/lit/ - Literature

>>16218913
Oh look, it's yet another episode of vulgar materialist encounters metaphysics and thinks himself superior. Go back.

They never stopped, they just asinine say things like humans evolved from rocks that somehow became "alive" and became monkeys and bananas are our genetic cousins.

>>16218913
Why do you have an image of something you have not experienced directly?
This is why you should start with the greeks.

>>16218913
Skip the Gre[tards]eks and read Burgess' "Philosophical Logic", followed by Nagel/Newman's "Goedel's Proof". No stupid bullshit, relatively reasonable but still at the level of abstraction of philosophy. Then read Rudin's trilogy, Munkres topology, and Lang's Algebra.

>>16218934
>no stupid bullshit
>...

>>16218913
Also can't really skip "Categories For the Working Mathematician" (or Emily Rhiel's book). The most fantastical book worth reading might be Graham Priests "In Contradiction" (arguments for dialetheisms in semantics and set theory). Another good work of pure philosophy to start with is "Naming and Necessity" by Kripke.

The greatest philosophical work in history, once you think you're ready to trudge through it (hard only because of archaic notation) is probably "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems".

If you need more background check out Kleene's "Mathematical Logic".

>>16218953
Keep in mind that the Greeks are literal fucking retards who were wrong about everything except mathematics and to some extent about Aristotelian logic. If you must read the Greeks, stick to Aristotle's Organon, Euclid's elements, the works of Archimedes, and Appolonius' Conics. The rest of the Greeks were fucking dumbasses!

>>16218924
I see two ways the modern perspective differs.

One is that in principle we recognize everything is a theory instead of making absolute claims. (Even if some people don't appreciate this enough.)

The other is that we work 'top down'. We start with the observable universe and try to break it into smaller pieces. As opposed to an ancient philosopher saying "Fundamentally at the most basic possible level which I have no way of being familiar with, energy is tetrahedrons".

>>16218934
>>16218953
Not sure if you're joking but I'm in math so maybe I'll take you up on that. I'm not sure what topology has to do with philosophy, though.

>>16218913
damn bro maybe you should start w Socrates in plato

>>16218913

They used different everything but they were basically addressing recursion, relativity, etc. That's why it sounds baseless.

>>16218913
>the states of matter are fiction
Go back

>>16218913
philosohy is not science; what was(and is) more important is that those logical structures explored in philosphy are in themselves logical and don't refute themselves.

>>16218955
Does Aristotles' Poetics get a pass?
I'm getting pressured to read it

>>16218996
>>16219013
So what, they're not actually talking about truth but instead consistency and logic? Why wouldn't they just say that instead of claiming wrong things?

>>16218960

Everyone know it theory but faggot philosophers like to hedge everything and suck a dick in the middle of it to please and protect their own inherent bias and please their usually liberal politics.

>>16219030
For them logic is what gets them there and their version is the truth. Again, philosphy isn't science.

>>16218913
those are natural conclusions that everyone seems to find on their own but you need an iq over 130 to understand it

>>16218924
>all anorganic matter is rocks

>>16219049
unironically this

>>16218934
You do know math is also completely made and unfalsiable, right?

>>16218913
They have never stopped. "Philosopher" is a very ambiguous term. Just as that metaphisical speculation can be nowadays the debate about God.

At least greeks didn't have modern science. You can see in this board threads about if God this or God that. People that still lives giving credit to medieval ways of thought.
They had just their reason and experiments (I think, not quite sure) were rare. Still they worked their asses on arithmetics and maths.

It is true that metaphysical debate isn't inherently bad. There are a shitton of things that we can't measurize and, as exposed in Gödels incompleteness or Russell's paradox (correct me if I'm mistaken anons), there isn't any system that can rely only in itself (if it wants to say something).

But that was already treated in Agripa's tropes. That is ancient metaphysics.

Luckily nowadays we have very precise tools of measuring and our understanding relies on external evidence instead on, idk, Aquinus words.

>>16219030
There is no such thing as truth
What you call science is just another internally consistent logic system, it's not actually true as we come to find out more and more

Science is grounded in philosophy. It's grounded in metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology. When a scientist says "we know this object interacts with that object by universal laws" they are making claims about objecthood, being, knowing, etc.

Philosophy is not much more than a foundation of science though.

>>16218919
Based and exact articulation of Op's dilemma.

>>>>/his/

>>16219188
an internally consistent logical system with the parts that don't affect our experiences cut out, though. which is what's different about platonic solids

>>16218913
>At what point did philosophers stop making up complete bullshit they couldn't substantiate at all?
Literally never, philosophy is nothing but speculation pretending to be certain, the only honest standpoint is something like Pyrrho.

>>16218960
>not sure what topology has to do with philosophy
Read Tarski.

>>16218913
>Things like "Everything is actually made up of these shapes and the properties of matter are determined by the shapes it's made of.
That's actually the perspective of modern physics. Geometry determines everything.

>>16219233

>Philosophy is not much more than a foundation of science though.

You son of a bitch

>>16220058
>With the parts that don't affect our experience cut out though
Ah yes, numbers that have a lot to do with reality like 0
Oh wait
>Platonic solids
What the fuck is that

>>16218913
Yes, start with Peirce.

>>16219233
Read Peirce psued

You got a problem with pluralism, OP? You some kind of d*alist or something?

Unironically, would I enjoy reading Greek?

>>16218913
how does this compare to the molecular composition of minerals?

>>16219019
Nope! Sorry! Aristotle was mostly a dumbass!

>>16218913
>"Everything is actually made up of these shapes and the properties of matter are determined by the shapes it's made of. No we can't test this or use it to predict anything, why do you ask?"
>Shouldn't I be starting with the first guy to admit knowledge is uncertain and working forwards?
these were happening around the same time

>>16218913
>Shouldn't I be starting with the first guy to admit knowledge is uncertain and working forwards?
Good idea. You should start with Plato. Like the book your post is about where Timaeus says he is only trying to approximate truth to the best of his limited knowledge and whoever manages to refute him is to be thought of as a friend.

>>16220312
Some would. You wouldn't, though.

>>16218913
>>16220342

>>16218960
>The other is that we work 'top down'. We start with the observable universe and try to break it into smaller pieces.
Plato was doing that too if you think about it. For a Greek who knows Geometry, and knows that every shape can be divided into triangles, the idea that as you divide things more and more it's all triangles at the lowest level makes sense.

>>16219049
>>16218928
>>16218919
Okay then, smart idealists, explain to me no bullshit how is "earth" related to a cube?

>>16220860
Mathematics, like phenomen'ology', is necessary for investigating the formal elements (categories), which give a formal structure to bear the weight of metaphysical theories attempting to understand 'earth'(Generally). This formal structuring allows philosophy to be treated logically. Now of course a metaphysic needs to be validated by holding true as a General description of the natural sciences it attempts to explain. Aristotle was the first to get this last part, but only after Plato made a foothold(I don't know the history of philosophy well so forgive me if that's inaccurate) the problem with the greeks is philosophical logic, mathematics and the natural sciences were in their infancy.
This is why you should read Peirce before

>>16219033
>Everyone know it theory but faggot philosophers like to hedge everything and suck a dick in the middle of it to please and protect their own inherent bias and please their usually liberal politics.
This is truly informative discourse.

>>16218913
>At what point did philosophers stop making up complete bullshit
The history of the human race is the history of struggle against bullshit. Time and time again, there are some people who say shit like "Maybe you should think about that before you swallow it all whole." And if they aren't demonized, or burned, whatever they said aside from don't believe in things you have no cause to believe in, will be made the new dogma.
Because if you don't believe in anything, life as it is, is a horror.

>>16220987
They are formalized, self-enclosed systems, that have no connection to actual reality, because that is the only way we have to make sense of reality.
Just as you only know another human being through simulation, even if you are very, very smart, which the people who thought up these systems were, you will never know even another person as they really are.

>>16221146
This is why you should worship the question mark as a holy symbol. Answers are for the purpose of questions, not vice versa.

>>16218913
>Shouldn't I be starting with the first guy to admit knowledge is uncertain and working forwards?
Yeah, this guy was greek.

>>16218913
> D&D cubes
Cool.

>>16221174
I agree. Turning discovery into play, into wonder, is the only real way between dogmatism and nihilism

>>16219172
No it isn't

>>16218913
Socrates' whole gimmick was that noone actually knows anything. Read The Apology and go from there.

>>16218913
>Everything is actually made up of these shapes and the properties of matter are determined by the shapes it's made of.
oh look there's five kinds

>>16221228
And look how far we all got with two Millenia of christcuckery to guide us

>>16218913
>And why should I start with the greeks if even the greatest greeks were pulling this shit out of their ass?
The greatest Greeks were laughing at all these morons professing to know anything at all
And you don't even know that

>>16221166
The idea that "these are self enclosed systems" is itself an epistemic anacoluthon that arises from a mere verbal disagreement between the idea that knowledge is communicated from the inquirer to the knower-- who is one and the same, the "self". as Peirce pointed out, the self is a Spook. max striner did the same in his monograph "the ego and its own", which is in fact a satire. This is not an epistemic impasse but a rhetorical blunder that arises from the terminological schizophrenia brought in by the concept of selfhood and its discord with the Common sense of man who is most ignorant of what he most assured-- his glassy essence, the Reality of which lies in Common with everything else.

>>16220860
I bet you feel real foolish now, friend.

>>16221387
lmao

>>16218913
>At what point did philosophers stop making up complete bullshit they couldn't substantiate at all? Things like "Everything is actually made up of these shapes and the properties of matter are determined by the shapes it's made of. No we can't test this or use it to predict anything, why do you ask?"


It's funny because physics is still at this stage.

>>16220342
>>16221228
>>16221404
The difference is that modern people have some description of how their cubes interact and create phenomena that affect them. Just claiming earth is cubes tells you nothing about your personal experience. If you're working on a theory that explains the sensory world you inhabit throwing in the axiom "earth is cubes" does not interact with the parts of the theory that matter.

>>16218913
>Shouldn't I be starting with the first guy to admit knowledge is uncertain and working forwards?
Yes, exactly right. Start with Socrates and the Greeks

>>16220625
This.
>>16218913
The reason why Plato tied the platonic solids to the classical elements, is that education in ancient Greece meant math, geometry, astronomy, and language, for the most part.
Ancient philosophers saw the world as geometric and mathematical, which is possibly their greatest achievement, but they applied that thinking to other domains at the edges of their knowledge and made some errors.

>At what point did philosophers stop making up complete bullshit they couldn't substantiate at all? Things like "Everything is actually made up of these shapes and the properties of matter are determined by the shapes it's made of. No we can't test this or use it to predict anything, why do you ask?"
You got filtered hard by Timaeus. Plato does not give a shit about these shape being the correct ones, he goes as far as saying that whoever will refute them will be a "friend" and a contributor to his project.
The point was to abandon the essentialist view of elements that plagued ancient thought, for which, for example, fire elements were by themselves hot, ot water elements were by themselves wet. Plato says instead: these proprerties are not inherent to the elements, rather they're products of them, and they entirely depend on the geometrical shape of and the interaction between said elements. This view is now taken for granted by modern science.

>>16218913
>At what point did philosophers stop making up complete bullshit

>>16220860
>How is Earth related to a cube
stability.
>4tex = fire
Every stable plane has an an antagonistic vertex, it's energy, heat, throwing out.
>8tex = sky
I'm not so sure about this one.
>6tex = earth
Stability, structure, repeatability, etc.
>20tex = sea
Also not sure about this one. Something involving repeatable flow? Symmetry?
>12tex = stars
Well damn, this one's easy. 12 is the base number of this reality. Truth, divine providence, you name it.

>>16221438
>t. hasn't read plato

>>16221174
i c u satan, but u rite doe

>>16218913
There are 5 regular solids. If you are developing an atomic theory it is natural to look at them.

>>16218913

>>16218913
Start with the Pre-Socratics.

>>16218913
>Everything is actually made up of these shapes and the properties of matter are determined by the shapes it's made of. No we can't test this or use it to predict anything, why do you ask?"
they didnt have you seen modern bullshit theories. Its literally the same but with a new coat of paint, and they dont call it philosophy.

>>16225023
The golem wasn't the cause, he just turned it into pure autism.

>>16220860
>>16223154
Timaeus 55e+