Sorry
Reading Aristotle on science is a different affair than reading Aristotle on ethics or politics or epistemology or metaphysics. In one sense, it's less productive. Aristotelian theory in the sciences is either inaccurate or rudimentary from the modern perspective. However, it's for that very reason that I find it interesting. The question here, whether or not plants are alive, is one all of us have known the answer to since we were in elementary school. However, once great minds struggled sincerely with this question and, in Aristotle's discussion, we can see the issue carefully pondered, evidence collected and weighed, concepts about the nature of life struggled with. I think it really illustrates the way knowledge builds on itself. Today's genius is tomorrow's starting point.
More personally, I'd like to apologize for my long hiatus. When I last wrote, I was rather depressed and I didn't want to use this as an excuse to wallow in self-pity. After that, I was pretty consistently busy. However, I do plan to write more. I want to straighten my thoughts out and this seems as good a place to do it as any. I've been questioning a lot. I've gotten rusty discussing and debating first principles. I think I've taken them for granted for too long. I prefer playing around with ideas to arguing from conviction. It is, in some ways, what philosophers are trained to do. However, I think I have taken to an extreme. I need to argue more, not simply consider arguments I disagree with. I need to have both the confidence and the arguments to say why I disagree. Therefore, I will largely get my thoughts in order here. I will also share a bit about my personal life and what I am working on.
blah
drained
cranky
sore