You don't think Kant could have reasoned the categories purely a priori, even in a brain in a vat sort of scenario? Lol at this lack of acknowledgement.
Date: November 7th, 2026 5:43 PM Author: The Penis
Kant was a great Epistemologist, but will never approach Aristotle as a metaphysician because he lacks a theory of Form. Aristotle has a theory of Substantial Form that allows him to explain the unity of a substance depends on the relation between its matter as potentiality and its form as actuality
I'm more of a emanation and participation man myself, but you can go really far in metaphysics even if you go your whole life only thinking about the world through Aristotle, to be sure
Date: November 7th, 2026 7:52 PM Author: The Penis
I have my own ideas on this particular problem have been thinking about it my whole life, but I don’t feel like writing it all here right now because I’m typing on my phone. But I got into the problem through Plato, my early intellectual hero, and leaned more Platonist for a long time. But my position now is closer to a mix between structural realism, Aristotelian hymomorphism and functionalism w multiple realizability. Has some other aspects too, it’s really fucking gay.
this sort of personal patchwork organically developed over long years--with great thinkers inscribed in your mind for whenever they might prove useful or profound, or even just beautiful--is the credited approach to life, friend.
Date: November 7th, 2026 6:08 PM Author: The Penis
Exactly. Even contemporary debates in analytic metaphysics are still arguing on his terms, about his problems, using his vocabulary (although tbf Plato and Leibniz did a lot too). He is the GOAT and OG Thinker, and is making a comeback as we speak in metaphysics, theoretical biology, and even physics (more in interpretation than stuff with literal physical meaning).