[ 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: 48 KB, 900x512, oswald-spengler.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13352272 No.13352272 [Reply] [Original]

>blatantly says that empiricism and a scientific approach to history are bullshit
>still makes a huge amount of predictions on the course of western civilization
>actually pretty prescient as well, despite his rejection of empiricism
how did he do it?

>> No.13352293
File: 43 KB, 850x400, Lies and Statistics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13352293

>> No.13352306

>>13352272
Hegelian historicism

>> No.13352325

>>13352272
Because probability rules reality, not certainty.

>> No.13352338
File: 33 KB, 220x337, 220px-Ananka_i_Mojre.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13352338

>>13352325

>> No.13352357

>>13352325
>>13352338
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/chance/tyche/

>> No.13352474

>>13352325
>dude gravity might just stop working one day, you cant be certain

>> No.13352493

>>13352474
As if that's wtf that implies.
https://youtu.be/yOiABZM7wTU

>> No.13352499

>>13352493
>>13352474
TL;DR
the same scenario/cause won't have the same outcome/effect every time.

>> No.13352516

>>13352272
>http://www.informationphilosopher.com/chance/tyche/
I'm fucking tired of not knowing shit. When will I actually have an opinion on anything? I read what you guys tell me to read. I like it all, but in the end I just get more confused. Is it just that I'm too low IQ to be as intellectual confident as someone like Spengler? God fucking damn it

>> No.13352608
File: 43 KB, 625x801, Yellow.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13352608

>>13352516
Here's the unfortunate truth: No matter how much you read, someone will tell you that you're full of shit. All those influential philosophers and ground-breaking thinkers have all been accused of being empty and worthless hacks by other influential philosophers and ground-breaking thinkers.

>“A modern philosopher who has never once suspected himself of being a charlatan must be such a shallow mind that his work is probably not worth reading.” ― Leszek Kolakowski

And there is no shame in changing your opinion, despite what other people say; it's better to change when you're proven wrong than to stubbornly stick to it. Have some tits to cheer you up.

>> No.13352861

>>13352293
This fucking gay quote is so overused and it is so FUCKING wrong. Mark Twain was an unfunny faggot that never made ANY contribution to human thought and thinks he can make these faggy little remarks. Fuck Mark Twain that Jewish Nigger and fuck everybody that uses this quote.

>> No.13352969

>>13352272
Is there a link between Jung and Spengler? Currently reading some of Jung's stuff and it seems similar to Spengler, whom I haven't read

>> No.13353010
File: 457 KB, 1365x1960, 1560944487946.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13353010

>>13352969
IIRC Jung influenced Spengler.

>> No.13353019

>>13352608
I need source to fuel my philosophic ambition

>> No.13353022

>>13353010
If he did it was very minimum. Jung put 1 book out 6 years prior to spengler and it's very freudian at that point

>> No.13353038

>>13353022
I was reading about non-linear history last night and I'm pretty sure it mentioned both Jung and Spengler.

>> No.13353045

>>13352516
The more you read, the more you realize you don't know shit because the boundaries keep getting pushed further and further.
it shouldn't be bothering you at all, in fact that knowledge should be a drive for you to learn more

>> No.13353046

>>13353022
That's a misconception. Jung developped his own theories long before meeting Freud. Think of them as two intersecting vectors.

>> No.13353047

>>13353038
Yes but circular histories are as old as the bronze age and probably much older than that, the nuance came in applying it to a government outside a linear dialectic like hegel

>> No.13353200

>>13352969
>>13353010
Spengler hated psychology and spends quite a bit of The Decline (relative to how little hating psychology has to go with the subject of the book) talking about why he hates it. basically his schtick is Goethe's duality of the becoming and the become, but psychology and Darwinism are attempts at mechanizing and systematizing the ever-becoming like the human mind or evolution
"Nature knows no gaps" - Goethe

>> No.13353239

>>13352272
>how did he do it?
He's only interested in the fact that major civilizations follow the same general pattern, he's not interested in why exactly that is. One of the most important things to understand Spengler is to forget the notion of causality; all history is metaphysical Destiny because if the same outline of events occur in every civilization then the why really doesn't matter. "that's life". This is the real reason Spengler can't be refuted because he completely disregards cause and effect. Toynbee on the other hand was a Christian empiricist and built his model on cause and effect, action and reaction, and this allowed critics to tear his theory apart which is the reason Toynbee is not relevant today.

>> No.13353358

>>13353019
Bump