/lit/ - Literature

I find it hard to even relate to this shit because there so little Literature written by Reluctant Catholics like me.

Anybody else feel me?

stoicism has been majorly coopted into self-help slime for silicon valley dweebs desperate to hold onto what little manhood they think themselves to have. in and of itself, it's quite boring and the conclusion most get from it (only care about the changeable) is trite and childish. although, for the sincerely intellectually curious, it's never a bad thing for them to read ancient texts. as always, philosophy filtered through the masses becomes self-serving dogshit.

All of the following philosophers either had mathematical backgrounds, taught mathematics, wrote on mathematics, or were actual mathematicians who made significant mathematical contributions:

>Thales of Miletus (The first philosopher)
>Pythagoras
>Hippasus
>Zeno of Elea
>Anaxagoras
>Democritus
>Hippias of Elis
>Archytas
>Plato
>Xenocrates
>Aristotle
>Chrysippus
>Proclus
>Simplicius of Cilicia
>Hypatia
>Boethius
>Bede
>Al-Kindi
>Avicenna
>Khayyam
>Abelard
>Averroes
>Roger Bacon
>William of Ockham
>Oresme
>Nicholas of Cusa
>Bruno
>Hobbes
>Malebranche
>Gassendi
>Descartes
>Arnauld
>Pascal
>Newton
>Leibniz
>Wolff
>Berkeley
>Maupertuis
>Boscovich
>d'Alembert
>de Condorcet
>Reid
>Bayes
>Kant
>Bolzano
>Charles Babbage
>Whewell
>Carlyle
>Boole
>Marx
>Bergson
>Husserl
>Peirce
>Bernays
>Frege
>Mach
>Russell
>Whitehead
>Gödel
>Wittgenstein
>Brouwer
>Weyl
>Carnap
>Ramsey
>Quine
>Lakatos
>Tarski
>Putnam
>Kripke

>>20628857
All of the following philosophers either had mathematical backgrounds, taught mathematics, wrote on mathematics, or were actual mathematicians who made significant mathematical contributions:

>Thales of Miletus (The first philosopher)
>Pythagoras
>Hippasus
>Zeno of Elea
>Anaxagoras
>Democritus
>Hippias of Elis
>Archytas
>Plato
>Xenocrates
>Aristotle
>Chrysippus
>Proclus
>Simplicius of Cilicia
>Hypatia
>Boethius
>Bede
>Al-Kindi
>Avicenna
>Khayyam
>Abelard
>Averroes
>Roger Bacon
>William of Ockham
>Oresme
>Nicholas of Cusa
>Bruno
>Hobbes
>Malebranche
>Gassendi
>Descartes
>Arnauld
>Pascal
>Newton
>Leibniz
>Wolff
>Berkeley
>Maupertuis
>Boscovich
>d'Alembert
>de Condorcet
>Reid
>Bayes
>Kant
>Bolzano
>Charles Babbage
>Whewell
>Carlyle
>Boole
>Marx
>Bergson
>Husserl
>Peirce
>Bernays
>Frege
>Russell
>Whitehead
>Gödel
>Wittgenstein
>Brouwer
>Weyl
>Carnap
>Ramsey
>Quine
>Lakatos
>Tarski
>Putnam
>Kripke

>pseuds like Russell who don't understand either and are compensating for it both ways.
t. the philosophy dropout who never understood anything past highschool algebra

Reminder that philosophy is a middle eastern Semitic invention, not a Greek or an European one.

> The historian Herodotos of Halikarnassos (lived c. 484 – c.425 BCE) describes Thales of Miletos (lived c. 625 – c. 545 BCE), who is traditionally said to have been the first Greek philosopher, in his book The Histories 1.170.3, saying that he was “τὸ ἀνέκαθεν γένος … Φοίνικος,” which means “by descent, the nation of the Phoenician.”

Does hylozoism solve the problem of origins of life? If all things are full of gods and matter and life and indissolubly intertwined then all of the more advanced forms of life are compositions of this primary living matter. Are there any modern philosophers who propounded similar theories or philosophers who debunked hylozoism?

Everywhere

>>16048229
The nature of existence.

>>14132370
In our narrow subjective worldview, they are. At the level of the universe though? No. Everything is one at that level, like water: flowing, gushing forth, receding, crashing together, rippling, whirling together; no distinctions possible, no things discernible, as force throughout, as one body together, as seemingly infinite yet finite. The forms are not separate from this unity, and whatever is has nothing to do with the universe we live in, has no communication or exchange with it, ever.