- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
If we talk specifically about Plato and Aristotle, then, first, we should keep in mind the nature of these philosophers. Plato's education included a significant creative element: not to mention music, which was a mandatory subject in the educational course of the Athenians, he also studied painting, and then devoted a lot of time to writing poetry, such as choral lyrics and tragedies. Aristotle, who came from a family of hereditary doctors, may have gravitated to more structured knowledge. Second, it is important to understand the nature of the writings of Plato and Aristotle at our disposal. If Plato's legacy has come down to us in its entirety, then the corpus of Aristotle has not come down to us in its entirety. Most of the works at our disposal belong to the category of acroamatic, that is, those that were intended for students. Naturally, works for the internal use of the philosophical school did not necessarily have to be designed in the form of an elegant work in its language. Among the works of Aristotle for the general public were, by the way, dialogues: they have not come down to us, but it is important to note that Cicero himself admired Aristotle's eloquence.
Everyone is pursuing a great goal…
For yourself, for your family, for all people and the earth. And all this depends on the obsession.�
Many factors can be taken into account: lack of ideas, considering that everything has already been written; people's misunderstanding of these same artistic texts (your idea is to convey to them the main idea of the artistic text, but in fact you analyze your own understanding of this text, and not the author's thoughts); dissatisfaction with artistic texts ( you are dissatisfied with what the author writes, for example, in.. but you can analyze this text by making up your vision and writing down the arguments for, it is better of course to write down the arguments against, and everyone likes it, as if you convey both your idea and the idea of the author of your work, which interests the reader of your treatise in the original source. As if helping both yourself and a friend.�
This is all absurd, but what is not absurd in this world?!