/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17278677]

>all philosophy after 1300 is just skepticism

why did this happen?

[Anonymous No.17278758]

>>17278677
not enough data or evidence to be sure

[Anonymous No.17278922]

When did you realize the most maligned group of philosophers, Sophists, were literally right about everything? I remember starting my philosophical journey with the Greeks and scoffing at Sophists, thinking "heh, these people are clueless, the entire philosophical tradition will BTFO them, poor guys", only to realize when I finished contemporary philosophy 5 years later, that THEY were right all along.

[Anonymous No.17279054]

>>17278677
They couldn't burn all the non-dogmatists anymore?
If you had actually read your philosophy, you would have noticed, that it was the same before the dogmatist christcucks got a pocket emperor with a nice big state and a taste for crucifying people who didn't say the things they liked
And then you might have stopped to think, that maybe the question was really, rather, why did you turn into a gullible moron, so eager to believe in the first thing anyone would tell you as long as it was dressed up all fancy and nice?

[Anonymous No.17279067]

>>17279054
they didn't burn anyone. and skepticism existed before but it was not a dominant force for half a cenutry.

[Anonymous No.17279087]

>>17279067
>they didn't burn anyone
You don't know philosophy, so no surprise you don't know history
>skepticism existed before but it was not a dominant force
Read a book sometime, aside from your scripture crap

[Anonymous No.17279138]

>>17279087
>You don't know philosophy, so no surprise you don't know history

Which philosopher did they burn?

>>17279087
>Read a book sometime, aside from your scripture crap
Which period in history did skepticism dominate for half a century?

I'll wait on your replies.

[Anonymous No.17279224]

science started providing real answers and philosophy had to relegate itself to unprovable abstractions

[Anonymous No.17279253]

>>17279224
>unprovable abstractions

That's where science is right now though.

[Anonymous No.17279258]

>>17279253
science is a process

[Anonymous No.17279262]

>>17279258
I don't think you understand. We are talking inherently unprovable abstractions such as multiverse.

[Anonymous No.17279280]

>>17279258
science is model
we wish it was process

[Anonymous No.17279324]

>>17279262
there are many fields of science, such as the one that allows us to digitally have this conversation

[Anonymous No.17279946]

>>17279324
You actually consider computation a science? You drive in a car, that doesn't make you the internal combustion engine. Computers are a vehicle of a mathematical / logic system with various inertias. Logic and science are very different things and one is dictating the other.

[Anonymous No.17279977]

>>17278677
>why did this happen?

As we are speaking of philosophy, we shall mention some of the consequences of individualism in this field, though without entering into every detail: first of all there was the negation of intellectual intuition and the consequent raising of reason above all else, this purely human and relative faculty being treated as the highest part of the intelligence, or even as coinciding with the whole of the intelligence; this is what constitutes rationalism, whose real founder was Descartes. This limitation of intelligence was however only a first stage; before long, reason itself was increasingly relegated to mainly practical functions, in proportion as applications began to predominate over such sciences as might still have kept a certain speculative character; and Descartes himself was already at heart much more concerned with these practical applications than with pure science.

More than this: individualism inevitably implies naturalism, since all that lies beyond nature is, for that very reason, out of reach of the individual as such; naturalism and the negation of metaphysics are indeed but one and the same thing, and once intellectual intuition is no longer recognized, no metaphysics is any longer possible; but whereas some persist in inventing a 'pseudo-metaphysics' of one kind or another, others-with greater frankness-assert its impossibility; from this has arisen 'relativism' in all its forms, whether it be the 'criticism' of Kant or the 'positivism' of Auguste Comte; and since reason itself is quite relative, and can deal validly only with a domain that is equally relative, it is true to say that 'relativism' is the only logical outcome of rationalism. By this means, however, rationalism was to bring about its own destruction: 'nature' and 'becoming', as we said above, are in reality synonymous; a consistent naturalism can therefore only be one of the 'philosophies of becoming', already mentioned, of which the specifically modern type is evolutionism; it was precisely this that finally turned against rationalism, by accusing reason of being unable to deal adequately, on the one hand, with what is solely change and multiplicity, and, on the other, with the indefinite complexity of sensible phenomena.

[Anonymous No.17279983]

>>17279977

This is in fact the position taken up by one form of evolutionism, namely Bergsonian intuitionism, which in fact is not less individualistic and anti-metaphysical than rationalism itself; indeed, although it is just in its criticism of the latter, it sinks even lower, by appealing to a faculty that is really infra-rational, to a vaguely defined sensory intuition more or less mixed up with imagination, instinct, and sentiment. It is highly significant that there is no longer any question here of 'truth', but only of a 'reality' that is reduced exclusively to the sensible order and conceived as something essentially changing and unstable; with such theories, intelligence is reduced to its lowest part, and reason itself is no longer admitted except insofar as it is applied to fashioning matter for industrial uses. After this there remained but one step: the total denial of intelligence and knowledge altogether and the substitution of 'utility' for 'truth'. This step was pragmatism, to which we have just referred; here we are no longer even in the merely human domain as with rationalism, for the appeal to the 'subconscious', which marks the complete reversal of the normal hierarchy, brings us down in fact to the infra-human. This, in its main outlines, is the course that 'profane' philosophy, left to itself and claiming to limit all knowledge to its own horizon, was bound to tread, and has indeed trodden: as long as there existed a higher knowledge, nothing of this sort could happen, for philosophy was bound at least to respect that of which it was ignorant, but whose existence it could not deny; but when this higher knowledge had disappeared, its negation, already a fact, was soon erected into a theory, and it is from this that all modern philosophy has sprung.

[Anonymous No.17280028]

>>17278677
Read Guenon.
>>17279977
>>17279983
Based.