The Predicables and the Predicaments | Categories, (cc. 1-5) | Aristotle

- What is the book the Categories about?
- What are categories/predicaments?
- What are the five predicables?
- What are the ten categories and how does Aquinas derive them?
- What is a substance? a primary substance? a secondary substance?

[Renegen]

you're the best for explaining Aristotle; keep going.

[dwong]

Thank you! Absolutely underrated channel. Keep up the good work

[noahevans]

This was very helpful. Thanks for the explanation! Hope you make many more of these.

[benjaminlehmann]

This was so helpful. Brilliant. Thank you.

[danieldalmonte]

Thank you, Elliot, this is tremendously helpful for my study group!

[liptontee]

Thanks for your channel, I'm going to use it a lot and also share it to some friends. This is a huge help.

[jeffsmith]

27:17 this first category of a bad definition is the kind of definition Meno first provides Socrates in the dialogue Meno (On Virtue).

[Tuopbc]

very helpful. thank you for your good work!

[mateusbelinello]

Thank you very much! This is very helpful.

[MyRobertallen]

8. 'Jerry is musical', signifying skill possession. I say this, because it is the germ to an Aristotelian solution to Wittgenstein's Going-on Problem (in Philosophical Investigations). Humans are naturally receptive to language in the form of verbal fluency and all the in same way (as with chemical affinity): there simply is not more than one way to receive and, thus, go-on from grammatical instruction (defective 'receptors' put aside, as they should be, since they cannot, by their very nature, be used to undermine the belief in standards of linguistic correctness).

[jeffsmith]

First thank you for the exegesis on the 10 categories. I tend to agree with Kant. Although St Aquinas’ explanation is cogent, it seems to me arbitrary. I can predicate something of some something based on a category called ‘Identity’ which can be construed as neither just number or substance. Similarly, I can predicate contrariety of something that is in opposition to something but uniquely so (like a duality). And since this is neither just a quality or just a quantity, it can be construed as its own category. To try to state my position clearer, if a category exists outside of ten, then it is a separate category. And here ‘outside of’ can mean a category which either does not fall under the ten existing or that falls outside of the 10 by always requiring two or more combinations of the existing 10.

[jackdarby]

What are some good books on logical philosophy ( of Aristotle-Thomastic thought)?

[jeffsmith]

I have a question regarding St Thomas Aquinas’ commentary on Aristotle’s works. I’ve been reading a series under the publisher ‘St. Augustines Dumb Ox Book’. I have these publishers commentary for St Aquinas’ commentary on the Physics, the Metaphysics, Posterior Analytics, and De Anima. Is there a commentary for the Categories? Thank you in advance.

[MT-]

Please, Can you post the book we need to follow this course? Reference?

[apricus]

Can you reccommed any scholars who has written about this book? I'm searching for Aristotalian scholars that I can follow in general.

[MyRobertallen]

Sir, the analogy Aquinas draws between linguistic and ontological categories of predication is instructive, but does it really answer Kant’s question? Why wouldn’t a Kantian also deem the former 'arbitrary, ' simply a product of our way of verbally responding to noumena? Nay, isn’t such linguistic relativism something a phenomenalist himself would offer by way of a transcendental defense of the 10 Categories, in light of the putative impossibility of providing for them an objective, ontological basis? I should think that an Aristotelian would hold just the opposite view: language recapitulates ontology, not vice-versa. Why isn't the metaphysical onus upon the (heretic) Kant to show that there is something amiss with Aristotle's system? Deny Substance or any of the Accidents and see what sort of conceptual mess you end up with.

[MyRobertallen]

'SM = CK' arguably not an object level sentence. Perhaps best construed, a la Frege, as about names 'SM' & 'CK', to wit, that they are co-referential. What piece of information would an identity sentence utterer be intending to convey? That a thing is identical to itself? Who doesn't already know that? That someone actually has 2 names? That someone known by his interlocutor, by 1 of those names is known, by others, by the other? Obviously the latter hypothesis better explains such a speech act.

[MyRobertallen]

25:30. Better: Definition (e.g., of Man) is made up of subject = definiendum (e.g., Man) + predicate = definiens (e.g., Rational Animal). Copula signifies their essential unity.

[EquipteHarry]

Robinson Jessica Gonzalez Thomas Perez Sarah