/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23283228]

>Oswald Spengler: “A man like Kant must always feel himself as superior to a Beethoven as the adult is to the child, but this will not prevent a Beethoven from regarding the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ as a pitiable sort of philosophy.”

[Anonymous No.23283245]

>>23283228
Beethoven greatly admired Kant. What a retard.

>inb4 some complex philosophical yapyap about action over reason

[Anonymous No.23283249]

>>23283228
Spergler?

[Anonymous No.23283865]

>>23283228
>spenglerites try to be learned in any field that’s not their brand of nazi mysticism (impossible challenge)

[Anonymous No.23284348]

>>23283245
I can imagine it's the same reason there's admiration for people like Terry Davis
>>23283249
>>23283865
t. seething trannies

[Anonymous No.23284360]

>>23283865
>spenglerites
not a real thing. I am the only actual Spenglerite and I completed his metaphysics for him.

[Anonymous No.23284410]

>>23284348
>I can imagine it's the same reason there's admiration for people like Terry Davis
No, like most German Romantics he was probably inspired by the moral and pantheistic consequences of Kant's philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23284562]

>>23284348
Thank you, seething tranny, for your useless insight

[Anonymous No.23284572]

>>23284410
More like, he was inspired by the German romantics. All Kant did was bad philosophizing acceptable.

[Anonymous No.23284580]

>>23284572
make bad philosophizing acceptable*
>>23284562
I'm not a tranny but your response invokes troon meltdown.

[Anonymous No.23284581]

>>23284572
You haven't read Schiller's response to Kant? You should know all German romantics love Kant.

>The moral law within us and the starry sky above us!
- Beethoven's diary 1820

[Anonymous No.23284589]

>>23284580
Hey you signed your post that way

[Anonymous No.23284599]

>>23284581
>>23284589
Attempts to bottle metaphysical claims with sophistry is incomparable and in no way similar to listening to music
inb4 more cope from the kanttrannies

[Anonymous No.23284614]

>>23284599
I don't know anyone who said philosophy is similar to music ITT, especially not to philosophy which is attempting to bottle metaphysical claims with sophistry. I have no idea what your problem is.

[Sage No.23284616]

hey look, another useless thread

[Anonymous No.23284656]

>>23283228
This is interesting. As far as I know Beethoven never did any deep philosophy like Kant. Is that to say that Beethoven would easily gets to Kant's level of philosophy if tried? And only that he chose music? Are there different types of intelligence?

[Anonymous No.23285991]

>>23284410
There is no pantheistic consequence in Kant's philosophy. That said, Beethoven seemed to have been enthralled by the first two critiques. Kant is also one of the few philosophers who was mentioned and even quoted in his conversation books.

[Anonymous No.23285994]

>>23284581
There's a mistake in your quote: Beethoven actually put THREE exclamation marks after that quote. He never did that with any other philosopher. I genuinely have no idea why Spengler thought Beethoven pitied Kant.

[Anonymous No.23286065]

>>23285991
>There is no pantheistic consequence in Kant's philosophy.
It doesn't matter if there le objectively was, for every German Romantic there was.

[Anonymous No.23286086]

>>23286065
There was for them only because they rejected one of Kant's foundational arguments, namely that intellectual intuition is not part of the human domain. When people like Schiller and Fichte started to admit intellectual intuition in their system (the former on aesthetic grounds, the latter on the ground of self-consciousness), they could start using Kant's philosophical framework to build ontotheological philosophies.
Notice also that Schiller, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel were not pantheists either, so your reconstruction is wrong on two levels.

[Anonymous No.23286118]

>>23286086
>Schiller, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel were not pantheists either
Very pedantic criticism here, and it could be argued completely technically for a couple of them. What do you want me to say, a mystical sense of nature was the Romantic result of Kant's philosophy????

[Anonymous No.23286137]

>>23286118
>Very pedantic criticism here
No it isn't. They literally all rejected it in explicit terms, pretty much always with critiques towards spinozism. It's less about me being pedantic, and more about you being superficial.
>What do you want me to say, a mystical sense of nature was the Romantic result of Kant's philosophy????
It wasn't. As I have already pointed out, it was the result of the introduction of intellectual intuition, which is complete anathema in Kant's philosophy. In Kant they just found useful tools to further their system, once they had already adopted a foundation that was completely incompatible with his philosophy.
Also a "mystical sense of nature" is not a sufficient criterion for pantheism. Plato had it too in Timaeus, but his system is clearly a creationist one that posits a transcendent God. The world's soul was not God for any of these philosophers.

[Anonymous No.23286172]

>>23286137
>The world's soul was not God for any of these philosophers.
I don't care. And to say Plato had a mystical sense of nature is just ridiculous, he had a mysticism, but it explains nature like a clock. i don't care about anymore of your pseud misunderstanding of terms when they're entirely sufficient to convey a point. If you can't understand what is being conveyed then you're autistic. Also, they didn't just find in Kant useful tools for their philosophy, their philosophy was based on and wouldn't exist without him. Again, it doesn't matter what you think, that's how they thought and that's how it worked out. I don't care about any of your mind numbingly insignificant pseudo-academic opinions. The difference between pantheism, panentheism or whatnot is most of the time superficial.

[Anonymous No.23286185]

>>23286172
>I don't care.
Fine. Ill still correct you if you misuse terms.
>And to say Plato had a mystical sense of nature is just ridiculous, he had a mysticism, but it explains nature like a clock.
No he doesn't. The cosmos is literally a minor, living, thinking God. Read Timaeus.
>i don't care about anymore of your pseud misunderstanding of terms when they're entirely sufficient to convey a point.
The term was misused, and your point was wrong. There's no reason to get angry about it, you simply did not know what "pantheism" means, and what any of these philosophers actually believed.
>Also, they didn't just find in Kant useful tools for their philosophy, their philosophy was based on and wouldn't exist without him.
You could say the same about Kant and, say, Hume and Aristotle. Kant is still neither a Humean or an Aristotelian lol
>Again, it doesn't matter what you think, that's how they thought and that's how it worked out.
No, they didn't, hence why the posited intellectual intuition as the foundation of their own systems (which is categorically negated by Kant). Unfortunately for you I actually have read their works.

[Anonymous No.23286258]

>>23286185
>The cosmos is literally a minor, living, thinking God. Read Timaeus.
Once again you fail to understand what terms convey because of your overly literal autism. Perhaps you should think 'what was this person conveying with this term?' and not automatically assume something as dumb as your own mind concocts. Give people the benefit of the doubt, and make a slight remark on the technical truth, but do not assume it to be the absolute intention. You have the thought process of an idiot, never exceeding a single line. I have already read the Timaeus, multiple times, and it's not at all comparable to the mysticism of German Romanticism, a significant point your pseudo-correct knowledge failed to grasp, when, given its significance, it should have been at the forefront of possible meanings. If you fail to understand just how fundamentally different Plato's and Schelling's divinisation of nature is then you never understood anything at all. Compared to Schelling's, Plato's world is a clock with absolutely explainable proportions and perfect ordering, and what is unknown, in exact proportion to its divinity, does not belong to nature but the world of Ideas.

>your point was wrong
Which was? What was my point? Tell me if you can. I doubt you can, because you seem to have no understanding of what actually was considered Kant's importance by German Romantics.

[Anonymous No.23286286]

>>23286185
>they posited intellectual intuition as the foundation of their own systems (which is categorically negated by Kant).

>t. doesn't know

>The few passages that remained obscure to me, after due efforts of thought, (as the chapter on original apperception,) and the apparent contradictions which occur, I soon found were hints and insinuations referring to ideas, which KANT either did not think it prudent to avow, or which he considered as consistently left behind in a pure analysis, not of human nature in toto, but of the speculative intellect alone. [...]
He had been in imminent danger of persecution during the reign of the late king of Prussia, that strange compound of lawless debauchery and priest-ridden superstition: and it is probable that he had little inclination, in his old age, to act over again the fortunes, and hair-breadth escapes of Wolf. The expulsion of the first among Kant’s disciples, who attempted to complete his system, from the University of Jena, with the confiscation and prohibition of the obnoxious work by the joint efforts of the courts of Saxony and Hanover, supplied experimental proof, that the venerable old man’s caution was not groundless. In spite therefore of his own declarations, I could never believe, that it was possible for him to have meant no more by his Noumenon, or Thing in itself, than his mere words express; or that in his own conception he confined the whole plastic power to the forms of the intellect, leaving for the external cause, for the materiale of our sensations, a matter without form, which is doubtless inconceivable. I entertained doubts likewise, whether, in his own mind, he even laid all the stress, which he appears to do, on the moral postulates.
-Coleridge

[Anonymous No.23286299]

>>23286137
>Plato had it too in Timaeus
How is Plato's demiurge transcendent? IMO, the demiurge comes off as kind of weaksauce. It's not even a lonely theological universe, as you have Ananke which the demiurge has to negotiate with to get his way (and frequently fails).

[Anonymous No.23286303]

>>23286286
>>23286185
Also:

>The EXOTERIC teaching of the Kantian philosophy — that the understanding ought not to go beyond experience, else the cognitive faculty will become a theoretical reason which by itself generates nothing but fantasies of the brain — this was a justification from a philosophical quarter for the renunciation of speculative thought.

[Anonymous No.23286307]

>>23286258
>Perhaps you should think 'what was this person conveying with this term?' and not automatically assume something as dumb as your own mind concocts.
Or maybe you could try not misusing terms that have been used in a very precise sense for hundreds of years? And maybe you could not sperg out when someone corrects you when you misuse well-established terms, and instead use that as a fruitful opportunity to learn something? I'll leave the choice to you.
>I have already read the Timaeus
Doubt it, considering that, according to you, Plato "explains nature like a clock", which is, and I can't stress it enough, one of the dumbest things you could have said about Timaeus.
>and it's not at all comparable to the mysticism of German Romanticism
It is entirely comparable, considering that it was a major influence on Schiller, Schelling and Hegel. Again, I cannot stress how wrong you are on all these points.
A thing I'll never understand is why people are so hellbent on dumping their misunderstandings (and defend them strenuously) on complete strangers, especially considering that this is an anonymous board. Why are you so set on on misleading strangers on what these philosophers said about this? Why are you not willing to admit that you're just out of your depth, and make use of those around you who are less clueless than you are, so that you can learn something from them?
>Plato's world is a clock with absolutely explainable proportions and perfect ordering, and what is unknown, in exact proportion to its divinity, does not belong to nature but the world of Ideas.
Someone here has somehow missed what Timaeus said about Necessity.
>Which was? What was my point?
That 1) there are "pantheistic consequences in Kant", and that 2) the German Romantics interpreted Kant this way, and built pantheistic systems on top of it. Both of these points are evidently false, and betray a complete unfamiliarity with the texts you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.23286315]

>>23286299
Plato posits both in Timaeus and in Philebus the Demiurge and the formed cosmos as different kinds (in Philebus the former is the cause of the mixture, while the latter is the mixture). At absolutely no point Plato posited any identity between the Demiurge and the cosmos.
And this doesn't even touch the question on wether the Demiurge is to be identified with the Idea of the Good (but this question is beyond the point, since either way the cause of the living cosmos is a transcendent one).

[Anonymous No.23286322]

>>23284360
There's like a hundred people like this, by the way.

[Anonymous No.23286323]

Béatrice Longuenesse (born September 6, 1950) is a French philosopher and academic, who is the Silver Professor of Philosophy Emerita at New York University.[1] Her work focuses on Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and the philosophy of mind.[2][3] She is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[4] Longuenesse is one of the most prominent living Kant scholars, and her works have generated significant discussion around parts of Kant's corpus that were previously largely overlooked.[5]

[Anonymous No.23286324]

>>23286303
I recommend you to read what Hegel actually thought of Kant's three critiques. You can find it in the section on Kant in the Lectures on the History of Philosophy. Sorry to shot you down, but the idea (which you seem to take from Coleridge) that to Hegel Kant had some sort of esoteric teaching regarding the status of intellectual intuition is so misguided and unfounded that I don't even know where to start to pick it apart. Probably the shortest text you could check out on this issue is his letter to Fichte, which should be quite illuminating.
Also the idea that Kant was scared of censorship wrt intellectual intuition is downright laughable, considering what he was willing to publish (namely, the second critique, and especially Religion Within the Limits of Mere Reason).

[Anonymous No.23286341]

>>23286324
Have you read Chalybäus?

[Anonymous No.23286350]

>>23286324
you have to read between the lines

[Anonymous No.23286364]

>>23286315
The problem that you're not appreciating is that the claim that the demiurge is "transcendent" is undermined by the fact that the khora, the fabric from which the cosmos is woven, and Ananke, who has the final decision in how the khora is woven, are in some ways more powerful than the demiurge itself. What is transcendent about the demiurge? Not a lot.

[Anonymous No.23286383]

>>23286350
Retarded pic, the thoughts are supplied by sensibility which is supplied by the thing-in-itself. Kant secretly proved the existence of unknowable reality and retards still think nit picking faggots lile Hegel is where it's at.

[Anonymous No.23286388]

>>23286350
Im the anon you were responding to, but I agree with this response >>23286383
Sensibility completely accounts for said content. The denial of intellectual intuition means denying the spontaneity of sensibility, and affirming its passivity (and also affirming the synthetic function of the understanding).

[Anonymous No.23286390]

>>23286364
Do you know what transcendent means?
Regardless, the Demiurge wins over the chora, which is why the cosmos is both teleologically oriented, and completely organic.

[Anonymous No.23286423]

>>23286383
>>23286388
*whoosh*

[Anonymous No.23286427]

>>23286423
Im sorry bro, your entire theory is based on a complete misreading. I'm not even talking about anything advanced, this stuff is dealt with in the first 3 pages of the Transcendental Aesthetics lol

[Anonymous No.23286449]

>>23286390
>Do you know what transcendent means?
I'd like to know. It's kind of a fuzzy word.
>the Demiurge wins over the chora
Except when he doesn't, because Ananke cockblocked him. And if we think about winning, we tend to think about "getting one's way." The Demiurge wins part of the time, since sometimes he successfully persuades Ananke and other times he doesn't. Ananke always gets her way because she always has to assent to the creation, and when she doesn't assent to the creation, it simply does not happen. Therefore, Ananke is the ruler of the cosmos.

[Anonymous No.23286453]

>>23286324
Who said Kant was esoteric because of censorship? Kant felt that nobody cared about his work because it was boring, see Perpetual Peace. Perhaps he had other reasons.

[Anonymous No.23286569]

>>23286449
>I'd like to know
In this context, the Demiurge would be transcendent insofar as he is a cause that remains completely separated from the effect. This kind of complete separatedness can be almost exclusively be used in theological discussions of this sort (for example, there's no such thing as a transcendent cause in the world; on the other hand the creator of the world can remain external to the world itself).

Regarding your second point, I have no idea what you're talking about. Timaeus states that the Demiurge fully integrates the chora in its creation, by turning it into an auxiliary cause. At no point it is stated that the chora can escape its shackles.

[Anonymous No.23286655]

>>23286569
>At no point it is stated that the chora can escape its shackles.
Then explain this:
>[48a] For, in truth, this Cosmos in its origin was generated as a compound, from the combination of Necessity and Reason. And inasmuch as Reason was controlling Necessity by persuading her to conduct to the best end the most part of the things coming into existence, thus and thereby it came about, through Necessity yielding to intelligent persuasion, that this Universe of ours was being in this wise constructed at the beginning. Wherefore if one is to declare how it actually came into being on this wise, he must include also the form of the Errant Cause, in the way that it really acts.
>[56a] ... And, moreover, as regards the numerical proportions which govern their masses and motions and their other qualities, we must conceive that God realized these everywhere with exactness, in so far as the nature of Necessity submitted voluntarily or under persuasion, and thus ordered all in harmonious proportion.
If boss-lady Ananke says no, then the harmony ends with her. And that's final.

[Anonymous No.23286765]

>>23286655
What translation are you using? Because it sounds terrible.
Also the second passage is not from 56a.

[Anonymous No.23286792]

>>23286655
As a side note, I would add that Timaeus makes it very clear that only the Demiurge can dissolve the living cosmos. This is stated in the most explicit terms in the speech of the Demiurge to the minor gods (and there he also states that since he is good, he will never dissolve it, meaning that the living cosmos will have an infinite duration). So, no, the chora cannot "revoke" its consent, the living cosmos is there to stay forever: the chora has been shackled forever and ever.
The passage you've mentioned have more to do with the artisanal model Timaeus uses: the chora offers the material to build the living cosmos. It is fixed, which is why the Demiurge has to repurpose it as an auxiliary cause. Similarly the sculptor who is sculpting marble will have to consider its material properties, and use them in the most optimal way in order to reach his aim (which is to make a statue). This artisanal relationship is expressed metaphorically with the image of "persuasion". That it's a metaphor is obvious, since the chora, being completely indeterminate, has no will, consciousness or personhood.

[Anonymous No.23286832]

>>23286765
My bad, it was 56c. I’m using the Perseus website which uses an old translation. Nevertheless, I’ve used the Greek term for Necessity, Ananke.
>>23286792
You keep missing the part where Ananke needs to be persuaded for the khora to be altered. If Ananke’s word is what goes, then Ananke is more powerful than the demiurge. It is implied in 56c that there are harmonies which fall short of perfection or are never implemented at all because Necessity rules against it.

[Anonymous No.23286879]

>>23286832
>You keep missing the part where Ananke needs to be persuaded for the khora to be altered. If Ananke’s word is what goes, then Ananke is more powerful than the demiurge.
I've already answered to this here >>23286792 .

[Anonymous No.23286886]

>>23284360
>completed
>metaphysics
lmao

[Anonymous No.23286898]

>this thread
Jesus Christ philosophy is gay

[Anonymous No.23286971]

>>23286427
>t. doesn't know

>Our Critique would be an investigation utterly superfluous, if there existed a possibility of proving a priori, that all thinking beings are in themselves simple substances, as such, therefore, possess the inseparable attribute of personality, and are conscious of their existence apart from and unconnected with matter. For we should thus have taken a step beyond the world of sense, and have penetrated into the sphere of noumena; and in this case the right could not be denied us of extending our knowledge in this sphere, of establishing ourselves, and, under a favouring star, appropriating to ourselves possessions in it.

[Anonymous No.23287007]

>>23286971
>Hasn't read the rest of the sections on the 4 paralogisms

[Anonymous No.23287101]

>>23287007
indeed I have and read between the lines

[Anonymous No.23287144]

>>23286350
>>23287101
75% of Secret doctrine theories in philosophy are some desperate faggot projecting ideas that aren't there on some philosopher. And the remaining 25% is just a guy who forgot to take his meds reading philosophy.
99% of instances 'reading between the lines' is just making shit up.

[Anonymous No.23287194]

>>23287144
You pulled those numbers out of your butt. Regardless, there is an esoteric hermeneutics of Kant which was obvious to many from Fichte to Hegel and beyond, Kant's tongue-in-cheek denials of that hermeneutics not withstanding. The hints he gratuitously provides throughout his work are obvious for those who have grasped the spirit behind the letter.

[Anonymous No.23288238]

>>23287194
You're just delusional, sorry.

[Anonymous No.23288674]

>>23286879
Yeah and I’m telling you your answer sucks because the text states at 56c that the Demiurge doesn’t always get his way. You’re focused on the khora “consenting” when it’s Ananke who the Demiurge is ultimately subordinate to. I don’t understand how you keep missing the point so hard.

[Anonymous No.23289111]

>>23288674
The Ananke is just the kind of the khora, in the same way Being is the kind of the world of Ideas and Beco
ming is the kind of the formed cosmos. When Plato speaks of Ananke he is just talking about the specific type of causality that is brought to the table by the khora. This specifically refers to the complete absence of rationality and teleological orientation in the activity of the khora.

Secondly, I have already pointed a passage (namely the speech of the Demiurge to the minor gods) in which it is said that he has the last word on the duration of the cosmos, and since he is good, the cosmos will last forever. This passage directly contradicts your claim, for which the khora/ananke can retract her consent at any point.

[Anonymous No.23289114]

>>23289111
Here's the passage. I'll use **this** to underline the relevant passages

>Now when all the gods, both those who revolve manifestly and those who manifest themselves so far as they choose, had come to birth, He that generated this All addressed them thus:

>Gods of gods, those works whereof I am framer and father are indissoluble **save by my will**. For though all that is bound may be dissolved,
>yet to will to dissolve that which is fairly joined together and in good case were the deed of a wicked one. Wherefore ye also, seeing that ye were generated, are not wholly immortal or indissoluble, yet in no wise shall ye be dissolved nor incur the doom of death, seeing that in my will ye possess a bond greater and more sovereign than the bonds wherewith, at your birth, ye were bound together.

This passage completely destroys your interpretation

[Anonymous No.23289241]

>>23289111
>The Ananke is just the kind of the khora
Wrong. Ananke is not the same thing as the khora. Where did you get this misunderstanding?
>>23289114
It doesn't destroy anything because any binding of the khora requires the consent of Ananke, full stop. Even if Ananka would forever consent to it anyway, Ananke is still making the final decision and thus holds all the power. The demiurge is can only make promises within the scope of his own power, which is still limited by Ananke. None of your debunkings address without completely throwing out 48a or 56c.

[Anonymous No.23289285]

>>23289241
>Wrong. Ananke is not the same thing as the khora. Where did you get this misunderstanding?
Let's look at the passage in which it is introduced:
>For, in truth, this Cosmos in its origin was generated as a compound, from the combination of Necessity and Reason. And inasmuch as Reason was controlling Necessity by persuading her to conduct to the best end the most part of the things coming into existence, thus and thereby it came about, through Necessity yielding to intelligent persuasion, that this Universe of ours was being in this wise constructed at the beginning.
Here it is said that Reason and Necessity are the combination from which the living cosmos was generated. But we know that they are not entities, and that the cosmos is in fact generated by the manipulation of the chora by the Demiurge, who uses the ideal zoon as his paradigm. This means that Reason and Necessity are instead the type of causality of the essential components of the universe, namely, the activity of the Demiurge, and the recipient of that activity, namely the khora/receptacle. Necessity is just the way in which the Khora acts, and in the same sense, Reason is just the way in which the Demiurge acts (rather than Reason being some, separate third entity). Or, as I said earlier, these terms refer to the type of causality manifested by the first principles.
>It doesn't destroy anything because any binding of the khora requires the consent of Ananke, full stop. The demiurge is can only make promises within the scope of his own power, which is still limited by Ananke
The Demiurge literally says "Gods of gods, those works whereof I am framer and father are indissoluble **save by my will**.". I even underlined it! So, no, the duration of the cosmos is entirely dependent on the Demiurge's will, as he states in the most explicit terms.
>None of your debunkings address without completely throwing out 48a or 56c.
You just haven't understood what is the Ananke (since you treat it as its own entity, rather than as what it really is, namely the mode of causality of the khora), nor you have understood the artisanal scheme that is used by Timaeus to depict the action of the Demiurge (which I have already described earlier on, with the metaphor of the sculptor).

[Anonymous No.23289604]

>>23289285
Khora does not have causality. Causality implies limits and the khora does not have limits as such unless it is imposed from the outside. There are two kinds of limits, those which are wrought by Ananke and can only be explained by brute fact, and those which are fashioned by the Demiurge with consent of Ananke. Hence, this is why it's absurd to assume that Ananke is the khora. I don't know where you're getting the fanciful rhetoric about "modes of khora", because it's not supported by the text, and it's not even a precise metaphysical object, trait, or action.
>The Demiurge literally says "Gods of gods, those works whereof I am framer and father are indissoluble **save by my will**.". I even underlined it! So, no, the duration of the cosmos is entirely dependent on the Demiurge's will, as he states in the most explicit terms.
If it was once not, and then it was by the hand of the Demiurge, then Ananke was content with it not existing, and then continued to be content with its existence. If Ananke is indifferent to something's existence, then the Demiurge has all the power to make or break its own creation. However, this is still a promise couched in the Demiurge's subordination to Ananke, who has the final veto and simply chooses not to express it.

[Anonymous No.23289704]

>>23289604
>Khora does not have causality.
Khora has causality once it enters in a relation with the shaping activity of the Demiurge. This causality shows itself first and foremost in the resistance that it posits against said activity. This resistance is explained by the fact that the activity of the khora is not teleologically oriented (which is to say, it is not rational, or in other terms, it doesn't follow the paradigm offered by the ideal zoon). In the formed, living world, this causality shows itself in the guise of mechanical causality, which is what's meant by Errant cause (or in more modern terms, auxiliary cause): a type of causality that is mechanical and not goal-oriented.
>Hence, this is why it's absurd to assume that Ananke is the khora.
I haven't said that the Ananke is the khora, I have said that the Ananke is the term used to indicate the mode of causality of the khora. To hypostatize the Ananke is as misguided as separating Reason from the Demiurge.
With your method you end up with a system with at least 5 first principle (world of Ideas, khora, Demiurge, Ananke, Reason), and one derived principle (the living cosmos). On the other hand, my interpretation not only has a factual basis on the text (considering that Reason and Necessity are always treated as modes of causality), but also fits perfectly the ontological scheme of Philebus, which is based on four kinds (World of Ideas=limited, khora=unlimited, Demiurge=cause of the mixture, living cosmos=mixture).
>If it was once not, and then it was by the hand of the Demiurge, then Ananke was content with it not existing, and then continued to be content with its existence.
First of all, check what I have said above. The ananke is not some sort of soul or person, it is just the unthinking, mechanical, a-teleological mode of causality expressed by the khora in its relation with the Demiurge (kinda like the marble and the sculptor).
Secondly, the Demiurge posits ONLY his will as a possible cause of dissolution (let me quote him for the third time: "those works whereof I am framer and father are indissoluble **save by my will**".
The Receptacle/Ananke has NO power of veto, and the Demiurge, who is good and therefore cannot lie, has stated so in the most explicit and incontrovertible terms. This means that the "consent" of the Receptacle is out of the picture. The Demiurge has completely dominated the unthinking nature of the Khora, and he has turned Ananke into an auxiliary cause of Reason (which means that he has completely subordinated Necessity, turning it into an auxiliary cause for his own plan). The sculptor has understood how to make the best possible use of the marble, and with it he has created a perfect work of art that can be destroyed only by himself.

[Anonymous No.23289722]

>I haven't said that the Ananke is the khora, I have said that the Ananke is the term used to indicate the mode of causality of the khora.
First of all, what the hell is a "mode" of something versus the actual thing itself? Is it an attribute? A particular instance of the thing as opposed to the thing as a genus? A part of the thing as opposed to the whole thing? Define your ontological terms with precision.
>This resistance is explained by the fact that the activity of the khora is not teleologically oriented (which is to say, it is not rational, or in other terms, it doesn't follow the paradigm offered by the ideal zoon).
Why would something that is missing a goal be resistant to goals in the first place? Lack can not be the definition of resistance. A doorway cannot resist your entry without a door.
>at least 5 first principle (world of Ideas, khora, Demiurge, Ananke, Reason),
Nothing inherently wrong with five first principles. There are five Platonic solids, after all. Also, why separate the Demiurge from Reason, given your willingness to merge Ananke into the khora? I'm not committed to five first principles, but I think it's laughable that you think that we should begin with the surface-level signposting of the dialogues.
>but also fits perfectly the ontological scheme of Philebus, which is based on four kinds (World of Ideas=limited, khora=unlimited, Demiurge=cause of the mixture, living cosmos=mixture)
The ontological scheme of Philebus doesn't fit well with anything because said scheme is provisional. Socrates himself admits that he feels ridiculous dividing first philosophy into kinds. And when Protarchus ("first principles") suggests a fifth kind, for division, Socrates declines to state it "at least for now." Besides, you're again forgetting that Ananke has limits, the limits of necessity which are discoverable through "bastard reasoning", so how can it be the same as the khora and thus in the category of the unlimited? You're making no sense by contradicting yourself all over the place.
>The ananke is not some sort of soul or person, it is just the unthinking, mechanical, a-teleological mode of causality expressed by the khora in its relation with the Demiurge (kinda like the marble and the sculptor).
Then what is the Demiurge?

[Anonymous No.23289755]

>>23289722
>First of all, what the hell is a "mode" of something versus the actual thing itself?
Again, I have said that it is a "mode of causality of the khora", not a "mode of the khora". And I have explained what I meant: it is the way in which the khora acts (e.g. mechanistically, non-teleologically oriented, irrationally, etc.).
If you prefer we can use the word "activity" instead of "causality".
>Why would something that is missing a goal be resistant to goals in the first place?
Because it is a kind of activity that is not being directed towards a goal, and now it is being subjected to a goal-oriented activity. Hence the metaphor of "persuasion". The marble is not directed towards the goal of being a statue either, and due to its natural properties it offers a resistance to the sculptor, who has to learn about the material he wants to use, and has to find the optimal way to shape it in order to reach his goal.
I would also add a correction to something you've said earlier: it is not true that the khora has no activity or causality. This can be easily refuted with the passages on the precosmic state of the khora.
>Nothing inherently wrong with five first principles
Apart for the fact that such a scheme is denies in Philebus. Moreover the number of the platonic solids is explained mathematically, with a reference towards proportion. At no point the number of platonic solids is correlated to the number of first principles.
>Also, why separate the Demiurge from Reason, given your willingness to merge Ananke into the khora?
I'm against separating the Demiurge from Reason for the same exact reason Im against separating the Khora from Ananke. And I have mentioned Reason because that's what's set against Ananke in the passage you've used to make this point.
>The ontological scheme of Philebus doesn't fit well with anything because said scheme is provisional. Socrates himself admits that he feels ridiculous dividing first philosophy into kinds.
Because you're not considering the dramatic aspect of the dialogue. There's a reason why Plato always leaves questions regarding dialectical fundamental ontology to other characters (Timaeus and the Eleatic Stranger, and to a lesser extent the Athenian). The possibility of additional divisions falls under the domain of derived principles (e.g. individual souls as principles of artifacts), since the scheme that is given in both Timaeus and Philebus is sufficient to explain the generation of the cosmos.
>Besides, you're again forgetting that Ananke has limits, [...] category of the unlimited?
Thank you for making my point. The passage about "bastard reasoning" is about the khora.
>Then what is the Demiurge?
In the context of Timaeus, he is an entity that shapes the khora while using the ideal zoon as his model. His mode of activity is the one of Reason, since it is rational and goal oriented (for it follows a paradigm).

[Anonymous No.23289790]

>>23289755
>If you prefer we can use the word "activity" instead of "causality".
That makes more sense. But, leaving aside the identification of khora with Ananke, it is still strange that the activity of the khora is necessity. With necessity as part of its being, what is left for the Demiurge to sculpt? Is the Demiurge who he is by necessity? If so, then the Demiurge needs Ananke to be the Demiurge and thus is not transcendental.
>The marble is not directed towards the goal of being a statue either, and due to its natural properties it offers a resistance to the sculptor, who has to learn about the material he wants to use, and has to find the optimal way to shape it in order to reach his goal.
The marble isn't a good metaphor because all worldly materials have its own stable resting position, e.g. a natural place, telos, etc. You are switching the marble from one telos to another, not bequeathing telos to marble utterly bereft of telos.
>I would also add a correction to something you've said earlier: it is not true that the khora has no activity or causality. This can be easily refuted with the passages on the precosmic state of the khora.
I never said that the khora has no activity. Rather, it has no limits.
>Apart for the fact that such a scheme is denies in Philebus.
A fifth kind is not denied insofar as it is seen as unnecessary, for the time being (in context of the passage). Denied is a strong word, and what Socrates is doing is meant for the sake of the discussion, not as a comprehensive metaphysical treatise. Besides, what Socrates is doing is division (what divides the ontological kinds from each other?). So, how can you say that division isn't important in this ontological scheme? And how can you say that division is unnecessary, given Socrates himself admits that he feels foolish for making these divisions in the first place, given the fact that Philebus is thought to be written after a bunch of dialogues dealing extensively with the method of division (Phaedrus, Sophist, Statesman, etc.). And how can you say that what was spoken is final, even though Protarchus reminds him that there are more things to cover? Even though Philebus as a dialogue begins in media res and ends before the discussion concludes? You can't accuse me of not paying attention to the subtleties of the plot when you're violating the dramatic details itself to make your schema of Timaeus fit onto Philebus without tying any loose ends.
>At no point the number of platonic solids is correlated to the number of first principles.
The elements in Timaeus? Hello?
>I'm against separating the Demiurge from Reason for the same exact reason Im against separating the Khora from Ananke.
Special pleading.
>Thank you for making my point. The passage about "bastard reasoning" is about the khora.
How is that point made? You're sloppily throwing in something with essence in with the things that don't have any essence at all.

[Anonymous No.23289855]

>>23289790
>But, leaving aside the identification of khora with Ananke, it is still strange that the activity of the khora is necessity.
Ananke in Greek is also translated as fate, in a sense that is divorced from deliberation and willing (and it is in fact, in greek tragedy and epics, explicitly opposed to it). Here it is used to represent the mechanistic character of the activity of the khora. It is not meant in the more modern sense, where it is usually meant to denote that the opposite of a given x is contradictory.
>The marble isn't a good metaphor because all worldly materials have its own stable resting position, e.g. a natural place, telos, etc.
The marble is a good example. Timaeus uses a similar example, but with gold instead. Notice also that the shape of a chunk of gold/marble has in fact no telos: there's no natural shape for it, which is also why we can sculpt it without it ceasing to be marble.
>A fifth kind is not denied insofar as it is seen as unnecessary, for the time being (in context of the passage)
It is unnecessary because, as I have pointed out, 3 first principle and one derived one are enough to give a comprehensive picture of the world (both physical, as in the case of Timaeus, and even both physical and moral, like in Philebus: the 4 principles can account for the entirety of Plato's fundamental ontology, both theoretical and practical). Other divisions can be found only in the domain of derived principles, and I have already offered an example of it.
>So, how can you say that division isn't important in this ontological scheme?
... I haven't?
>And how can you say that division is unnecessary, [...]extensively with the method of division (Phaedrus, Sophist, Statesman, etc.)
By it I meant that ulterior divisions are unnecessary to account for the generation of the cosmos, and the fundamental kinds in Plato's ontology. At no point I have said that divisions in general are unnecessary.
Regarding the second point, notice that Socrates wasn't the main character in any of those dialogues. Check Aristotle's Metaphysics Alpha Maior for a biographical account that will explain why Plato is not comfortable in using Socrates as a stand-in when it comes to dialectical fundamental ontology.
>The elements in Timaeus? Hello?
Yes, which are never correlated to the first principles. Their number is derived through a mixture of the principle of proportion (for earth, fire, air and water) and the principle of comprehensiveness (the aether is added with no mathematical reasoning, for decorative purposes).
>Special pleading.
How so?
>How is that point made? You're sloppily throwing in something with essence in with the things that don't have any essence at all.
That's why the reasoning is bastard. The status of the chora is obtained through negative determinations. And again, my point stands. You've mentioned the bastard reasoning without realizing that it explicitly referred to the khora, rather than the Ananke.

[Anonymous No.23290069]

>>23283228
Spengler had some okay ideas about civilisational cycles, but a lot of it is just embezzled schizo ideas. Wasted half a day reading about how greek math is different to faustian math because greeks are in city states in archipeligos, wheraes germans come from trees.

[Anonymous No.23290141]

>>23283245
he should have went with mozart, who did all that beethoven did that was worth doing, better than
beethoven did (and none of the bad, unwise things that beethoven did), and of whom it can be safely said had hardly any knowledge of the writings of philosophers

[Anonymous No.23290143]

>>23283245
he should have went with mozart, who did all that beethoven did that was worth doing, better than beethoven did (and none of the bad, unwise things that beethoven did), and who it can be safely said had hardly any knowledge of the writings of philosophers

[Anonymous No.23290167]

>>23283228
>spengler
you need to go back to >>/pol/

[Anonymous No.23290263]

>>23283228
astonishing number of kant apologists here

[Anonymous No.23290681]

>>23290167
Why /po/tards don't understand Spengler and would disagree with a lot of his takes especially regarding political recurrence, Eurocentrism and race

[Anonymous No.23292008]

>>23290167
Spengler is not a nazi tho

[Anonymous No.23292157]

You know the expression keep your chin up? Nah bruv keep your chin down. In boxing you gotta keep your chin tucked. Gazelle has its chin up, lion chin down.

[Anonymous No.23292459]

Oswald Spengler was a master of style. None can best him. His thoughts were the greatest in all history. All philosophers should unshackle themselves from previous "thinkers". Agreeing with this man should be a prerequisite for further history

[Anonymous No.23292685]

>>23290069
That's not his reasoning. Do you see Calculus practiced in Ancient Greece?

[Anonymous No.23294143]

>>23289855
>It is unnecessary because, as I have pointed out, 3 first principle and one derived one are enough to give a comprehensive picture of the world (both physical, as in the case of Timaeus, and even both physical and moral, like in Philebus: the 4 principles can account for the entirety of Plato's fundamental ontology, both theoretical and practical). Other divisions can be found only in the domain of derived principles, and I have already offered an example of it.
How does it account for division qua division?

[Anonymous No.23294230]

Spengler is using poetic license to highly the difference between his perceived rationalist and the man who lives off instincts. He thought Kant thought about the world while Beethoven felt it. So when he talks about Beethoven hating Kant, he means Beethoven couldn’t have understood Kant as Kant understood himself and vice versa. He couldn’t help but hate the real Kant, although he could love what Kant was to him.

[Anonymous No.23294262]

A man like Oswald Spengler will always be jealous of a superior thinker like Kant and compare him disfavorably to Beethoven even tho he has a mere infinitesimal of a fraction of the talent of either...