/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16170501]

It seems to me that major developments in high philosophy kinda died out after the trifecta of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. I mean, it seems like stuff shifted to more self help how to live philosophies like stoicism and cynisism, which are more ways of cunducting yourself, then high questions of knowledge.

I mean, the hight of the classical world continued for like 500 years after these guys, so its not like there wasnt a society and infastructure to support it.

So I ask you, why was the next major development in higher conceptual western phil not until descarte? everything before is just a reinterpretation of either Plato or Aristotle. The neoplatonists, Agustine, all of them.

[Anonymous No.16170623]

>>16170501
Nahh even after the BC Greeks when the more practical-minded Romans were dominating the world there was still things like Neoplatonism and early Christian theology, where we see Christianity eventually fulfilled that overly aware Roman "realism". And then you had a bunch more Neoplatonists but especially Christian Theologians such as with Eriugena, Aquinas or Eckhart(which of course parallels much of the East). And then yeah we had something of a resurgence in that to again put it very crudely for a short post, "practicality" of a realism as man is defined by society, the very best of that being Montaigne or Ficino with Renaissance Humanism, but as shown in the artistic works of the time these greater questions do not die. And of course modern philosophy continued from Descartes and you got these more major questions with Leibniz and so forth over to Kant and yadayada modern Philosophy.

Point is you have an overly reductive view of the historic trends of philosophy such as how these topics which you considered were "forgotten" were present within religion and art, and merely less popular than the thought of the day in its own philosophy.

[Anonymous No.16170649]

>>16170623
....But i never said, nor meant to imply they were "Forgotten". I was going to add Aquinus as an example of continued trend of aristotilianism, but thought that saying neoplatonists and augustine was enough.

ANd like i said, the heirs to plato and aristotle continued on, but it doesnt seem until Descarte that there was a major development in the main conception of the two. the various successors to A and P really only reinterpreted them rather than reinventing the wheel.

[Anonymous No.16170671]

>>16170649
Bro I read like the first sentence I just made an assumption and ran with it gathering like you just found out about Plato and Aristotle.

However you've recognised something very true in which was resurfaced by Heidegger, that after Aristotle, the conscious question of the meaning of being had been forgotten, that is the seinsfrage, and Heidegger nicely tops off the end of all Western philosophy until the next great development. Just read the introduction or first chapter of Being and Time and you'll get it.

[Anonymous No.16170686]

>>16170649
>but it doesnt seem until Descarte that there was a major development in the main conception of the two. the various successors to A and P really only reinterpreted them rather than reinventing the wheel.
Also you're inferring that philosophy only exists within their goals, someone like Augustine was developing a moral philosophy, Christian and not Greek though approximated by them, among of course other things in being one of the greats, but this alone stands as something absolutely unique in how he was doing it and what he achieved. Point is Plato and Aristotle are broader figures than you might think, as well as them laying the basis for all Western philosophy after them. Try to keep in mind both of these facts.

[Anonymous No.16170732]

>>16170671
>Bro I read like the first sentence I just made an assumption and ran with it gathering like you just found out about Plato and Aristotle.
no worries, ive done the same too.
On your second point i cannot comment, since i am reading chronologically and am only at the beginning of hegel.

>>16170686
I agree that the goal of philosophy is different for different philosophers. Pico has a good excerpt about that in Oration on the Dignity of Man. But, even though their goals change, weither it be moral phil or systematic, pagan, or christian, they seem to all follow and use the core paradigms of either plato or aristotle. It doesnt seem to me that the fundement was shaken (in terms of liniage of thought, till Descarte, who took it from the idealism of plato, to a question of being in cogito.

[Anonymous No.16170777]

>>16170732
How familiar are you with the presocratics? Those core paradigms often go back to figures such as Parmenides or Anaximander.

[Anonymous No.16170792]

>>16170777
a little, but not very. But if Descarte does reflect those, then its a question why P and A seemed to dominate high philosophy until then.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16170916]

>>16170501
The purpose of philosophy was to understand the world and how to live best in it.
Science took over where philosophy left off and Epicurus perfected the good life.

Fuck, I hate Christianity.

[Anonymous No.16172056]

>>16170501
plato basically laid out where you can go with philosophy. it's weird, like he had some sort of prophetic vision. what you consider divorced from plato is probably already contained within him, besides ideas of someone like wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.16172077]

>>16170792
Descartes doesn't "reflect" Plato, but he does work by what he has done, but that said Plato isn't as original as many make out, because we are missing a ton of previous thinkers which we know he built off in various ways. But Descartes is still a completely original thinker doing his own thing and influenced by various other thinkers such as Augustine. And you should know, these different time periods have their own philosophy, you can say the Greeks are the greatest, but in many ways they're inferior to the later developments of Christian theology, and they're doing a whole thing as well completely different, or the Renaissance, or the Empiricist/Rationalist split and so forth. It seems somewhat naive, to say that all of philosophy "is" just practically the Greeks, as important and great as they are.

[Anonymous No.16173334]

>>16170501
Logic is high philosophy
The Stoics developed logic along different lines from Aristotle and in some ways surpassed him
There were also plenty of logicians in the middle ages - William of Ockham is probably the most famous
Descartes was in part reacting against them
Read More

[Anonymous No.16173385]

>>16170501
>I mean, the hight of the classical world continued for like 500 years after these guys, so its not like there wasnt a society and infastructure to support it.
disdain for arm chair philosophers wanting to be paid for mental masturbation
Once the bourgeois revived the academia, all those weak men could get a job again masturbating in academia.

[Anonymous No.16173428]

>>16170916
braindead retard

[Anonymous No.16173447]

>>16173385
incel virgin detected

[Gustav Klimt No.16173462]

>>16170501
AI has already surpassed us virtually in every field of philosophy already. Check out GOT-3; they won't release it to the public only because they know it would have a devastating effect on philosophers and writers and essentially just put all of them out of a job. Get a grip you stupid bitch.

[Anonymous No.16173470]

[Anonymous No.16173499]

>>16170501
It's more like your knowledge of philosophy after them is nonexistent. Read more.

[Anonymous No.16174530]

>>16170501
Read The Decline of the West

[Anonymous No.16174618]

Solid music taste. They peaked with that album.

[Anonymous No.16175444]

>>16172056
plato was a god