/lit/ - Literature

>>16681582
>Do you think philosophical knowledge is similar to mathematical knowledge in that it can only continue to grow, on the foundation of its past, and become more refined?
No.

>>16681601
Let's talk about it.

>>16681615
This adding and expansion as in maths are what I assume university Philosophy departments to do, no?

>>16682060
Philosophy is a conversation. It's not about muh progress and other bugman shit.

>>16682079
many philosophers would disagree

>>16682079
They don't more or less work off the same page onnce you agree and draw conclusions about things like God free will etc ?

>>16682060
A joke. When asked what the least expensive departments in his university were a dean responded "The mathematics department all they need is pencils, paper, and erasers. Though the philosophy department doesn't even need the erasers."

>>16681582
You can build on it but it's not taken away. In respects to math it's much like that than cf to physics where everything prior is necessarily dilapidated

>>16681582
Aliens will probably believe in the Pythagorean theorem. Platonic forms or Aristotelian causes not so much. I don't even believe in those

>>16682125
Not the conclusions necessarily but the metaphysics yes

the eternal question
>new thing good old thing bad
OR
>new thing bad old thing good

>>16682131
No weeb, that's not what we're talking about

>>16682130
Very few philosophers believe in Platonic or Aristotelian metaphysics.

>>16682139
Objective, universal truths: confuscianism
Material, particular truths: legalism

Same shit in hindu philosophy, middle east, mesoamerica. It's inherent to the universe

>>16682138
it is now, avatarless cuck
i would contend that good things are new and bad things are old

>>16682154
Stop reading Guenon before it rots your brains

>>16682139
whatever diverts from platonism is not philosophy. simple.

>>16682159
you have it backwards.

>>16682159
I didn't see some picture so I can assume how you talk so irrelevant and you were at least redeemable prior

>>16682162
What was incorrect about that? I can cite but I shouldn't need to

>>16682166
no i have it quite the right way
things become new when they are seen as good
things become old when they are seen as bad
its the most natural relation, what is defunct is decrepit
do you spend your days thinking about things that are irrelevant and bygone?
take the petersonpill

>>16682180
>things become new when they are seen as good
Prove it.
>things become old when they are seen as bad
Prove it.

>>16682186
categoricals of this sort have to be accepted on faith or intuited firsthand
most i can do is exhort you to investigate the matter for yourself and see if it makes intuitive sense to you

>>16681582
The problem with Western philosophy is that it's been stuck on the same problems for centuries. Western philosophy was more or less completed by Nietzsche. It could theoretically move forward but more people need to read Heidegger and pick up where he left off.

>>16682195
Is something old like the Iliad bad? Is something new like the latest Adam Sandler flick good? Or do you have your own definition of age ("a thing is old once it's bad", etc)?

>>16682216
what do you see as wrong with western philosophy
what did heidegger say that people are missing out on

>>16681582
Philosophy is high art, just like religion.

>>16682232
More to this than people want to admit. I doubt the chinese study the greeks at university

>>16682216
>Western philosophy was more or less completed by Nietzsche

absolute brainlet comment

>>16682219
the linear conception of time isnt fundamental to begin with, it's derivative. that's the point of asserting value judgement as superior to objective notions. the iliad is good if its relevant to me now, becomes new on the occasion that i see value in it
the iliad as an event in linear time is a consideration that might be useful, or might not be. every time i recall the iliad as being written by the ancient greeks i make the ancient writing of the iliad anew bc it's useful to me to do this

>>16682224
I can't help you unless you've read Being and Time. Heidegger was obsessed with the problem of being and noted that western philosophy had essentially skipped over the problem entirely.
He's the only western philosopher in recent centuries who attempted to completely move away from the same metaphysical problems the west had been sperging out over since the beginning.

>>16682247
That's what Heidegger thought. I guess he's a brainlet.

>>16682257
>I can't help you unless you've read Being and Time.
im getting around to it
just gotta get proficient enough at german first
i want the whole experience

>>16681601
this, only a Faustian would think such a thing

>>16682090

Fuck 'em. Philosophy was at its best when it was conveyed to the world in the form "so me and my nigga Socrates were stumbling home and some fuckboy sophist decided he wanted to have a fight"

Has philosophy been useful since it lead to science? Or since then has it become a form of entertainment for people who can't turn their brains off?

>>16681582
>in that it can only continue to grow, on the foundation of its past, and become more refined?
math is war
the men who practice math are warriors
it isn't refined
it's cruel
math is basically legalized crime
there is a huge anti-religious mind-control side to math that nobody talks about
philosophy is cheerleading and math is football
philosophy is drug dealing and math is ammo dealing
if there were a way to do math without having men kill each other...

>>16682729
Can tell you've never done a math degree. Bizarre weirdos are all there is.

>>16682722
i see natural science as far from replacing the role of a metaphysic in informing the natural world-image. its premises need to be reworked by intuitionists like einstein every so often which generally involves reinterpreting the phenomena, basically a philosophical process. a scientist can be a good scientist without knowing even an ounce of philosophy but won't have the potential to be groundbreaking until he adopts a philosophizing mode of thinking.

>>16682247
Agree
>>16682255
Sophistry.
>>16681582
Its more complicated than math, hence easier to forget, which is exactly whats happened. Theoretically its possible to refine, but in that refinement it becomes less and less intelligible to more and more people and more and more complex.