/lit/ - Literature

There's nothing more cringe in all of history than enlightenment thinkers talking up their superiority to the past only to be undeniably overthrown in most every line of thought not even two hundred years later.
Plato will be relevant for all of time. Locke, Hume, Kant, Descartes, all of them and all the rest are at best an interesting footnote in the historical record.

>>17834759
>Descartes will be at best an interesting footnote
Should we tell him?

>>17834769
Tell him, sis.

>>17834775
>Tell him, sis.

>>17834775
That Descartes founded analytic geometry and thereby revolutionized mathematics through marrying geometry and algebra, which would become the foundation of much future mathematics and science. I mean, does he not know why it's called a "Cartesian plane?" That doesn't constitute "relevance for all time?" He should heed Plato's own words:
>Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here

>>17834958
Sorry to ruin your dopamine buzz but I'm sure the guy was referring to Descartes as an enlightenment philosopher, not as a mathematician. If I were to call Dawkins a pseudointellectual, you wouldn't start bringing up whatever valid work he might have done in the field of zoology.

>>17834759
This. Refuting Locke's entire philosophical system is literally one of the first things philosophy undergrads get as assignments. Anyone want to guess why the same is never done with Aristotle?

>>17834958
*enters anyway*

>>17835142
>year: 3030
>learn about the Cartesian plane in pre-algebra
>look him up on your brainet interface
>”hmmm, wat dis other sheet he believe tho...?”

>>17835162
lol, this is some of the most ridiculous wishful thinking cope I’ve ever heard
You think trying to refute a philosopher’s entire philosophy is some kind of standard exercise when you learn philosophy 101?

>>17835298
With Locke and certain other "enlightenment" thinkers, yes, because their rationale is so ridiculously stupid and flawed that phil 101 undergrads can easily refute it with a small amount of effort.

>>17835308
Such as?

>>17835308
What makes them more flawed than any other school of philosophy exactly?

>>17835332
I'm not the person you were replying to but come on now, you're just pretending to be retarded at this point.

>>17835319
His critique of innate ideas (a priori knowledge)

>>17835338
Because you’re a reactionary and don’t like their politics? I’m afraid I don’t find this line of argumentation very convincing, anon.

>>17835342
You don’t like the empiricists then. Why not just say that? Or are we discounting Enlightenment-era rationalists here?

>>17835353
It has nothing to do with like or dislike, it has to do with bad argumentation. Leibniz can be disputed in key points, but he is much more difficult, and I generally don't believe undergrads are set against him for that reason. Kant had to pull some heavy gymnastics to override many of Leibniz's arguments, or at least put them in what Kant saw as the proper place restrained to possible experiences and so forth. Locke was never ever a big-brained opponent for anyone, he was just part of the popular empiricist fad, of which Hume was probably the biggest-brained.

>>17835373
Locke is more well-known for his political theories more than anything, although I did read his philosophical writings as an undergrad and wrote a paper on his concept of sortals (which he coined).

It is not a standard in undergrad philosophy 101 to try to refute John Locke’s entire philosophical worldview though, regardless of how flawed you seem to think it is.

>>17834745
Silence

>>17834745
I don't recall Locke stating that

>>17835142
Descartes died about a hundred years before the peak of the Enlightenment though

>>17835392
Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding was literally the standard textbook for metaphysics in Anglophone universities for centuries iirc

>>17835505
I’m sure it was. I don’t think it is anymore.
I only read brief excerpts of Locke. We never focused on him intently or anything.
I chose the topic of my paper on my own volition. I could have chosen literally anyone else from that same era.

>>17834759
Descartes & Kant will be relevant but otherwise agreed

>>17835162
>>17834759
>>17834745
such incredible fucking cope lol, the whole world is ruled by liberalism, locke is one of the most influential people in history. whether that’s a good thing or bad thing is up for you to decide (clearly bad considering the state of the world imo) but he’s by no means a minor footnote

>>17835578
Lol, yeah it's no longer the standard textbook. The first time I encountered him in a scholastic context was in the context of natural rights and political theory

>>17835332
atheists have no critical thinking so they hype retards who discover warm water.
they just discovered that society is full of mental fapping about pictures & humanism is just glorification of the state, ie fascism, but it's better than other fascisms because this time, all the humanist intellectuals, actors, commentators & journalists are included in the ruling class, & they said that ''being life affirming'' ie being a vitalist is good. Vitalism is the fancy word of the atheist for being an hedonist, ie cooming. This is why in humanism, there is a merger of politics, education & entertainment, & why atheists are sex & drug addicts glorifying sex & drugs.

Now atheism exists only by rejection of judeo christianity , so now that christians are not in power, they still need a bogeyman & need to dream up threats of nazis harming atheist democracy. Ie creating more & more narratives & pictures to delude themselves into a fake sense of righteousness, because nobody who isn't them tells the atheists they are good people. This is why atheists desperatly turn to eastern guruisms, hoping the gurus will tell them they are decent people. It works because the gurus capitalized on these empty followers by embodying the asexual old wise character. Gurus expressed the emptiness the atheists were feeling & then played the character which would be the opposite of their emptiness, which in turn reinforced their projection as him being an enlightened master. This gets to be a self-sustaining loop where the worship & admiration of followers feeds to the confidence of the leader, who becomes fulfilled & the character becomes easier & easier to play until it becomes unnoticeable.
So atheists have no external validation besides scam artists banking money & sex from them. An atheist is a fatherless girl craving to hear from her father that she is a good girl, but she spends her life on casual sex & posting on instagram how she likes the dalai lama & fair trade beauty creams.

>>17835598
Why would Kant be relevant but not the other ones? The empiricists will be more relevant than Kant.

>>17835788
Because Kant revolutionized philosophy and the empiricists were retarded.

>>17835636
The Fedora Wars were over a decade ago, dude. You lost for a reason. Offering a brainlet low-status version of materialist atheism won't get anyone to agree with you, because why the fuck would they take the brainlet low-status version of materialist atheism when they can take the high-status version?

>>17835788
Because the anon you're responding to saw a meme about Kant and understood the reference that it was making.