/lit/ - Literature

>>18680615
>"let's make..."
The implication being that linguistic evolution is somehow a planned and guided process?
>information transfer rate
Has very little to do with cases, there's also the average speed of speech, which is why French and Japanese, with less information per syllable than say English, is spoken more quickly and you end up with the same average

Is this just a cope post? I really don't see the point, I could point out how your language has lost it's cases and even genders, like a laughable cripple, but I won't because it doesn't serve anyone.

Take Greek for example, with it'a cases and abundant polysemy (sometimes with over 6 examples - you'd struggle to find 3 in English). This made it the perfect language of philosophy and literature. You won't find this freedom of expression and richness in syntax, semantics or phonology in the English language, no matter how beautiful. Here, with these linguistic categories, you are in the lap of abundance. Every language can convey beauty, always, but this freedom allows for more diverse formulations and widens artistic and philosophical expression. I'd happily trade 0.09 bits per second for that. But as I said, it evens out, those miliseconds would be negligible to anyone but stock brokers and bugmen.

What do historians and philosophers make of these? There isn’t a whole lot of content here beside the Union of opposites. His theory of fluid reality doesn’t make much sense either

>>16719468
And though Stoics conceive of the principles of physics differently from Aristotle, it is indeed the case that they do not recognize a science distinct from the science of nature. Stoic metaphysics is just Stoic physics; they do not recognize a science of being qua being or of the intelligible as opposed to natural world. Is Stoicism, then, merely edifying philosophy? I would say that the history of Stoicism divides between those who, like the early Stoics, examined the principles of nature and those who, like the Roman Stoics, aimed to be edifying. The former were in principle doing nothing different from the theoreticians of early natural science like Aristoxenus and Eratosthenes and the latter were doing nothing different from psychotherapy. These are not intended to be pejorative comparisons. I aim only to offer some confirmation for Rorty’s hypothesis that Platonism is philosophy and anti-Platonism is antiphilosophy. This ultrasharp division will have its most interesting results, I think, when, keeping it in mind, we consider various attempts by half-hearted Platonists to make strategic concessions to Naturalism and, mostly in our times, attempts by half-hearted Naturalists to make strategic concessions to Platonism.
Rorty’s division of philosophy into the systematic and the edifying is, accordingly, a useful one so long as we understand that only the former claims to have a distinct subject matter. Edifying philosophy as methodological or substantive criticism refers to something entirely different both from what Plato and Platonists had in mind and from what Naturalists who reject Platonism have in mind, too.

>To God all things are fair, good and just, but men suppose some things are unjust, some just
t. Heraclitus

I’ve read the republic, 9 dialogues by Plato, against nature, sun and steel, prolegomena to any future metaphysics, and some essays in addition to my school stuff. This quarantine has saved me five hours in the bus daily, made it easy to eat healthy and exercise, and given me the space to fix my sleep schedule. I’m so grateful.

>>15529437
>implying becoming isn’t the final redpill

>One should know that war is common and strife is justice and that everything arises and is lacking through strife and necessity.

Is this the edgiest philosopher imaginable?

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning

How fundemental is understanding Heraclitus in philosophy?

>>14409362

Clinias
Certainly.

Athenian
Such must necessarily be the account of the matter given by the man who says that the gods are always merciful to unjust men [906d] and those who act unjustly, provided that one gives them a share of one's unjust gains; it is just as if wolves were to give small bits of their prey to watch-dogs, and they being mollified by the gifts were to allow them to go ravening among the flocks. Is not this the account given by the man who asserts that the gods are open to bribes?

Clinias
It is.

Athenian
To which of the guardians aforementioned might a man liken the gods without incurring ridicule? Is it to pilots, [906e] who, when warped themselves by wine's “flow and flavor,”4 overturn both ships and sailors?

Clinias
By no means.

Athenian
And surely not to drivers ranged up for a race and seduced by a gift to lose it in favor of other teams?

Clinias
If that was the account you gave of them, it would indeed be a horrible comparison.

Athenian
Nor, surely, to generals or physicians or farmers or herdsmen; nor yet to dogs charmed by wolves?

Clinias
Hush! That is quite impossible.
Athenian
Are not all gods the greatest of all guardians, and over the greatest things?

Clinias
Yes, by far.

Athenian
Shall we say that those who watch over the fairest things, and who are themselves eminently good at keeping watch, are inferior to dogs and ordinary men, who would never betray justice for the sake of gifts impiously offered by unjust men? [907b]

Clinias
By no means; it is an intolerable thing to say, and whoever embraces such an opinion would most justly be adjudged the worst and most impious of all the impious men who practice impiety in all its forms.

Athenian
May we now say that we have fully proved our three propositions,—namely, that the gods exist, and that they are careful, and that they are wholly incapable of being seduced to transgress justice?

Clinias
Certainly we may; and in these statements you have our support.

Athenian
And truly they have been made in somewhat vehement terms, in our desire for victory [907c] over those wicked men; and our desire for victory was due to our fear lest haply, if they gained the mastery in argument, they should suppose they had gained the right to act as they chose—those men who wickedly hold all those false notions about the gods. On this account we have been zealous to speak with special honor; and if we have produced any good effect, however small, in the way of persuading the men to hate themselves and to feel some love for an opposite kind of character, then our prelude to the laws respecting impiety [907d] will not have been spoken amiss.

>>13924237
The philosopher who weeps. Why must we be like the bow & the lyre?

>>13898613
>>13898631
>>13898637
But there is another mode which he delivers in the Phaedrus. And this consists in everywhere
preserving theological fables, unmixed with physical narrations, and being careful in no
respect to confound or exchange theology, and the physical theory with each other.
For, as a divine essence is separate from the whole of nature, in like manner, it is perfectly
proper that discourses respecting the Gods should be pure from physical disquisitions. For a
mixture of this kind is, says he, laborious; and to make physical passions the end of
mythological conjecture, is the employment of no very good man; such for instance, as
considering through his [pretended] wisdom, Chimaera, Gorgon, and things of a similar kind,
as the same with physical figments.
Socrates, in the Phaedrus, reprobating this mode of mythologizing, represents its patron as
saying under the figure of a fable, that Orithya sporting with the wind Boreas, and being
thrown down the rocks, means nothing more, than that Orithya who was a mortal, was
ravished by Boreas through love.
For it appears to me, that fabulous narrations about the gods, should always have their
concealed meaning more venerable than the apparent. So that if certain persons introduce to
us physical hypotheses of Platonic fables, and such as are conversant with sublunary affairs,
we must say that they entirely wander from the intention of the philosopher, and that those
hypotheses alone, are interpreters of the truth contained in these fables, which have for their
scope, a divine, immaterial, and separate hypostasis, and which looking to this, make the
compositions and analyses of the fables, adapted to our inherent anticipations of divine
concerns.

>>13464420
>you can't deny that there are far better websites to be doing that on
True. But I'm also an oldfag on here, so this seems like the appropriate place for me to do this. And I'm also one of those stupid people, that believe in helping those that many might deem unsaveable (irl as well). I would argue that your priest has a point, though, but that an approach similar to mine is also needed.

>>13111042
ty so much also I'll be pciking up Fichte and maybe schelling after Kant, seeing what Schopenhauer said about Hegel it probably helps a ton

What are the best volumes for the pre-socratics?

>>13031899
forgot this based photo

>>12960767
>fictional books with wise characters will do.
Why have we not burned? Are we too evil for it, to be annihilated in unified holocaust? Must we each find out own, plural, idiosyncratic fate? Wipe the slate clean, god

>>12874480
>only presocratic niggas will understand

When you start losing the argument and need to blow the fuck out of your opponent quickly without a hitch:
>"SILENCE"
>"The logic you display is wrong incorrect and the way you are interpreting and misusing my information is precisely why we are stuck in this conondrum you simply, do not understand and cannot understand for our senses cannot be understood by the soul"
>"You are unenlightened and you must become one with the one you must follow the one or be lost forever. YOU ARE A SLEEPER YOU MUST AWAKE the eternal fire within you DEMANDS IT."
>"We are not on par I cannot make you understand for their is nothing to understand but the one to become one with the eternal primal fires of the heavens it cannot be explained, no its inconceivable;your fire is moist.
>"Begone sleeper"

I love him.

>tfw wasn't raised Christian so sincere faith is impossible

why is there not a board only dedicated to philosophy?

Give me your favourite non-fiction book

Is there a chart for proceeding with the postmodernists?

I couldn't even START believing in God if I wanted to. It's neither comfort nor misery. God is an abstract concept that belongs to someone else. The God that belongs to me is composed of distant superstitions, memories, and lies. A shallow puddle of a statistics class kind kind of faith. It just doesn't mean anything.