[ 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: 47 KB, 500x772, dickfaggotshitfuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2725055 No.2725055 [Reply] [Original]

I'm having trouble understanding why the Form of the Good is the first principle that produces/explains everything else. What logic is there in that?

>> No.2725080

it's his own unsupported ideology which he goes on to rationalise for 400 pages.

>> No.2725087

>>2725080
so it's just horseshit?
great

>> No.2725097

>>2725080

Let's not forget that the Neoplatonists embraced this idea as one of their central ideological tenets.

>> No.2725101

It's just made up shit, like every non-Christian philosophy or belief.

>> No.2725109

>>2725101
edgier than edgy

>> No.2725114

Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.

"I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".

"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."

Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"

Plato nodded.

"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.

Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'."

>> No.2725124

>>2725114
ohhh shit nigga!!

>> No.2725137

>>2725101
>implying Plato didn't invent virtually every core tenet of Christianity

>> No.2725143
File: 40 KB, 432x324, black-thugs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2725143

>>2725114
GOOOODDDAMMMN

OH SHIT OHSHITOHSIT

>> No.2725149
File: 1.88 MB, 432x240, 1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2725149

>>2725114
OHHHHH BURRRRNNNN

>> No.2725161
File: 58 KB, 500x657, 1335160838587.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2725161

>>2725114

>> No.2725168

>>2725114
Fucking Diogenes! Master troll that has never been seen since his time.

>> No.2725186

>>2725114
Plato confirmed for dumbass pleb

>> No.2725223

>>2725186

Bro, Diogenes got style, but don't even be starting that shit. Plato is still supreme.

>> No.2725240
File: 28 KB, 323x339, manstanza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2725240

>>2725114

>> No.2725255

Plato is teaching at the academia about natural philosophy.
Diogenes casually walks by and hears Plato saying "All animals are defined by two qualities. They are either with or without feathers and they either walk on two or four feet"

So Diogenes picks up a chicken, plucks off all feathers and throws it towards Plato saying "here's a man Plato, he can be your student"

>> No.2725258
File: 119 KB, 500x391, americans.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2725258

>>2725114

>> No.2725482
File: 125 KB, 202x253, 1338107402480.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2725482

>>2725255
HAH! Brilliant. Are these really true?

>> No.2725487

>>2725482
That can't really be said of any anecdote of those times. Often their value is not so much in their literal truth as in what they tell about the people involved and their general character. The following is a great example of that:

A student of philosophy, eager to display his powers of argument, approached Diogenes, introduced himself and said, "If it pleases you, sir, let me prove to you that there is no such thing as motion." Whereupon Diogenes immediately got up and left.

>> No.2725494
File: 6 KB, 182x277, 46h4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2725494

>>2725487

>> No.2725496

>>2725487
>implying that proves anything

>> No.2725498

Plato once saw Diogenes washing lettuces, came up to him and quietly said to him, " Had you paid court to Dionysius, you wouldn't now be washing lettuces," and Diogenes with equal calmness made answer, " If you had washed lettuces, you wouldn't have paid court to Dionysius."

>> No.2725502

Aristotle, Plato and Descartes are on a plane. The flight attendant comes by to take their drink orders. She asks Aristotle if he'd like a beverage. Aristotle says, "I'll have a ginger ale."

"And how about you, Mr. Plato?"

Plato says "Diet Coke, please."

She says, "and Mr. Descartes, anything to drink for you?"

Descartes says, "I think not," and disappears.

>> No.2725503

>>2725502
I don't get it.

>> No.2725504

>>2725503
cogito ergo sum

>> No.2725506

>>2725504
Oh. I am not. Clever.

>> No.2725536

Diogenes: king of /lit/

>> No.2725538
File: 11 KB, 264x356, imm kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2725538

I don't understand "the good will" is the essential and ultimate property of morality. I don't understand how it can even be distinguished, what it is. No, really, I actually don't understand a great deal of what this guy says.

>> No.2725563

>>2725538

>Kant was first and foremost proud of his Table of Categories; with it in his hand he said: "This is the most difficult thing that could ever be undertaken on behalf of metaphysics." Let us only understand this "could be"! He was proud of having DISCOVERED a new faculty in man, the faculty of synthetic judgment a priori. Granting that he deceived himself in this matter; the development and rapid flourishing of German philosophy depended nevertheless on his pride, and on the eager rivalry of the younger generation to discover if possible something--at all events "new faculties"--of which to be still prouder!--But let us reflect for a moment--it is high time to do so. "How are synthetic judgments a priori POSSIBLE?" Kant asks himself--and what is really his answer? "BY MEANS OF A MEANS (faculty)"--but unfortunately not in five words, but so circumstantially, imposingly, and with such display of German profundity and verbal flourishes, that one altogether loses sight of the comical niaiserie allemande involved in such an answer.

>> No.2725635

>>2725563
So... he decided that people could make these a priori judgements because they just could?

>> No.2725818
File: 513 KB, 1800x1044, Pablo Picasso-guernica.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2725818

Diogenes represents someone in Socrates's "Allegory of the Cave" who is staring at the shadows on the wall instead of things that are more real. Diogenes sees Plato and anyone not at his level of understanding as ridiculous. These excerpts are hilarious, but to seriously agree with Diogenes would mean that no one here is making an upward ascension towards the truth - light.

All the lessons in The Republic are made such that they ALL apply to each other. You could think about the dumb book for the rest of your life comparing and contrasting every possible combination!

On some level Diogenes is absolutely true, but on a level he hasn't realized.

>> No.2726321

>>2725635
Yeah. Nietzsche kind of tears him a new asshole over it, too.

>> No.2726341
File: 81 KB, 389x599, diogenes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2726341

>>2725818
Diogenes has reached the highest level of realisation, namely that things just are what they are, and there's no need or use for intellectual masturbation. It's actually detrimental to the good life. Therefore he gave the right example by actual masturbation, instead of the transcendentalist bullshit espoused by Plato.

You could see Diogenes as somewhat of a zen master teaching directly by example, and Plato as a pompous but ultimately confused theoretician.

"Very few of Diogenes' disciples had the physical and mental stamina to become cynics. One in particular left the circle, but not before entreating Diogenes to give him one of his books. "You really are a silly fellow," said Diogenes. "Surely you wouldn't have painted figs instead of real ones. And yet you pass over the genuine practice of wisdom and would be satisfied with what is merely written.""

>> No.2726373

>>2726341
>You could see Diogenes as somewhat of a zen master teaching directly by example, and Plato as a pompous but ultimately confused theoretician.
The reality is quite the opposite however. Diogenes enforced a path to "enlightenment", Plato helped you give birth to your own enlightenment.

>> No.2726384

>>2726373
Diogenes didn't enforce anything outside of ridiculing people for acting like their elevated above the rest of the world thinking their shit doesn't stink. He's about being natural. He wasn't concerned with enlightenment. Neither were the great zen masters, I'd dare say.

It was Plato who went on to found an official school with all kinds of rules and structures and arbitrary dogma, sucking up to tyrants and trying to get them to enforce his idle fantasies.

>A student, struggling with Platonic mathematics, once asked his master, "What practical use do these theorems serve? What is to be gained from them?"
>Plato turned to his attendant slave: "Give this young man an obol [a small coin] that he may feel that he has gained something from my teachings," he ordered. "Then expel him."

>> No.2726389

>>2726384
Plato clearly superior.
You need no utilitarian plebs .

>> No.2726497

>>2726389
I'll just sit here with my actual science and all it has achieved while you go on explaining how the world may well not exist.

>> No.2726506

>>2726497
>probably believes in atoms, quarks, electrons etc which they believe makes up reality
>doesn't see the obvious relation to the allegory of the cave
It's an even better fit with QM.

>> No.2726515

>>2726497
I'll sit here reminding you that science may have achieve a lot, but contrary to philosophy doesn't get you pussy.

>> No.2726519

>>2726515
>implying 300k starting doesn't get you infinite pussy

>> No.2726527

>>2726519
>implying you will be happy with dumb gold diggers
>implying you will not get to work your ass off, while a TA gets just the same amount working 6 hours a week

>> No.2726629

>>2726515
Are you saying science doesn't get you pussy? You're just not approaching it with enough science. Scientifically determine the best seduction methods, optimal partners, talk to smart girls about science instead of vapid pseudo-intellectuals about Plato, scientifically determine best methods to become fit or learn skills.

BITCH, DO YOU EVEN EXPERIMENT?

>> No.2726641

>>2726515
>reductio ad fornicatum
Come on, /lit/.

>> No.2726645

>>2726629
So you final admit that social sciences are real sciences.
My work here is done.

>> No.2726647
File: 32 KB, 294x294, 1312251622588.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2726647

>>2726629
>Smart girls
>Read: fat girls

Jeez /sci/ I didn't know you were a chubby-chaser.

At least the pretentious hipster chicks in all the English/Philosophy courses are nice to look at.

Let alone easy to impress with your expansive knowledge of /lit/erature

>> No.2726650
File: 66 KB, 958x781, coolface.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2726650

>>2726645
They would be if they experimentally tested things the way I'm suggesting.

They would be.

>> No.2726652
File: 27 KB, 775x387, 1324893166586.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2726652

This reminds me of a funny thing I had learned in a QM conference, a while ago. The guy was talking about how QM and wave functions are a conception of the mind and we have few ways to represent such concepts in a concrete manner. And he told us that until recently, atoms were also quite abtract and troll philosophers often questioned this vision of the universe in a retarded "how can you believe in atoms if it's just a theory (a geuss)?" Until tunnel effect microscopes were invented. And to philosophers' disappointment, atoms were available for everyone to see: a row of beautiful, rounded, lined up shapes. Some scientists drew kanjis and dicks with cobalt atoms on some iron layer, and took pictures with that microscope. That discovery was a major victory of science over the pathetic mind-masturbating try-hard wanna-be-edgy field that has become contemporary philosophy. While you still argue whether God is all-in-one or one-in-all, we invent microscopes and cure cancer. And no matter how much you yell "DURR U CANNOT PROVE NOTHING", our stuff works. No hard feelings though.

>> No.2726653

>>2726641
That's the only answer to reductio ad vita.

>> No.2726654

>>2726652
/thread

>>2726653
i c wut u did thr

>> No.2726656

>>2726652
>claims to be rational
>fearful of rational discussion

>> No.2726658

>>2726652
>science values falsifiability
>enter Pinker, Dawkins, Cox, Krauss, Harris etc etc etc...

>> No.2726659

>>2726652
except atomism was rejected by scientists on the ground of those same arguments.

>> No.2726660
File: 125 KB, 254x291, 1334538316172.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2726660

>>2726652
I blame the Continentals.

>> No.2726661

>>2726656
>claims to seek truth and enlightenment
>not open to experiments that determine if you're right or not

>> No.2726665

>>2726341

What would Diogenes have thought about mathematics? Since, at that time, it was basically mystical and (at least geometry) useless, would Diogenes have thought of mathematics as masturbatory bullshit?

>> No.2726669

>>2726661
experiments can't even answer most questions, not least the big questions but it can't even soundly answer the questions set aside for empirical enquiry.
science is at best a series of trial and error stumbling onto successes that benefit us. there's little point trying to steer it to be anything in particular.

>> No.2726673

>>2726661
I'm open to experiments. But I understand their limits.

For example you claim that experiments are able to solve all problems. Have you done an experiment to prove it?

>> No.2726675

>>2726673
Yes, it's an ongoing one. If science has enabled you to live long enough we'll tell you what the results are.

>> No.2726676

>>2726673
He didn't claim that.

Please stop pulling that bullshit, you look like you just discovered Gödel's incompleteness theorems and all their avatars.

>> No.2726679

>>2726661

>physical experiments
>already implying assumptions

>> No.2726681

why are science fanboys so butthurt about metaphysics

>> No.2726685

>>2726681
>one guy shows up and starts trolling a la Diogenes
>LOL WHY U SO BUTTHURT

>> No.2726687

>>2726676

You're a dumbshit who attributes anyone who doesn't accept your worldview to simply use mathematical theorems misguidingly.

See, its easy to make these sweeping generalizations.

>> No.2726693

>>2726665

SOMEONE FUCKING ANSWER ME CHRIST

>> No.2726694

>>2726681
>affixing -physics to the name makes it hard science, guys seriously

>> No.2726695

>>2726676
Please gtfo. It hasn't anything to do with Godel but it's actually the modification of aristotle's defense of philosophy. Also I learned how to prove both completeness and incompleteness my first year of college (which is something like 10 years ago) so fuck off.

>>2726675
1) It's a pretty shabby experiment, since you don't control any of the parameters.
2) You are not trying to falsify your hypothesis bu to prove it.

You see why you science guys are laughable. No intelelctual rigor.

>> No.2726701

I'll have you know I'm the most "intelelctual" person in the room I'm occupying.

>> No.2726699

>>2726665
He would have thought that it sucks.
Diogenes was a luddist.
Was he saw a kid drinking soup from a hollowed out bread and he said "today a kid has taught me a lesson" and he threw away all his cups.

>> No.2726700

>>2726687
Why so agressive though? Is that how "metaphysicists" argue? Seriously, everything that has been said in this argument is a basic reformulation of "science cannot prove everything, it can't prove itself, there are things that can't be proved by science". Big fucking deal.

>> No.2726705

>>2726695
>i'm old so my points are valid, also if I insult you enough yours will be invalid

>> No.2726707

>>2726700

Im not a metaphysicist

>> No.2726708

>>2726700

And also, that is not the claim I'm making

which is why you are a dumbshit

>> No.2726711

>>2726708
I wasn't addressing you directly.

>> No.2726710

>>2726700
It is a big fucking deal. Those are legitimate questions that you don't answer because they would prove the limits of your enterprise.

Arguing just "it does stuff so lol we are right" means failing to understand why it does stuff, which is quite said for people that claim to be rational.

>> No.2726712

>>2726705
It's not that I'm old. It's that the guy is ignorant confusing aristotle with godel.

>> No.2726714

Will someone answer me about Diogenes and mathematics?

>> No.2726715

>>2726699
>>2726714

>> No.2726717

>>2726710
Since you know about incompleteness, you know that any system that can describe arithmetic (which is quite important if you want to describe the world we live in) has the same limits. Addressing these issues with philosophy won't solve them, and you know it.

Of course science has its limits, but it's not a reason for philosophers to act haughty and superior because they're as clueless as scientists in that matter. At least scientists have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge it.

>> No.2726720

>>2726712
Aristotle spouted so much bullshit that anyone quoting him as a reference is at best laughable.

>> No.2726724

>>2726699
>>2726715

Thank you good sir(s).

I'm also curious about what Nietzsche thought about mathematics. I know that he thought very highly of the "artist." Thank you.

>> No.2726739

>>2726717

You lack a necessary creativity.

>> No.2726740

>>2726717
1) Science doesn't have the limits described by incompleteness. Only those PHILOSOPHIES that believe that the whole heuristic (problem solving) process of science can be summed up with experiments.

2) Godel incompleteness is only valid for formal languages (powerful enough to describe arithmetic), not natural languages. So again philosophy and science are not touched unless you wish to do science only in formalized languages.

>> No.2726744

only a handful of people who posted ITT have actually read plato's dialogues. if you had, you'd have no problem working out his metaphysics, however wrong or right they might be. stop reading 3 early dialogues and calling it quits.

maybe start here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/

>>2726717
what does this shit even mean? are you just painting caricatures of noblebright scientists and grubby evil-minded petty douchebag philosophers in your mind or something? are you branding all people who ever asked metaphysical, epistemological, or ontological questions clueless arrogant pricks who can't admit they know nothing? have you considered they value the possibility of true knowledge even if they can't see the avenue to it?

you know, like ancient scientists valued that possibility even though their data and conclusions were highly formative and look retarded to us now?

>> No.2726745

>>2726740
What's the point of doing philosophy in a non-formal language?

>> No.2726743

>>2726739
What? Are you the same guy that claimed to have some "intellectual rigor"?

>> No.2726750

>>2726743


no, but >>2726740

echoes some of my points

>> No.2726753

>>2726744
> are you just painting caricatures of grubby evil-minded petty douchebag philosophers in your mind or something?
not the same guy but I'd bet Plato was some kind of a dick, Syracuse imprisonment best day of my life.

>> No.2726762

>>2726745

Its not even necessarily a formal language as well, but even just our scope of current models of formal logic

>> No.2726763

>>2726744
>what does this shit even mean? are you just painting caricatures of noblebright scientists and grubby evil-minded petty douchebag philosophers in your mind or something?
Okay, you made me smile.

> are you branding all people who ever asked metaphysical, epistemological, or ontological questions clueless arrogant pricks who can't admit they know nothing?
Where did I say that?

>have you considered they value the possibility of true knowledge even if they can't see the avenue to it?
How is that relevant to my post?

>> No.2726764

>>2726724

Anyone got any ideas on this?

>> No.2726765

>>2726724

Well nietzsche really liked science (in his enlightenment period studied lots of chemistry and psychology).

But I think he would have frowned on math since it attempts to be a representation of the world. A paler version of reality to be used by people incapable of living it.

>> No.2726773

>>2726745
What's the point of doing philosophy in a formal language since you end up putting all your conclusions in your axioms and you spend time arguing whether the axioms you propose are a correct representation of reality?

>> No.2726777

>>2726762
But even formal logic can be modeled by a formal language. Hence my question: what's the point of modeling formal logic with something informal?

>> No.2726782

>>2726773
Actually you don't have to argue, just check whether reality matches your representation. If it doesn't, your axiomatic system is shit.

>> No.2726783

>>2726763
perpetuating stupid false dichotomy of philosophers as arrogant navel gazers with their heads in the clouds and scientists as intellectually honest, forthcoming, well intentioned, etc., etc.

you saying philosophy can't solve x epistemological concern isn't a compelling argument for everyone to stop ever trying, let alone to suddenly admire scientists who never cared to ask the questions in the first place

>> No.2726786

>>2726782

That works well and good if all you have to do is convince yourself

>> No.2726787

>>2726783
> let alone to suddenly admire scientists who never cared to ask the questions in the first place
Now you're the one painting caricature of narrow-minded scientists in their ivory tower never questioning their stuff in your mind. Most scientists were interested in philosophy and contributed to it.

>> No.2726790

>>2726786
What does that mean?

>> No.2726791

>>2726790

Let me put it another way:

>>2726782

defend that axiom

>> No.2726793

>>2726782
And how do you check if your axioms match the reality of the concept of beauty?
How do you know that they are describing it adequately?

Also why are you arguing in natural language?

>> No.2726805

>>2726793

>>2726791
You can't defend an axiom. It's an axiom. Of course you may not adopt it, but good luck trying to do something other than mental masturbation with that.

>>2726793
Beauty is a subjective concept, your point is irrelevant.

>Also why are you arguing in natural language?
Because arguing in a formal language is a hassle, tedious as fuck and something that's never ever done, even by harcore mathematicians.

>> No.2726806

>>2726805

>You can't defend an axiom.
>just check whether reality matches your representation

>> No.2726810

>>2726805
>Beauty is a subjective concept, your point is irrelevant.

Do you have a formal demonstration for this?

>> No.2726811

>>2726806
That's not a defense. You may adopt some exotic axiomatic system (you wouldn't be the first, logicians and mathematicians have been doing it for decades), but if you want to put it to practical use, you have to make it match reality. Of course, you may disagree with that, but if you don't change your mind, you will only ever do mental masturbation. Note that mental masturbation is not necessarily false, though.

>> No.2726813

>>2726810
You'd need to provide a formal definition of beauty I'm afraid.

>> No.2726814

>>2726811

mental masturbation is practical to me

>> No.2726818

>>2726814
Happy fapping.

>> No.2726822

>>2726813
I don't think it's even possible to have one.
But you are the one that claims
1) You should do everything formal language
2) Makes a claim about beauty being subjective without giving a formal demonstration as per (1)

So if you want to mantain (1) and you want to state "beauty is subjective" is true I expect you came to that truth through a formal demonstration.

>> No.2726825

>>2726811


We are in agreement here, but I feel like our trouble would arise from our definitions of reality.

>> No.2726854

>>2726822
>I don't think it's even possible to have one.
>So if you want to mantain (1) and you want to state "beauty is subjective" is true I expect you came to that truth through a formal demonstration.
Except the word "beauty" doesn't come from an axiomatic system, it is a human concept that has its own definition in everyone's mind (if it weren't, it could be defined using a formal definition, and you said it couldn't).
Hence I may have my own definition of beauty. And you may have yours. Hence beauty is subjective.

>> No.2726859

>>2726825
Reality is what can be detected or interacted with through physical means. Of course people may disagree with that definition, but its more than enough to justify everything we perceive and observe (because if we didn't perceive something, it wouldn't interact with our physical senses, duh), and everything that is perceivable or observable.

>> No.2726862

>>2726859
Well it's just an attempt at a definition. Don't want to argue with that though, if you disagree it won't matter for the rest of the debate.

>> No.2726863

>>2726744
Thanks, reading now.

>> No.2726864

>>2726859

But why do you have to justify it?

>> No.2726871

>>2726868


nevermind,

I have to go anyway

>> No.2726868

>>2726864
Because if you may justify something existence, it means there are physical ways to interact with it, and that's practical as fuck.

>> No.2726873

>>2726854
Formal systems don't have objects, that's why they are formal, every object comes from an interpretation that binds the variables to the world.

Have you even studied logic 101?

>> No.2726875

>>2726871
Oh well. It was an interesting thread.

>> No.2726876

>>2726873
What do you call an "object"?

>> No.2726877

>>2726854
>claims that philosophy should use only formal languages
>explains why philosophy can't use formal languages

>> No.2726878

>>2726877
Not sure who you are quoting.

>> No.2726880

>>2726876
a constant in mathematical logic

>> No.2726882
File: 70 KB, 600x401, 3-invisible-dicks-23149-1270159242-22.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2726882

>>2726880
What do you call "mathematical logic"? How is >>2726854 using a constant?

>> No.2726884

>>2726882
Have you ever taken a college level logic class?

>> No.2726885

>>2726884
Answer questions please.

>> No.2726889

>>2726882
mathematical logic is symbolic logic. Wikipedia it.

What I'm pointing out is that his argument "beauty is not an object in an axiomatic system" is bad because all objects are external to axiomatic systems, that's why you create representations and then you compare them with EXTERNAL reality.

Now he has made a philosophical claim. He claimed that "beauty is subjective". He claimed also that "philosophy should be only formal". I expect him to defend his position with a formal demonstration.

>> No.2726894

>>2726889
>mathematical logic is symbolic logic. Wikipedia it.
Well English isn't my first language, we have different words for different concepts. Crazy isn't it?

>He claimed also that "philosophy should be only formal".
No, I did.

>> No.2726902

>>2726894
english is not my first language either.
What do you call it?

I don't know who did it, we are all anon.

Now please, give me your formal demonstration that beauty is subjective.

>> No.2726906

>>2726902
You have to give a formal definition of beauty, otherwise the whole point is moot.

>> No.2726930

>>2726906
You claim that "the whole point is moot" please prove it to me through a formal definition.

I remind you that you are the one that said "non-formal philosophy is useless" yet you keep doing it.