/lit/ - Literature

>>20934658
Wonderful. So, from what I understand, Plato deals with the One, the Good, etc., but he also grappled with the Many to preserve the possibility of multiplicity against the attacks of the Eleatics. The One, the Good, etc., is understood through the form of number. This problem of "the Many" evolved into the Indeterminate Dyad, which he tried to understand through number. Some of his successors may have even taken the belief further than Plato by trying to use the form of the number to "generate" all numbers, but this may not have been Plato's conception. Aristotle also rejected this as superstition. There are also people who you've described in the archives as erroneously worshiping the "Indeterminate Dyad", but I don't know what that means or why it's wrong.

I also am getting the strong impression that Plato positions himself halfway between the Pythagoreans and the Heracliteans. Most people try to portray Plato as a rigid essentialist, where even "chair-ness" is an idea that exists. This portrayal makes Plato seem like a philosopher who hates Becoming and wants to "lock in" the world into a Great Chain of Being. But this is completely wrong. If you look into Plato's philosophy, he's clearly straddling both schools of thought. Plato should best be understood at the "middle" philosopher. Plato understands the infinite flux, that everything changes, as he was a diehard Heraclitean philosopher in his youth. People miss this completely. But after his encounter with the Eleatics, Plato understood the need to mix the two: everything changes, but the senses are illusory to a great extent too. How does one understand what makes anything intelligible at all? By combining the Heraclitean logos with the Parmenidean Being! Through this marriage, one finally understands what makes anything intelligible at all: gnosis.

Plato calls this special knowledge the "the Fifth" in his Seventh Letter, etc. and "the Form of the Good" in the Republic, comparing it to "seeing" (seeing is believing, I assume). It is the result of an elaborate counting and sorting process, the process of dialectic. One learns new things, participates in new experiences, then relates everything to everything in the hopes of catching a "glimpse" of the ultimate discursive knowledge. Even the vocabulary Plato chooses to describe the classic "participation in the Forms", methexis (μέθεξις) reflects this Eleatic-Heraclitean mixture. Derived from metaxy, (μετεχω), Plato emphasizes the "middle ground" between earth and the heavens that describes the human condition. Breaking down metaxy into its roots, μέθ (met-, meta-) + ἔχω (exo), we get "succession" of "Being": just look at that Becoming-Being unity!

However, if the FotG is "vision" of "the light", then it appears that Heraclitus slightly edges out over Parmenides. It is a curious analogy to use, as sight is normally reserved for Becoming! What is transcendent seems irrational, too. Strange!

(1/?)

>>20616862
Is that Michel Foucault? That nigga has been on my mind. No cap, I been thinking about that time when I barebacked him raw in a Paris VIII WC. That shit had to be the tightest, Frenchest, wettest boy pussy I've ever laid pipe into. I swear to God, the most heavenly high is gargling that wonderboy's nuts while going fist deep into his shitter. I had Foucault screaming in the sheets with head too ridiculous to ignore. That nigga frotted my cock until he busted on my mouth, I had to return the favor. That nigga Foucault and I been fucking non-stop ever since, but keep that shit on the DL. He does that shit for free. If you're gonna ask me how to "long" Foucault, I'll be deadass. All you gotta do is ask, be straight up, and get physical real quick. Touch his nuts, get on ya knees, talk your shit. He doesn't play around with no pansy-ass niggas either. He likes his men manly, and his dick thick. Dark skin, 6'5 is the minimum and I ain't talking about height boy.

That nigga Michel Foucault stole my heart and drank my seed.

Do you think Foucault is more relevant than ever today? With stuff like numerous genders and transgenderism? Based on his debate with Chomsky though, I see that Foucault define episteme as a result of empirical findings that force us to revise our body of knowledge (similar to Kuhn's scientific revolutions). Is it possible for episteme to be defined entirely by socio-politico-cultural factors? Did I have a narrow definition of empirical discovery? Should somebody who claims as being born in the wrong body treated as an empirical finding? By the way, the way we do empirical research cannot be separated from 'who we are', the product of our socio-historical process. There's always economy and politics that dictate where research should go and how it should be conducted. Ergo, knowledge is epoch dependent. I am abolutely baffled. There's no such thing as 'objective' science.

No. Read Discipline and Punish.

The most /fa/ philosopher

Why do people claim Foucault was a Marxist?
He was much closer to anarchism than anything else.
Also, why do "right wing" people hate him when his thought is clearly much more beneficial to libertarianism than it is to the left