Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius

I think some of Aristotle's work and Marcus Aurelius's work can be seen in the same light. Aurelius believed that we should live for humanity in making our decisions. That we shouldn't be worried about any superfluous things that wastes our time. When I was reading Aristotle's virtue ethics, it kind of reminded me of that. When he talks about rationality he is basically saying that we are to avoid excess and deficiency. This sounds like what Aurelius is saying when he talks about not getting involved in material things, or things that are in the moment and wont matter in retrospect. Aristotle speaks of things that aren't virtuous, things that we shouldn't do, for example, murder. Aurelius speaks of how we should act and how to make our decisions. He says that we should make them based on what you want for humanity and what kind of place and people you want to live your life with. If you do things that aren't virtuous, it will only make your short time here miserable and not peaceful. Aurelius was a stoic philosopher that believed you should set emotions aside because they only hinder situations, and Aristotle also believed that emotions should only be guided with rationality. I think that the last statement can be looked at two ways, one comparing to Aurelius and one contrasting...but I see it as comparative because he still thinks you should control your emotions and guide it through rationality. Interesting...

Physics

Reading physics this week...understanding that like it was said in class, that Aristotle is basing a lot of his framework on the concept of change and how change is made in every aspect. Change is really all that you perceive it to be in my opinion. Depending on what you understand is change, is what change actually is. Sometimes I feel like when one tries to ponder it a certain way is helpful in some ways because they are getting different angles of perception but in another way may hinder how you initially come to your own conclusions. To some people pondering things like this doesn't even matter, but for others, our existence and the meaning of it is a central point of investigation. There are so many people from the past and present who have given different views on this investigation and I cant help but to wonder what makes people like Aristotle considered to be one of the most interesting people to have attributed to it. It makes me wonder about society and our western way of thinking...and the reasons why we decide to follow someones views or not follow them. What kind of views do we not consider seriously that others do? What are the reasons for that? This is why I think it is important to ponder on our own the possibilities initially, before considering anyone else. Of course we are predisposed to things without even knowing which complicates it even more.

Categories Vs. Forms

So Im trying to differentiate the Forms from Plato and Categories from Aristotle from each other to get a better grasp. From what I can gather the difference is that the Forms explain that there is an essence of each form that makes it a form and what we know as interpretations of those forms. In Aristotle's view, what makes up a category is not the "essence" like in forms, but it is a collective force that makes the category what it is. Because of the several things that make up a category makes it a category. So in Aristotle's view its not essence that makes up a form or something, but the collective-ness of what is made of it that makes it something. I'm not sure if this is right but Im just typing out my thoughts as I think them =/.  Another difference that I am gathering, is that Plato thought the Forms made up everything that was smaller, or everything that resembled a form, and Aristotle figured that everything that was a Form or a Universal, or Category made up the big, or the whole. So it was kind of backwards and they both clearly opposed each other on the views of Absolutes.