Pussycat

I could accompany you but as I am new, we would have to take it from the beginning. I studied and analysed the Tractatus, sentence by sentence, up to ...

hey, it says in the rules that bumps are not allowed!!

It's been a while since I studied Aristotle, and I don't have the time nor energy to go through it again, so I will answer by memory, whatever I remem...

1. It is not our fault that Aristotle makes a distinction between the two, the immaterial/material I mean, but I don't see it as trickery. Apart from ...

Yeah, you are probably right that they are not self caused. Huh, the unmoved movers always troubled me!

Well first of all, to say that I dont really know how or what creates motion, we are just discussing here Aristotle's philosophy on the matter, to see...

I think that Aristotle takes unmoved movers to be immaterial by definition. So they are not affected by motion in the material plane, and are thus imm...

It matters because motion, according to Aristotle, happens only in, say, the material universe, not the immaterial one.

Hold on, aren't unmoved movers supposed to be immaterial in nature?

If mathematicians were like philosophers, trying to fully resolve an issue before advancing, then there would be no progress in mathematics. So, where...

I think that for the unmoved movers, he meant them as a final cause.

It is the constructivist/finitistic approach to maths MO is supporting. But because there is not universal concensus in mathematical and philosophical...

https://youtu.be/IrOqnZdvI6M

It causes motion to others by being a final cause, to add.

Is this in contrast to Ancient Science, where belief in deities was common? Or else, when was science, modern or otherwise, ever concerned with deitie...