The Ancients don't know everything

> here's a thought, Aristotle said nothing can come from nothing, or everything must have come from something.

>> if that is so, then an entirely original creation must be an impossibility.

> right, and it does seem to make sense. however, when you really think about it, it implies an infinite regress --
that there is no true beginning for everything.

>> so?

> well, in a sense it implies that products of the human
mind cannot be pinpointed to a certain starting point, and
we just as might think the "Mona Lisa" as an eventual result
of "thought processes" of the early planktons.

>> that is taking what Aristotle said to somewhat extreme
levels! maybe, and perhaps being influenced by Plato, he must
have regarded the Muses as the prime movers, the fountain of
everything creative. in this way, the Forms does not need to
have a predecessor because they are the purest or the Ideal
of creations.

> that is a fragile concept. that's why I like Kant better.
I especially like how Kant differentiates between those who
only learns and imitates and those who actually produce
something of value. more importantly is the distinction
between the products that can be learned by others (such as
Newton's Laws of Motion) and products that can never be
reproduced by anyone other than the creator (such as works
of art).

>> Kant is just dense reading, I can never go on after just
several pages of him.

> so are all these philosophers!


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home