Apparently Joyce read Aristotle and Aquinas’s commentaries on him in 1903.
This impacted the notion of “soul” in Ulysses.
I was getting sick of the “jargon of authenticity” as I recurrently do and I wondered if any other geniuses of recent times had “interpretations” of Aristotle.
De anima. It’s the question of what animates life. That’s the Latin translation at least. The Greek original is Περὶ Ψυχῆς, which translates to “About Soul”, Ψυχῆς sounding like “Psychís” or psyche. This is the UR-psychology.
I don’t know how fundamental this is yet for Ulysses– we shall see
Stephen at first idly entertains the notion that due to changes in molecules he is no longer the same “I” who owes A.E. a pound, but then shifts to the more serious gear that generally accompanies reference to Aristotle in Joyce as he again reflects on De Anima: “But I, entelechy, form of forms, am I by memory because under everchanging forms.”
Entelechy is such a poisonous idea today. Not many people truly grasp why exactly they’ve been removing Aristotle from the curriculum. Entelechy is really the heart of thoughtcrime in some sense. A liberal would instantly vomit if they grasped the real meaning of it with their mind’s eye. Do you want me to help you do that? What do you think, I’m a glutton? That would amount to eating people’s souls if I did that. Do you think I have a taste for those?
Hmm didn’t know H said this
This is the key to understanding the highest term that Aristotle used for Being: entelecheia
This isn’t stuff you want to think about too much if you live in Zogland.
I need to get out of here, go to a river, stop it with the demolition, the screaming dissolution of our culture in a vat of acid.
I will just speak indirectly for now to those already in the know
What was done with the term “entelechy” by later philosophy (cf. Leibniz), not to mention biology, demonstrates the full extent of the decline from what is Greek.
Nietzsche himself was a decadent who botched entelechy, following modern “science”.
I feel like I’m teaching children about death for the first time or something like that. People go to heaven when they die, sure they do. Nature is chaos, sure it is.
Okay, let’s think of this idea of the truth of science being proven by technology. My fan is running right now for instance, the breeze feels nice. That is science. There are doctrines which are supposedly scientific, which many people believe, probably without realizing it in most cases, and… there is no breeze from that fan. Culture itself can be seen as a technology. Ours is a failed technology, because there isn’t real science behind it. Nature isn’t chaos, there is telos in nature, and humanity is nature. If you deny that then everything is going to be out of place.
There are 20 definitions of entelechy. You can think of it as life-cycle. Life is motion, life emerges into what it’s supposed to be. There is a limit into what it emerges into as. Everyone is a specific type of kernel that undergoes a specific type of self-unfolding.
You can also think of concealment and aletheia in this context. Everyone’s life-cycle unfolds and that is who they are. The point is that there is a SET trajectory.
I didn’t want to believe this either, and I’ve been disillusioned the last few years. This self-unfolding isn’t always a positive thing. One of my favorite examples is the shill. If you think of anima again- the psyche that animates life. There’s a set trajectory to a given psyche that unfolds from its kernel. There’s not a ~universal~ psyche like people want to believe. No, many psyches are closer to animal psyches than others. Or “worldly cretins” one might call them.
The entelechy of the communist is global lobotomy, or the de-psyche-ing of the planet. This is how their psyche unfolds, it can do no other. There is no “maturing” because they are a certain being in which that IS maturity. That’s what I mean by life-cycle. So to speak, the self-unfolding only unfolds to age 20, and they are “old and wise” at that age because that’s what their being is. Meanwhile, the psyche of others unfolds along a set trajectory to older ages. The communists don’t like these latter unfoldings. Unfortunately this dislike seems to be intrinsic to the unfolding of almost all jew psyches. They can’t tolerate unfoldings that are “older” than them.
And what types of unfolding psyches do I expect to be reading this? In all likelihood it’s mostly communist 20 year old entelechies that hate that any of this is being said. Denial and erasure will thus ensue.
Just tell yourself Aristotle is wrong and that age of the masses “science” is right I guess, that’s probably soothing. And inevitable, given set trajectories.