Talk:David Roochnik

Why David Roochnik is anti-Aristotelian

Aristotle made some mistakes about the body and the cosmos because he didn't have access to enough data. The meta-Alexandrian scientific method of measurement hadn't yet arrived. David Roochnik isn't wise enough to separate the mistakes that Aristotle made from the essence of his work. Aristotle didn't make mistakes because he wanted to create hedonistic myths and self-satisfying lies, but they occurred in the process of thinking with an older method. Aristotle was open to new functional ideas that worked. David Roochnik has a static approach to the Aristotelian word view, and treats Aristitle as a deceased - remember the Aristotelian potentiality - thus he is totally anti-Aristotelian. David Roochnik is loved by everyone because he approaches Aristotle poetically and eloquently. Conversely it is known that Aristotle wasn't the most eloquent rhetor of his time, neither poetic and picturesque; simply analytical for he invented a new method of REASON! David Roochnik raped the psyche of Aristotle for killing the master's potentiality and for making the father of reason look poetical and picturesque!!! David doesn't want to change the laid down Aristotelian system because he cannot grasp the Aristotelian senses of potentiality and actual logic (not a poeticopicturesque logic of non-evolving laid down anti-potentiality). This is a Socratoplatonic view of Aristotle, so distorted that even those who adore it, cannot actually realize it, because if you put in your perfect poetic box the Aristotelian potentiality you simply make it an actuality thus you destroy it. The method is the path from potentiality through actuality and vice versa, and if you lose your path trying to arrive faster at your goal, you'll be lost in the forest.

Constantine P. Cavafy said:
”As you set out for Ithaka
hope the voyage is a long one,
full of adventure, full of discovery."

The point isn't to make Aristotle look like Plato, but to interpret Aristotle while you become yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/Ithaca|Ithaca]] ([[User talk:Ithaca|talk]]) 06:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

anti-Aristotelian Roochnikology

David Roochnik in his "Retrieving Aristotle" claims that we live in a cold Universe so as anti-Aristotelians that we sould be, we should use aspects of Aristotelian thought, not to understand the world like Aristotle, but to soothe our fears. Aristotle wasn't afraid of the truth, and David Roochnik is distorting the core of the Aristotelian thought by manipulating side effects of ancient incomplete methods. David claims that if we were scientists allowed to use only archaic technology we would have come to the same conclusions with Aristotle, not to cover our fears like David, but due to simplification. Well science made many mistakes and evolved both its ideas and instruments through time, so the point is to evolve new ethics, and not to distort the core ideals of a great philosopher to calm down our angst. If we think like David (if he's able to think), we can assume that if someone was born into an ISIS family, he would have great chances to be a child molester. That might be true. What David doesn't grasp, is that great philosophers tried to humanize us, not via fear control, but via a neutral position allowing us to judge even ourselves (even if it isn't possible even if we claim so). We cannot build a better future by manipulating systemic errors that seem not extreme and conservationist. Conservationism is not an actual mechanism to save our culture, we have to evolve a mainstream mechanism for that purpose but that takes time. Some people want to force magically some solution that society isn't able to accept. Solutions evolve through pain, death and long periods of time. The new social mechanisms aren't archaic retrospections but something that fits to it's age, and comprehensive to the contemporary person. No system is perfect, and entropy rules. We simply have to do our best, and molesting Aristotle's mistakes for conservationist reasons or angst control, might sound great for very few retard academics, but savvy people are aware that this cannot work. We cannot degrade the human oomph to seek the truth because David hates he's old. Of course we should respect nature and cultures, but not via misinterpreting the mistakes of a great mind! Great thinkers make mistakes also. Retards aren't even able to produce their own mistakes so they mimic the mistakes of others, but so distorted (for inversed causation), that can never work!

Rocketfeller (talk • contribs) 12:13, 5 May 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410E:6A00:9DF8:8122:2472:BD02 (talk)

Roochnik supports the Aristotelian teleology and not neuroscientific data. People who don't understand the difference between "data" and "logical explanations" whould be dangerous if they weren't weak. Fame doesn't make them strong because they aren't functional, but of course they cannot savvy causation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.107.50.142 (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)