tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post116403415488262541..comments2023-11-16T07:12:40.867-05:00Comments on Dissoi Blogoi: Aristotle and Other PlatonistsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1164296967922819572006-11-23T10:49:00.000-05:002006-11-23T10:49:00.000-05:00David,I was supposing too much when I referred in ...David,<BR/><BR/>I was supposing too much when I referred in my last comment to <I>Gerson's</I> harmonization project, and I would refer you instead to the revised version of this post.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>MPMichael Pakalukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233648836210188722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1164157512504380542006-11-21T20:05:00.000-05:002006-11-21T20:05:00.000-05:00David,I haven't read the book either, only the int...David,<BR/><BR/>I haven't read the book either, only the introduction, but there Gerson says that his harmonization project will involve showing how Aristotle misunderstands Plato, in places where they do not agree--but it never (apparently) involves showing how Aristotle rightly correctes Plato, or points out a misunderstanding or confusion in Plato. It seems to be a one-way street. Thus 'reduction' seems (so far) not an unfair term.<BR/><BR/>M  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://dissoiblogoi.blogspot.com/2006/11/aristotle-and-other-platonists.html#c116408073428813439" REL="nofollow" TITLE="mpakaluK at clarku dot edu">Michael Pakaluk</A>Michael Pakalukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233648836210188722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1164080734288134392006-11-20T22:45:00.000-05:002006-11-20T22:45:00.000-05:00I think that we're already in trouble if we view t...I think that we're already in trouble if we view the matter as an attempt to "reduce Aristotle to Plato." I haven't read Gerson's book but, from what little I know of his "project," it seems that such a reduction isn't a part of it. It may be as benign as pointing out Hegel's enormous debts to Kant or, for that matter, Kant's debts to Descartes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1164068516709481212006-11-20T19:21:00.000-05:002006-11-20T19:21:00.000-05:00Dear Michael,As an amateur interested very much in...Dear Michael,<BR/><BR/>As an amateur interested very much in this topic, I would like to make a few comments.<BR/><BR/>First, I have often heard that Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy are complementary. I have found this to be a concept that many Aristotelians are not inclined to. I find in the philosophy of Plato many elements that are simply not understood by those of a more Aristotelian bent. It seems that Aristotle's philosophy is so rigid that it can not admit differences that aren't of a true/false variety.<BR/><BR/>In an introduction to a student's version of the Proslogion, the author once suggested that Aquinas' difficulty with Anslem's proof of the existence of God was based on Aquinas not understanding some of Anselm's reasoning. To some Thomists, suggesting that Aquinas didn't understand something was simply laughable. I think it is quite coherent. I think that Aristotelian-type philosophies are often blind to a more mystical type of philosophy; hence the complementarity.<BR/><BR/>Second, I hope that Neo-Platonism isn't dead. I wonder if the language has changed and it has emerged under different guises. For example, phenomenologists seem to use a similar approach to philosophy, using psychological language instead of the "spirit"-based language of Plato.<BR/><BR/>Please forgive the small learning of the author. I am a mere amateur.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1164051771822446762006-11-20T14:42:00.000-05:002006-11-20T14:42:00.000-05:00David,Yes, that should be added. I suppose I was ...David,<BR/><BR/>Yes, that should be added. <BR/><BR/>I suppose I was thinking that the attempt to reduce Aristotle to Plato (as I call it) will involve considerable interpretative strain, if it can be achieved at all, so that only the promise of great fruitfulness could justify it. <BR/><BR/>But perhaps to adopt that sort of pragmatism is already to go off the rails. <BR/><BR/>MPMichael Pakalukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00233648836210188722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1164050524732674712006-11-20T14:22:00.000-05:002006-11-20T14:22:00.000-05:00Might it also be worth noting that whether or not ...Might it also be worth noting that whether or not the thesis is plausible depends upon what we deem as "significant agreement" between Plato and Aristotle?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com