone explain his views on justice and intellectual virtues to me? I understand he splits human morality into the moral virtues and intellectual, and that happiness is found through exercising both. The moral virtues I understood except justice, but the intellectual ones didn't make much sense.