/lit/ - Literature

Because the truth sets you free. The "liberal arts" used to matter.

>>22246104
free from what? material and unnecessary desires, I guess but why so many schools and not just 1 to lead the people the way they intended. They knew about meditation, study, askesis even dress codes, I assume other civilizations tried similar stuff but (and I'm assuming a lot) had a more centralized practices?

>why don't they just follow norms? hurr durr dur
because norms are arbitrary, philosophers seek an ultimate good beyond contingincies of locale in time and space

>>22246116
>why do greeks have multiple schools of thought
Why do Hinduism and Buddhism have a million schools?

>>22246135
>norms are arbitrary
no, they are set based on utility and proved good for a set group
>philosophers seek an ultimate good beyond contingincies of locale in time and space
what good specifically
>>22246139
Are Buddhism and Hinduism religions or philosophy schools?

>>22246143
>no, they are set based on utility and proved good for a set group
WHO THE FUCK SETS THE NORMS? THE FUCKING PHILOSOPHERS. BY ASKING QUESTIONS. THERE IS NO ONE ARBITRER. HENCE DIFFERENT OPINIONS. ARE YOU RETARDED??? KYS FAGGOT

>>22246088
>>22246116
>>22246143

You clearly don't know much history or idealize the past to a great extent. The ancient world was inundated with tyranny and political upheaval and the "norms" and "customs" you refer to were not so monolithic or immune from politicizing

>>22246147
>WHO THE FUCK SETS THE NORMS? THE FUCKING PHILOSOPHERS. BY ASKING QUESTIONS
Wrong again

>>22246088
>why not religion?
Because it doesn't solve everything for everyone and he is absolutely right. I don't get how hard it is to understand that the "notation" matters a lot and so does the way that you conceptualize things.
It is literally like physics, some problems are nightmarish to solve using certain approaches and trivial using others. Someone educated would pick the best one for that situation. This is what learning philosophy would allow you to do, and the reason why you shouldn't get too much into this or that philosophical school.

That’s what philosophy is for us too. Besides the medieval theologians, whom we regard as corresponding mode to the word of religion than philosophy, the history of philosophy is filled with names that left their mark first and foremost on ethics.

>>22246155
So you're implying ancient philosophers like Epicurus would act stoic or skeptic if given the chance? Socrates, for instance, did act accordingly to his views and teachings, if I am not mistaken
>>22246152
And philosophy is inmune to politicizing?
>>22246164
modern ones, in general, tend more to abstract thinking rather than an actual formation or education of people

>>22246088
The ancient world wasn’t contextualized by dogma. So while it was indeed religion that answered the questions about the nature of reality, as it is for us still, the ethical component of religion was left free floating. For us, dogma flows into ethics. There is a one right way. In the ancient religion, toleration of the various cults and thus various ethics was the closest thing to any dogma that they had.

>>22246168
Nobody cares about these modern philosophers. People who are known for their statements aboutt the nature of reality we call theologians or scientists. As for the philosophers, many of them dedicate their lives to questions about the nature of reality but they do so in vain. Look across the entire history of ideas. There’s not a single philosopher that we care about which didn’t concern himself with ethics. The closest you’ll find is the ethics of knowledge (should we pretend that we can know what we don’t know). The game that is played by academics and people with degrees whom no one knows or ever will know don’t matter.

>>22246168
No, probably not, but they lacked the understanding that we have. They would simple "stick to their tools", but do you realize that you don't have to be like that? That you can learn philosophy instead of epicurism or platonism or whatever?

>>22246177
Yes, I understand I do not have to choose a side, I am asking, roughly, why did they need philosophy if they had religion and customs to guide them already, what were they trying to set free from? Clearly not their own customs and religion so why separated those spiritual practices they used from religion? Egyptians, for example, had it mixed
>>22246175
>>22246169
Good points

>>22246189
It wouldn't solve their problems. It is that simple, have you read Marcus Aurelius meditations? He talks about why he thinks that he shouldn't be "like the other guys". People just happen to be in a certain way and they sometimes have a reason to be the way they are.

>>22246168
>And philosophy is inmune to politicizing?
No retard the point however is that philosophy is taking the study of virtue into one's own hands instead of relying on that which is passed down as a matter of fact

>>22246203
>taking the study of virtue into one's own hands instead of relying on that which is passed down as a matter of fact
How? A pupil of Epicurus would follow his teachings on studying the virtue instead of the teachings of another opposing philosopher even if given the same tools(meditation, study, etc) making the practices the fundamental and needed stuff, meaning they were basically priests but of a miriad of religions

>>22246205
But you would have thought about it first. You are thinking about it backwards.

>>22246116
>They knew about meditation
lol no

Philosophy is just celebrity worship. Worshipping Plato or Kant or any other historical old white man is no different from worshipping Jordan Peterson or Andrew Tate today.
A textbook about philosophy will always be a dry list of "Plato said this ... Nietzsche said that ..." Philosophy has produced no objective insights, philosophy is merely a collection of opinions from ancient meme influencers.
Studying philosophy is not just a waste of time, it's also the epitome of cuckoldism. There is no moral difference between "I let this other guy fill my wife's pussy with his cum instead of my own cum" and "I let this other guy fill my mind with his ideas instead of my own ideas". If you take philosophy and philosophers seriously you're just too immature to think for yourself.
This is why I hate rationalists so fucking much. Both theist and atheist.Let's go deeper.
It's due to assholes like Plato and Descartes that rationalists plague the world today.
For your information, your senses never ever lie to you. That's not even possible for a perception to lie in the first place, contrary to what pieces of shit rationalists keep saying.

When you make a mistake stemming from a perception, the perception is never faulty, it's your interpretation which sucks.

And then those rationalist assholes spend 2500 FUCKING YEARS saying rationality is the sure way to truth. AND GUESS WHAT MOTHERFUCKER< NONE OF THOSE RATIONALIST FOUND ANY TRUTH WITH THEIR MIGHTY RATIONALITY. FUCK

2500 FUCKING YEARS THEY"VE BEEN AT IT. FUCK YOU


the truth is that rationality is a meme by rationalists. Rationality is just imagination and then the rationalists are in a dead end, because since FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT PLATO , they try to distinguish between ''''''''retarded imaginary takes'''' and ''''''''totally truth stemming from LE MIND LOL"".
"JUSTIFIABLE KNOWLEDGE"" MY ASS. FUCK YOU PLATO. PRAISE DIOGEN.

>>22246206
>you would have thought about it first.
about what? the choosing of a school?
>>22246208
lol yes
>>22246212
you missed the point

>>22246212
>because since FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT PLATO , they try to distinguish between ''''''''retarded imaginary takes'''' and ''''''''totally truth stemming from LE MIND LOL"".
Actually it devolves to the degree that they are compelled to claim the entire universe is le mind

>>22246217
Yes, as in getting from A to B. You look at the students of school whatever and they are all Bs, and you are dealing with a lot of problems in your life because you are an A, if you were a B, things would end up being easier. It just makes sense, doesn't it? It is literally that simple.

>>22246229
But actually not that simple, it is more complicated than that. You can definitely picture problems in changing from A to B considering that people are different. Then this would end up giving birth to pedagogy, psychology, and so on.

>>22246229
And even "to B or not to B".

>>22246229
>>22246247
I think philosophers, as the name itself implies, tried to live accordingly to wisdom, using, in order to achieve that, a set of tools but differed in some edges and put focus on some stuff or the other but all of them would be philosophers , that's for sure yet I fail to see how they would be something else rather than religious priests and why do we make that distinction, how do we call ancient wise egyptian or persian people?

>>22246212
>tell me you're 14 without telling me you're 14

>>22246259
There is no difference between philosophy and theology. It's a western psyop to make us look superior. That's why westerners get mad at pajeet and chinks claiming to be philosophers.

>>22246259
Read a philosophy textbook, it all started with Thales trying to explain nature using thought instead of poetry or religious stuff. You are failing to understand the difference because you are thinking it backwards, and also because religions that ended up "surviving" claimed some philosophy school or certain thoughts as theirs or made their own.

>>22246267
Would greek hierophants be philosophers?
>>22246269
Cosmogonic period is quite different from posterior ones, Thales would be fine to claim but what about posterior ones, even Parmenides which is quite old

>>22246274
>CosmoLoGic

>>22246274
Even those other ones, they thought about it. It is not something that appeared to them in a dream and no one can confirm. They would think about things using certain heuristics, analyzing arguments and so on. Philosophers even came up with ways of classifying arguments. It is very different, I honestly think that you would benefit a lot from reading a textbook, pic related is a great one and answers most of your previous questions on chapter 1, and in a better way than I could possibly do.

>>22246294
Don't listen to this fag. He is repeating lies either as useful idiot or purposeful disinfo.

>>22246305
>no not le textbookerinoooo
ok

>>22246294
I mean Parmenides and later philosophers did use heuristics but eristics and psycogogics too. Parmenides poem, the discourses of Plato and other works had a concrete context and audience and a explicit end, the division between theology or religion and philosophy is diffuse
>>22246305
???

>>22246316
Yes, but you are getting it backwards. Their had different goals with it. Religion is about tradition, faith and dealing with religious texts. Philosophy is about thinking things through. Philosophy is the mother of science, religion won't end up in science if you don't make a philosophy first.

>>22246355
>Philosophy is about thinking things through. Philosophy is the mother of science
That's the point, it wasn't always the case, with Thales it might be but not with people like Plato or Epicurus, even Aristotle, they tried to guide people to live virtuously (according to the views of OPs author). Their works are talking to specific peoples to teach them specific things, rather than explaining something or discovering or theorizing about it, which would explain modern people finding absurd contradictions in the works of a given old philosopher

>>22246116
Not just material desires, but also dumb ideas. Or, at least, ideas that were foisted upon you that may or may not be good in itself or good for you. Liberal arts provide you with the compass you need to navigate the world for the sake of the good.

>>22246363
Because life is the easiest thing to reason and check out how it goes. This is why philosophy changed over time, while religion is supposed to be the same.

>>22246363
Those dudes had shit to work with. Consider that they were like "just there", and started grabbing dirt out of the ground and had to build their houses. Of course it is going to look like shit.

>>22246374
yet philosophy started focusing on life with Thales and change to ethics and stuff as time went by, not the other way around which sounds more intuitive
>>22246380
I don't know what you're trying to say, maybe that their contradictions were because they were the first and therefore somehow dumb?
>>22246369
what good and how to know it and couldn't they just do that following their religion? Given taking care of that it is one of the focus of said "tool"

>>22246394
Because they didn't had any ways to verify shit, have you bothered reading the pre-Socratics? It is basically "it is all this, because this and that thing happening". Suddenly there aren't that many things to say about whatever, it has all been said and there is no way to check anything, they jumped into life.
No, that their lives were different, and that philosophy isn't religion. You are literally getting it backwards, it is not religion, it is about thinking. If Plato was alive today, he would behave like a regular person.

>french
dropped

>>22246405
Plato could never be alive today. The soil is too depleted for great men like him to come to fruition, or even into existence at all.

>>22246405
>verify shit
modern thinking
>he would behave like a regular person
I have doubts about it
>it is not religion, it is about thinking
seems mixed, as happened if I am not mistaken with Egyptians or Persians, at least with Socrates and so on to Neo-platonics, etc
>>22246409
valid point

>>22246413
>modern thinking
They said that things were fire, water, air, dueling opposites, a single thing and whatever. Based on whatever arguments, can't you see that it might end up being pointless? It would be like me saying that dark matter is made of "whatever", because I think that whatever is an appropriate substance for it to be made of.
>I have doubts about it
I honestly have a hard time thinking that any famous philosopher was a retard.
>seems mixed, as happened if I am not mistaken with Egyptians or Persians, at least with Socrates and so on to Neo-platonics, etc
Maybe they did, but if they were more concerned with thinking, then it is not religion. If you are more worried about advancing what you know and can be known than with keeping tradition. You are not religious, if you are more worried about maintaining a tradition than trying to get to know things, then you are religious.

>>22246438
>can't you see that it might end up being pointless?
not necessarily
>I honestly have a hard time thinking that any famous philosopher was a retard.
me too, don't get me wrong
>Maybe they did, but if they were more concerned with thinking, then it is not religion. If you are more worried about advancing what you know and can be known than with keeping tradition. You are not religious, if you are more worried about maintaining a tradition than trying to get to know things, then you are religious
That's where I am going, according to french guy in OP, the concept of philosophy as something meant to advance thinking and what you actually knows instead of some kind of formation to live accordingly to "kanon" and virtue it's a devoid of meaning conception as it is medieval (not cosmologic period philosophy, as far as I know)

>>22246487
You are thinking backwards like a religious person. But it is not a tradition, they were using thought to think their current lives and come up with the best way to do it. And people who would follow it, would be like that A and B, and there is more to it. You could easily get one way of a certain school and change it or improve it as you felt like it. It is not religion, it doesn't have any dogmas or whatever. Because the focus is on living, not preserving any tradition.

>>22246088
That's not really saying anything. Ethics is an element of most philosophies, but so are ontology and metaphysics. Different philosophers take different approaches, generally beginning with one of the three.

>>22246438
Religions have always been about finding the ultimate truth. That is the basis of their appeal for the higher levels, as opposed to the masses. Philosophy promises thought and delivers thought, religion promises truth and delivers both thought and truth.

>>22246523
You have to believe in it, that is the whole problem with religion.

>>22246513
>You are thinking backwards like a religious person
I'm agnostic though
>It is not religion, it doesn't have any dogmas or whatever. Because the focus is on living
Living according to a given kanon was actually the point of philosophers like the epicureans, ancient philosophers may have vital principles as fundamental dogmas

>>22246538
>I'm agnostic though
Well, then you shouldn't have any issue with being able to think about it both ways.
>Living according to a given kanon was actually the point of philosophers like the epicureans, ancient philosophers may have vital principles as fundamental dogmas
You are getting it backwards, this was a single school, it is literally named after some dude, he got elements from previous philosophers and used to make his own way of doing things, as soon as he died, things somewhat ended too, people come up with modified and improved versions of things. But is it like I said, you are expecting too much out of some fucked up primitive dudes, I never took philosophy seriously until I've got in touch with Descartes.

>>22246088
Those kinds of philosophies always become popular once a civilization is in it's decadent stage, that is, once religion is not enough to hold a society together.