[ 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: 110 KB, 1280x848, tmp_27774-502255276_49925090d6_o66799732.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6675010 No.6675010 [Reply] [Original]

>Platonist -> Rationalist -> Continental

>Aristotlean->Empericist->Continental

Has anything changed in philosophy in the last 2000 years?

>> No.6675019

What do you mean "in" philosophy?

>> No.6675024

All philosophy is greentexting Plato

>> No.6675028

>>6675019
In the proper literature, you fucking nigger.

>> No.6675039

>>6675028
Well, more literature has been written, is that change? Not sure about whether it's proper literature or not, since I don't know what "proper literature" is.

>> No.6675053 [DELETED] 

>>6675010
Nope, I'd say we're still stuck in continental, but it's more all-encompassing. Kant helped to destroy the rational project, Hegel and Spengler proposed models of history for predetermining the future, Nietzsche and Heidegger demolished metaphysics and ushered in relativist thought systems, Schopenhauer introduced ethics as the primary concern of philosophy, critical theorists introduced politics as the main contention of philosophy, Marx turned philosophy into praxis, and so on.

But it's nigh impossible to find any philosophical argument that doesn't have at least some roots in Plato, the absolute madman.

>> No.6675082

I don't see the point in reading any philosopher other than Plato. Maybe Plotinus, maybe.

>> No.6675090

>>6675082
>Maybe Plotinus, maybe
Why? For the plot?

>> No.6675097

>>6675082
>"Please, don't make me read!"

>> No.6675122 [DELETED] 

>>6675082
Plato will introduce you to the most central concepts of Western philosophy, but that's usually as far as he goes. He's also deeply flawed, if you take Plato to his apex he is the unwitting originator of scientism, divorced the Dionsyian by putting myth at a distance by using it as a mere vehicle for expressing philosophical concepts (he was a failed playwright), and ultimately leading us to our current situation where the founding of religions and emergence of new culture is an impossibility until civilization declines again. He is rationality gone amok, incapable of creating art, and many since have had good arguments against him and some argue was just a huge mistake.

>> No.6675143

>>6675097
Plato was right about books. They don't make you wise, they give you a semblance of wisdom that makes you proud and poor memory because you trust in the written record and don't bother to commit things to memory.

>>6675122
Wrong. Plato would have absolutely abhorred scientism because it is worships the study of the natural world, does not produce certain knowledge but only probable hypotheses, etc.
Plato does not "divorce the Dionysian." His dialogues are the most erotic / ecstatic writings in philosophy.
>incapable of creating art
The dialogues are a thousand times more beautiful than Homer and the tragedians.

>> No.6675147

>>6675143
>His dialogues are the most erotic / ecstatic writings in philosophy
Perhaps even euphoric?

>> No.6675152

>>6675122
Also, you make it sound like Plato is too much of a rationalist to lend anything to religion. Do you know how much Plato influenced Christianity?
There's a saying that Plato built the cathedrals in Europe, and Aristotle the manor houses.

The modern. trend of scientism begins properly with Francis Bacon.

>> No.6675156

>>6675147
yeah that too

>> No.6675178

>>6675143
Who cares about "wisdom"? We've made progress through the history of ideas.

>> No.6675185

The main thing I have against all philosophers other than Plato is their method. It's the Socratic method that separates Plato from the rest. Every philosopher other than Plato is a sophist in that they believe that they can directly teach something to their listener, when Plato's entire method is built around the notion that the truth is already in the listener and it must be coaxed out of them. The end of Plato's philosophy is to know how little you know. This is the end of all philosophy properly speaking, but every other philosopher has wanted to go beyond that and in doing so betrayed philosophy.

>> No.6675192

>>6675178
Who is "we". How does the collective "learn"? What exactly have "we" learned?

I personally don't feel any more enlightened than Socrates or Plato. In fact, I feel that I am a great deal less.

>> No.6675197

>>6675185
>This is the end of all philosophy properly speaking, but every other philosopher has wanted to go beyond that and in doing so betrayed philosophy
I'm not aware of anyone signing loyalty oaths to Platon.

>> No.6675201

>>6675192
>He says, on his iPad.

>> No.6675232

>>6675201
Tell me about this collective mind and how it begins to learn. Stop dodging the question. I personally have no idea of the principles involved in making an iPad any more than the principles involved in making an ancient Greek breastplate or pot.

>> No.6675244

>>6675201
Now this is pure scientism that mistakes the mere presence of technology for wisdom. Do you think that your average McDonald's employee 's wiser than Plato because he knows how to use a mobile phone, a device he would have never dreamed of?

>> No.6675257

>>6675232
Don't assume I'm complicit with terms like "collective mind". Don't enforce your hobbled ontology on me, either. I don't need to affirm my sense of spirituality that way.

Society has raised its own standards through a conversation with the history of ideas. If you want to speak of an existential/spiritual conflict, then let's discuss that.

Beyond that, on an existential level, I wouldn't treat any single writer as a religion. That the standards have raised as they have (And that this knowledge we've used is accessible to us); that we still find ourselves the cause for so much angst is reason to search more, not to be at the altar.

>> No.6675262

>>6675244
Yes, he just needs to read Plato, then.

What's with all the coy behavior in this thread...

>> No.6675278

>>6675257
>Don't assume I'm complicit with terms like "collective mind".

Well you said that "we have progressed", which implies that "we" share a (collective) mind capable of progressing in knowledge, in the way that an individual mind is capable of progressing in knowledge, does it not?

>Society has raised its own standards through a conversation with the history of ideas.

How does "society" have conversation? I was under the impression that human beings have conversation. Please tell me what you mean by society "having conversation with the history of ideas". Does "society" have a mind capable of contemplating ideas?

>> No.6675286

>>6675278
You know, I've said it on /lit/ before, but most people today are Hegelians without knowing it. They say terms like "society has raised its own standards" which IMPLIES some kind of overmind / collective consciousness and an Hegelian history of civilization as the development of a great spirit, but when you call them out on their pantheism they are embarrassed. They don't really understand their own beliefs. They don't understand that they are pantheists worshipped a collective mind. When they talk about "the progress of humanity" or "the progress of civilization", they don't understand that they are implying such an entity as Hegel's Geist.

>> No.6675298

>>6675278
>Well you said that "we have progressed", which implies that "we" share a (collective) mind capable of progressing in knowledge, in the way that an individual mind is capable of progressing in knowledge, does it not?

Language games. But tell me more about he individual against society, in this case. This is the existential idea, which is what I was trying to lead into.

>How does "society" have conversation? I was under the impression that human beings have conversation. Please tell me what you mean by society "having conversation with the history of ideas". Does "society" have a mind capable of contemplating ideas.

Nothing but a mereology, sir. I'm on a tablet, so I'm not appreciative of this. Words carry reference, not meaning.

>> No.6675313

>>6675286
No, it's a common denominator. You speak of a metaphysics, and here I am thinking of us compared to the starving children in the third world. Or the peasants from ages ago.

Again...what is your prospect? Existential matters? What?

>> No.6675315

>>6675257
>That the standards have raised as they have

What are these standards and how have they raised?

>>6675298
>But tell me more about he individual against society, in this case.

No, YOU tell me. You're the one that brought up this idea of society being able to hold a conversation and contemplate ideas. It's you that needs to explain these ideas because I can't comprehend them (except as an Hegelian Geist, or Chardin's Noosphere, or Emersonian Oversoul, or Durkheim's Collective Consciousness).

>> No.6675321

>>6675313
>You speak of a metaphysics, and here I am thinking of us compared to the starving children in the third world. Or the peasants from ages ago.

How am I more enlightened than a starving child or an ancient peasant? There is no evident reason why I should be considered more wise than they merely because my body is more pampered. Does wisdom come naturally with wealth? Is a wealthy child of 5 always more wise than a poor child of 5?

>> No.6675323

>>6675315
>What are these standards and how have they raised?
>>6675313

>No, YOU tell me. You're the one that brought up this idea of society being able to hold a conversation and contemplate ideas. It's you that needs to explain these ideas because I can't comprehend them (except as an Hegelian Geist, or Chardin's Noosphere, or Emersonian Oversoul, or Durkheim's Collective Consciousness).
>>6675298
>Nothing but a mereology, sir. I'm on a tablet, so I'm not appreciative of this. Words carry reference, not meaning.

Read, please. I won't repeat myself.

>> No.6675332

>>6675321
...is this an existential question? Or would you like to switch places, to understand what I'm trying too say?

I mean, I'm trying to lead into it for you. I won't play checkers with it.

>> No.6675339
File: 85 KB, 600x841, Oakeshott.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6675339

Oakeshottian mystical sceptical idealism was the end of philosophy. He solved all the major problems worth solving.

>> No.6675342

>>6675323
So you don't think that we have made progress at all. You think that there some individuals today who are a wiser than the ancients, and these wise moderns stand for a progress from antiquity to modernity. OK, so tell me who these wise moderns are and what they know that makes them wiser than the ancients.

>> No.6675352
File: 44 KB, 539x431, a81.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6675352

Was Aristotle a normie?

pic not related

>> No.6675353

>>6675342
Any comparison requires false equivalence. So, I don't have an opinion on that. I do praise those ancients, as I might praise moderns.

>> No.6675357

>>6675353
My problem here is in defining "wisdom". It's like Rorty's honorific "truth".

>> No.6675361

>>6675010
>>Platonist -> Rationalist -> Continental
>>Aristotlean->Empericist->Continental
Was one of those supposed to end in 'Analytic'?

>> No.6675373

>>6675143
>The dialogues are a thousand times more beautiful than Homer and the tragedians.
you have shit taste

>His dialogues are the most erotic / ecstatic writings in philosophy.
Sadekek.jpg

>> No.6675840

>>6675122
>our current situation where the founding of religions and emergence of new culture is an impossibility until civilization declines again
So Scientology was founded during the last decline of civilization?

>> No.6675926

>>6675010
Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger are not good enough?

>> No.6676326

>>6675201
>>6675244
I find it funny that philosophers are always so desperate to point to the Enlightenment and Technological advancements as proof of Philosophical gains. When those were made by, contrary to Plato's own view, empirical observation and rational inquiry. The philosophers and idealists just jerked each other off while scientists advanced the world forward past the stone age.

Plato a shit.
Aristotle Stronk.

>> No.6676344

>>6675321
You and 'society' are taught and informed by the thinks of your age without even realizing it. You follow the standards and ideals put forth by them into essays and arguments and whether you debate for one side of politics or another, an angle of culture or the next, you'll always quoting those thinkers in spirit.

The West's ideals were formed from dialogues, nay the very agreements about freedom, liberty, economics and various ideology. The ideologues of the East were formed from the conflicts and/or rejections+Critiques of those very same systems of thought.

For example, we're Capitalist because people thought up capitalism and decided to practice it. People that are Marxist, or so because Marx saw the flaws inherent with capitalism and wrote books on them. Than people picked those up and started what's known as Marxism. We don't have any ideology or response to Marxism and it's flaws just yet however. There don't seem to be any great thinkers around to write treaties on them.

>> No.6676352

>>6675298
There are many language games - with great overlap among them and all unknowable. Also: the basic rules of language!=collectively 'determined' meanings.

>> No.6676362

>>6675339
please enlighten us

>> No.6676382

>>6676344
>For example, we're Capitalist because people thought up capitalism and decided to practice it

Nope.

Capitalism was not thought out in the form that Marx later systematically critiqued.

See Delanda for the most convincing theory regarding how seemingly solid, total structures arise through contingent, localized practices that link over time or in events.

>> No.6676392

>>6676344
Are the 'standards and ideals of [one's age] [whatever the fuck they may be - surely ideals and standards vary among persons] necessarily 'followed'?

You need to define your (annoyingly) implicit concepts like 'influence', 'following', and 'formation'.

'We' 'are' 'all' 'capitalist' in different ways.

What allows us to infer from particular beliefs, behaviors, and instances of speech general assumptions about discourse, culture, society, etc.?

Also: You misspelled 'treatises'.

>> No.6676407

>>6676392
To add to my last post: You cited Wittgenstein's concept of language games earlier yet you seem to disregard his skepticism for meaning (because of its private nature).

>> No.6676416

>>6676352
>There are many language games - with great overlap among them and all unknowable. Also: the basic rules of language!=collectively 'determined' meanings.

I'm not sure I understand your point of argument (And I honestly don't want to look back on the rest of this conversation, because I really am on a tablet), but let me try and explain myself from the standpoint of the post:

And from what I see here, I used mereology to to define society as a class against individuals. And certainly, from the standpoint of class I wouldn't argue for "collective" instances, but the account of those instances.

>> No.6676433

>>6676392
They are "Followed", or atleast discussed and inherent in many ways. Just watch a movie and see the narratives of these ideals at play. If it's a Western it will be about the Underdog, about triumph or freedom, the victories of individuality and hard work towards achievement, of capitalism and it's merits bringing forth "The American Dream", the guy getting with the girl or getting the job, never getting up, so on and so forth.

>'We' 'are' 'all' 'capitalist' in different ways.
And yet, we're still capitalist in the end. We may have specials and debates on whether or not it's okay to Glorify Christianity and Christmas, but if you follow media you'll notice the important thing in the end is always that we DO celebrate Holidays, most of them stemming from Pagan traditions coated with a thick layer of Materialism.

>What allows us to infer from particular beliefs, behaviors, and instances of speech general assumptions about discourse, culture, society, etc.?
Generally the former will be more Universal to the discourse of history and the latter will be more embellished, as if to try to convince itself of it's social reality. There may be some similarities between how the Greeks/Romans saw the emergency of potential and how we do, but they're not the same. There's had to do with Fate and writing one's course in history whereas ours had to do with personal history. There's were informed with the language of their metaphysics and ours, famous philosophers and psychologist. Thus why we use terms like "Ego" and our virtues are often centered around self-importance.

>> No.6676470

>>6676433
Everybody has ultimately different (and indeed private) reasons for and meanings by what they think, do, and say. The causes for those thinkings, doings, and sayings are also various and impossible to know/determine. Semantic anti-realism.

I'll add the caveat that I am only two years into being a student of philosophy and never even did a good many of the readings anyway, so what the fuck do I know.

That's all I will bother to say.

>> No.6678320

>>6675053
good post

>> No.6678816

>>6675185
Are you implying Kierkegaard doesn't go for the based socratic methos?

>> No.6679545

>>6676362
Begin with 'The Voice of Poetry in the Conversation of Mankind'.