Well in 1800 Kant had said this -
quote:
Finally, as regards the history of Logic, we will only mention the following:-
Logic, as we have it, is derived from Aristotle's Analytic. This philosopher may be regarded as the father of Logic. He treated it as an Organon, and divided it into Analyticand Dialectic. His treatment is very scholastic, and is directed to the development of the most general and fundamental notions of logic. Of this, however, we can make no use, since almost everything ends in mere subtilties, except that the names of several actions of the understanding are taken from it.
Since Aristotle's time Logic has not gained much in extent, and indeed its nature forbids that it should. But it may gain in respect of accuracy,definiteness,anddistinctness. There are but few sciences that can come into a permanent state, which admits of no further alteration. To these belong Logic and Metaphysics. Since Aristotle has omitted no essential point of the understanding; we have only become more accurate, methodical, and orderly.
It was believed indeed that Lambert's Organon would much enlarge Logic. But it contains nothing additional except more subtitle divisions, which, like all correct subtilties, no doubt sharpen the understanding, but are of no essential use,
Amongst more recent philosphers there are two who have brought general Logic into vogue, Leibnitz and Wolff
(Introduction to Logic Philosophical Library New York page10-11)
I am here to report that despite Russells’ methodical order and accuracy since “the vogue time” we still actually only have more subtilties and no essential use of Aristotle anyway. Aristotle made the distinction of distributive justice and yet our legal system can not recognize this. I even petitioned the District Court of the US. They did not want to answer.
I did say in the beginning of this thread that I really have little need to explore the physcisits notions which do not attempt to relate life on all levels but this does not stop me from trying for a more accurate description, a better method and a more orderly tracing of life. This I do not think is in our minds. Maybe Aristotle should be, but for various reasons, still, he is not, in mine. Perhaps because, scientifically, I am focused on heritable changes, Aristotle's general view is less helpful from "my" things being ordered.
Because we have subtilties rather than better than Russell order since Wolff and Leibniz I can not really even get the EVC discussion back to Newton's absolute space as I address it on
http://www.axiompanbiog.com
This does not stop me from hoping we will, just I dont find this subsumtion of Aristotle just as I dont see but a limited use (so far)(I am working on it)of the notion of time as fgarb and salamander write in this thread.