/lit/ - Literature

Philosophy actually peaked with me.
I'm at the end of humanity.

>>17373350
Philosopher king?

>>17373363
Here's the trick, there are two possibilities : either there is a God or not.
If there is no God, then the universe's death is inevitable and the advancement of science is futile. (Of, course it can still be used for its practicality in the mean time)
If there is a God, then what is His Master Plan?
That is what I set my sights on, and I have believe I have uncovered.

>>17373346
Cozy.

>>17373346
this isnt plato tho

>>17373405
does it involve sneed's seed and feed?

This is the history of philosophy:

First you had a bunch of Greeks thinking deep and shit, positing their various pet theories each with flaws
Then you had the based boy Plato who offered a comprehensive account but this account was still a little bit shoddy
Then you had based boy Aristotle who continued Plato's account but fleshed it out
Then you had a bunch of Greeks and Romans just taking up minor points and expanding on them or commenting on earlier stuff and sometims getting into mystical shit
Then you had a bunch of Muslim and Jewish commentators and then the based boy Augustine synthesized some of that old stuff with the truth of Christianity which fit the two things perfectly but Augustine was more of a rhetoric kind of guy than pure philosopher
So then you had a few based boys trying to work out a more systematic synthesis like based boys Anselm, Eriugena, Abelard and Albertus Magnus but each of these boys had some mistakes still
So then our guy Thomas Aquinas (PBUH) finally completes the synthesis without errors and finishes philosophy
This is followed by mostly semi-erroneous attempts to diverge such as of not so based boys Duns Scotus and William of Ockham who make some errors that will prove to be very great (especially the razor boy)
Then tha humanists and renaissance start focusing on existential subjectivity of tha man rather than pure philosophy and that will cause even more errors
Then tha first big major error arrives with Descartes and ever since then the western philosophy niggaz have done nothing but deconstruct western civilization with metaphysical and epistemological errors while failing to refute the last real philosopher Aquinas (PBUH)

>>17374376
So tha based boy Descartes is like what I can I know? Very doubt. Very dualist. Soul and body. But nobody held to this stupid cartesian dualism before and this cause stupid problem such as mind-body problem because the based frog's metaphysics is all wrong
And den Berkeley and Hume are like wow what if only my mind is real? wow very skepticist, very unable to know or to abstract from nature
and den based boy Kant accepts this but he says tha the doesn't but he really do accept it and he is like what can we really say if metaphysics is like science but he implicitly already accepts skepticism but he says he doesnt
and then hegel is like woah what if appearance is that thing in itself and wow negativity and things change all the time woah
and then schopenhauer and nietzsche are like ya but what if the will is tha main thing and everything is just will and we just make up metaphysics as a derivation of will woah
and den karl marx is like but wat if its just material conditions which cause everything else eh boy? woah capital
and den wittgenstein be like nonono its just you faggots are using language wrong you are talking crazy shit motherfuckers it means nothing
and den heidegger is like woaaah bro ontotheology is false, everybody got being wrong before me, only i know what it is about, being-in-the-world woah bro
and den a bunch a jews and french people just say to themselves you know what fak it lets just deconstruct every single thing that the western civilization is about thatd be a real good idea
and den dem analytics be like no dese french fags are crazy witchdoctrs lets spend da next few decades discussing whether H2O is water
and den these niggas come up with all these problems of qualia and mind-body problem and morality all that kind of shit
and den they have no things to deconstruct further so they are like woah what if reality is ontologically incomplete woah pure nothing bro woah
and den you realize these niggas skipped Aquinas (PBUH) and are repeating mistakes from razor boy, humanism descartes and old greek positions already refuted by plato and aristotle and these niggas arent even aware of it

>>17373346
Comfy.

>>17373405
based schizo posting

>>17374376
>>17374474

As a person who recently started reading Copleston's History of Philosophy I am on a verge of brain aneurysm from reading this heap of nonsense. Please, get off the internet and stop making a fool of yourself, anon.

>>17374524
How cute, someone recently started reading a summary of philosophical history and thinks he is an expert on it.

I literally cannot fucking read nicomachean ethics at any pace. The words get all jumbled and I have re read everything very slowly. Moby Dick was easy compared to this

>>17374645
How? I found it a very easy read desu, he's just very dry and boring. I still haven't read Metaphysics which is supposedly unreadable.

>>17374654
Idk I must be retarded or something

>>17374547
Well I have master's in philosophy so I guess I know a thing or two.

>>17374702
Doesn't seem like it.

>>17373405
There is a god, God is in your heart. You have to dig into it to find God. Get a knife. Open the hole. Dig in. Look into the hole. Deeper, dig deeper you have to find God dig deeper into the hole find God you have to find God keep digging

>>17373346
>philosophy peaked
No big deal

>>17374376
>>17374474
proof Feser posts on /lit/

>>17376954
He is right though

>>17377022
Yes.

>>17374376
>>17374474
Hume and Kant debunked all of that dogmatic shit in a few hundred pages. Yawwn.

>>17373346
You mean declined.

>>17378013
normally a decline follows after a peak anon

>>17374376
>>17374474
>den
>tha
what the fuck is this shit? fuck off back to plebbit

>>17373405
The virgin
>If there is no God, then the universe's death is inevitable
vs. the Chad
>Gott ist gestorben und sein Tod war das Leben der Welt

>>17378061
Eher wie der Tod des menschlichen Geistes war der Tod Gottes. Gott ist nie gestorben, nur der menschliche Geist und weiter die Seele der Menschheit.

>>17374524
pls help Anon, give me your sources

>>17378061
>sein Tod war das Leben der Welt

How???

>>17378006
Except they didn't. Kant didn't even understand Aquinas' proofs. And Hume is self-refuting (you can't make statements from cause and effect, except my own statement lel).

>>17378200
he is a retard, everything written in posts he quoted is factually accurate and can be verified. you might not agree with conclusions, but it is essentially correct.

>>17374376
>>17374474
These are simultaneously correct, and retarded.

>>17378216
>Kant didn't even understand Aquinas' proofs
He literally used the ontological proof in his Antinomies (Critique, Transcendental Dialectic) to debunk the use of mere appearances in metaphysics; two opposite truths (fundamental simplicity, fundamental complexity) can both be proved by using representation as the basis of metaphysical reasoning.
All metaphysics which uses reason and appearances (this includes Aquinas' "proof") to derive conclusions outside of all possible experience are fundamentally erroneous, because reason can only work with representations, not reality as it actually exists.

Hume's essential positive point was showing that all metaphysics before him was dogmatic and erroneous because none of it rested on anything more than assumed principles which could not be objectively shown to exist. Kant is fundamentally superior to Hume in basically every way, but Hume was still important for Kant.
>you can't make statements from cause and effect, except my own statement lel)
That's not what Hume said, or intended to say.

>>17378277
Hume's point boils down to self-refutation, he argues in circularity.

And that is precisely my point, Kant is mistaken and doesn't understand Aquinas' argument.

>>17378006
not only they didn't but they retarded phylosophy for centuries.

>>17378277
>with representations
More specifically I should add, concepts which are formed from intuitions, but which are unreal themselves.

>>17378306
litteraly based.

>>17378228
I m not following you
who is "he":
mr a>>17374474,
or mr b>>17374524?

>>17378306
>And that is precisely my point, Kant is mistaken and doesn't understand Aquinas' argument.
No, your point seems to be that you haven't even read Kant. You're a dogmatist, plain and simple. I also agree with that other anon that you're either Feser or one of his little Catholic minions stalking /lit/ for new victims.

>>17378306
Regarding the first item, there simply is no such thing as “empty time.” It makes no sense to speak of time before time existed—yet this is precisely what Kant does, calling it “empty time.” But there is no “before” outside of time, at least not as far as temporality is concerned. Hence, his assertion that “the beginning is an existence which is preceded by a time in which the thing is not”[60] is false. While his assertion is true generally, it is not true when it comes to the beginning of time, since it is absurd to talk about something temporally preceding time since temporality implies time.

Secondly, Kant does not consider another alternative, namely the one Aquinas proposes, which says that “God brought into being both the creature and time together.”[61] Thus, instead of there being “empty time” before the beginning of the world, let us posit an eternal God outside the world, as the Angelic Doctor does, and recognize that:

Prior to the initial existence of the totality of created being there is no diversity of parts of any duration . . . [for] nothingness has neither measure nor duration. Now, God’s duration, which is eternity, does not have parts, but is utterly simple, without before or after; since God is immovable. . . . Therefore, the beginning of the whole of creation is not to be thought of in comparison to any diverse parts designated in some pre-existing measure [e.g. empty time]. . . .[62]

>>17378362
In proving the thesis of the fourth antinomy, Kant draws very much on Aquinas’ third proof of the cosmological argument, reasoning that contingent entities in the world depend for their existence on another being which, if contingent itself, must also depend on another being, and thus eventually a first cause in the order of being must be admitted, an entity that is unconditioned and thus necessary.

However, Kant makes what I consider to be a crucial mistake. He claims that the being which causes the first conditioned being must precede it in time, “since the beginning of a series in time can be determined only by that which precedes it in time.”[64] Not only does this premise seem questionable—in fact, I consider it to be not true at all; yet Kant presupposes it, indeed, seems to accept it almost dogmatically. St. Thomas’ cosmological proof, however, avoids this pitfall. Ed Miller points out:

It should be apparent by now that it misses the point entirely to represent the most classical theistic argument (St. Thomas’) as reducing the world to antecedent states that originate in a being who stands at the beginning of the spatio-temporal process. The inevitable picture of falling dominoes or bumping billiard balls is wholly out of place here. What the argument leads to is an ultimate being who at this moment (as at every moment) underlies the whole structure of the cosmic process. As someone has expressed it, God is arrived at not by noting what has gone before something, but by looking into it. . . . It is all a matter of what must exist right now in order to account for the way the world exists right now.[65]

>>17378349
Kant has been profoundly refuted by nearly all scholastics. I wish it wasn't true but even a rudimentary reading of arguments will make one realize Kant didn't really understand Aquinas' arguments and is simply put wrong.

>>17378362
None of your Feserpasta is relevant to the fundamental aspects of Kant's philosophy with respect to prior metaphysics. Bringing your deity into matters of reason isn't in good taste either.
>Hence, his assertion that “the beginning is an existence which is preceded by a time in which the thing is not”[60] is false. While his assertion is true generally, it is not true when it comes to the beginning of time, since it is absurd to talk about something temporally preceding time since temporality implies time.
This is wrong also. He is not implying that it temporally precedes time, just that there has to be two ontological stages distinguishing between no-time and time. Feser also seems to be hinging on the fact that Kant originally wrote in German and has been translated in a way that is not kind in terms of exactness, for example here, "preceded by a time in which", which could also be translated as, "preceded by a state in which."

I get the feeling your type will just never fight with Kant on his higher intellectual level. You all cling to the dogmatic, flawed metaphysics without ever listening to anything else which doesn't directly contend with your "proof."

I should say that Marx was correct in at least one aspect, the whole power of modern philosophy lies not on the force of its arguments but on the force of capital interested in promoting it.

>>17378397
>Kant has been profoundly refuted by nearly all scholastics.
No, he hasn't. Your idea of "refutation" is just attacking small pieces of his philosophy without actually dealing with the larger problems he puts forth with traditional metaphysics. If you can put forth, right now, an entire refutation of his Antinomies, then I will be willing to take you seriously. But I suspect you are pulling the usual intellectual tricks that your kind pull to convert people.

>>17373346
you sound like my prof lol
I got one for kant too, and another one for hegel.
Philosophy peaked with each philosopher because each and everyone has their own philosophy.

our sprachspiele might be non exclusive but they surely are subject to be within groups

>>17378432
This isn't by Feser. Kant has many different interpretations from scholars as to what he even meant, so twisting his German to fit whatever your worldview happens to be will just not do.

Also he is quite clearly speaking about time:
>As far as the antithesis is concerned, Kant again uses reductio ad absurdum to come to the conclusion that there could not exist a necessary being, either outside the world as its cause or within the world. He says: “If . . . we assume that an absolutely necessary cause of the world exists outside the world, then this cause . . . must itself begin to act, and its causality would therefore be in time, and so would belong to . . . the world.”[67]

I'm guessing his fellow German didn't understand him either?

>However, an attack on Kant’s antinomies is not the only nor perhaps even the best way to critique him, of course. Catholic phenomenologist Dietrich von Hildebrand points out that Kant’s entire epistemology is problematic from the bottom up: Kant dissolves the authentic meaning of knowledge as the grasping of a being such as it is objectively . . . by replacing it with the notion of the construction of the object. We must stress again and again that this implies an immanent contradiction . . . in the interpretation of knowledge. . . . In claiming to reveal to us the real nature of knowledge, Kant presupposes the notion of knowledge which he denies in the content of his thesis.[72]

>>17378451
yep

>>17378454
When has Kant put forth an entire refutation of scholastics?

The point is scholastics have shown the most fundamental part of his work, which is always metaphysics, is wrong.

>>17378501
>When has Kant put forth an entire refutation of scholastics?
That's the Critique of Pure Reason. Why are we arguing if you haven't even read the man? It's not only scholastics which it refutes, which is the whole point.
>>17378488
>so twisting his German to fit whatever your worldview happens to be will just not do.
So why are we allowed to twist it into what suits your dogmatic defence of nonsense, and not what Kant himself probably intended?
>Kant dissolves the authentic meaning of knowledge as the grasping of a being such as it is objectively . . . by replacing it with the notion of the construction of the object. We must stress again and again that this implies an immanent contradiction
No, he doesn't. Kant's idea of the possibility of knowledge is certainly more limited than others, but there is no fundamental contradiction. Kant was not epistemologically relativist, this much is obvious if you read him yourself.

>>17373405
check mate christ cuck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcHRRjsttOc&t=172s

>>17378596
Top fucking kek, so Kant refutes the entire scholastics in Critique of Pure Reason but at the same time you have arguments how Kant fails to even understand what they are talking about. Yet, it is I that am dogmatic when you gloss over this fact. Must be nice to not experience that cognitive dissonance.

>>17378665
It is the exact opposite, scholastics fail to understand what Kant is talking about. Kant never denied that Aquinas' proof was valid within the bounds of pure reason, I don't see why you can't understand this. It's what the entire Antinomies section is about.

>>17378680
Kant doesn't even understand Aquinas' proofs and his antinomies are wrong. Both of this has been posited in this thread with quotations. But you keep stating the same thing over ignoring the fact that from Kant's own thought it is possible to show that 1. he does not understand Aquinas 2. some of his antinomies are wrong by the same logic

From this it follows that Kant did not refute anything scholastics had to say, since he is fundamentally wrong about their positions and two, his entire antinomies become questionable.

>>17378731
>Kant doesn't even understand Aquinas' proofs
Other way around.
>Both of this has been posited in this thread with quotations
Nope. I'm still waiting on a refutation of the Antinomies.

>>17378748
I see you have no intention of arguing in good faith just ignoring facts that flie against your narrative. Alright then.

>>17378731
Also, you'd do well to post a source that isn't obviously in favor of proving that God exists. That couldn't be motivated reasoning at all, could it?

Anyway, have fun, I'm done with this rubbish. I hope someone learnt something.

>>17373346
I will peak philosophy, I think I am onto something about proving the universe was designed and how it couldn't have came from nothing nor an unconcious force.

>>17378763
There is no difference between the motivation to posit noumena, will to power, historical materialism, skepticism or any philosophical position to God as the "first" principle. The only thing that matters is the argument and as we have seen the scholastic argument against Kant is strong, while the Kantian argument against scholasticism is weak in that it even fails to understand scholastic metaphysics. The fact that you think philosophers who arrive at God in their metaphysical endeavour are somehow not arguing in good faith but everyone else who arrives at any other conclusion is, shows something about your intellectual honesty or the lack of it rather.

Kant here AMA
>>17378665
No u
>>17378680
No u
>>17378731
No u
>>17378748
No u
The problem you're all facing is the struggle of resolving a priori cognitions with the (improperly) synthetical judgements of the Greek philosophers.
This cognitive schism is thus repaired through the following argumentative progression:
>idiot birds think they'd fly faster without air due to the resistance it creates
>idiot Greeks did the same
>get MOGGED
>there is no refutation of me that does not stand on my shoulder to shout in my ear

>>17378765
good luck then

if you ever make it let us know ;-)

>>17373363
Oh shit

>>17373346
>Ariana Grande.jpg

>>17379245
Lmao

>>17373346
It makes me sad that so much of his work is lost.

But we all know philosophy peaked with Kant.

>>17373346
Aristrottels substances have long been thrown to the trash can of philosophy so....

>>17379534
only to be ressurected by modern science

>>17378748
>Nope. I'm still waiting on a refutation of the Antinomies.

>Before passing on to consider time, however, it may be pointed out that the inexistence of an 'empty space' is enough to expose the absurdity of one of Kant's too famous cosmological antinomies: to ask 'whether the world is infinite or whether it is limited within space' is a question that has absolutely no meaning. Space cannot possibly extend beyond the world in order to contain it, because an empty space would then be in question, and emptiness cannot contain anything: on the contrary, it is space that is in the world, that is to say, in manifestation, and if consideration be confined to the domain of corporeal manifestation alone, it can be said that space is coextensive with this world, because it is one of its conditions; but this world is no more infinite than is space itself, for, like space, it does not contain every possibility, but only represents a certain particular order of possibilities, and it is limited by the determinations that constitute its very nature.

- ريني غينون

>>17379552
>only to be ressurected by modern science
quotation needed

>>17379569
hylemorphism, the distinction between act and potentiality solves quantum physics

>>17379555
What causes theology-Chads to be so much better at philosophy than actual philosophers?

>>17379602
I smell theology.

>>17379633
swing and a miss

>>17379642
anyway nothing is 'solved' in quantum physics if you do you will get the faggy noble prize for sure

>>17379612
because by default they are not hylics

>>17374376
Reddit moment

>>17374474
>>17374376
aquinas' proof is retarded and i thought that it's commonly understood as such. even a fourth grader could understand why it's such a dumbfuck argument to even formulate

it relies on unproven assumptions as facts. any bullshit proof can be justified by "IT JUST FOLLOWS"

>>17373346
I actually think more than philosophy peaked with him but we won't know since so many of his works were lost.

>>17381163
imagine actually thinking this

>>17381174
damn

>>17373346
>philosophy peaked with him
How so?

>>17378277
Anon, I’m reading the first Critique right now, just finished the Transcendental Analytic and I’m loving it. Is the Transcendental Dialectic going to truly blow my socks off?

>>17374376
>thomism is so BASED because the pope will burn me alive if I don't rubber stamp it

>>17381686
aquinas' propositions were actually condemned at first and scotism was just as common as thomism for a long time. so no, you would never be burned for not being a thomist

>>17381766
Fair enough; you're not from around here are you?

>>17373346
Not good since all we have is his lecture notes