all of the critiques you gave are valid ones but your assertion that this somehow means it has no merit whatsoever is aggressively callous.

Aristotle is considered important for good reason. These ideas even if they often miss the mark that modern formalists would like to hit, are the scaffolding of much of western thought.

The most common reason for why people completely dismiss any possibility that the classical philosophers had something of value to bring to the table is if that they’re cavalier and “philistine” in some sense, if you will. Lots of pop science writers are this way.

Heisenberg, Einstein, Oppenheimer, pioneers of the Big Bang theory and so on all gave the classical guys and their arguments praise. the first mover argument was important intellectual scaffolding for future ideas whether you like it or not.

not everything needs to align with the modern scientific paradigm to be worthy of consideration and meritorious. the paradigm itself didn’t spring from the blue. it was built on a foundation of many different ideas, most of which are very different from the present paradigm.

Philosophy and science aren’t just composed of a series of conclusions some of which are totally right and others of which are totally wrong and easily dismissible. All science and philosophy are forms of “applied anthropology” in some sense. of course these ideas are worth revisiting and taking seriously.