is Aristotelian/peripatetic philosophy deterministic or indeterministic, what did Aristotle thought about these concepts?

I'm studying the differences between Classical and Hellenistic philosophy right now as part of this lecture serieson ancient ideas about the good life. So far, it’s been really cool to see how philosophy developed over time from Plato and Aristotle in the classical period to the Epicureans and Stoics in the Hellenistic era. The Epicureanism unit just started today here.

One thing I’ve noticed is that Classical philosophers like Plato and Aristotle seem super focused on teleology — like, everything has a purpose or end goal, including ethics. But it sounds like the Epicureans and Stoics were coming at things from a different angle, even though they still cared a lot about living well and ethical progress.

Here’s what I’m wondering: can we take the big ideas about the connection between the good life and the ethical life from Plato and Aristotle without buying into their teleology? Or do the Hellenistic philosophers after the classical period give us a better way to think about this stuff?

Title. Thanks!

Question in title. Thanks!

I just started my research on logic and rhetorics and I'm already starting to see the corelatiion but I don't know if I'm just pyschzo. So, my understanding is that there is inductive, abductive, and deductive reasoning. In abductive reasoning you create a specific argument using assumptions that will be true based off observation. This quite similar to enthymemes were you create a conclusion by an assumed proposition. Is rhetorics just assumed logic?

I want to recommend a new video series on philosophy as a way of life I'm watching on YouTube, covering different ideas about the good life starting with Socrates. The videos on Aristotle have been some of the best I've seen in explaining his idea of the good life and tying it together with some of his other ideas in metaphysics and politics. The comparisons with Socrates and Plato are also very helpful.

I recently watched a video from 1985 where Steve Jobs shared his vision for the future. He hoped that people wouldn’t just read Aristotle’s thoughts in books but could one day communicate with Aristotle through "something in a computer." With the advancements in AI over the past few years, I believe his dream has finally come true.

Here's a Concept Card I generated using AI. The fascinating part is that the prompt was designed to make the AI embody Aristotle himself, cutting through layers of complexity to reach the essence of his philosophy.

From what I have read, he did not expect people to never get angry for example, but there is a proper place and amount of time to be angry.

So Aristotle seems to think that we cannot get rid of passions, but we should channel them in a proper amount in the right situations.

For the Stoics, the stoic hero chooses between pathos and logos all the time in the service of logos. But with Aristotle, is the large souled man walk between pathos and logos. What is the right amount?

Can you help me about finding translation of aristotle's metapyshics into classical arabic made within mediaval Era,I have looking for its online print for long time but İ couldnt find it anywhere?

I have been reading these two side by side

Translator: D. P. Chase

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/8438/8438-h/8438-h.htm#chap01

seems longer than this, but also less clear:

https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html

Translated by W. D. Ross

Anyone with a good understanding have any insight into these translations? My goal is to have anything I can copypaste rather than a kindle thing I cannot. I can spend money too.

Hi, are there any biogaphic books/compendiums on Aristotle's life?

I'm a Philosophy MA and I am familiar with his thought, but I'd like to learn more about Aristotle's life for a (fiction) book I'm planning to write.

Does anyone know anything like that?

I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around what Aristotle means by the puzzle that Sophists use in regard to foolishness combined with incontinence, as a virtue. I don’t want to misinterpret what is trying to be conveyed.

Is the temperance considered the foundation for all other virtues?

if women are born 'deformed', how can this be convincing when he says that nature mostly achieves its goals (help i cant find the damn quote for my assignment :'), is it in the generation of animals??)

I am reading Rhetoric in order to base the social system for a game I am making off of it, where the aim of a social obstacle is to get the players to try to deduce the best means to persuaded someone. These obstacles will have traits that make them more likely to be persuaded by certain things, like 'logical' for someone who is persuaded by logos, 'passionate' for someone who is persuaded by pathos, but I don't know what the word would be for someone who is persuaded by ethos.

Thanks in advance

Aristotle seems to say in book IX of the Nicomachean Ethics that friends are necessary in bad times as well as good, and friends lighten our grief, which is good. But then he says that he shouldn’t want to pain our friends, and so we should be reluctant to share our grief with them.

Is this a contradiction, or is there a nuance I am not catching?

“…and sorrow is assuaged by the presence of sympathetic friends.

Therefore, someone may question whether friends actually assume the burden of grief as it were, or—this not being the case—the pain is diminished by their comforting presence and the consciousness of their sympathy. Whether sorrows are alleviated for these or some other reasons need not be discussed; at any rate what we have described seems to take place.

But the presence of sympathetic friends seem to have a mixed effect. The very sight of them is a comfort, especially when we are in distress, and a help in assuaging sorrow; for a friend, if he is sympathetic, is a consolation both by his countenance and his words, as he knows our feelings and what grieves and comforts us. On the other hand, it is painful to be aware that misfortunes cause the friend sorrow, since everyone avoids causing pain to his friends.

Hence persons of a manly bent naturally fear lest their friends be saddened on their account. And, unless a man is excessively insensitive to pain, he can hardly bear the sorrow that his sorrow causes his friends; nor is he willing to have others weep with him, for he is not given to lamenting. However, men of a womanish disposition are pleased to have fellow-mourners, and love as friends those who sympathize with them. But in all things we ought to imitate the man of noble character.”

I know an argument can be made for both, but do you think temperance or justice deals with one’s relationship to money more? I know that temperance deals with desires and appetites which can affect someone’s use of money, but is temperance more about one’s relationship with the things money can buy? I ask because I’ve seen discussions about the relationship between liberality and justice, and I know justice is about rendering others their due.

I was with a friend earlier. I decided to ask, using Aristotle as the basis, what kind of friends we are. The response was utility and the good. This has me thinking. What does that mean? Is that another way of saying pleasure? It also made me wonder what mixing and matching would look like. What is a friend of pleasure and utility? Is that of the good? Or a friend of pleasure and the good? Would that make a friend of utility? Just a fun thought experiment. Have a good day!

Is anyone interested in discussing the categories of Aristotle?

I have been studying Avicenna's Metaphysics, and it would be a lot easier if I had a clearer understanding of Aristotle and the Aristotelian Curriculum. It would be especially helpful to have a better understanding of his concepts of accidents forms and causes.

When it came to understanding Heidegger, the book that really opened him up to me was Lee Braver's Heidegger: Thinking of Being. I am looking for an equivalent book on Aristotle. Can anyone recommend one, a book that really clarified Aristotle's thinking for you?

Is anyone interested in discussing the politics of aristotle, maybe in a discord server?

Discord link: https://discord.gg/4Hk2pqGq

For my EPQ i am writing an essay on whether Aristotle's ideas of tragedy apply to modern media. Game of Thrones is one of my favourite shows and it happens to be a tragedy. I was wondering who, in Aristotle's ideas, would be the tragic hero, tragic villain and tragic victim(s). Aristotle said a Tragic hero can't be totally good or purely evil but instead is a character 'between the two extremes', in my eyes daenerys starts the series as a totally good character, so does this mean she is not the Tragic hero, but someone more like Tyrion would be? as Tyrion is consistently a morally grey character. And then the tragic villain, would it be cersei or the night king? in most tragedies the villain prevails, i've seen speculation from before s8 that bran is the night king and that would work well with this idea of the tragic villain, but i don't know. Similarly, i have no idea who the tragic victims would be, they are characters bought down by the hamartia of the hero, i initially thought ned stark to be a tragic victim but he is bought down by his own flaws. so in the tragdey of game of thrones, who is the tragic hero, the tragic villain and the victims? or does game of thrones not comply to these rules? and if you have any suggestions of other modern tragedies that conform the aristotle's ideas that would be very helpful!!