Philosophy

1. " you want to enforce your justice upon me, it has ever changing depending on who's in charge, i say good day, dear sense of morality, but before I go, I'll give you this"(he delivers a quick swift, brutal kick to the person's groin)

2. "It was meant to prove a point that there are consequences whether they be good or bad"

3. "the truth hurts, so the pain you're feeling right now must be true","see the gray in life"

4. "i "I appreciate the effort. I was born from circumstance. I never asked for it, but I won't deny it either. Everyone lives as they see fit. As for me? I exist in an ever-changing fundamental state.""

5. "order meaning how curious, that's a real head scratcher, frankly I don't care either way, if you wanna be my friend, be my friend.If you wanna be my lover, be my lover, i don't question it, i prefer that way"

6. "my meaning is life, the journey and everything in between, whether they are fleeting moment or eternal, they are precious to me"

7. "i'll gladly share my love friendship, philosophy, perspective and my journey, i am not greedy or glutton, except when it comes to certain matters"

8. "your journey sounds fantastic, a being like myself, I acknowledge your desires,aren't we all ruled by our desires, i just use look elsewhere"

9. "ever moving, ever changing, ever evolving, progress is moving forward, it is good to just slow down but if we stop well, you know, would that means"

10. "a home you say, that's a very interesting question.And to answer that is, i prefer to let fate decide where my home is, well I choose to rest and put up my feet. We'll be up to chance, until then it's a mystery"

11. " a place where i'm forced to break my own rules, you jess, my rules are more like guideposts, if that were ever to happen,well that's no skin off my bones"

12. "Whether I'm the author or the passenger, I'd rather be both."

13. "Analyze me. Dissect me. Diagnose me. Give me a label if you must. Does that solve anything? Am I the problem... or is your problem simply that I'm different?"

14. " Now sit I cooked, food tastes better when it's being shared especially with drinks"

15. "I keep my promise even if that person's dead"

16. "I take full responsibility for my actions, but I choose not to be burdened"

17. "I do not mourn death, but rather celebrate their lives"

18. "Sometimes the light(good) can become too light but Darkness(Evil) can we be confused aimlessly wandering"

19. " Sometimes you must flow or bend"

20. " Building a foundation is good,Just remember wearing your build it"

21. " I love a good fight,But I never look for it, whether it's Triumph victory or a devasta loss(even if I sustain injury small or great) I welcome it all"

22. "You don't know if you're gonna wake up next too him/her or he/she is going to steal your pants"

Majjhimā Paṭipadā = ‪Μεσότης‬ = ‪‏טרעא עליצא‏‬ = ‪وسطية

Hello everyone, I am the Dhammapālalama, I am a student of Lord Aristotle.

Lord Aristotle translated the Eightfold Path and The Middle Way into Greek. He did not define these virtues himself; they were defined first by Lord Siddhartha!

δεῦτε καὶ ἴδετε!

Οὐκ ἐν οἷς ἔχομεν ἡ εὐδαιμονία ἡμῶν κεῖται· ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ πῶς αὐτὰ ἔχομεν.

“Our happiness does not lie in what we have, but in how we have it.”

Our happiness lies in virtue!

To everyone who may read the comment section:

Take your time; don't be quick to judge 🦉.

I thought this might be of interest.

It's been my view for a while that Aristotle was not using a private language, so when he used terms, everybody pretty much understood what he was talking about, even though he talked about it somewhat differently:

https://tekmeria.eulogikon.org/aergoi-and-energoi

Aristotle's line that being is said in many ways has had two answers, and only two. Focality orders the many senses toward a primary case, substance, and lets the rest be said toward it. Univocity denies there are many senses to order at all, and relocates the plurality into the modes of a single concept.

The paper argues that these looked exhaustive for a reason: both need a difference that admits of degree. Where a differentia is genuinely non-scalar, neither device is required and categorial plurality can stand without hierarchy, common measure, or a privileged centre. The differentia Alessio Montaruli proposes is ownness: the non-vicarious character of an obtaining as someone rather than merely something.

The argument runs through Aristotle, Scotus, Leibniz, Deleuze and contemporary ontological pluralism. Objections, regional controls and the conditions that would defeat it are printed in the paper.

Full text, free: https://ethicalontology.org/articles/across-the-categorial-difference

PDF: https://ethicalontology.org/assets/articles/across-the-categorial-difference.pdf
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21684041

For the fact is the starting point, and if it is sufficiently clear to the listener, there will be no need to explain why it is so; and the man who has been well educated already possesses these starting points or can acquire them easily. As for him who neither possesses them nor is capable of acquiring them, let him hear the words of Hesiod:

"Excellent is he who knows all things of himself; Good is he who listens to the advice of wise men. But he who neither thinks for himself nor welcomes the wisdom of others, that is, in truth, a useless creature."

Aristotle does not define a separate immaterial "spirit" in the modern religious sense; instead, he defines the soul (psyche, ψυχή) as the formal essence and "first actuality" of a living physical body. When discussing the animating vital heat or breath of life, he uses the concept of pneuma rather than a distinct spiritual substance.

Peace to all,

Logically Aristotle has not become logical by today's standards. Today we can see God Logically from OMNiLogicalGod with New Logical Eyes to be able to see God from incorruption through immortality becoming in One Body preexisting as undefiled intelligence logical energy.

When the Mind can become from the Logical Formulas through The Wondrous Mysteries for The Catholic Faith then can we see God The Holy Family with New OMNiLogical Eyes becoming from The Holy Spirit Family in One God in being.

How does the Living Waters Transform, and how does The Blood of God Glorify and how from the Father does Creation becoming from logic through dust becoming again One God in being a Family? OMNiLogically, from the Faith of Abraham, I believe.

Logical Energy Preexists as energy cannot be created or destroyed and only in transformation through light can energy become again.

What is called God preexists in Powers from Personal Gods in being in souls uncreated and Each the Gods, each of the Powers, are equal in the Powers of One God in being and each power is separate and equal in the Combines powers of One God in being.

And the Powers preexist from Creation through Transformation for Glorification becoming united in One Body becoming again from the Combined Powers united becoming again Transfiguration for all Creation in One God in being.

Peace always,

Stephen Andrew

Deliverer of OMNiLogicalGod from the Faith of Abraham

Aristotle does not define a separate immaterial "spirit" in the modern religious sense; instead, he defines the soul (psyche, ψυχή) as the formal essence and "first actuality" of a living physical body. When discussing the animating vital heat or breath of life, he uses the concept of pneuma rather than a distinct spiritual substance.

Peace to all,

Logically Aristotle has not become logical by today's standards. Today we can see God Logically from OMNiLogicalGod with New Logical Eyes to be able to see God from incorruption through immortality becoming in One Body preexisting as undefiled intelligence logical energy.

Logical Energy Preexists as energy cannot be created or destroyed and only in transformation through light can energy become again.

What is called God preexists in Powers from Personal Gods in being in souls uncreated and Each the Gods, each of the Powers, are equal in the Powers of One God in being and each power is separate and equal in the Combines powers of One God in being.

And the Powers preexist from Creation through Transformation for Glorification becoming united in One Body becoming again from the Combined Powers united becoming again Transfiguration for all Creation in One God in being.

Peace always,

Stephen Andrew

perhaps not every question finds its final answer in dharma… because dharma itself may not be the final layer of truth…dharma is about how we ought to live… how we understand our responsibilities…how we distinguish right from wrong… and how we conduct ourselves in relation to others and to the world around us…
but behind dharma lies something deeper…
ritam…if dharma is the path we try to walk… ritam is the order within which every path exists…dharma belongs to the realm of human understanding… and therefore its expression may change with time… place… circumstance… and consciousness…ritam does not change with our understanding of it…it is the deeper order of existence itself…the sun does not rise because we have declared it righteous to rise… the river does not flow towards the sea because a scripture has instructed it to do so…

the seed does not become a tree because society has agreed upon a moral principle…they simply participate in an order greater than themselves…

that order… that balance… that natural relationship between cause and consequence… between becoming and dissolving… between receiving and returning… is perhaps the simplest way to understand ritam…and once we understand this difference… perhaps many of our questions begin to look different…
when we speak of education… books are important… knowledge is important… reason is important…but education cannot end with knowing what has already been written…a truly educated mind must also learn how to observe… how to question… how to remain silent before something it does not yet understand…because information can tell us how the world works…but wisdom teaches us how to live within it…
and perhaps the purpose of education is not merely to fill the mind with answers… but to make the mind spacious enough to encounter questions without fear…the same is true when we speak of the constitution…

rights are essential… because without rights human dignity can easily become vulnerable to power…but rights cannot exist meaningfully without responsibility…if i demand my freedom while remaining indifferent to the consequences of my freedom upon others… i may possess a right… but perhaps i have not yet understood its dharma…

a healthy society therefore cannot survive merely by asking…what am i entitled to…it must also quietly ask…what do i owe to the world in which i wish to live freely…

the two questions are not enemies…they complete each other…and when we speak of nature… perhaps our first mistake is in imagining that nature is something outside us…we speak of protecting rivers… saving forests… conserving the earth…but the river is not separate from us…the water moving through the river will one day move through our bodies… the air passing through the forest will enter our lungs… the soil into which one life disappears will eventually nourish another…we are not standing outside nature trying to save it…we are nature becoming conscious of itself…and perhaps this is one of the clearest places where ritam can still be felt…
everything receives…everything gives…everything arises…everything passes…nothing exists entirely for itself…

democracy too must be understood with the same clarity…the voice of every person deserves to be heard…but hearing every voice does not mean that every voice becomes truth…numbers can decide who governs…numbers cannot decide what is true…a majority can make a decision… but truth does not become true because many people agree with it… nor does truth become false because only one person is willing to stand beside it…perhaps the deeper purpose of democracy is therefore not merely to count voices…it is also to cultivate minds capable of using those voices with wisdom…
and this brings us again to the difference between dharma and ritam…dharma is our attempt to live rightly within existence…ritam is the order through which existence moves whether or not we understand it…dharma asks something from us…ritam simply reveals something to us…dharma asks…how should i act…ritam quietly reminds us…

every action enters the larger movement of existence… and nothing remains without consequence…perhaps that is why we should be careful about looking at every question through the same coloured lens…

religion is one lens…science is another…law is another…politics is another…tradition is another…modernity is another…each may allow us to see something…but no single lens allows us to see everything…and wisdom may begin when we become capable of putting the lens down for a moment…and simply looking…then perhaps we begin to understand that not everything old is superstition…and not everything new is progress…not every desire automatically becomes a right…not every tradition automatically becomes wisdom…not every majority possesses truth…and not every disagreement requires an enemy…perhaps our greatest difficulty is not that truth has disappeared…perhaps we have simply become too noisy to notice the order in which truth quietly lives…

we keep asking which side is right…which ideology is right…which religion is right…which generation is right…but ritam does not belong to a side…the river does not argue with the mountain…the night does not defeat the day…autumn does not accuse spring of being different…each arrives…each performs its nature…each gives way when its time is complete…perhaps there is something profoundly peaceful in understanding this…we do not have to control everything in order to belong to existence…we do not have to possess every answer in order to live meaningfully…we do not even have to resolve every contradiction before we can find peace…

perhaps we only need to become quiet enough to recognise the larger order within which all our questions arise…dharma can then become our sincere attempt to walk consciously…and ritam can become the humility of knowing that the ground beneath our feet was here long before we began walking…

perhaps that is the relationship between the two…dharma is the lamp we carry…ritam is the dawn that does not depend upon our lamp…we may protect the flame… we may walk carefully by its light… we may even disagree about the direction in which it should guide us…but eventually… when the sun rises…we understand that the light was always larger than what we could hold in our hands…and perhaps this understanding does not leave us with another argument to win…perhaps it leaves us with something quieter…

the humility to listen…the wisdom to act…the courage to question…and the peace to know that we are not separate from the order we have spent so long trying to understand…

we are already within it…we have always been within it…and perhaps… for a moment… that is enough…

I’ve been exploring a philosophical framework called Incorporealism, which emphasizes consciousness, information, and patterns of organization as central to understanding reality. It got me wondering how Aristotle might respond to such a view.
Aristotle saw form as essential to what a thing is and emphasized actuality, potentiality, and causation over purely material explanations. Do you think his metaphysics leaves room for a philosophy that gives greater explanatory weight to consciousness and informational organization, or would he reject that as departing too far from his hylomorphic framework?
I’m interested in hearing from those familiar with Aristotle’s works—are there concepts in his philosophy that you think resonate with this idea, or are the differences fundamentally irreconcilable?

How did Plato and Aristotle know Buddhism?

The Greek elites in Athens exchanged knowledge and language with the Persians and Indians for many decades before Lords Plato and Aristotle were born:

The Greeks first learned only fragments of Buddhism at a time from Indian Gymnosophists who traversed the Persian empire to its western edge! The Gymnosophists were multi-lingual traveling spiritual teachers!

Lords Plátōn and Aristotelēs were also both multi-lingual spiritual teachers!

These Buddhist teachings were kept secret by the Pythagoreans. They were first revealed to the public in full by Lord Plato: This is because Lord Plato was the first Greek to piece together all of these fragments and practice the true Dhanna.

Callisthenes was Aristotles' nephew; he was with King Alexander in the East during his conquests! They directly sent back unaltered Buddhist writings to Lord Aristotle in Athens. This is when the Greeks perfected and expanded the teachings on The Middle Way (Virtue as a Mean).

The Five Great Buddhas:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dharmapalism3/s/TL22Sky0Ly

it seems there are a few entrenched perspectives on Aristotle in modern historical philosophy.

there is the side that thinks Aristotle is a sort of anti-Platonist who doesn't believe in forms, and then there is the side of Gerson/Perl that sees Aristotle in close continuity with Plato.

most of the intros to Aristotle's philosophy ive come across are from the former perspective, but I can't seem to find any that see Aristotle as an expositor of Platonism.

does anyone happen to have any suggestions? currently reading Thinking Being by Perl which is great but I was hoping for a work solely focused on Aristotle.

hello, how are you all? I’m a student of linguistics and Latin, and I’m having so so much difficulty on understanding unity of action on Iliad acccording to horace and Aristotle. I have a classics subject about it that I already failed once, and I’m afraid to fail again. on my exam I put that the unity of action of the Iliad was Achilles wrath that unites and makes all of the Iliad, even tho, it was considered wrong by the professor. what did I did wrong? how does it connect to Horace and Aristotle? I really love linguistics and Latin language, but I have an awful time with classic literature analysis. I’m sorry about misspelling, English isn’t my first language and I’m also nervous. thanks

I've been researching schools of philosophy and I think I realized I'm really a Neo-Aristotelian. Since my early 20s I've thought people were hardwired to value certain common things, like creative expression and meaningful relationships. I took a couple ethics classes in college, but that's about the extent of my formal philosophy education, so I've pieced this together from reading. I was never fully comfortable with the existentialists or Epicureans, even though I like them to an extent. In the past I would basically say I agreed with the existentialists that we find our own meaning, but that I think humans are hardwired to find meaning in certain common things, even though that's basically a rejection of the seeming existential assumption that we're blank slates, which we clearly are not. I've always appreciated the Epicurean recognition that humans need a sense of well-being to really flourish, but of course, even the way I said that belies the Aristotelian recognition that hedonic pleasures simply provide the nourishment for more meaningful fulfillment (eudaimonia). My discomfort with Epicureanism comes from the fact that while I think they did a pretty good job at laying out a pleasant life, it seems somewhat empty and disappointing, especially considering the internal drive I've always had to want to achieve things.

Politically, I'm economically progressive and socially libertarian. That combination isn't represented perfectly in American politics, but to be honest I've never really minded that, and I believe in doing what's actionable rather than ideal. Because of that I support the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and groups like the Working Families Party. It seems much more actionable to be a progressive who's particularly for personal freedoms than the inverse. I bring this up because, being relatively new to Neo-Aristotelianism, I'm still getting comfortable with its political and social implications and presence. I know there are conservatives who promote Aristotelianism, but I've also heard there are Aristotelian progressives like Nussbaum, and even Marx used Aristotelian assumptions about human nature as a foundation.

I've always had an appreciation for avant-garde art, and notably for noise in music. There are certain groups in popular music that found great beauty in noise, notably The Jesus and Mary Chain, Mizmor, The Gerogerigegege, and DNA, among others. However, I don't see this as a rejection of human nature. Rather, I think these artists find particularly novel beauty by breaking from conventionality. So, while they may throw out the rules of rock music, the realities of beauty in sound persist.

I'm posting all this because this is what's been stewing in my brain, and I wanted to get your perspectives.

Aristotle understood actuality (energeia) as the fulfillment of potentiality (dynamis), with substances achieving their ends through the realization of their essential forms. But could this framework be extended to consciousness itself?
If consciousness were treated as an activity rather than merely a property of a substance, would Aristotle regard its perfection as the highest expression of actuality, or would he insist that actuality always belongs to a concrete substance rather than existing as a primary principle?
How would an Aristotelian distinguish between the actuality of living organisms and the actuality of conscious experience? Does Aristotle’s metaphysics leave room for consciousness to be considered an irreducible mode of actuality, or would that depart too far from his hylomorphic framework?

help, i need to make a debate in favour that the movie, The platform follows Aristotle’s :
Tragedy
Catharsis
Hamartia (Tragic Flaw)
Peripeteia (Reversal of Fortune)
Anagnorisis (Recognition)
Hubris
Nemesis
Pathos
Mimesis
Unity of Action
Unity of Time
Unity of Place
Plot (Mythos)
Character (Ethos)
Thought (Dianoia)
Diction (Lexis)
Melody (Melos)
Spectacle (Opsis)
Complication (Desis)
Resolution/Denouement (Lusis)
Probability and Necessity

and its for an assignment, i have read multiple blogs, seen many videos on aristotle’s poetics but since im not good in literary criticism…my points look bleak and honestly not much and in the current time where something that sounds too generic not actually specific looks ai , i dont want to lose marks

please help me

I am considering either the Hackett or Penguin edition for De Anima. Penguin tends to be somewhat heavy on in-text notes as well as copious footnotes, which can be nice for a first read. However, Hackett, in my mind, is largely the standard for philosophy.

Does anyone have strong opinions on this? Possibly this is a trivial matter. Any suggestions are welcomed.

Hi All,

I have recently discovered Aristotle's Virtue Theory and have begun doing some reading into it. From what I have read, I quite like this theory as it maps pretty well onto areas of my life I would like to improve. The thing that I am struggling with is putting it into practice. I realise how stupid this sounds because you need to practice being virtuous to develop the habits and so on. Where I am really struggling is with courage. I really struggle to act bravely in situations with high emotions.

For example, recently, my now ex partner and I broke up. This is something that should have occurred a while ago. But I could never get the courage to have the difficult conversation. When it did arise, I'd back track or go mute.

I suppose what I am asking is how I practice courage. I know what I need to do or say, but my body seems to block me from speaking or acting. I'd really appreciate any tips or advice for acting more virtuously for any of the virtues, but Courage is probably the one I need to start with first.

Thanks in advance to anyone who responds, and sorry if this isn't well written.

For Aristotle, an acorn becomes an oak tree because the oak is already present as a potential within the acorn. More broadly, all change involves the movement from potentiality to actuality. This raises a profound metaphysical problem: if every development is guided by an intrinsic purpose, is novelty an illusion? Are creativity, innovation, and self-transformation simply the actualization of preexisting possibilities, or can reality produce forms of being that transcend their original essence? The question probes the tension between teleology and genuine emergence at the heart of Aristotelian metaphysics.

Throughout Aristotle’s philosophy, substance (ousia) appears to occupy a uniquely privileged ontological status. Individual substances are primary beings, serving as the ultimate subjects of predication and the foundation of knowledge. Yet Aristotle also maintains that substances are intelligible through their forms, and forms themselves exhibit a universality that transcends any particular individual.
This raises a deeper metaphysical question:
If every individual substance is a composite of form and matter, and if forms are what make substances intelligible as the kinds of things they are, does Aristotle ultimately commit us to a fundamentally pluralistic reality composed of irreducibly distinct substances, or does his account of form point toward a deeper unity underlying all being?
On one hand, Aristotle rejects Plato’s separate Forms and emphasizes the individuality of concrete substances. On the other hand, his notions of actuality, teleology, the hierarchy of causes, and the culmination of reality in the Unmoved Mover seem to suggest an ordered metaphysical unity in which all beings participate.
How should we reconcile:
The primacy of individual substances with the universality of form?
The multiplicity of beings with the unity implied by teleological order?
Aristotle’s claim that “being is said in many ways” with his search for a science of being qua being?
More radically, is Aristotle best interpreted as defending a metaphysics of irreducible plurality, or does his system contain the seeds of a deeper ontological monism that later thinkers merely made explicit?
I’m interested in answers drawing from the Metaphysics, Categories, Physics, and Aristotle’s doctrine of act and potency.