/lit/ - Literature

Example: a=a is a synthetic notion a priori
BUT the notion THAT the thing is same with itself is an analytical notion a priori!
>Kant uses the example of (a+b)>a as synthetic but the notion of the whole ebing larger than it's part is analytical pure
If you weren't aware of this; reread literally ALL of Kant's work from 1781 CoPR A to CoJ 1790

Why are all philosophical final "answers" so far removed from the seemingly obvious reality?
Always gotta go around some 50 corners to ascertain something at which point you are so far removed from whence you started. At which original point reflecting on the answer one has found it seems just too far removed.

>>13180386
ok, so remove the latin suffix and we have barbar & Celt. Settled?

Why would a Solipsist ever feel the need to engage with his NPC imaginations?
>inb4 for fun (that makes absolutely zero sense btw)

Real quick:
I have one retarded friend who keeps on saying Faust is all about learning to/about love, while I am adamant about the fact that Faust is about Faust realizing his limit as a man and limit torwards true knowledge and has now missed to live his life and by striking a deal with Mephisto he believes he can find true enlightenment through what Mephisto shows him especially through helping him experience true love and also to help Faust simply live life again but this time as a Chad.
>wanting to love vs limit in pursuit torwards true knowledge/enlightenment

>>12743246
If you see some whitehead threads in future there is at least one Parmenides fag (though he is poorly read imo) in there who you can have better discussions with than here, but I will tell you what I understand from reading secondary literature and talking to greek philology students and professors:
The most essential thing to understand when reading the poem is that "hopos estin" (that is) and "hopos ouk estin" (that not is) is used in possibly various ways.
Firstly you have to look at how it is used in conection with a subject: 1) the subject is so obvious or context related, 2) it is more of a general subject, or 3) the subject is not necessary, but "... is" is complete and coherent in itself. The last one is understandable by realizing that a subject is not necessary in ancient greek, i.e. "hyei - it rains" needs no subject.
Secondly and equally important is that it "...is" or "...is not" can either be an existential "is", a predicative, a mix up of the two (ambiguity), a veritative "is" (anything predicative can be said as existential), or finally a true fusion of the two. This is partly also attributed to the fact that the differentiation between the two (existential vs rpedicative) wasn't possible in ancient greek for him so that Parmenides wasn't able to differentiate between the existential or the predicative "is" causing this daoism tier text. This allows us to read the applicable "is" at each point and understand that the true "is" the goddess Dike revealse is different from the "is" of the stupid retarded humans, allowing us to say, think things that are not of the true existance but are solely to us as humans.
Add to this to that Parmenides has to use a langauge that is "able to describe non existance" while vehemently defending this impossibility. So similar to Wittgenstein's ladder we have to toss aside the work after realizing its inherent flaw or use the points made from the poem to discredit the aspects of it eventhough they are exactly what helped us come to the true realisation of true being.

Add my theory on top that the true is is the noumenon and the fleshly human is is the phenomena and you can more easily understand how the impossible "is" is simply wrong, allows change, wrong ideas of things, wrong things to be said, etc. due to our own fault while all this is solely building on the true "is" that is never changing, one, inseperable, homogenous, continuous, immovable and figuratively comparable to a sphere.

>this is how I have come to understnad and appreciate it, hope it helps. criticize it and keep the thread bumped if you care for a response
If you read this far, post a cute (fem)boy as payment like the discord trannies post :)

I have no idea about Whitehead because I am not convinced enough to buy into this new /lit/ meme jsut yet, but to the Parmenidesfag:
First off, I haven't read the platonic dialogue (yet), since there is no real point in reading that to learn what Parmenides teaches ,since it is jsut a strawman interpretation meant to help further solidify Platon's idea world conept, but I have read the original Poem, and a couple secondary literature, specific to Parmenides or at least where Parmenides was discussed in works that generally deal with the rpe Socratic 'Philosophy'.
It is essential to me, for when trying to understand the poem itself that one has to be aware of the multiple different uses of "estin" (is) with a subject in for example "that is" (hopôs estin) and "that not is" (hopôs ouk estin), such that - I'm having to translate from german - (1) "... is" can either be attributed to a context or an obvious Subject, (2) the subject is general or undefined, (3) the subject is not encessary, the "is" or "is not" is complete in itself. The last one (3) can be compared to "hyei - it rains" where no subject is encessary in ancient greek.
From this there are also the different usage of "estin" as a copula for predicates exists in comparison to the existential "estin" from which the different usages in the poem itself can be taken from, so that it is more than likely that Parmenides doesn't use the same "estin" each time, alrgely attributed to the ancient greek language where it simply is not (easily) differentiable. So there exist different interpretations, either the "existential", the "predicative", the "mix-up"(wrong understanding of which is), the "veritative" (predicative can always be seen as existential), the "fusion" (existential and predicative not clearly seperated) theses for the "is".
This should allow us to not have to choose between either the existential Being or a descriptive interpretation of Being, both are not consistent with respective parts of the poem, but rather allow us to choose the proper "is" where applicable. IMO this should give way to the noumena (noumenon) and phenomena understanding of Being.
One which the goddess Dike says is the true Being, the noumenon, and the other the human faulty pehomenal Being (the true path vs the wrong path). By this you can still accept the parts in the poem where we can only speak or think what truly IS while saying that the differentiation between the subjects are only fleshly differentiable but actually only part of the true Bing that is whole, one, homogenous, continuous, inseperable, never changing, immovable, and comparable (figuratively) to a ball (the phenomenoloigcal "is" being built on the true "is").
Doing this we allow the ideas of change, time, the aristotle accident - Akzidens (english is retarded), speaking, thinking, etc. while realizing they are not true being but rather the (aristotele's) Substance as the one true path of Being.

>>12214835
>he believes in the continual flow of time

>>12213416
>This is the way the world ends
>Not with a bang but a whimper.

>>12185806
>no he is a realist but in philosophical terms he is what's called a pessimist
To be frank, initial Rust is not as interesting as many make him out to be.
The influence the "time is a flat circle" noose tattoo guy, the (near) death expereince and the colorful explosion he saw in that abandoned fort, had on his short sighted personal view of life is far more interesting.