Every philosophy is essentially an idealism ... the opposition of idealistic and realistic philosophy has no significance. A philosophy which ascribed veritable, ultimate, absolute being to finite existence as such, would not deserve the name of philosophy
Meanwhile Kit Fine in analyticland:I’m firmly of the opinion that real progress in philosophy can only come from taking common sense seriously. A departure from common sense is usually an indication that a mistake has been made.
>>23360890>A philosophy which ascribed veritable, ultimate, absolute being to finite existence as such, would not deserve the name of philosophy... in which there is no daylight between a Marx & a Heidegger. The Alethic does not abide availing itself to such kinds.
Hegelian sperginess reminds me of star wars fans
>fuck actual reality, make up your own insteadbased
>>23362220and truthpilled
>>23361114>in which there is no daylight between a Marx & a Heidegger?
>>23362220Don't you think that the person who is likely to succeed in this attempt most perfectly is the one who approaches each object, as far as possible with the unaided intellect, without taking account of any sense of sight in his thinking, or dragging any other sense into his reckoning - the man who pursues the truth by applying his pure and unadulterated thought to the pure and unadulterated object,cutting himself off as much as possible from his eyes and ears and virtually all the rest of his body, as an impediment which by its presence prevents the soul from attaining to truth and clear thinking? Is not this the person, Simmias, who will reach the goal of reality if anyone can?
>>23360890>One should not forget that philosophy is the art of masking inner torments. BTFO’d by Cioran
>>23363368I see no reason to think that you can approach an object any way except through your senses.
>>23364339>I see no reasonthat's a (you) problem
bump
>>23363693Yes, but just don't forget that Cynicism is one of its techniques.
>>23366273Skepticism**
>>23360890No it's not
>>23361114>... in which there is no daylight between a Marx & a Heidegger.thats all he had to say dontcha know>>23363326you post that picture like someone else, somewhere else, didn't just make an argument rooted in actuality
>>23363368How do I arrive at the proposition that cats exist without using my senses at all?
>>23364771I'd love to learn remote viewing, got a tutorial?
>>23367461he's not talking about empirical judgments dummy
>>23367561What knowledge of any kind can be gained without sense data?
>>23367547Here you go: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hlconten.htmStart with sheet, indeterminate being—no presuppositions allowed. Work your way up.
>>23367461Nta, but in Plato's Phaedo, which he's quoting from, the examples given immediately beforehand are the Just, the Beautiful, the Good, Bigness, Health, Strength, which understood in themselves won't admit of sense-perception. Now, whether you'd agree with that (and I'm myself somewhat skeptical that, at least as far as Beauty, Bigness, Health, and Strength are concerned, they can be understood wholly apart from sense), is a different matter, though there's something to the notion that while, say, Beauty can be "seen" in a body or painting, or "heard" in a piece of music, what, if anything, would unify those two experiences of Beauty couldn't seem to be found in a thing you can point to, especially if you locate that experience in the mind. But that's not to wave away difficulties with doing away with sense entirely, or maybe Plato would qualify it (as I think he in fact does later in the Phaedo) that you start with sense-informed opinions about what's Beautiful, but that knowledge of Beauty itself would have to differ from the nascent experiences, that the knowledge, in order to be knowledge, couldn't just rest on judgement of particulars.
>>23367564synthetic a priori knowledge
>>23360890Philosophy is as realistic & scientific as one's speculum is clean.
>>23367985>you start with sense-informed opinions about what's Beautiful, but that knowledge of Beauty itself would have to differ from the nascent experiences, that the knowledge, in order to be knowledge, couldn't just rest on judgement of particulars.Yes, I think that's his view. I'm not committing to the view that all knowledge is exhausted by observation, or the material, for example I think that mathematical Platonism is somewhat plausible. Maybe numbers really do exist as abstract objects, beyond just their physical representation and beyond just quantities of objects (so there is a number 3, not just 3 apples, 3 cats etc. (which would be nominalism)).I just think that, first of all, we would probably never arrive at that abstract knowledge if we could not first observe quantities of concrete objects and, secondly, that abstract knowledge doesn't exhaust all knowledge. The empirical observation that there are cats (or maybe even just cat-shaped collections of atoms) is also a kind of knowledge. I even think it's possible that there are other minds, that might be able to generate more abstract knowledge from pure thought, but it just doesn't seem to be how the human mind works.
