/lit/ - Literature

Parmenides.

heraclitus

>>17684506
>Then you're either a Catholic apologist or a fool. Either way, you're no friend of mine.

>>17684516
>Then I say well met, friend. I could tell you were a sharp one the moment I laid eyes on you.

>>17684484
Do you hey to the cloud district very often?

Oh what am I saying, of course you don't.

>>17684516
Then I say well met, friend. I could tell you were a sharp one the moment I laid eyes on you.

NEVER SHOULD HAVE COME HERE

I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR YOU...

GOT SOMETHING TO DELIVER... YOUR HANDS ONLY...

>>17684484
Both.

>>17684528
Didn't Schopenhauer support both?

>>17684484
Heraclitus AND I'm a Catholic apologist. What're you gonna do about it?

I used to be an Adventurer like you

Them I took a Syphilis in the brain

Time was, when I adventured like to thee,
Until I took an arrow to the knee.

>>17684536
KEK

>>17684484
Parmenides

ENGLAND BELONGS TO THE NORSE

>>17684560
I'm gonna cringe that's what

>>17685056
Give me ONE (1)* reason to cringe

* = I, Uno, Um, Ichi

>>17684571
I used to be a Parmenideian like you but then I took a foot to the river.

>>17684536
kekerino

Neither. Being vs becoming doesn't mean anything.

>>17685079
Please read more books. Thank you.

>>17685082
nooo I just want to play video games

>>17684484
Gorgias.

>>17685082
Name 1 practical thing that came from arguing being vs becoming.

>>17685109
>practical
You're stuck in an Enlightenment dichotomy to think the practical is opposed to the high philosophical.

>>17685109
Pretty much all theological and philosophic discussion that came after can be seen as a result of this discussion.

>>17685109
We became

Both (aka Plato).

>>17685121
Your argument is the discussion is worthy, because there's a tradition of discussion, like if astrology were to have 1000 years of discussion, then the astrology discussion must be worthy according to you. Maybe the tradition is entirely worthless?

>>17685134
>Plato
homosexual, both Heraclitus and Parmenides would have hated Plato

>>17685145
Finding out the nature of our universe is worthless to you? Philosophy isn't about getting physical results like with science. That is not its purpose.

>>17684506
Parmenidesians have only one ball instead of two

>>17685149
That's what makes him real

>>17685145
Think of it this way. All is one has serious implications for theologians.

>>17685181
>for theologians.
literal whos.

>>17685158
Great work! Millennia of discussion later, and we're still at Heraclitus vs Parmenides. You really must be finding answers.

>>17685195
Yeah, the point has gone over your head. You are agreeing with what I was saying. The questions raised can not be foreseeably solved in the near future but they are no less important. Philosophy is not for you.

>>17685195
>people are still capable of thinking for themselves and questioning that what has been discovered or positioned previously in history, not blindly believing what others have said as the solution to questions as being set in stone

Bro that sucks

>>17685199
>an not be foreseeably solved
Philosophy is not for anyone; that's his point. It's not for you either.

>>17685199
I'm sure in 5000 years philosophers will finally use this discussion to... understand something?

>>17685204
The fact that something can not be solved does not make the question pointless.

>>17685195
Philosophy doesn't actually develop like science does. Philosophy is just the same personality types arguing over their opinions on metaphysical things. this is the true redpill. this is what parmenides talks about as in "time is a flat circle" and what heraclitus describes as a river, flowing of the same essence.

>>17685305
>BRAAAAAAAP

>>17685305
as soon as it develops, it ceases to be philosophy
it produces other fields