On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 5:36:16 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <b64e778a-2b79-4974...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Of course they didn't invent it, the Greeks did. German philosophers
> >however turned it into the bread and butter of philosophy, that led
> >to the establishment of state and military structures to enforce
> >it. Believe it ir not, like or not, agree or not, Nasizm started
> >with Kant.
> You're unlikely to find anyone who dislikes Kant & (especially)
> Hegel (& Aristotle...) as much as I do... but much of the above is
> incorrect.

It is a matter of perspective and interpretation.

Kant's style of thinking set in motion the process
that eventually led to Nazism.

dk

In article <aac1fdcb-bad0-4f30-af62-53f618cb0e8an@googlegroups.com>,
Dan Koren <dan.koren@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kant's style of thinking set in motion the process that eventually
>led to Nazism.

Kant's style of thinking is merely a reflection of how the European
empires had already decided to treat the rest of the world & everyone
in it. Abhorrent, yes, but his nonsense only mirrors what was
already decided in the practical realm.

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 6:07:16 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> In article <aac1fdcb-bad0-4f30...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Kant's style of thinking set in motion the
> > process that eventually led to Nazism.
>
> Kant's style of thinking is merely a reflection
> of how the European empires had already
> decided to treat the rest of the world &
> everyone in it. Abhorrent, yes, but his
> nonsense only mirrors what was
> already decided in the practical realm.

Kant being part of a societal feedback loop as
you describe doesn't make him or his followers
any less culpable of the consequences.

dk

In article <515cd93a-f04a-4447-bdfa-d00a6f395c5en@googlegroups.com>,
Dan Koren <dan.koren@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kant being part of a societal feedback loop as you describe doesn't
>make him or his followers any less culpable of the consequences.

I accept nasty remarks about Kant.
Just not assertions of originality. :-)

Op vrijdag 3 december 2021 om 22:19:30 UTC+1 schreef dan....@gmail.com:
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 5:51:16 AM UTC-5, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
> >
> > Although you deny it, I can only understand your
> > views against the background of Adorno's notions
> > of Bildung (untranslatable) and Halbbildung.
> >
> > I am not interested in philosophies that are based
> > on the conflict between Geist und Leben, spirit and
> > nature, Apollo and Dionysos, civilised and primitive,
> > etc. Not because they tend to favour one over the
> > other or think they have to look for a synthesis, I
> > just do not believe in the explanatory power of
> > dichotomies.
> If I may respectfully comment on your thoughtful
> comment, NOTHING has caused as much damage
> to the planet and to the people who inhabit it as the
> German philosophy obsession with struggle between
> concepts and ideas, good and evil, civilzation and
> barbary, spirit and nature, and so on.
>
> dk

Too much honour. Philosophy is far less important than philosophers believe it to be. Socrates' notion of a philosopher king, followed by Plato's ill-fated attempts in Syracuse to practice what he preached, says it all.

Henk

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 6:28:17 AM UTC-5, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
> Op vrijdag 3 december 2021 om 22:19:30 UTC+1 schreef dan....@gmail.com:
> > On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 5:51:16 AM UTC-5, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
> > >
> > > Although you deny it, I can only understand your
> > > views against the background of Adorno's notions
> > > of Bildung (untranslatable) and Halbbildung.
> > >
> > > I am not interested in philosophies that are based
> > > on the conflict between Geist und Leben, spirit and
> > > nature, Apollo and Dionysos, civilised and primitive,
> > > etc. Not because they tend to favour one over the
> > > other or think they have to look for a synthesis, I
> > > just do not believe in the explanatory power of
> > > dichotomies.
> > If I may respectfully comment on your thoughtful
> > comment, NOTHING has caused as much damage
> > to the planet and to the people who inhabit it as the
> > German philosophy obsession with struggle between
> > concepts and ideas, good and evil, civilzation and
> > barbary, spirit and nature, and so on.
>
> Too much honour. Philosophy is far less
> important than philosophers believe it to be.

Philosophy is a scam.

> Socrates' notion of a philosopher king, followed
> by Plato's ill-fated attempts in Syracuse to practice
> what he preached, says it all.

He didn't have the right advisers: Steve Bannon,
Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Victor Davis
Hanson.

dk

Philosophy and art are only there for themselves. Some of us tend to forget that. They cannot leave things alone, with unforeseen consequences. Who in his/her right mind would have thought that the Muette de Portici could cause a revolution - in Brussels, of all places!

Henk

I think it is a bit funny in hindsight, how you, Herman, attacked my attitude when I firsted started posting here, saying that this ng had a some sort of intellectual level. In some ways I think you were right about me, but also blind in regards to some of your own attitude, as well as this ng. As this thread perfectly revealed, quite a few people in this ng actually seem to harbour strong anti-intellectual (and even anti-german) sentiments, as shown in the primitive behaviour of most of the participants. It seems most people here seem incapable of a reflexive reality-check, instead they stubbornly hold on to their primitive beliefs and behaviour.

Just a few examples of the primitive behaviour I have observed and how noone actually reflected and admitted their mistakes, and just continued to act primitively:

- Henk deems Adorno to be Kracauer's Icarus, while having said before that he does not know much about Adorno's philosophy. Any reasonable person would come to the conclusion, that it would be quite stupid to pose an absolute judgement on something which one has no clue about. If you could actually defend your points by addressing Adorno's philosophy on a higher level, instead of the primitive one you are at, your standpoint would be respected. As it is: Just some pseudo-intellectual bullshit.

- Henk deems philosophers to be taking themselves too seriously, all while he himself philosophises in this thread, taking his own ideas seriously. Good god, Henk, reflect a bit on your idiocy.

- Henk, it seems you are the one who is denying. Just look at how you are denying that you are experiencing cognitive dissonance:„marc cognitive dissonance is so 1960s“. To demonstrate the idiocy of your argument: Someone says Mozart makes good music (just as I deem cognitive dissonance to be a good model in showing where you go wrong), and your answer „mozart is so 18th century“. Henk, you brain seems to work on minimum efficiancy. No wonder you act as primitively as you do. Ofc you understood a few points I made, but a whole lot of what I said wasn't registerted by your thinking faculties.

- Henk in his ultimate delusion thinks he makes a great philosophical statement by saying „Philosophy and art are only there for themselves“, which does really not say anything at all. Philosophy and art are both manmade and thus not there for themselves if you view it from the stance of a human, but they are there for humans to be used to learn and/or express themselves. A human can choose not to do anything with it. But how stupid must one be to say something meaningless as „Philosophy is just there for itself“. Whatever henk.

Then you have herd-animals like Fank Berger and Andy Evans joining the thread, offering nothing of value, just the most primitive insults (Herman... this shows the intellectual level of this ng). And in regards to Frank's comment: I never argued with Frank about religions. And I never said I hated religions, in fact I consider some religions to be quite a civilatory achievement based on the time and circustamnces in history they were created. Not all religions ofc.

Then you further have DK, who actually knows piss about what he is talking about, and demonstrates the reflexive ability of a monkey. All his attitude shows, is that he seems to be massively gekränkt about what is being said resulting in his childish behaviour.

- DK thinks he is super smart in proposing: „what you did or not do, does not make anyone primitive or unprimitive“. I really wonder how blind and stupid one must be, to not see the idiocy of this argument. You are jsut trying to make a point, because whatever I said, must have triggered you. All of your reasoning faculties have been shut down.

- DK thinks I am bent on imposing rules, while I am just carefully analysing stuff and carving out the differences. I never said one should do as I do.. But it seems fairly obvious that a sign as :D is a primitive way to express your feelings – no idea why people Henk seem to react allergically to reasonable statements.There are more elaborate ways to express oneself, very simple.

- DK attacks german philosophy for being „hairsplittery“ (well similiar to science), then argues that Kant's philosophy led to Nazism. My dear friend, I would think if the Nazis would have been able to be as „hairsplittery“ as Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Adorno and Horkheimer were, they would have not formed generalized ideas about jews being evil right? You could actually learn from this, by not forming generalized ideas about all of german philosophy being evil. But as you have demonstrated: You will not, as your reflexive capability is that of a monkey. I think it is actually your kind of behaviour, the behaviour of people who aren't able to reflect and think about their mistakes and correct them, that led to nazism (in a general sense).

- One could actually make an argument (just as Adorno does) that the ideas that led to nazism can be found way back in the past (establishment of religions being an act of enlightenment etc.). It is a complicated but very reasonable philosophy which I think is obvious you would never understand, as you behave like a renitent child.

dan....@gmail.com schrieb am Freitag, 3. Dezember 2021 um 23:51:31 UTC+1:
> On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 5:36:16 PM UTC-5, Todd M. McComb wrote:
> > In article <b64e778a-2b79-4974...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Of course they didn't invent it, the Greeks did. German philosophers
> > >however turned it into the bread and butter of philosophy, that led
> > >to the establishment of state and military structures to enforce
> > >it. Believe it ir not, like or not, agree or not, Nasizm started
> > >with Kant.
> > You're unlikely to find anyone who dislikes Kant & (especially)
> > Hegel (& Aristotle...) as much as I do... but much of the above is
> > incorrect.
> It is a matter of perspective and interpretation.
>
> Kant's style of thinking set in motion the process
> that eventually led to Nazism.
>
> dk

What an idiotic comment. Kant's „style of thinking“ was an „emancipatory type of thinking“. This emancipatory type of thinking influenced many jews in europe to fight for their own emancipation.. You seem to have no clue about the history of Israel, as German philosophy influenced quite a few Zionists. So contrary to your suggestion that Kant led to Nazism, I would say that Kant led to the emancipation of many people (such as jews). Some concrete examples of how Nietzsche and Marx influenced the creation of Israel.:

- Chaim Weizmann was a great admirer of Nietzsche; the first president of Israel sent Nietzsche's books to his wife, adding a comment in a letter that "This was the best and finest thing I can send to you."
- Israel Eldad, the ideological chief of the Stern Gang that fought the British in Palestine in the 1940s, wrote about Nietzsche in his underground newspaper and later translated most of Nietzsche's books into Hebrew.[308] Eugene O'Neill remarked that Zarathustra influenced him more than any other book he ever read. He also shared Nietzsche's view of tragedy.[309] The plays The Great God Brown and Lazarus Laughed are examples of Nietzsche's influence on him.
- Nietzsche had a distinct appeal for many Zionist thinkers around the start of the 20th century, most notable being Ahad Ha'am,[303] Hillel Zeitlin,[304] Micha Josef Berdyczewski, A.D. Gordon[305] and Martin Buber, who went so far as to extoll Nietzsche as a "creator" and "emissary of life".
- Marx's influence can be seen in the early kibbutzim. (Stalin is not Marx! Don't hate Marx because of idiots like Staling and Mao).
- The Zionist revolution emphasized that “the new Jews," the concept of which was similar to Nietzsche's “new European man,” should choose to go to Zion or to stay in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzschean_Zionism

Todd M. McComb schrieb am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 um 00:07:16 UTC+1:
> In article <aac1fdcb-bad0-4f30...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Kant's style of thinking set in motion the process that eventually
> >led to Nazism.
> Kant's style of thinking is merely a reflection of how the European
> empires had already decided to treat the rest of the world & everyone
> in it. Abhorrent, yes, but his nonsense only mirrors what was
> already decided in the practical realm.

What nonsense is this? Care to explain? Because for me you do not make any sense. You too seem to have no idea about Kant. Kant's type of thinking is an emancipatory type of thinking. Kant can ofc be criticised for many things, but what he did - especially considering his time - was pretty genius (as well as progressive).

Marc S schrieb am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 um 17:32:37 UTC+1:
> Todd M. McComb schrieb am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 um 00:07:16 UTC+1:
> > In article <aac1fdcb-bad0-4f30...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Dan Koren <dan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Kant's style of thinking set in motion the process that eventually
> > >led to Nazism.
> > Kant's style of thinking is merely a reflection of how the European
> > empires had already decided to treat the rest of the world & everyone
> > in it. Abhorrent, yes, but his nonsense only mirrors what was
> > already decided in the practical realm.
> What nonsense is this? Care to explain? Because for me you do not make any sense. You too seem to have no idea about Kant. Kant's type of thinking is an emancipatory type of thinking. Kant can ofc be criticised for many things, but what he did - especially considering his time - was pretty genius (as well as progressive).

Actually, Todd, don't waste your time explaining. I am outta here. Better things to do with my time than reading through piles of shit written by illiterate idiots.

On Saturday, 4 December 2021 at 16:52:20 UTC, Marc S wrote:
>>I am outta here. Better things to do with my time than reading through piles of shit written by illiterate idiots.

Wonderful! Goodbye.

Though I am a little 'gekränkt' I wasn't dressed down in Marc'S little hit list I have to confess I read with interest about the way Kant was good for the Jews - even though I'm a little puzzled Kant changed his name to Nietzsche in the process. The way in which some people automatically stereotype German things as boring or metaphysically hairsplitting is annoying, especially on a ng devoted to classical music.

Herman schrieb am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 um 19:14:01 UTC+1:
> Though I am a little 'gekränkt' I wasn't dressed down in Marc'S little hit list I have to confess I read with interest about the way Kant was good for the Jews - even though I'm a little puzzled Kant changed his name to Nietzsche in the process. The way in which some people automatically stereotype German things as boring or metaphysically hairsplitting is annoying, especially on a ng devoted to classical music.

dk implied that Kant led to nazism, suggesting that all following german philosophy (which in fact is build upon Kant) led to nazism. So, since Kant led to Nietzsche, and Nietzsche's thoughts were being used by the jews to emancipate themselves, my argument still stands. (Kant let to Nietzsche and Nietzsche led to many jews fighting for their emancipation)

Kant and many enlightenment thinkers influenced jewish as well as christian thought (just google to find books*) etc. The enlightenment thinkers were tight with the fight against oppression. As opposed to Henk believes, philosophy has quite a lot of power in influencing people's ideas and thus actions.

Also: I am pretty sure that Hitler would have had no real idea about Kant's philosophy - which dk seems to neglect, as he himself doesn't have a clue about Kant's philosophy and how it influenced jewish thought.

*Kant influencing jewish thought: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-intellectual-history/article/abs/early-jewish-reception-of-kantian-philosophy/4BC7AD10088F1BCB777BF15F0462BB57

Marc S schrieb am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 um 19:47:32 UTC+1:
> Herman schrieb am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 um 19:14:01 UTC+1:
> > Though I am a little 'gekränkt' I wasn't dressed down in Marc'S little hit list I have to confess I read with interest about the way Kant was good for the Jews - even though I'm a little puzzled Kant changed his name to Nietzsche in the process. The way in which some people automatically stereotype German things as boring or metaphysically hairsplitting is annoying, especially on a ng devoted to classical music.
> dk implied that Kant led to nazism, suggesting that all following german philosophy (which in fact is build upon Kant) led to nazism. So, since Kant led to Nietzsche, and Nietzsche's thoughts were being used by the jews to emancipate themselves, my argument still stands. (Kant let to Nietzsche and Nietzsche led to many jews fighting for their emancipation)
>
> Kant and many enlightenment thinkers influenced jewish as well as christian thought (just google to find books*) etc. The enlightenment thinkers were tight with the fight against oppression. As opposed to Henk believes, philosophy has quite a lot of power in influencing people's ideas and thus actions.

*as opposed to henk believes...

Explanation of why I am writing this:
Since Henk said that philosophers take themselves too seriously.

I think, Henk should - based on evidence - take the power of philosophers way more seriously. But as his modus operandi suggests: He will once again neglect reality.

Marc S schrieb am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 um 19:47:32 UTC+1:
> Herman schrieb am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 um 19:14:01 UTC+1:
> > Though I am a little 'gekränkt' I wasn't dressed down in Marc'S little hit list I have to confess I read with interest about the way Kant was good for the Jews - even though I'm a little puzzled Kant changed his name to Nietzsche in the process. The way in which some people automatically stereotype German things as boring or metaphysically hairsplitting is annoying, especially on a ng devoted to classical music.
> dk implied that Kant led to nazism, suggesting that all following german philosophy (which in fact is build upon Kant) led to nazism. So, since Kant led to Nietzsche, and Nietzsche's thoughts were being used by the jews to emancipate themselves, my argument still stands. (Kant let to Nietzsche and Nietzsche led to many jews fighting for their emancipation)
>
> Kant and many enlightenment thinkers influenced jewish as well as christian thought (just google to find books*) etc. The enlightenment thinkers were tight with the fight against oppression. As opposed to Henk believes, philosophy has quite a lot of power in influencing people's ideas and thus actions.
>
> Also: I am pretty sure that Hitler would have had no real idea about Kant's philosophy - which dk seems to neglect, as he himself doesn't have a clue about Kant's philosophy and how it influenced jewish thought.
>
> *Kant influencing jewish thought: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-intellectual-history/article/abs/early-jewish-reception-of-kantian-philosophy/4BC7AD10088F1BCB777BF15F0462BB57

*dk "argued" (instead of "implied")
*tied instead of tight

Marc S schrieb am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 um 19:47:32 UTC+1:
> Herman schrieb am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 um 19:14:01 UTC+1:
> > Though I am a little 'gekränkt' I wasn't dressed down in Marc'S little hit list I have to confess I read with interest about the way Kant was good for the Jews - even though I'm a little puzzled Kant changed his name to Nietzsche in the process. The way in which some people automatically stereotype German things as boring or metaphysically hairsplitting is annoying, especially on a ng devoted to classical music.
> dk implied that Kant led to nazism, suggesting that all following german philosophy (which in fact is build upon Kant) led to nazism. So, since Kant led to Nietzsche, and Nietzsche's thoughts were being used by the jews to emancipate themselves, my argument still stands. (Kant let to Nietzsche and Nietzsche led to many jews fighting for their emancipation)
>
> Kant and many enlightenment thinkers influenced jewish as well as christian thought (just google to find books*) etc. The enlightenment thinkers were tight with the fight against oppression. As opposed to Henk believes, philosophy has quite a lot of power in influencing people's ideas and thus actions.
>
> Also: I am pretty sure that Hitler would have had no real idea about Kant's philosophy - which dk seems to neglect, as he himself doesn't have a clue about Kant's philosophy and how it influenced jewish thought.
>
> *Kant influencing jewish thought: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-intellectual-history/article/abs/early-jewish-reception-of-kantian-philosophy/4BC7AD10088F1BCB777BF15F0462BB57

*which dk seems to neglect, as himself doesn't have a clue about Kant's philosophy *NOR* how it influenced jewish thought.

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 8:08:54 PM UTC+1, Marc S wrote:
>

> *which dk seems to neglect, as himself doesn't have a clue about Kant's philosophy *NOR* how it influenced jewish thought.

you gotta grant he's totally clued in as to prettyish Asian pianists, violinists and guitar ticklers.

In article <44d179eb-53af-4794-8bf8-efa79822e8d7n@googlegroups.com>,
Marc S <marcs12212@gmail.com> wrote:
>Actually, Todd, don't waste your time explaining.

I have no intention of playing your game, don't worry. I was talking
to Dk.

Op zaterdag 4 december 2021 om 19:54:04 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
> Marc S schrieb am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 um 19:47:32 UTC+1:
> > Herman schrieb am Samstag, 4. Dezember 2021 um 19:14:01 UTC+1:
> > > Though I am a little 'gekränkt' I wasn't dressed down in Marc'S little hit list I have to confess I read with interest about the way Kant was good for the Jews - even though I'm a little puzzled Kant changed his name to Nietzsche in the process. The way in which some people automatically stereotype German things as boring or metaphysically hairsplitting is annoying, especially on a ng devoted to classical music.
> > dk implied that Kant led to nazism, suggesting that all following german philosophy (which in fact is build upon Kant) led to nazism. So, since Kant led to Nietzsche, and Nietzsche's thoughts were being used by the jews to emancipate themselves, my argument still stands. (Kant let to Nietzsche and Nietzsche led to many jews fighting for their emancipation)
> >
> > Kant and many enlightenment thinkers influenced jewish as well as christian thought (just google to find books*) etc. The enlightenment thinkers were tight with the fight against oppression. As opposed to Henk believes, philosophy has quite a lot of power in influencing people's ideas and thus actions.
> *as opposed to henk believes...
>
> Explanation of why I am writing this:
> Since Henk said that philosophers take themselves too seriously.
>
> I think, Henk should - based on evidence - take the power of philosophers way more seriously. But as his modus operandi suggests: He will once again neglect reality.

Plato, for example, took himself far too seriously when he accepted a job in Syracuse. Heidegger believed that Hitler would follow his guidance. Things did not turn out as he expected, and in the first half of the 1930s he resigned as rector of the Freiburg University. Hence, the cynical remark by one of his colleagues when they met 'on the same level' on their way to the lecture halls: "Back from Syracuse, dear colleague?"

<g> I'd rather not rub it in, Marc, but you should know by now that it takes both of us hard work to meet in the same reality. Blaming each other isn't very helpful.

Henk

In article <af372cae-51e7-481b-b6b6-a7b0206718f7n@googlegroups.com>,
HT <hvtuijl@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Philosophy is far less important than philosophers believe it to
>be. Socrates' notion of a philosopher king, followed by Plato's
>ill-fated attempts in Syracuse to practice what he preached, says
>it all.

Philosophy *is* sophistry. But Plato was only "sort of" a philosopher.
Much of what he wrote were "reductio" arguments -- you're supposed
to find the results to be absurd. I'm remarking on this because
curiosity regarding what Wikipedia had to say about this Syracuse
incident led me to note their basic description of Plato as founder
Platonism, which I found to be funny not so much for its tautology
but for its falsity! Anyway, I'm sure that Plato would have been
much more agreeable to the tyrant of Syracuse had he actually
believed literally -- note thread Subject! -- what he wrote! (No
worries, though, because Aristotle believed what *he* had to say,
and it suited Alexander just fine....)

Op zaterdag 4 december 2021 om 22:37:34 UTC+1 schreef Todd M. McComb:
> In article <af372cae-51e7-481b...@googlegroups.com>,
> HT <hvt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >Philosophy is far less important than philosophers believe it to
> >be. Socrates' notion of a philosopher king, followed by Plato's
> >ill-fated attempts in Syracuse to practice what he preached, says
> >it all.
> Philosophy *is* sophistry. But Plato was only "sort of" a philosopher.
> Much of what he wrote were "reductio" arguments -- you're supposed
> to find the results to be absurd. I'm remarking on this because
> curiosity regarding what Wikipedia had to say about this Syracuse
> incident led me to note their basic description of Plato as founder
> Platonism, which I found to be funny not so much for its tautology
> but for its falsity! Anyway, I'm sure that Plato would have been
> much more agreeable to the tyrant of Syracuse had he actually
> believed literally -- note thread Subject! -- what he wrote! (No
> worries, though, because Aristotle believed what *he* had to say,
> and it suited Alexander just fine....)

In his "La Carte Postale", Derrida discusses a postcard depicting Plato writing. The angelic figure looking over his shoulder is Socrates. Who has which part to play, asks Derrida? With that proviso, I have no problem with "Platonism", as I have no problem with "Cartesianism".

From his seventh letter, I gather that Plato sincerely believed in his theory of the state. After his experiences, according to some, he lost that belief.

Aristotle was a scientist and systematic philosopher, with followers in both the Islamic and Christian worlds. Without Aristotle the scientist, our world would look different.

Henk

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 6:44:56 PM UTC-5, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
>
> Without Aristotle the scientist,
> our world would look different.
>

Do you seriously mean the laws
of physics and nature would be
different but for Aristotle?

dk

Op zondag 5 december 2021 om 00:52:32 UTC+1 schreef dan....@gmail.com:
> On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 6:44:56 PM UTC-5, hvt...@xs4all.nl wrote:
> >
> > Without Aristotle the scientist,
> > our world would look different.
> >
> Do you seriously mean the laws
> of physics and nature would be
> different but for Aristotle?
>
> dk

The world would "look" different, not "be" different. That would be too much praise.

Henk

In article <f01399ee-8024-4629-8bea-7e20fc04efedn@googlegroups.com>,
HT <hvtuijl@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Aristotle was a scientist and systematic philosopher, with followers
>in both the Islamic and Christian worlds. Without Aristotle the
>scientist, our world would look different.

Indeed, one of the leading figures of what I broadly call "imperial
philosophy." And our world would look very different without various
horrible people. I did like your "followers in ... the ... Christian
world" line though... gave me another chuckle. (I mean, I guess I
do have a bit of a soft spot for Avicenna, even though he's clearly
an Aristotelian sort....)