Tags

, , ,

This blog’s primary purpose is not to prove that an Aristotelian view of nature is correct.  As I have said before, I am not a trained philosopher and am not adept at philosophical arguments.  If you want that, there are other blogs you can go to.  However, because I do think that a teleological, Aristotelian view of nature is powerful and (in my opinion) unavoidable in experimental psychology, I will probably spend a lot of time talking about it on this blog.  As such, I think it would be best for me to at least go over some of the basics of Aristotle’s system, which I can refer back to if I need to.  Because hylemorphic dualism is derived from a complete metaphysical system, it has a unique vocabulary in which common words – like “soul” – are used in a slightly different, but more precise, way, as part of a large system of interlocking pieces.  Lots of arguments in philosophy happen because the parties involved are using slightly different definitions of terms.

This will probably help me more than it helps anyone reading, because it’s hard to consolidate a belief system without writing it down, and this will help me understand my own concerns more.  So, though other writers might be better at philosophical arguments than me, I will try my best to give it a shot, and give everyone links to my sources (which will undoubtedly explain them better than me).

Expect the following series of posts to be about the basics of Aristotelian metaphysics, the basics of modern materialism, why I think the Aristotelian picture is more complete than the materialistic one, and why it matters for experimental psychology.  As you can tell, this might be a long series.

Advertisements