Plato or Aristotle?

Plato or Aristotle?

Attached: plato-and-aristotle.jpg (1024x507, 88.92K)

Plato and Plotinus

This. Honestly the whole Neo-Platonic tradition, when corrected with Christianity, is just beautiful.

You realize neo-platonism and its superstitions are a major influence on kabbalism and the philosophies based on kabbalism like ultraorthodox judaism and freemasonry (kabbalah for gentiles)?

Plato. Neo-Platonism is indeed for fags, though.

Attached: moderate realists btfo.jpg (754x502, 104.51K)

I have absolutely no interest in what the Jews or the Masons do, or where they take their lessons from. I look at Neo-Platonism as just a progression of Platonism which I love, and it's contemplation and asceticism is beautiful to me. Whoever comes and abuses these systems isn't a concern.

How to ruin a meme : the picture.

Orthodoxy is Platonism and Catholicism is Aristotelianism. Protestantism varies.


You’re half-right. That Kabbalah Masonry voodoo garbage is based on Gn*sticism, and the gn*stics based their beliefs on Platonism. The actual Neoplatonics argues against the Gn*stics and said they were perverting the true teachings of Plato. Ultimately, they were right when you look at the teachings. They perverted Platonism just as they perverted the scriptures

Aristotle unquestioningly. Plato's forms were refuted by Aristotle. Also Platonism gave rise to many heresies like Origenism and Gnosticism.

The obvious choice is Diogenes

He used to choke his chicken and defecate in public.

Orthodoxy for Plato
Catholicism for Aristotle
Protestantism for Diogenes

You can't 'refute' the forms aka the 'archetypes' or universals, if you do then you refute thinking itself.

This isn't an idea unique to Plato, Moses was the first to express it in genesis.

"And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds" - – kinds = archetypes = forms

This, though the other two also deserve respect.

I think he means that forms are entirely transcendent. Aristotle is extremely Platonic, except more in the areas relating to forms being immanent in things, therefore the world isn't just an illusion, but is real, and so study of it isn't fruitless. Platonism is idealistic and monistic entirely, and the world is basically just a changing and shifting illusion, even motion in it. Aristotle "refutes" this if you accept his arguments. But he still holds to forms.

This Aristotle doesn't separate substance and essence, else, as he notes, the former could never be known and the latter would have no being.

theres no explicit separation between the forms and material world, the separation exists in the point of view one takes, but in monism the world is necessarily "one" structure, one entity, the illusion aspect refers to the illusory point of view we take towards the One Reality, not that there are two worlds, one real and one illusory…that's not monism

It was joke.

...

Both

Diogenes

They were both super gay.

Attached: Socrates_Botanic_Gardens_1.jpg (2513x2970, 1.79M)

Aristotle most certainly wasn't, ga