[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 818 KB, 1500x1500, slavoj_zizek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10383656 No.10383656 [Reply] [Original]

What use is there in reading old philosophy? It's not like scientists devote time to studying now obsolete developments like in alchemy or primitive forms of mathematics/chemistry, so why bother with the old and criticized philosophies of the past centuries?

>> No.10383661

find the strength to just b urself

>> No.10383667

>>10383656
>We learn history not in order to know how to behave or how to succeed, but to know who we are.

>> No.10383706

>>10383656
>It's not like scientists devote time to studying now obsolete developments like in alchemy or primitive forms of mathematics/chemistry
Philosophy isn't only for scientists. Early "scientific" theories by philosophers are still valuable to see the development of scientific thought, opinions, tech etc. (Also, scientists in 100 years will look back at modern science the same way, should it all be forgotten?)
And most ancient philosophy doesn't go "out of date"; writings on ethics, politics, metaphysics, rhetoric, etc, are still often relevant today. Read some of Aristotle's works, you'd be surprised how modern he can sound.
t. EE and philosophy double major

>> No.10383711
File: 245 KB, 800x1000, plato_360x450.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10383711

Unlike with science, it's possible for old philosophers to be more correct than newer philosophers. I consider Plato's metaphysics more correct than Kant's metaphysics, for example.

>> No.10383731

>It's not like scientists devote time to studying now obsolete developments like in alchemy or primitive forms of mathematics/chemistry
You get plenty of examples of shit like Pauling's triple helix and geocentric models of the universe in science education.

>> No.10383764

>>10383711

I'm not familiar enough with Kant's work to have an educated opinion on it, but are you implying that you agree with Plato's idea of the theory of forms?

>> No.10383765

It's a part of history and art, would you say the same about Buddhism?

>> No.10383773

>>10383764
Insofar as the Forms are metaphysical constructs upon which all categories depend, I suppose I do agree. How else to solve the problem of universals? I don't really think nominalism or idealism sufficiently cover the bases.

>> No.10383778

>>10383773
Everything is physical. 'Ideas' are simply chemical processes in one's brain.

>> No.10383779
File: 146 KB, 800x623, 1512938373353.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10383779

>>10383764
Not him but knowing and thinking about it brings an odd comfort that isn't believing, but is more than just being aware. Like how if you've ever taken high dose psychadelics, you can feel like you're one with everything, that doesn't mean it's "real," but it is substantial

>> No.10383783

>>10383778

---->Reddit

>> No.10383785

>>10383783
not even an argument

>> No.10383787

>>10383778
And they actually aren't, a disembodied abstract concept is not a chemical process

>> No.10383799

>>10383773
I suppose my question is, how do you arrive at these forms? I understand that the "form" is the most perfect representation of a thing or idea, but how do you know that a form is correct? What indication leads you to a form?

>> No.10383800

>>10383787
Explain to me what makes it a disembodied abstract concept instead of a physical reaction just like how we understand other parts of the body and other creatures.

>> No.10383802

>>10383778
>>10383787
And even if it's begotten by one, to diminish it to some vague notion of chemical process (which is it exactly?) betrays a pretty juvenile impulse, hence the reddit suggestion. Science has yet to fully understand cognition, why would you want to pretend otherwise

>> No.10383808

I appreciate /lit

It has less porn spammed than the other boards, and the discussions are usually pretty chill. Unless someone brings up communism, UBE, or race

>> No.10383810

>>10383800
i just shit my pants. please dox me and order a swat team to my house.

>> No.10383812

>>10383656
This is the problem of thinking about reading as a purely aesthetic experience, or reading for style only. It's been said many times that to read is to rethink the thoughts of another. Reading philosophy in particular (and science for that matter) is supposed to recreate the moment of discovery within the pupils mind, from which they can relive the experience for themselves (thus truly understanding the concept or discovery) and by reliving the experience enough the pupil should become familiar with the process of discovery itself.

Classical education used to entail just this: recreating (within the mind) all the major scientific and philosophical achievements of the distant past until the present. The goal is to create students capable of thinking, and ones who were able to provide proofs for their conclusions or at least knew how they arrived at them. The way you speak about knowledge in your post differentiates very little from carrying an iphone in your pocket forever and whenever you need to solve a problem or retrieve a fact asking Siri or Google for the answer.

>> No.10383814

>>10383802
>>10383787
>>10383778
I don't actually believe that shit. I just have no clue how to talk to materialists about this stuff. They simply see themselves and their thought as consequences of evolution and necessary physical reactions and effects, and use such ideas to explain things like thought. I'm at a loss on how to teach it.

>> No.10383821

>>10383800
>just like how we understand other parts of the body and other creatures.
Mate do about a minute of research on neuroscience and realize it isn't that simple and the field has a looong way to go

>> No.10383841

>>10383814
I agree, just as some have an impulse to attribute causal and mechanist explanation to literally everything I have an opposite inclination, almost a faith in the human experience. Although I was the former from 16-21, which is why I see it as a sort of juvenile stage, that and the obvious fedora new athiest similarity

>> No.10383874

>>10383778
>'Ideas' are simply chemical processes in one's brain.

Hahaha. Thanks englightment. Thanks French Revolution.

t. perennialist

>> No.10383879

>>10383874
Democracy was a mistake. Fuck, that's another thing Plato was right about!

>> No.10383881

>>10383874
Kant might well efface his entire oeuvre if he could see how heinously these positivistic determinists have perverted his ideas, and their immediate offspring

>> No.10383898
File: 104 KB, 636x404, Paul-voix.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10383898

>>10383656
>progress in philosophy
>progress in science

>> No.10383908
File: 23 KB, 753x595, 1512957101814.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10383908

>>10383879
Without democracy there'd be no capitalism tho

>> No.10383922

>>10383656
Euclid's elements is still an essential text in math. Aristotles prior analytics is a good read too

>> No.10383947

>>10383908
Exactly?

>> No.10383950

>>10383881
kek reminds me of how Marx completely bastardized Hegel's thought into the complete opposite

>> No.10383970
File: 119 KB, 333x500, aristotle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10383970

>>10383778
>>10383773
>>10383787
Form and matter are indistinguishable in actuality but we can think about them separately, it's called abstraction. This is how a materialist reads Plato but a Platonist would disagree. In Plato, form is the essence of reality, we discover it in reality as opposed to contemplating universals as a thought exercise.

And about thoughts being chemical reactions, consider that each thing can be explained in various different ways. Is defining a thought as a chemical reaction, the best and most explanatory definition of a thought? Does it allow you to apprehend what it is in ts essence?

If when asked to define a human, you recited a list of chemicals, materials, limbs, components, etc that must be present in every human, would that be a proper answer?

>>10383950
You say as if he had done it by accident. Marx thought that Hegel was wrong and then developed a whole philosophy based on Hegel but getting it right, as he understood it. That's how philosophy is made.

>> No.10383986

>>10383908
Good. Capitalism and Marxism are the two worst economic expressions of the decline of the Traditional realm.

>> No.10383989

>>10383970
>You say as if he had done it by accident
I didn't though

>> No.10383990

>>10383986
go to bed Dugin, it's late

>> No.10384005

what a stupid trash thread

>> No.10384017

>>10383656
No point dude just read Wittgenstein he ended philosophy :DDDDD

>> No.10384582

>>10383814
What's wrong with that?

>>10383808
Ube?

>>10383731
Plum pudding model is a good example as well

>> No.10384600
File: 346 KB, 714x722, firemanshilarity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10384600

>>10383778
Why do I come back here time and time again?

>> No.10384629

>>10383656
>It's not like scientists devote time to studying now obsolete developments like in alchemy or primitive forms of mathematics/chemistry

Pretty sure they teach you Newtonian Physics before throwing you into General Relativity

>> No.10384648

>>10383841
Indeed, materialism very often wears fedoras. You claim to have moved past your fedora days, but your aggressive inability to articulate your evolution is very much fedora-tier as well.

I feel the same way since I've gotten closer to Christianity. I still wouldn't consider myself a Christian, but I don't kick down on fedora atheists. I merely qualify their objections and try to give them a perennial perspective on religion and point towards the fact that this dialogue has been going on for centuries and they all tend to take the smug assurance out of their tone.

>> No.10384650

>>10383764
theory of forms works in an epistemological sense

>> No.10384678
File: 91 KB, 625x773, 4296D095-C3EF-48D6-A909-168B9AA6031C.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10384678

>falling for the progress meme

>> No.10384900

>>10383656
>It's not like scientists devote time to studying now obsolete developments like in alchemy or primitive forms of mathematics/chemistry
you can perhaps make this argument for fields like alchemy (ie early chemistry) but mathematics? You do realise that everyone does still study ancient mathematics right? You know pythahoras is still correct and useful. However, we do still use old chemistry and biology because its foundational to current science. Sure, you might not use the same nomenclature but the truths learned 1000 years ago are still true. We dont spend much time on these things because theyre well established and relatively simple.
Similarly, in philosophy a truth gleaned in 500bc is still true assuming it was a truth. Even if it is a subjective truth then it may still be relevant depending on the current circumstance and it is worth evaluating this to see if we have a predetermined truth ready to go. Again, newer philosophy is rarely independent of its prior philosophy. Many philosophers are almost unreadable (at least, if you want to genuinely ubderstand) without having read others. Modernity does not exist in a vacuum - it is a product of history. So much is true of all things. If we disregard old philosophy then we shall only move in a cycle of rediscovering it and forgetting what we know because it is now old. Progress is a culmination of ideas and not the replacement of them.

>> No.10385066

>>10384629
Yeah, many courses use older models to build a foundation for newer models.

Of course, the idea here is that you can derive the older models from the newer models by applying some constraints to the newer models.

And for the most part scientific models are scored on their ability to explain or predict the world rather than their truth value.

I think a better comparison might be mathematics. Many questions have been posed across time which still require an answer. Many other questions have been answered in a few different ways, depending on the set of assumptions you work from.

If you learn how all these folks got from their respective point-As to that similar point-B, it can give you insight on other questions. This holds true for philosophical questions as well.

So really you would look to old texts for the following reasons:
(1) Some questions were never sufficiently answered.
(2) Some questions were answered in one way, some in many different ways.
(3) Knowledge and experience of the processes resulting in (2) will hopefully provide some help in tackling (1).

>> No.10385669

>>10383656
>What use is there in reading old philosophy?
There is no use in reading any philosophy.

>> No.10385675
File: 1.18 MB, 683x1024, 1460150502827.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10385675

>>10383656
>now obsolete developments like in alchemy

>> No.10385712

>>10383656
Philosophy is the only way to prevent the development of the last men. It is essential.

>> No.10385719

>>10383656
the parts of alchemy that worked went on to become chemistry, the parts that didn't work were relegated to history.

science does devote itself a lot of the time to retreading older ideas - but only the ideas that worked. i'm a bit foggy on the scientific method but part of it is being able to reproduce the results of a given experiment to prove its validity. that's why kids still roll cars down slopes to measure the acceleration and dangle weights from strings to measure force.

same with mathematics? modern mathematicians are constantly looking at older theorems as there may be solutions to modern problems that have been overlooked.

>> No.10386675

>>10383656
Bcuz i´m a cuckservative idealist?

>> No.10386883

>>10383908
>being this idealist

>> No.10386933
File: 64 KB, 640x473, 1496580577867.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10386933

>>10383778
Absolutely insufferable. You are the worst kind of person.

>> No.10386939

read the preface to the phenomenology of spirit and hegel will tell you

>> No.10387142

>>10383778
/pol/lack detected

>> No.10387268

>>10385669
Why is that?