Mythran - I began by reading a 1955 imprimatur on history of philosophy by thonnard.  However, things became concerning when I reached aristotles logical order with a posteriori approach to matter and a priori approach to form.  This system seems to facilitate the opposite of what occurred in the garden of eden.  In the garden of eden, man names the animals, which I think we can regard as facilitating their Form(that which can change, and does not constitute what in essence it is).  Whereas God created the animals, which facilitates their Matter(that which does not change, and constitutes what in essence it is).  We cannot know the matter(as aristotle suggest we can by empirical evidence(awfully presumptive)), because, it is God who is their material author.  But, we can know the form(which I suspect aristotle suggests we cannot know as a result of abstract reasoning), because man who names and even tames them is the author of their form.

.
I don't really know what to say, PG.  Form and essence are more or less the same thing.  In either event, man is certainly not the author of the form of the animals, nor the author of their matter.  God, as First Cause, is author of both.  And matter can and does change.  Matter pertains to accidents.  And I don't know what's presumptuous about saying that we can know matter, at least far and wide.

This aristotle logic system also may be in line with modern gender confusion.  The matter which does not change is subject to the creature as opposed to the author of the creature.  This is evidenced by a man undergoing surgery to become a woman so on so forth.  And, the form, which can change, is now unchangeable, as evidenced by the born gαy always gαy and once gender confused always gender confused thinking. 

.
This strikes me as totally bizarre and I have no idea how you've come to think that this could be justified by anything Aristotle set forth.  "Gender fluidity" is a radically anti-Aristotelian notion.  Maybe you should read Adler.

You have to wonder why some Catholics here have made a sacred cow out of a pagan.

I think it has been embraced because it is a seeming vehicle for papal suzerain imperialism.  Alexander the great nearly ruled the world.  Aristotle is a channel to that world.  In other words, false wisdom.  

.
The thinking and life work of Aristotle is at odds with the modern mind mostly because he thought deeply whereas moderns are generally superficial in their thinking. The vast majority of people alive today are superficial people.
.
Aristotle securely holds the place of the most profound thinker in the history of the world, which is no small achievement. He not only laid the foundation for sound thinking, he defined what it means to think. His modern enemies like Friedrich Nietzsche would reduced to attacking him and his system by saying that thinking has no meaning!
.
Aristotle's categories apply to our world today just as well as they did in his time, and over the intervening millennia no one has come up with any improvement, which says a lot. It has become a tradition that has stood the test of time. Even things that are commonplace today that were unheard of in his day can find their respective places in his system of categories.
.
Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction spans the ages like a great umbrella covering everything that is. In his day, when thinking people were not burdened with Modernism like the vast majority of people today are, they recognized that for anyone to think that something can be and at the same time not be constitutes the END of logical reasoning. In the ancient world, the principle of non-contradiction as Aristotle formulated it was UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED as the starting point of all sound thinking, and the denial of it was the END of same! Applied to current computer programming, for example, the corollary principle is GIGO ("GUY-go" -- Garbage In, Garbage Out).
.
In our time, the tragedy of Vatican II was an agenda pushed by Modernists like Joseph Ratzinger and his co-conspirators, whose principal obstacle to acceptance was the fact that what they were advocating (Vat.II, Newchurch, Newsacraments, Ecuмenism, Freedom of Religion, Rehab Judaism, etc.) was a contradiction of everything the Church had taught before it. He even admitted as much with his statement that "Vat.II is "the French Revolution in the Church." So after practically a lifetime of fighting against this abiding obstacle, once he became pope (as it were), he took the opportunity afforded him by his prominent stature of authority to emerge with his very controversial "hermeneutic of continuity" which boils down to a denial of Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction.
.
What would the philosophers of the ancient world have had to say about that? Why, they would rightly proclaim, cuм una voce, That is the end of sound thinking and logical reasoning. Nothing of intellectual value can proceed henceforth; and their modern compatriots would say, "GIGO."
.
So Aristotle is significant today, in a big way, but since most people (like PG for example) are superficial, they won't be able to put A and B together, and they won't want to bother to take the time necessary to think deeply about these things. They'll leap to a conclusion, make false conclusions without sound basis, render sweeping statements, shooting from the hip, with a knee-jerk reaction to hot button issues, that is, narrow-mindedness is all that comes to mind to the narrow-minded. Smedley Butler's only interest in the subject is that Aristotle was not a flat-earther, and flat-earthism is all that matters to Smedley Butler, which is obviously a very superficial basis for any contribution to any discussion.

You have to wonder why some Catholics here have made a sacred cow out of a pagan.

Aristotle was a brilliant man and St. Thomas used his work as the basis for theology used by the Church for hundreds of years.  That deserves some respect.

The law of non-contradiction is not exactly genius, it's more like Captain Obvious.

.
It isn't simply pointing out the law of non-contradiction, it is firmly establishing it as a first principle.  "Knowing it" to be true, and knowing it to have a metaphysical priority are two very different things.  The Cartesian revolution set aside the principle of non-contradiction in favor of the cogito, and see where that got us.
.

The Greeks beliefs in math as esoteric religion is pure poison. Their attempts at prediction of one's life (divination) through the stars is pure poison and a grave sin against the First Commandment.

.
And yet the three wisemen found Our Lord exactly that way.  God does not create superfluous things.  Ever heard of an Almanac?  "Reading stars" is a question of degree.  But that is all beside the point, which is that this quote of yours is just a broad-brush smear.  No one who's used Aristotle's metaphysics has, as a result, been caught up in divination.
.

Their error of ball earth is just one of many.

.
It is childish to reject Aristotelian metaphysics because of a non-concomitance with one's pet theories.
.

Early Christians killed Greek teachers for their corruption for a reason.

.
We're talking about Aristotle, whose metaphysics were embraced by Christendom.  If you think that the Catholic Church erred in the middle ages by adopting his distinctions and using them in her solemn teaching, then you are in the wrong Church.  

.
It isn't simply pointing out the law of non-contradiction, it is firmly establishing it as a first principle.  "Knowing it" to be true, and knowing it to have a metaphysical priority are two very different things.  The Cartesian revolution set aside the principle of non-contradiction in favor of the cogito, and see where that got us.
.
.
And yet the three wisemen found Our Lord exactly that way.  God does not create superfluous things.  Ever heard of an Almanac?  "Reading stars" is a question of degree.  But that is all beside the point, which is that this quote of yours is just a broad-brush smear.  No one who's used Aristotle's metaphysics has, as a result, been caught up in divination.
.
.
It is childish to reject Aristotelian metaphysics because of a non-concomitance with one's pet theories.
.


.
We're talking about Aristotle, whose metaphysics were embraced by Christendom.  If you think that the Catholic Church erred in the middle ages by adopting his distinctions and using them in her solemn teaching, then you are in the wrong Church.  

Great points, Mithrandylan! 

Reading stars is not a question of degree.
We are not speaking of navigation.
We are speaking of divination and witchcraft.

.
No, we're talking about Aristotle.  You seem to keep forgetting that. 

Aristotle thought lizards crawled up donkey's noses and stopped them from eating.

Academia is now the downfall of society.

If it is good enough for St. Thomas Aquinas, who was smarter than you or i, why do you have it out for Aristotle?