Consolation of Philosophy - Book 2

[Thomas]

Nemo wrote: "As I see it, the Platonic Form is self-sufficient. It is useful, because it serves its own end. It is its own substance, and doesn't need instantiation to be real; The active intellect in Aristotle's theory isn't self-sufficient."

There's no reason why the active intellect can't be seen as self-sufficient -- it is eternal, and it lives independently of the passive intellect. Aristotle compares it to a light -- it shines out whether or not its light illuminates any object. It may be "useless" while there is no passive intellect on which to act, but that doesn't affect its self-sufficiency. It's the opposite of Tantalus, I think -- all the actuality, but no potential to share it with.

[Nemo]

Thomas wrote: "There's no reason why the active intellect can't be seen as self-sufficient ..."

The distinction is between activity and state. As a state, yes, the active intellect can be seen as self-sufficient. But, as an activity, it is not, because an activity in the Aristotelian sense always requires two parts, the actor and the thing being acted upon. The fact that Aristotle distinguishes the active and passive intellect suggests to me that he is treating it as an activity, not a state.

It's the opposite of Tantalus, I think -- all the actuality, but no potential to share it with.

Potentiality is prior to actuality. So I think it's the other way around.

P.S. This discussion has prompted me to read "On the Soul". Perhaps I'll make some sense after actually reading the book. :)

[Thomas]

Nemo wrote: "P.S. This discussion has prompted me to read "On the Soul". Perhaps I'll make some sense after actually reading the book. :)
."

That sounds like a good idea. Aristotle's examination is dense and sketchy (like much of his work this treatise is probably the product of a note-taking student) and has been a subject of debate for centuries. You might want to read his Physics first, if you haven't already, and possibly his Metaphysics. Active intellect reminds me a lot of the Prime Mover.

[Nemo]

Thomas wrote: "You might want to read his Physics first, if you haven't already, and possibly his Metaphysics. Active intellect reminds me a lot of the Prime Mover..."

Yes, I plan to read all of them this year, starting with his works on Logic. Hopefully, I'll find out what Heidegger and others saw in Aristotle.

About the Prime Mover, or Unmoved Mover. The way Aristotle names it is characteristic. It may also be named (or equated with) God, the Soul, First Cause etc. These all have different nuances in their meaning. The Prime Mover is the least subtle or suggestive to me. It sounds like the job title of the head of a moving company. It's defining a person not by who he is (substance), but by what he does for a living (function/activity), as though, apart from his job activity, he has no raison d'être.

(This should be my last post on Aristotle, until I do some further reading. I've reached my babbling quota.)

[Nemo]

Everyman wrote: "The best thing I can suggest is to read Elizabeth Loftus's Witness for the Defense. Doesn't have the latest few years of research, but very readable and interesting nonetheless. ..."

Thanks for the recommendation, Everyman. I've added it to my To Read list.

[Thomas]

Nemo wrote: "Thomas wrote: "You might want to read his Physics first, if you haven't already, and possibly his Metaphysics. Active intellect reminds me a lot of the Prime Mover..."

Yes, I plan to read all of t..."

Someone once said that reading Aristotle was like eating dry hay. It's unfortunate that we've lost so much of his original work and are stuck with his lecture notes. If you can read his works straight through, my hat's off to you.

[Gayle]

Thomas wrote: "Thomas wrote: "How could one compare a memory of a past event with the event itself in order to judge the distortion?

Nemo replied: Compare with other existing records and/or physical evidence of ..."

Thomas wrote: The problem for me is that if I don't trust my own memory, how am I going to trust a documentation of that memory, particularly if it conflicts with my personal experience? Who is to be the ultimate arbiter of the truth upon which my reality depends?

It would depend on the documentation presented--the signed testimony of several witnesses has more weight than that of one, and a photograph of an occasion can often clear of fuzzy memory. If my husband insists my daughter wore her hair up at her wedding, and I clearly remember her wearing it down, the wedding photos will attest to the truth of the occasion. It reminds me of the song from "Gigi"--"Yes, I remember it well."

[Thomas]

Gayle wrote: "It would depend on the documentation presented--the signed testimony of several witnesses has more weight than that of one, and a photograph of an occasion can often clear of fuzzy memory"

A fuzzy memory? At a wedding? Surely you're joking. :)

I admit, with a photograph and a notarized affidavit, I might just reconsider a memory impaired by the joyousness of such an occasion.