/lit/ - Literature

>>16393571
just say "prove it" and when they say something in response say "prove that". repeat over and over again and eventually they will reach a point where they have some axiom that they cannot prove. ez.

>>16393592
So basically act like a more pedantic Socrates?

>>16393603
yes.

>>16393571
I hate to break it to you OP, but western philosophy has been undermining and rebuilding it's bedrock for thousands of years. Refuting Plato or Aristotle nowadays isn't going to send philosophers scrambling trying to salvage their teetering tower. At best you'd get a few raised eyebrows, but mostly people would ask why you're even bothering.

>>16393571
This thread is absolutely ludicrous.

>>16393637
This, nobody believes in Plato or Aristotle in the academy anymore.

>>16393571
If you wrecked the system of analytical philosophy then you would have something relevant, but analytical philosophy and post-modernism share the same basic concept of truth, namely that it doesn't exist. Therefore they cannot be refuted since they postulate nothing. What that means in short, is that philosophy is dead, at least as a means to acquire systemic truth, and even more dead than a Norwegian Blue Parrot at that.

I mean sure, we will always have Stoics and Christians and Daoists and Buddhists and Dervishes, but they are not systems of systemic truth, but rather of personal truth, at least in the context of academic philosophy. I'm sure political philosophy will also have a long half-life as well. But this appraisal means that philosophy is very dead indeed. The whole idea of reason as driving a process that can tell you things about the world as such is finished.

>>16393571
The past 2000 years of western philosophy has tried to do just that but all they end up doing is adding footnotes to Platon.

>>16393592
Pyrrhonian skepticism. Also Greek

>>16394033
>analytical philosophy and post-modernism share the same basic concept of truth, namely that it doesn't exist.
Idiot. Try actually reading something before attempting to talk authoritatively about it.

>>16393571
ARISTOTLE COULDN'T DO IT, CICERO COULDN'T DO IT, THE STOICS, CYNICS AND EGOISTS COULDN'T DO IT, AQUINAS COULDN'T DO IT, DESCARTES COULDN'T DO IT, HOBBES COULDN'T DO IT, LEIBNIZ COULDN'T DO IT, LOCKE COULDN'T DO IT, NEWTON COULDN'T DO IT, HUME COULDN'T DO IT, KANT COULDN'T DO IT(!!!), FICHTE COULDN'T DO IT, SCHELLING COULDN'T DO IT, GOETHE COULDN'T DO IT, HEGEL COULDN'T DO IT, SCHOPENHAUER COULDN'T DO IT, NIETZSCHE COULDN'T DO IT, BRENTANO COULDN'T DO IT, HEIDEGGER ONLY PRETENDED TO DO IT BUT EMBRACED PLATO COMPLETELY.

>>16393592
>"prove it"
>"it is self-evident...dickface"
What now?

>>16394403
it isn't?

>>16394403
Doesn’t exist
>>16393592
>>16394090
>>16394403
>>16394686
Look up the Münchausen trilemma
All knowledge is built on circular logic, axioms, or go on infinitely.

>>16394699
Based

They're the foundation because they asked the right questions, not because they provided definite answers, you dumb worm.

>>16394712
Well that much is obvious to all except idealists. All knowledge has a common starting point. That point is ignorance.

>>16394724
Not really, they never bothered to ask the right questions. Why do all idealist philosophies frown upon suicide? Cause all of their thought points to it being the ticket to bliss.

>>16393571
The self described 'high IQ board'

Left guy was bald. Clearly he was in the wrong.

>>16394243
What I said is fundamentally true. Analytical philosophy in its contemporary formulation doesn't ask questions of ultimate truth, only logical consistency. They literally appeal to the dictionary (a known fallacy), side-stepping the question of whether truth exists.

Post-Modernism is just more explicit in saying there are nothing but competing narratives, and trying to make a moral statement about "subjugated truth" which is ridiculous.

In short, neither school of thought really cares about epistemology in itself like Socrates did.

>>16393571
>Is it possible to refute the underlying bedrock of the western philosophical canon and if so, how would one go about doing it succinctly? By underlying bedrock I mean more or less the ancient Greek's works on the basic concepts of spirituality, ethics, morals, justice, metaphysics, etc.
Derrida already did that. That's kind of the whole schtick with this whole postmodernism thing

>>16393619
>>16393592

But isnt that the essence of western philosophy tho? that isnt refuting it as much as reinforcing it.

Bump

>>16396074
>Derrida
You mean Nietzsche

>>16393571
The fact of the matter is that they were literal geniuses in a much more brutal world than today
There is absolutely no way you can compare to them
You're stupider than them, weaker than them, less important than them, have seen less than them
You grew up in public schools eating shit and drinking tap water while watching anime which has rotted your brain into mush-meal hash

>>16397773
B-B-B-BASED