/lit/ - Literature

>>18477432
yeah

>>18477432
Ive got big news for you - they all played with words.

Plato and Aristotle wqere atruggling with syntax, not metaphysics.

>>18477450
Not a coincidence that Plato and Aristotle are the most "modern" ones, in the sense that sometimes they sound like epistemologians from the 18th or 19th century. But still, they're nonetheless more insightful and real than what we had in this sad, recent age.

>>18477432
yeah

>>18477476
>>18477442
Hello butthurt krauts

>>18477432
yeah.

>>18477510
>>18477476
>>18477442
>zero arguments provided

>>18477432
Pretty much. After WW2 with the rise of Freudism and critical theory hijacking and destroying all human endeavors and ideas we took a nose dive. I think that's why a lot of people are now reverting back to antiquity in search of answers, because extremist critical theorist lunatics are trying to cancel humanity. When I was in university and 2 gross "male" feminist-critical theorist marxists, or whatever the fuck they call themselves, were wailing nonsensical I and a few friends ambushed them and beat them to a pulp. There's something to be learned in that.

>>18477919
The OP didn't provide any arguments either.

>>18477450
Spotted a dumb modern

>>18477432
Wait till you hear about the Vienna Circle and how Ethics and Aesthetics are actually meaningless statements because Ben Shapiro destroyed them with facts and Logic.
"Metaphysicians are musicians who can't play instruments" hehe. Wait don't you dare recite Homeric poems in verse or recite to me the Republic's theme of musical man or tell me Nietzche was a composer! Uh I uh...
*Starts blindly banging on piano keys in MIDI and calls it avant garde
Anyways would you like to fast in my minimalist air hanger reconstructed to be my home? Tea is meaningless. You can't program BASIC into a cup of tea why bother?

>>18478144
>Destroys western civilization with libertine excess but it's okay because the nonagression principle means poor people suck and you can't prove deliberately destroying the west is unethical
>Music? I'm not listening to that illogical shite

>>18477432
>Am I dumb if I think that among all the philosophers, only the ancient, medieval and renaissance ones told meaningful things, while the modern ones just played on words?
Yes, you are dumb if you think that.
Though you haven't clearly defined what you mean by "just played on words". If you define that well, then I'll give you examples of why you're dumb. But i'm not going to let you shift the goalposts by not defining it

>>18477450
Plato used word games to redefine and even invert the common meaning of words. He had a vested interest in returning to tribal forms of life, with himself and his kin ruling at the top.
However, Aristotle did struggle a lot with syntax. It borders on what OP calls word games.
Most modern philosophy is merely a circus for those with an intellectual bent. It is mostly just word games, with the occasional, cherry-picked example from reality to lend some credibility.

>>18477432
Yes

>>18477945
>"Freudism"
>after WW2
Dumber than dirt

Yes, you're very dumb.

>>18477432
Retard

>>18477945
>When I was in university and 2 gross "male" feminist-critical theorist marxists, or whatever the fuck they call themselves, were wailing nonsensical I and a few friends ambushed them and beat them to a pulp.

>>18478464
yeah they kind of looked like that

>>18478115
>>18478158
>>18478289
>>18478377
>>18478384
OP here. I'll tell you what I mean. But first, a premise: I prefer poetry over philosophy, and I'm a man of feeling rather than a man of reason. So I will speak as I can. Now, my indelible feeling is that modern philosophy does not talk about that which is essential. You will ask: what is essential? My answer is: I don't know. I only feel that modern philosophers completely miss the point of basically everything. This has to be true especially when referred to the *foundations* of their thought, to its causative background, to its motivations, to its a-priori primary cause. But I'm not sure, it's just a supposition. The fact is that everytime I read philosophy from ancient, medieval and renaissance times, the philosopher speaks to me, appeals to my heart, my consciousness, my experience, my whole being. Everytime I *know exactly* what they mean, I grasp them, I welcome them inside of me. Even with different philosophers, it's always like this. I have a warm predilection for Neoplatonists, but even if I read Aristotle or Seneca or Aquinas, they still talk to me. I read and I think "Yes, of course, sure, right, nice, agreed, great, true" whereas when I read moderns my only reaction is: "Meh". And it has nothing to do with understanding them. I understand the direction that philosophy took after the Enlightenment, I understand Kant and Hegel, but that's not the issue: they simply leave me cold. I know this board has a tendency to approach philosophy as a boxing ring where authors compete and where someone wins for "being right" and another loses for "being wrong", but that's not what interests me: I only want to see who came closer to expressing the truth, and truth is multiform and many-sided. Thus it just so happens that the fine, sophisticated games that modern philosophers play with words and concepts, with logic and language, do not seem – they alone – to guarantee the approximation to the truth. I know that the dialogical use of reason to investigate things was not only a characteristic feature of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, but even an invention (the major invention, actually) of the Greeks – but what I mean is that such use of reason is dry, empty, in modern philosophers. It lacks something. Perhaps it's because it's conducted as an end in itself (as is evident and even declared in Kant). Or perhaps it's the opposite, it's because it's conducted to achieve earthly goals (many such cases!). Or, more subtly, it may be because modernity refuted the role of the intellect as it was conceived by Neoplatonists and Christian thinkers, i.e. superior to the faculty of reason. I have no idea, really. I only feel like the activity of modern philosophers could be quite accurately described with this quote by Leibniz: «We often reason in words, with the object itself virtually absent from our mind» (in German: «Man denkt oft in Worten, fast ohne den Gegenstand nur im Geiste zu haben»).

>>18477432
Redpill is realizing everybody just played on words except the theologians

>>18479025
>writing a fucking morshu text only to say Kant or Hegel don't evoke the same fee-fees in you when you read Seneca and Aquinas