Do you consider yourself more of a Platonist or an Aristotelian?
I am curious what the consensus is in this community. Do you consider that you share more in Plato's presuppositions or in Aristotle's? Personally, my head and heart favour the Aristotelian, more empirical, more grounded and down to earth approach, but my spirit favours Plato. Overall, I would have to say I probably favour Aristotle's reason over Plato's mysticism, because I just don't know where one goes from mysticism, apart from sitting all day gazing at one's navels, whereas I can see many practical avenues emanating from Aristotle. What's your position?
Comments (45)
So, there's a toothbrush, and an ideal form of a toothbrush, and the former is an imperfect copy of the latter? I don't buy it. I find Hume more convincing with his theory of impressions from which ideas are derived.
Considering the way you approach the world, which philosopher do you resemble more -- Plato or Aristotle.
Given the milieu in which we live, it would be very surprising if the results were reversed -- that the majority of respondents to the poll thought they were Platonists rather than Aristotelian.
Or is it the case that Aristotelianism is a more "natural" way of thinking?
What sort of world would prefer Plato over Aristotle?
Is it a slur to accuse someone of preferring Plato?
That being said, if the "Platonic" viewpoint eventually floats off into the aether, then the Aristotelian viewpoint seems to eat itself alive, so to speak. This is Kant's whole schtick; how do you derive things from your senses without some means of deriving them given independently? There are answers to this argument, of course, but I'll stop there for now.
I think Aristotle offered a solution to this amongst many others no? :P The forms are not separate from the objects - one substance, two (intellectually) separable aspects - form and matter (or according to Spinoza - thought and extension) thus effectively removing the question of how an objective perception of the external world is possible
I certainly didn't. My positions and approach to everything RADICALLY changed around 17-20.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well, given the Western cultural millieu, I think it is surprising to be close to EITHER approach :P .
Quoting Bitter Crank
Maybe. I think some Platonist would agree with this; but would accuse Aristotelianism to be only part of the story. For example, I can imagine Schopenhauer arguing along the lines of Aristotle being helpful when dealing with the empirical world, but totally unhelpful when dealing with the noumenal, where Plato becomes a better guide. (I think even Aquinas may agree to this)
Quoting Bitter Crank
One where (transcendental) spiritual matters played a greater concern than empirical matters. Which pretty much, given the nature of men, is no world. Even this desire motivating the transcendence of the world, or the search for a mystical experience is recently seeming odd and quaint to me. Much rather I am feeling a desire to infuse this world with spirit, rather than search for some spirit apart from the world. I would agree with an idealist, Buddhist perspective for example, or with Schopenhauer's system - I would make some changes though - the most important being returning the focus from achieving Nirvana and transcending this world, to achieving Nirvana and living virtuously in this world. I say I am tempted to agree with an idealist system because I think, ultimately, like the Platonist, that this empirical point of view fails to grasp our continued relationship with the infinite after the end of our finite existence. And I don't say this out of fear of death - recently, like Socrates, I feel nothing but indifference towards death, as if, in the end analysis it doesn't even matter. At the same time I don't know what sense talking of an afterlife has... it clearly has no sense to me. I cannot even imagine it. And it doesn't even interest me. Only that I think there is one.
My point to summarise is this. It is wrong to search for what is to come after death while still alive. It betrays a fear of the unknown AND a fear of life AND impatience. Much rather, the virtuous man focuses on this life while alive (infusing matter with spirit), and on death (pure spirit) once dead. The living with the living and the dead with the dead as Jesus said. That's why ultimately I think an Aristotelian foundation, with a tint of Plato not to lose the connection with the infinite that expresses itself in this life as well as in death, is what is required.
When, whether, how, or not one's positions and approaches change probably depends on one's social and intellectual milieu (which one usually can't do too much about at 17) and one's social / physical / intellectual confidence. I was not ready to undertake radical changes in thinking and behavior at 17. A sort of sheltered small town upbringing just didn't prepare me to make [wise] major changes. Leaving home and going to a state college was about all I could manage at that point. Had I struck out on a radical path, it probably would have turned out badly. Later... like 5 years after finishing college and getting more experience in the wider world, I was much more prepared to 'break out'.
When the time came to make more radical changes, I moved very slowly. The major change was to rid myself of the religious world-framework I grew up with and had been maintaining. This change involved a lot of persistence, resistance, cognitive dissonance, and all that. At some unidentified tipping point, I shifted from apologetic theism to a-theism, sometime around 20-25 years ago. Political views changed more rapidly-shifting leftward during college and immediately after.
What were you doing at ages 17-20 that facilitated radical change in thinking on your part? What material change had occurred in your life situation to make that the time to strike out for new horizons?
It's hard to pinpoint to one thing, or even a group of things. Many things happened, either causing or as a result of my changing. I will list a few facts:
-I had started to be very serious about reading, studying and learning (not in terms of school, but for myself - I was always interested even before, but not like this).
-I became very popular and very well-thought of amongst my school peers - although very very different in behaviour and ideals compared to everyone else. I was never interested in pleasure-seeking. Always had been a serious man in that regard. People who were around - parents and teachers - could never understand how someone like me did it. Nevertheless, I was admired by virtually all other students. This made me completely uninterested in worldly success anymore - in other people thinking well of me. And ever since then, I never cared what anyone thought about me. I also lost my interest in prestige and money (before, my interest was always to become a very rich man - now, I couldn't care less about it - you could say I was obsessed about it). I might add I was also very successful in school, and I never really worked hard for it. By everyone's account I was an over-achiever, in pretty much all fields that one would be expected to be engaged in by that age and more.
-I had my first girlfriend, which probably (I would think) changed me the most. It was the first time that money became irrelevant. I used to sell things in school, and kept careful ledgers of my expenses, etc. This was the first time I didn't care about money, and I threw away the ledgers... stopped keeping record. I had amassed quite a sum for someone my age anyways. And so I started spending it on my girlfriend. I learned about love and self-transcendence, and for the first time, I felt the presence of something more than myself, my girlfriend, or the sum of both of us. I felt, as Spinoza put it, that I (we) am (are) eternal. I became interested in relationships with people, and valued that more than any other extrinsic good afterwards.
-I also stopped believing in God and praying (before I used to pray everyday). I stopped praying because, prior to what was my current girlfriend, I was interested in another girl, but despite my prayers, and despite all my outward success, she still rejected me. So I looked at myself, and I thought: I am too successful, I don't need any God. To add to this, my first girlfriend was an atheist, so spending time with her made me less interested in the subject. Now that I say she was an atheist, please don't think she was a hedonist as well. She was not, in fact she came from quite a conservative family, even though they were atheists. We were also quite a conservative couple (we never went to parties, clubs, etc. for example - she hated that). I later returned to belief in God, but in a different way than I first believed.
-Slowly slowly things crystallized in my mind. In the following years, I understood the shortcomings of the age I was born into. I deconstructed modern hedonistic culture as well as the conceptual structure which has made it possible (nihilism, postmodernism, global skepticism). I understood better and better what the good life is (namely virtue). I cultivated virtue and still do. I have been ascending, as Plato says. Now, I have turned my focus into helping others, and creating a culture of virtue, a community of virtuous people. My main enemies I would say are sexual immorality, anti-religious feelings (simply because religion is the only vehicle for the majority of people to learn virtue), and love of money (since it adds to and sustains the hedonistic culture - it's hedonism's fuel). Also in combatting modern attitudes, and liberating people from the hedonistic illusions which haunt us today. I have come to understand that I have achieved only an imperfect happiness by myself, and a perfect happiness entails that others achieve understanding with me as well. As Spinoza put it, the best thing for men are other men (and women of course). I have come to understand that religion (for the masses) and philosophy (for the wise) is the key to blessedness and teaching virtue. I am in general agreement with the systems put forward by Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein (he's my favorite thinker, although he doesn't really count as a system-builder unlike the others), Spinoza, Aquinas. I know any of these systems are far superior to most other alternatives out there. By and large things are figured out, only details remain. So whereas I haven't got much certainty regarding details, I do have certainty regarding the big picture. Thus I am more interested in spreading learning and virtue today, than in figuring out details. I want to spread the light I have reached with those around me. And this is what I have been focusing my energies on. Teaching virtue and combatting vice, because as Aquinas taught me, the office of the wise man has two purposes: to spread truth and to refute falsity.
There are the "material" changes which facilitated my turn in thinking and living (hope your Marxist questions have now been satisfied ;) ). Make what you will of them BC!
You seem to be a normal "type A" personality -- professionally aggressive, ambitious, striving vigorously towards goals, and a "big picture" thinker rather than a "detail" person. These are often characteristics of accomplished people -- though type A detail people do well too.
What field of engineering -- civil/chemical/mechanical/electrical? Are you presently practicing? I assume you like engineering.
How old are you? (You may have said somewhere in another thread; age is important in understanding someone's stage in life.) Also, what country did you grow up in?
You also appear to be a systematic thinker. It all fits together into a cohesive picture. (I like cohesive pictures). There is probably quite a bit of continuity in your life -- childhood forward -- else you would not have accomplished what you have so far achieved.
We are what we are, whether type A or type B personalities, big picture or detail people (I hate details), engineers or poets, platonists or aristotelians. Usually there isn't much we can do about these things. Type B personalities can drink a gallon of coffee, snort some amphetamines, smoke some crack, and they still won't be type A people.
Happy, type B personalities are also often successful, but not in the same jobs as Type As, and not by the same methods. Type B people tend to be less stressed and tend to boil at a higher temperature -- it takes more to incite them. My boiling temperature used to be much lower than it is now. I can tolerate annoyances (85% of the time) that in the past would have provoked a strong reaction. Why the change? Better mental health in my case. I can now strategically withdraw from troublesome issues which before I would have waded into, whether that made sense or not, and overheated in the process (i.e., become too riled up).
Yes (although I am thinking to stop soon, and start a new business - I sold my previous). I'm not sure I like it, I just don't dislike it. It has taught me a few good things about philosophy, that I would never have learned had I done philosophy itself at university - that's what I've taken most from engineering (it has taught me Humean skepticism of pure reason and also Schopenhaurean value of imagination + rationality trumping rule following and empiricism).
That is indeed a correct criticism :D . I never understood people's fascination with Hume. To me, it just is evidently clear that his philosophy is sorely lacking and incomplete (at least in the modern reading of it).
I prefer this pre-modern post-postmodernist reading of Hume (http://newmedia.ufm.edu/gsm/index.php?title=Livingstonhumemoral). I disagree on a few issues with Hume even on this reading (although I adhere with him on the importance of tradition. I also agree with Livingston in his analysis of the depravity of the modern age, which has lost tradition and is wondering aimlessly through the abyss of self-indulgent hedonism). I am radical in my position (in the original sense of the word radical), because I collapse social virtues into individual virtues, love of others into love of self. For example, I argue that chastity isn't only an artificial social virtue that spontaneously arises when we organise ourselves into stable and well-functioning societies, but that it ALSO is an individual virtue - it doesn't only act for the benefit of society, but ALSO for the benefit of the individual. Thus I argue further that one who does not have this virtue, isn't simply selfish and just acting for their own good at the expense of social good, BUT RATHER that they are ignorant and irrational in so doing, and are actually harming themselves. I am Socratic/Spinozist more than Humean on this crucial point, as I allow for no excuses for lacking a certain virtue; and I argue, with Spinoza, that if men were entirely rational, no laws would exist in society.
What do you mean exactly by this?
What did I mean? Nothing more than that your intellectual development proceeded in a beneficial, straight-forward manner.
Proceeding forward with continuity doesn't always happen; people can get side-tracked by peer pressure, or involved in "sex, drugs, and rock & roll", or they have to work in very unrewarding jobs, or they get married and/or pregnant, or any number of other side-tracking events that either interrupt or stop their forward progress.
Ok I see what you're referring to. English isn't my first language, so that's why I didn't understand clearly.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Well peer pressure always played a role in my life, but for most of the time I have always rejected it and stood my ground. Other people didn't. What makes the difference? It is true that my mother educated me from my early days to go my own way - but can that be all of it? I mean many other people were similarly educated by their parents, and yet, behold, they fell to peer pressure. I preferred social isolation, rather than fall to peer pressure... I was always more afraid of doing something I didn't want to, than of being alone. That's how it is with fear. If you fear the right thing, you will not fear the wrong thing. For example, if, like Socrates, you fear God (doing wrong), you will not fear death anymore. One thing I don't like about modern culture is that fear isn't valued anymore - but I think that fear is inescapable, and the good life just means getting your priorities when it comes to fear correct. I think other people fell to peer pressure, or drugs, etc. because they feared social isolation more than they feared wickedness.
Secondly, I think the general idealist epistemological framework he presents stands on its own and is more or less correct, while Schopenhauer, whose system I accept in the main, managed to incorporate Plato's Ideas in such a way that they are still relevant philosophically. There are also mathematical Platonists around today. So Plato is not merely of historical interest as the purported founder of Western philosophy.
On aesthetic grounds, Plato's system is by far the more beautiful. If beauty were the standard of truth, as I am sometimes wont to think, then Plato's philosophy would be the truest. And it is further enriched and confirmed in its beauty by the Neoplatonists like Plotinus.
Yep, I thought you were going to vote Plato.
Quoting Thorongil
Also, I think you are closer in personal mission to Plato's goal, than to Aristotle's. Plato is good for telling the wise man what they should do. Aristotle is much better when we're intending to educate the man in the street.
Quoting Thorongil
Yep, I entirely agree with this.
Quoting Thorongil
Indeed.
Quoting Thorongil
Yes BUT, again, this highest truth, which is equivalent to the highest beauty, is of little interest to the man in the street. The mystical is irrelevant, what I think is really required is to naturalise the mystical as part of daily life - to infuse the material with spirit:
Quoting Agustino
True, I am more drawn to mystical apotheosis than I am to scientific inquiry, though I do not wish to denigrate the latter.
Quoting Agustino
:P I added a couple other things to that point too.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, though I am tempted to say "to hell with the man on the street." Let the vulgar associate with themselves.
Quoting Agustino
Agreed, but seeking after the denial of the world, or nirvana, need not mean or entail what you say above. The egoistic hope for immortality is not to be confused with the attempt to abolish one's ego while alive.
I agree with those too haha :P
Quoting Thorongil
A certain fellow-feeling and compassion draws me to it though.
Quoting Thorongil
Yes but I have qualms with the desirability of abolishing one's ego (if by that you mean the entirety of the individualised self) while still alive. From a different thread:
Quoting Agustino
Touche.
Quoting Agustino
It is the individualized self that is dissolved when being compassionate. ;)
I often find myself thinking like this, although I wish I didn't. The mental image that comes up is someone sneering, "What, too good for this world, huh?" and the angry response that I want to give is, "Actually I am. What, are you insecure about something?" I feel very Schopenhauer-ish at times like that.
On the other hand, I think that, if I were to really become the wise old sage I want to one day be, I wouldn't be so spiteful toward the "man in the street," or feel all that separated from him.
This is symptomatic of this world's oppression of wisdom. You end up thinking this way because the world, at every step, attempts to pull you down, and doesn't want to let you rise up. But the reaction is only one of anger if you perceive that somehow the man who asks Quoting Pneumenon somehow harms or humiliates you. But the truth is that they humiliate and harm themselves first and foremost. Once this is realised and understood, then there is no more anger present - the whole situation becomes comic. As Socrates said, the good man cannot be harmed, either in life or in death. And further, Socrates told those who killed him that the real irony is that they think they are harming him, while in truth, they are only harming themselves.
Quoting Pneumenon
The sage dearly loves the "man in the street", and wants him too to become a sage. The sage achieves a more perfect blessedness, the more people share in wisdom
I'm not familiar with such a distinction, or at least with how you have worded it.
The self is the real individuality, without the greed, the lust, the vices, the ignorance. It is the real thing behind the illusions of the ego.
I do agree that Plato's metaphysics has a certain air to it. It is aesthetically pleasing but also almost mystical. Too bad I'm not a strict Platonist...I wish I could be, though! ;)
Quoting Pneumenon
How does this relate back to my comment? I didn't say that Hume's theory of perception - more specifically, The Copy Principle - is without shortcomings, but rather that it's more convincing than Plato's theory of Forms. I don't go as far as Hume in all things, and I think that Kant made some very good points in response to him.
In answer to your question, we have an inbuilt capacity which has such a function. But what do you think that this says about Plato's theory of Forms, if anything? Does it in some way that has escaped me imply that there are independent Forms of which objects in the real world are derived? I still think that he basically got it backwards.
What Hume's CP misses is that impressions are always-already structured by the mind, and hence there is no deriving of the idea of the chair by seeing a chair, simply because in order to see a chair, one must already have the idea (that which, in the mind, structures the perception to be a perception of a chair, as opposed to some nonsensical perception of a "blur").
Quoting Sapientia
If the perception of objects requires the mind to have a structure/faculty which already contains the idea of objects in it a priori, then it follows that the idea is ontologically prior to the object, empirically speaking, for there simply cannot be an object without the idea of it - and so it is not Plato and/or Aristotle that got it backwards ;)
What you're calling an "idea" isn't an idea in the ordinary or Humean sense. Which raises the question of what you call an actual idea. If you have it both ways, then you'd be equivocating, since you'd be calling some mental function involved in the production of an idea an "idea", in addition to the idea itself. So the idea would be produced by the idea, which is a needlessly muddled way of speaking.
Also, I don't really get what you're going on about. You seem to contradict yourself when you say that impressions are "always-already" structured by the mind, so the idea isn't derived from the perception, and then that we have an ability which structures perceptions to form ideas. How can they be "always-already" structured, yet require structuring? This ability you speak of would be redundant, would it not?
We derive the idea of a gold mountain from the necessary simple impressions, such as that of gold, and these are in turn a result of having had a certain perception (or perceptions); in this case, for example, the perception of a gold coin and that of a mountain. That the mind has such a capacity doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean that Hume was wrong. He never denied it, as far as I'm aware. I don't really know what you mean by claiming that they're "always-already" structured. Perhaps in some other sense than what Hume was talking about, in which case you might be missing the point.
Quoting Agustino
The mind doesn't contain the idea of objects in it a priori, nor is that necessary to perceive objects. Although it does have mental faculties which structure perception.
So, Plato got it backwards. Sorry to disappoint. ;)
Well, you'll note that I said I didn't take Plato's metaphysics in its entirety. The OP seemed to be trying to isolate vaguely "Aristotelian" and "Platonic" strains of the thought, rather than arguing between the metaphysical beliefs held by two historical figures.
My point is that, if we have some inborn capacity that allows us to derive ideas from impressions, then we've gotten into inborn capacities, a priori knowledge (at least in terms of "knowing-how"), and so on, which gives "Platonic" thinking a foothold of some sort. I think that the ultra-Humean viewpoint (which Hume himself may not have believed) that we are simply blank sheets of nothing until we have some experiences just doesn't cut it, either logically or empirically. This is the reason for my comments about the Platonic viewpoint "floating off into the aether" and the Aristotelian viewpoint "eating itself alive."
For the record, I was not under the impression that we were engaged in a fully contextualized debate yet - my thinking was that we were still in the "stage setting" phase of the discussion. That's why my comments were vague and somewhat tangential to your own. That being said, if you would like to narrow the scope and start in on the "What does it mean for us to have built-in faculties for shaping perceptions?" question, then I'd be happy to do that.
Not at all. Awareness of an idea does not mean production of an idea. An idea can and does exist prior to your awareness of it. The idea of a chair is what makes it possible for you to experience the sight of a chair. But then, contra Hume, the sight of the chair does not PRODUCE the idea - rather the sight of the chair is required for you to come to KNOW that you have such and such an idea. Point is that the idea makes the experience possible, and the experience makes you aware of the existence of the idea. Similarly, light makes sight possible (no light, no sight), but sight makes one aware of the existence of light (no sight does NOT mean no light exists - only that one can't be aware of its existence). So just like light comes prior to sight (as it is its ground of possibility), but is nevertheless necessarily known only through sight, so too the idea comes prior to experience (ontologically), but it is known only through experience.
Quoting Sapientia
Clearly :D
Quoting Sapientia
Impressions are structured by the mind through the ideas. We become aware of ideas through perception. Ideas exist prior to perception, even if we may be unaware of their existence - they are what make perception possible in the first place.
Quoting Sapientia
They are always-already structured because all experience is mediated through the ideas - there can be no experience otherwise.
Quoting Sapientia
You cannot have the impressions without the idea.
Quoting Sapientia
Explain. How can I see a chair if my mind does not individuate a smaller set of impressions from the much larger set of impressions currently available - thus making possible the experience of a chair as opposed to the experience of "patches of color"? And how can it individuate it except through the idea?
More like ideas (meaning) are so regardless of perception (and existing states) and they do not exist. Plato's forms - that which is like existing things but never them- are sort of an allusion to this, only he mistakes them as a foundation for existing things when they are just infinite meanings.
In this respect, you are a Platonist extraordinaire. Your notion that ideas are the foundation of states of existence is basically a carbon copy of Plato's forms. You say there is an meaning, say triangle, from which all existing triangles are derived.
Because you don't ever individuate in such a manner. When you recognise a chair, your mind has not done individuating form a larger set of impressions. There is only the idea of the chair. You didn't derive anything. You just had the idea of chair. It came entirely from you, in that you existed with the idea of chair.
Something "making it possible" is incoherent. You seeing the chair was merely possible by definition (you might look at a chair and have the idea of chair) and it happened (you had the idea of chair while looking at a chair).
I am not convinced of the truth of idealism, but Schopenhauer's logic seems quite good. We come to know of the world through perception. Indeed it is through perception that we come to KNOW of the ideas of reality, existence, external world, etc. All our concepts are derived from perception. And so, you cannot speak of something that cannot be percieved even in principle (even cells can be percieved using microscopes! - electrons using beams of photons, etc.) as existing - because to exist is to be percieved. And hence, when you tell me that ideas don't exist - that is nonsense. If ideas don't exist, then nothing does either. So I agree that ideas are as they are regardless of our awareness of them, but I disagree that they do not exist. Plato's forms are in no way like existing things, the same way the idea of a circle, is in no way like a real circle - as Spinoza showed.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope, I don't believe this. Ideas are on a different, but ontologically prior level to actual states of existence. And if Idealism is true, then ideas are all that exists. If materialism is true, then ideas form the structure of our minds only, and all our experience is mediated and converted through these structures. The material worlds becomes Kant's noumenon, the one we can never know of. That's why Schopenhauer affirming the possibility of knowledge of the noumenon necessarily implied idealism, which I tend to think is the better explanation, but I may be wrong on this point. I am not at all certain of the truth of idealism.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No I merely say that the existence of actual triangles, perceptible triangles, requires the existence of the imperceptible idea of triangles. Even this is far-fetched. It's much better to say that the existence of spatial objects requires the imperceptible existence of the idea of space.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
False. To recognize a chair, I need to separate it from the rest of the environment, which is also in my visual field. What performs this separation? Why don't I just see a mess of colors, with no logic behind them?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes it is. Certain structures are required for perception to be at all possible, as Kant clearly and irrefutably (by the way) demonstrated. This is one of the things he got right, and I do disagree with Kant on quite a few points. But not this insight.
Once we have perceived a blur, we are caused to investigate it further, which causes new ideas to emerge in our head, which then are committed to memory and cause further ideas in the future, and so on and so on...
At no point is the emergence of an idea in your head logically derived. It's always a brute inspiration which has nothing to with saying the idea comes out of some previous idea or state. Indeed, to derive in such a manner is impossible because, prior to having an idea, we know notthing about it. Setting up the deduction is impossible because you aren't aware of the conclusion yet. You can't say that you will now get this new idea of "chair" from looking at a thing in front of you because you don't yet have the idea of chair. In attempting to derive the idea of chair from perception, you make exactly the error you chastised Sapientia for: holding you have the idea before it is actually present in your mind.
This is why you cannot separate the chair from its environment to discover it. To do that, you would have to already have the idea of chair, such that you could distinguish between what was the chair and what was not. You do not have this.
As with any idea, the realisation has to come form you, a brute realisation of a meaning. You have to have a moment where you realise the separation of chair all at once. You can't reason through a deduction to arrive at the difference of chair form everything else. You don't know a chair is "XYZ" such that you can look at the many things in front of you and say: "Well, that has XZY so it must be a chair." Nothing performs a separation. You just appear with the separation.
Kant gets this entirely wrong. What he talks about is not possibility. Like many people what he is deeming "possibility" is actually a question of what existing things are required to produce a causal outcome.
We sometimes say, for example, things like: "It's impossible for humans to break diamond by hitting it with their hand." In such cases, we are operating on the idea there is a specific state required to produce a casual outcome. Supposedly, for example, some other from of human existence would be needed for breaking diamond with our hands to be possible. Here we are confusing possibility with actuality.
It's actually always possible, by definition (i.e. an infinite, logically necessary), for humans to break diamond with their hand. All it would take is an existing human who could. The fact no-one we know has so far had the ability doesn't change this. Someone without the ability might wake-up tomorrow with the power to break diamond (viz Hume, Quantum Mechanics). Even those who can't break diamond still might have. They just didn't.
Similarly, particular structures are not required for perception to be possible. Not even our space-time, for it is possible perception might with all sorts of of different things, many of which are not like our space-time at all. Just because our perception and space-time are one way, and are not without it, it doesn't mean that's required for perception to be possible. Those are only needed for the actual states of our perception. It doesn't have any impact on possibility.
What Kant deems "ideas" of space-time are really actual states of our world, the existing objects which interact, which expresses a particular relationship of space and time.
Overall I would say I hold the Socratic tradition and the 'ethical turn' in the highest regard, and that this is distinct from the not so great directions that Plato and Aristotle took him in. I see the Hellenistic philosophers as the heirs to this more interesting tradition, which is sort of 'ethicist' rather than empiricist or rationalist.
I would largely agree to this. Socrates in my opinion is superior, as a human being, compared to Plato and Aristotle.
For me, personally, Aquinas and Leibniz.
Plato was too idealistic, and Aristotle did not do any research in the scientific sense -- he just dreamed everything up in his own head.
Socrates was an extremely bright and highly experienced old man who managed to get into big trouble with the leadership of Athens on freedom of speech issues like creating a Philosophy God and showing how ridiculous Greek Pantheonistic Theology is.
This continued to be a hot button issue for another 725 years until Constantine The Great published his edict of tolerance at Constantinople regarding the toleration of Christianity and all other religions.
That's what got Socrates killed.
The irony however is that the Christian God The Father is a lot like Zeus anyway.
And His Beloved Son Jesus is a lot like Heracles.
And the Holy Spirit is a lot like Hermes.
And Holy Mary Mother Of Christ is a lot like Aphrodite.
And whether or not there is only one God like the Jews and Muslims say, or 3 of them like Early Christianity (pre-Nicene) says, or a whole multitude and families like the Greek Pantheon we cannot and do not know.
So the Greeks weren't that far off as far as true Christianity is concerned.
And Socrates may have gotten himself killed for nothing.
Does it? It makes me think of Kant, but it seems quite far removed from Plato. Also, in what way do you think [I]a priori[/I] "know-how" knowledge is involved in what we've discussed? I don't think that you can rightly categorise either the process of perception or the capacity to perceive as knowledge of any sort, let alone [I]a priori[/I] "know-how" knowledge, of which I doubt there are any actual examples. That sort of knowledge seems to be exclusively [I]a posteriori[/I].
Quoting Pneumenon
We could do, I suppose.