/lit/ - Literature

>>21928198
Your thesis is called postmodernism

>>21928198
wtf are on about lad

>>21928228
you*

>>21928198
you'd probably be interested in Steven Shaviro's book "Without Criteria: Kant, Whitehead, Deleuze, and Aesthetics" from what I remember of it

I find this to be less poignant for Aristotle and ancient philosophers but especially so for modern analytic philosophers, specifically those that have returned to metaphysics after the fall of logical positivism. there is really nothing at the level of content that now distinguishes them from their beret wearing counterparts, but they still cling to the aesthetic choice of trying to appear as close as possible to the sciences which they want to emulate.

>>21928198
It's not even a choice really

>>21928228
I am saying that when someone says "This is logical and reasonable." or "That is illogical and unreasonable" they are unconsciously just positing an opinion, an aesthetic choice, as there is no actual set in stone "logical" or "reasonable"
>>21928287
Well I think it is

>>21928198
Do you accept that 1 + 1 = 2 for aesthetic reasons? Do you accept that a triangle is a plane bounded by three straight lines for aesthetic reasons?

No? Ok. Next.

>>21928361
>Do you accept that 1 + 1 = 2 for aesthetic reasons? Do you accept that a triangle is a plane bounded by three straight lines for aesthetic reasons?
Yes

What they consider logical and rational is NOT a personal choice on their part. The increasingly clear explication of logic from Aristotelian syllogism through to its formalization in symbols is an intersubjective phenomenon and a language with its own rules independent of any individual. How we choose to use reason and what we consider a reasonable action in a scenario can, of course, be entirely personal and entirely dependent on our intent or purpose, yet like many things, this matter is not entirely subjective or objective. I think your OP is very reductive.

>>21928376
>Aristotelian syllogism through to its formalization in symbols is an intersubjective phenomenon and a language with its own rules independent of any individual
I don't see why or how that could be the case though anon, explain

>>21928350
>Well I think it is
A lot of your preferences are contextual, not chosen. This is rhetoric 101

>>21928395
So what?

>>21928380
You are using language right now to communicate, with the expectation that the replied you receive will be intelligible for you. You can't hope to communicate while simultaneously claiming you or I's opinion fully determines the meaning and structure of the words we use, otherwise we couldn't connect about anything and thus not communicate.The rules of reason as specified in works of logic are of the same nature as natural language but are investigated by abstracting from their particular words, sentences, and language systems. When problems in a system of logic arise, certain liberties or personal solutions may be taken up, but always with respect to a universally graspable syntax.

>>21928198


Style, and Reason, are mutually complementary, not mutually exclusive, or inhibiting.

Nothing new in what is true but the way in which it is conveyed.

>>21928198
>>21928350
>>21928366
you're stuck in subjectivism. read more

>>21928568
>You can't hope to communicate while simultaneously claiming you or I's opinion fully determines the meaning and structure of the words we use, otherwise we couldn't connect about anything and thus not communicate
I do actually claim that

>>21928198
We don't decide what is "logical". It simply follows from the original set of facts (axioms) and rules that we make up. You can say that which things were chosen as axioms are arbitrary. I think you'd enjoy reading about the Munchhausen trilemma. I also want to congratulate you on the courage to start a thread while still being 16 years old.

>>21928198
What you are saying is basically what Protagoras said which is why Socrates annihilated him.

>>21929754
In order to effectively communicate at all you have to recognize that the meaning of words are not entirely up to you. You have to grasp that the person you're speaking to has a set of associations to words and symbols in their head, and if you want to effectively communicate with them then their associations bind you to use terms which will elicit the specific state of understanding you're trying to induce.

>>21929784
>In order to effectively communicate at all you have to recognize that the meaning of words are not entirely up to you
I disagree

>>21929765
Almost but not quite, see even Protagoras never noticed that his own ideals of what makes something logical are still his choice and decision

>>21929124
>you're stuck in subjectivism. read more
precious that the guy who thinks "subjectivism" is a real thing is egging people on to read more

>>21928198
Charles Sanders Peirce. See pic. Aesthetics is firstness. We know cognitively sensations come before thought.

>>21928198
Nietzsche points this out too. In his ''Philosophy in the Tragic Age'' he says more or less what you've said in the OP, he just emphasizes the personal side of it.

>>21929796
Interesting that Peirce thought about it too. I thought about Kant's 3rd Critique. Do you know if Peirce extracts something from it? Maybe the sense with which Kant employs the word ''aesthetic'', in its purely etymological sense as sensation, is something to consider.

There is a certain ambivalence of initial assumptions which are mostly arbitrary, yes, but it’s rare for these assumptions to not stem from a pre-rationality which determines them. For example, Descartes wanted to doubt everything which he possibly could. This is the negative assertion of his pre-rationality in search for first-principles which he can build his philosophy from. The positive assertion would be: what is impossible for me to doubt the reality of? As such, the arbitrary nature of his foundation for his philosophy is revealed, yet the arbitrary-ness of his dedication does not preclude a measured systematic approach at it. You can run this general scheme and eventually come to a first-principle without a rational basis and only there can you say that true arbitrary-ness was introduced into the system. Yet, this is an essential core of all logical systems. Even synthetic apriori knowledge relies on sense-data to ascertain the materials for synthesis. Even your own logic is necessarily arbitrary and aesthetic, what claim to the truth could it hold over the others given its nature of original sin as well? How would you break steel with steel? Fight fire with fire?

>>21929844
Peirce was very much influenced by Kant. He didn't write much about aesthetics, and I believe he's quoted as saying that's a regret he had.
http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/esthetics

>>21929847
You understand my post, unironically thank you

>>21928198
"I know that i know nothing". He knew it was an aesthetic (as i phrase it in your words), you clearly do not know how to interpret philosophical texts.

>>21930135]
Well, how did he know that he knew nothing, he seems pretty confident, but where is his basis for believing he knows nothing?

>>21930135
Plato and Socrates are completely different thinkers.

What we consider Socrates or “the Socratic dialogues” are the early ones which end in aporia and the trial dialogues. That is Socrates.

The middle period dialogues and the dogmatic political stuff and the stuff about the forms, that is more Plato. The dogmatic nature is in contrast with the aphorism that “I only know that I know nothing.” Platonic dogma is at contrast with Socratic dogma.

>>21930139
He knows that he knows it because if he didn’t know it he would not know what it is which he didn’t know of. If he can admit he doesn’t know anything of metaphysics then it is him admitting he knows that he can not know anything.

>>21928198
David Hume noticed this. Reason is a slave of a the passions, so he argued.

>>21930155
oh ok that makes sense thank you for clearing that up

>>21930149
I thought socratese was platos student and all the dialogues are his lecture notes

>>21930174
plato was socrates student and the dialogues were actual conversations recorded by plato

>>21930166
He says it in one dialogue. I think it was the Meno.

>If I knew I didn’t know something then I wouldn’t really not know it because I would be aware of what I didn’t know

Something like that.

>>21930177
No, they weren’t actual conversations. They were more like historical fiction meant to convey key ideas contrasting Socratic philosophy with those counter-arguments of his competing philosophic schools.

>>21930186
Then he doesn't even know if he knows nothing, which means he might know something, which means...man, i hate philosophy, this just stinks, fuck this

All logic is based on instincts and primal desires. We put on colorful costumes to seem like it means much

>>21929844
bump, will write in a second

>>21929791
what do you mean by this?

>>21930106
>Peirce was very much influenced by Kant. He didn't write much about aesthetics, and I believe he's quoted as saying that's a regret he had.
Peirce regretted not having much to say about aesthetics until the end of his life, despite the subject matter being connected to the "summum bonum" that his evolutionary cosmology was connected to. Half of it was due to his awareness of his own poor "creative" talents (brilliant philosopher and scientist, so plenty of creativity there, yet not much of a poet). The half was due to forgetting his own formative years. Peirce LOVED Schiller's essays on art, imagination, and creativity, bringing me to the second point
>>21929796
>>21929844
Peirce never read Kant's 3rd Critique AFAIK. HOWEVER, thanks to Peirce's complete digestion of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason PLUS the influence of Schiller's play drive, we see Peirce begin to expound a theory of aesthetics remarkably similar to what Kant espoused in the 3rd Critique. Isn't the history of ideas wonderful?

Here's an essay where you can read more about it: https://faculty.uml.edu/jkaag/45.201/new_folder/kaag%20paper%201.pdf

>>21931607
Thank you for the essay, it seems very interesting.

>>21928198
>I don't know man, this Kant guy seems to be very uncritical of being completely logical and reasonable in his work "A Critique of Pure Reason", and how it might function independent of a human with aesthetic sensibilities
Yeah I wish he had tried to solve that issue or something, I guess we'll never know. It's a shame.

>>21930174
>I thought Socratese was Plato's student
This might be the best post I've read on lit in a decade. Great thread.

>>21928198
Habermas

in not such crude of words but yes it was much remarked upon with a clear throughline from the empiricist to the cynics like Schopenhauer or Nietzsche then fuels not only PoMo in the mid 20th century but also much of the western sphere was recently embroiling itself over axioms and "grounding" as you point out but using new tools to swat at Wittgenstein's ghost

>>21929796
How do I reach even further beyond into the REFERENCE category of phenomenology??