Socrates vs. Aristotle
 

I like Socrates the most, but Sun Ra is also amazing.

I came close to saying Sun Ra.
But...
What about Plato?

i havent read much philosophy, been meaning too. just got some plato ill be diving into...

Socrates. He was a mad bugger who wandered around confusing the bejeesus out of people and he completely failed to ever say anything. Aristotle talks about bloody continence and the like. Yawn.

i kinda like Erasmus

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
who was very rarely stable

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as sloshed as Schlegel

There's nothin Nietzche couldn't teach ya 'bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates himself was permanently pissed

John Stuart Mill of his own free will
On a half a pint of shandy was particularly ill

Plato they say could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey everyday

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
Hobbes was fond of his dram

And Rene Descarte was a drunken fart
I drink therefore I am

Yes Socrates himself is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.

Haha. Excellent. I've been wanting for someone to write that down for yonks.

Jeff Foxworthy and Larry the Cable Guy.

socrates with twice as many votes as aristotle? come on, aristotle discovered the laws of logic. what did socrates do, piss off all of athens with his incessant questioning and get sentenced to die for corrupting the youth? some contribution THAT is.

Oh, that's surely bait for the recent philosophy graduate, isn't it?

Aristotle is a bastard of Plato's, the latter whom I find positively exhausting.

Yes, this is my opinion. I expect you all to subscribe to it like the dogmatic law that it is.

I subscribe to your product or service.

Ha. See if you can spot a terrible sexual inneundo in that.

I dont like either one. Their shit is obvious. They belonged to a time where it was great to learn and be educated. They thought to hard for stupid shit. They have some decent stuff, but by todays standards its bull.

They thought fire was an element for fucks sake.

Aristotle measured the circumference of the earth using shadows and proved the world is round. That makes him pretty awesome in my book. Then again, Socrates killed himself so that he wouldn't die to the hands of injustice.

Nonsense, nonsense nonsense nonsense. Utter, complete nonsense. You seem like a nice enough fella, so I won't insult you personally, but that is complete and total nonsense.

Don't try your double-talk with me, boy.

(I did you a favor and corrected your misspelling, to prevent any more of the ridicule that surely has befallen you due to this grievous error. You see what I do for you?)

Ill give them props. for what they did then. But I need some insight for today. Why read dr. suess in highschool?

What they did then still informs the majority of philosophy today. How is this even a question? How can you not see the relevence to your own life in this? How man, how?

Seriously though, I'll be back in the morning, and if you're not winding me up with these comments I'll write something sensible and adult as to why that opinion is misguided.

Truncated - thank you for correcting my spelling. Do you dress up as a schoolteacher as well?

Ah, sweet dreams...

Aright heres how I completely see it.

The two of them influenced a way of thinking and with their ideas. The were radicals of their time. They put philosophy on its track. But looking at them and their discoveries knowing what I know they just don't seem that great info wise.

Maybe because of things like gravity and chemisty I can't appreciate them as much.

But everything starts somewhere.

paul wall beats all these lame-os

Ok - so in cold hard fact-based discoveries, they are a bit lacking. The didn't discover silicon and thereby usurp the Gates monster that lived in the hills of Athens. That's one way of looking at it. Which is fair. More than fair. Yes.

Newton's gravity was an extension of the teleological argument. He said as much.

The Theory of Forms is an underlying principle of any discourse - everyone appeals to the Platonic notion of the theory of forms.

Our political systems are footnotes to Aristotle's Politics - that is, 'Politics' is a sophisticated version of the same principles which Aristotle set out.

Any dialectical relationship (including this one here) is founded on the principles of discourse as set out by Socrates (or by Plato in last days of Socrates).

The notion of a systematic ethics, which is precisely why people go wrong with ethics, in so far as they often fail to see that their ethics are emotional responses and not a priori rational systems, comes from Greek philosophy.

The term 'Platonic' comes from Plato - although it is not merely a synonym for agape.

It is worth bearing in mind that the notion of a systematic philosophy, the notion of philosophy as we know it, in its variegated forms, is entirely dependant upon Greek developments.

Sure, ok, I agree that in terms of properly scientific discovery they didn't discover a great deal. But in terms of the principles underlying EVERY SINGLE DISCOURSE, one cannot dismiss the Greeks (particularly Plato). The only figure in the history of philosophy who can match them for the unconscious effect they've had on the entire existence of our thinking is Descartes - metaphysically speaking, Cogito ergo sum (never said by Descartes) is something to which the majority of people appeal (whether knowingly or otherwise).

You Sophist.

aristotle, without a doubt.