>Greeks start philosophy >It's pretty superstitious, naive and objectivists, and uncritical but there is still a lot that can seem almost modern—a good start.>"Whoa, look at this, they should get to science any day now. What took so long?">Next 1,500 years of "philosophy" is just "Jesus did it lul," that everyone skips over.>Shit only restarts with Newton and Descartes.How did it happen?
>>23617144>Next 1,500 years of "philosophy" is just "Jesus did it lul,"You fell for a meme.
>>23617162Well no, they did. Notice how much better everything got once materialism came back. It's outrageous that we were that close.But Plato was essentially a cult leader, a hack who tricked people into looking for spirit realms instead of the real world. Aristotle was much better, almost the opposite, but people didn't follow up on his science, just the superstition.Plato was also a totalitarian.
>>23617183Plato and Hegel were protofascists
See also:
>>23617183>Notice how much better everything got once materialism came back.Cringe and btfo by German idealism.
>>23617254Bertrand Russel is surprisingly based too, and William Stace's Man Against Darkness.
>>23617307>Bertrand Russel is surprisingly based toolmao
>>23617263>“And science is a mess, sure. But it’s the only mess in recorded history that has had any success at generating and deciding between theoretical claims— not to mention making everything around us possible as a result. In historical terms, it is absolutely unprecedented. What are you going to believe? A four-thousand-year-old document bent on tribal self-glorification? Your own flattering intuitions on the fundamental nature of things? Some hothouse philosophical interpretation that takes years of specialized training just to understand? Or an institution that makes things like computers, thermonuclear explosions, and cures for smallpox possible?” >“But there’re truths outside of science.” >“Are there? I mean, there’s a lot of nonscientific claims floating around, that’s for sure. But truths? Is the Bible more true than the Quran? Is Plato more true than Buddha? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is we have no way of knowing, even though billions of us jump up and down screaming otherwise. And the more science teaches us, the more it seems we’re just duping ourselves altogether. Our internal yardstick is bent, Agent, we know that for a fact. Why should we trust any of our old measurements?>Most people simply nodded and dismissed the Argument. Most people found their fables too flattering to seriously challenge. A thousand sects, cults, religions, and philosophers agreeing on nothing, and yet each thought their ticket held the winning number of beliefs. Why? Because they held it. Somehow their personal experience of speaking in tongues, of remembering past lives, of having this prayer answered or that premonition come true was the only experience that mattered, the only one that made true . . . So few could crawl into the Argument’s belly and truly comprehend.
>>23617336>The fact is we have no way of knowingCorrection: HE thinks because HE can't no one can.
>>23617347What technologies exist which are based upon spiritual principles?
>>23617336BTFO by Hegel>The more the ordinary mind takes the opposition between true and false to be fixed, the more is it accustomed to expect either agreement or contradiction with a given philosophical system, and only to see reason for the one or the other in any explanatory statement concerning such a system. It does not conceive the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive evolution of truth; rather, it sees only contradiction in that variety. The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another. But the ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes them at the same time moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and this equal necessity of all moments constitutes alone and thereby the life of the whole.
>>23617370obviously spiritual technology
>>23617144>How did it happen?Plato's writings survived and Epicurus' didn't, one more proof that our reality is the creation of an idiotic and spiteful demiurge.
>>23617336This is embarassing to read and I'm an atheist.
>>23617388They're all in that volcano mansion
>>23617370lol, BTFO themIdealists can't even explain why their lights come on when they flip a switch or how they can ever be wrong about anything.Materialism is just backed by, IDK, like the entire modern world, vaccines, internet, planes, etc.I'll add a book rec that always triggers them hard.
>>23617183your understanding of greek philosophy is farcical
>>23617403>doesn't know about the breakaway civilization and super advanced technologies beyond midwit materialist comprehensionkek. every. single. time.
>>23617410Perhaps. I don't waste too much time pondering the curiosities of historical superstitions.I do know though that the Ionian materialists realized that only efficient/mechanical cause was needed and then Aristotle fouled up physics for the next 1,600 years by introducing form and telos.
>>23617427>Aristotle fouled up physics for the next 1,600 years by introducing form and telos.Kek he doesn't know about the teleological revolution in biology right now.
>>23617426>"S-science isn't really b-because you've never observed anything outside of experience!">observed outside experience>Translation: "Science isn't real because you've never observed without observing, because you haven't conceived of what things are like for someone who conceives without a mind."What a bizarre and absurd cope. No wonder he was absolutely dropped.
>>23617457>irredeemably filteredmany, many such cases.
>>23617461>>23617426>Has to make up some bizarre fantasy about a super advanced break away culture to cope with the fact that he studied useless word games instead of science.Sad. Doesn't this dude claim that the fact that our right and left hands are different PROVES space and time are "mental constructs." Of course he couldn't into relativity because he is just making up hokum and thinks that chirality (handedness) is not a property of hands themselves but invented in the mind (spoiler: even molecules have chirality and quantum spin). The guy literally thought a hand was neither left or right when no one is looking.
>>23617440Oh boy, creationism! Yes it's very "big in the sciences." You'll fit right in with the crypto New Age extended evolutionary synthesis tards trying to slide magic into what is physical and thus dictated by physics.
>>23617476lmao he didn't claim that. >>23617461and also>Einstein has not — as you sometimes hear — given the lie to Kant’s deep thoughts on the idealization of space and time; he has, on the contrary, made a large step towards its accomplishment.Erwin Schrödinger, Mind and Matter (1967)
>>23617481>t. he really doesn't knowit's ok little undergrad
>>23617501>I can't explain it so I will just cope by being obscure. If Kant > science surely you can explain why.
>>23617476>even molecules have chirality and quantum spinSorry, but what the fuck does it have to do with anything? Why do you think what Kant says would apply any less to molecules than to hands?>The guy literally thought a hand was neither left or right when no one is looking.How is that incorrect? Yes, unless there are physical laws which don't conserve parity (there are), the choice between right and left is purely conventional and has no physical meaning. So, indeed, if not for these laws, quite literally there is no difference between left and right "when no one is looking". But this is a terrible paraphrase of what Kant was saying.
>wow I just love whiggish anglo-liberal scientism!
>>23617144Don't concern yourself with philosophy. It's too high for you.
>>23617144OP is probably a troll, but I wonder how many people outside/lit/ thinks more or less like this.
I see a lot of angry brown Catholic manlets but no-one actually refuting OP
>>23617183go back to bed Popper
>>23617183>betterBy “who’s” objective measure?
>>23619048You’d be surprised
>all of this desperate cope and seethingIs it physics envy from bitter humanities students? Edgy contrarianism? Disingenuous larping and shitposting? Run of the mill trolling?
>>23619048This is the line taken in most of the English speaking world. Surveys of philosophy very often skip from Artistotle to Bacon and Galileo. Durant does this for instance, and plenty of text books and popular surveys.In particular, philosophy programs at English speaking colleges very often have an ancient course and a modern course as their two main survey introductions. At very many, there is a philosophy major offered but no medieval course and no course on medieval thinkers.You'd think St. Augustine at least would survive this due to his massive influence and place in the Western canon on purely literary grounds, but you would be underestimating just how allergic the modern academy is to anything Christian. Making students read the Confessions in a mandatory course would be downright oppression on some views, religious propaganda.So the guy who did the cogito before Descartes and who did it in a more sensible manner, the guy who outlined the lord - bondsman dialectical before Hegel, who invented semiotics and the same semiotic triad that makes CSP famous, who interview invents "meaning is use" before Wittgenstein, and in a more nuanced and clear manner, the guy whose fingerprints are all over philosophy, is bizarrely absent. St. Thomas would be another glaring example, but Plotinus, Proclus, and Porphry have also seen their star fall on account of "mysticism," and a philosophy major could now be forgiven for staring blankly at mentions of Calcidius, Cicero's Scipio, Eriugena, St. Bonaventure, Boethius, St. Anselm, or Eckhart.You also get post-modern readings of old sources. So you get a Plato who is only a skeptic, who makes up myths to gain pragmatic advantage like a sophist. Or you get a Boethius who writes the Consolation while awaiting death not as catharsis but as a funny sort of satire about how philosophy is bullshit and their is no real Good.
>>23617183>Notice how much better everything got once materialism came back.
>>23619238>So you get a Plato who is only a skeptic, who makes up myths to gain pragmatic advantage like a sophist. I can't tell you how many introductory Philosophy courses I've seen where they read the Euthyphro and the professor's take on it is "you have to question everything, especially God! That's what Socrates did!" Socrates was religious almost to the point of superstition, he openly affirms his belief in the gods in the Apology and rejects materialism (one of the few positions you can definitely ascribe to him as a historical person). But no, all they see in the Euthyphro is "keep being a free thinker kiddo, you're doing philosophy :)"
>>23618932>How is that incorrect? Yes, unless there are physical laws which don't conserve parity (there are), the choice between right and left is purely conventional and has no physical meaning. So, indeed, if not for these laws, quite literally there is no difference between left and right "when no one is looking". But this is a terrible paraphrase of what Kant was saying.Because Kant thought that the "laws" that determine chirality weren't in the world but were only in our heads. You Kantians (all one or two of you) follow the same playbook every thread. Someone points out its ridiculous aspects and then you say "oh but he did believe in space and time and whatever else!" No, he didn't, not in any meaningful sense.
>>23619245>>23617183The scientific method need not presuppose "materialism" or any other sort of metaphysics. Indeed, materialism itself has often hurt scientific progress because it leads to people expecting certain sorts of explanations of phenomena. For example, because everything was to be determined by "little balls of stuff," it was thought that heat, combustion, life, etc. must be explained in terms of little balls that correspond to the (e.g. caloric for heat). But this was wrong. Likewise, the metaphysics makes us think of "particles" as "fundemental" and the "in itself of being," but QFT and other advances in physics say this is wrong too. Particles are abstractions made to explain quantized measurements of universal fields. "Nothing" turns out to be a very complex, seething ocean of virtual particles. It is not "little balls in a void," because the void defined the "little balls," and itself is active.Certainly some things have "gotten better," e.g. medicine and food security. Some things have gotten worse.I discuss philosophy here and a number of places and it is fairly common to see people claim that there is nothing truly bad about raping and killing a child. Nope, just emotional response. To say it is bad is simply to say "please don't rape and kill, I do not like it." And of course what one likes is ultimately arbitrary because any sort of goodness is arbitrary. But all this demonstrates is that our education is clearly failing some people, that it has allowed them to sink into a stupendous state of moral idiocy. Also a sort of skeptical nihilism where straightforward statements like "Barry Kasparov is a good chess player," aren't true either because they relate to "social constructs."
>how much better everything got once materialism came backOh, to be so naive and short-sighted. Truly a blessed, innocent, chtonic existence.
>>23619277Really? I bet there are more Catholics than atheists on /lit/.
>>23618932>How is that incorrect? Yes, unless there are physical laws which don't conserve parity (there are)Bro, you explained why it is wrong in the second sentence.Also, chirality is something that can be determined just from the relationship between all the points that define the boundaries of a shape. From just the points' distance from one another we can determine if it would have chiral asymmetry if we flipped it over a mirror line. This is a basic mathematical transformation, just like rigid rotation. Kant is simply using garbage mathematics when he tries this example in the Critique and the Prolegomena, and places where he used it earlier to try to refute the Leibnizian position and affirm the Newtonian one. It's just bad reasoning.p and d (at least in some fonts) are the same shape, you just need rigid rotation to make them congruent. But the shape of p implies q when flipped over a mirror line (and this also b), which won't be congruent to p and d because of chirality, an isometry.I don't think this was particularly cutting edge stuff either, Euclid would see the issue here.
>>23617144It didn’t you pseud. This every retarded pop-scientist’s take and it’s completely wrong. I swear you made this just to troll.
>>23619277Medieval peasants had better moral knowledge than many upper and middle class Westerners today. This is not to say they acted better. A big part of getting people not to do bad things is incentives. People nowadays aren't dealing with hunger or the threat of ruin in the same way and law enforcement being much better means they aren't constantly having to be prepared to defend themselves or their property or affirm their honor and the threat of force to ward off aggression. But when people in the past committed offenses, perhaps some of them at a higher rate, they generally acknowledged that they were acting badly at least.
>>23619089Physics and indeed all sciences owe their intellectual inheritance to medieval theology. I realize you’re trolling but sciencefags never know this because they’re midwits.
>>23619296Yeah, but we can affirm Kant's main point even if we reject this as a bad example. I think it's an example of complexity papering over the real issue. The real issue is that we can't imagine a shape from "no perspective at all."Of course, the muddle then hides the obvious response to Kant which is: "no shit, you can't see anything without eyes either or think of things without a mind, but this doesn't demonstrate that we aren't seeing things."I tend to think the philosophy of "things in themselves" in Locke, Kant, etc. is bunk, but on totally different grounds. The problem is that being is relational and that what properties a thing has when it isn't interacting with anything else (or with parts of itself) is not only epistemically inaccessible but also irrelevant to being. Such properties might as well not exist or be sealed in their own special second sort of being. Things only affect each other through interaction—bare substance, a sort of propertyless haecceity, is an incoherent idea.The problem can be traced back to late scholastics' sloppy terminology re ideas and concepts. They forgot that ideas are "that through which we know," not "that which we know."
>>23619312>Physics and indeed all sciences owe their intellectual inheritance to medieval theology. Don't fall for this meme. I got memed into getting Aquinas. Flipped through it and every page is talking about phantasms, divine illumination, muh God is existence, quoting ancient myths or mystics as authority.Even if this has some faint truth, it's clear we moved way beyond this.
>>23619339>elves" in Locke, Kant, etc. is bunk, but on totally different grounds. The problem is that being is relational and that what properties a thing has when it isn't interacting with anything else (or with parts of itself) is not only epistemically inaccessible but also irrelevant to beingHow can a thing be anything in relation to something else without being anything in itself? The terms of an actual (as opposed to mathematical or formal-logical) relation can't be empty. That doesn't make any sense if you stop and think about it for a moment.
>>23617336Little does he know modern Scientism is just as fanatically religious and fallacious as all the doctrines he denies. >but muh technologyJust because it works doesn’t mean we understand it that well. A lot of the interpretations of why technology works are and could be wrong. It’s a sort of lukewarm sort of pragmatism that’s been debunked many times.t. Flat Earther and anti-evolutionist.
>>23619364He's not saying that nothing is anything in itself anon, he's saying that practically speaking things only are anything in relation to other things and that we couldn't possibly know what a thing was in itself. The 'thisness' that ancient philosophers were looking for isn't anything at all because all of the predicates we can apply to any particular thing do not say what the thing is but how it is in relation to something else.
>>23619357Beyond into what? Muh sovlless reddit bertrand russell tier basedience? Muh big bang and le kurzgesagt supermassive black holes? Muh reign of quantity and exponential colonization of le hecking known universe?? Get a fucking grip kid. There's no escape out of this mess by way of sheer numbers and matter
>>23619398>The 'thisness' that ancient philosophers were looking for isn't anything at all because all of the predicates we can apply to any particular thing do not say what the thing is but how it is in relation to something else.That's effectively the same as saying that things are only their accidents, even if you admit that there is some bare "this" there somewhere but we can't know what it is and that it is (as the op said) irrelevant for the being of what it is. It's a view Aristotle treats and treats respectfully (characterizing its proponents as "those who have seen most of what truth is possible for us and these are those who seek and love it most"), still he thinks while it is on the face of it "plausible" but does not stand up to analysis."Our opponents must say that there cannot be a definition of anything, but that all attributes are accidental; for this is the distinction between substance and accident: white is accidental to man, because though he is white, whiteness is not his essence. But if all statements are accidental, there will be nothing primary about which they are made, if the accidental always implies predication about a subject. The predication, then, must go on ad infinitum. But this is impossible; for not even more than two terms can be combined. For an accident is no an accident of an accident unless it be because both are accidents of the same subject...Again, if a thing is one, it is in relation to one thing or a definite number of things; and if if the same thing is both half and equal, still the equal is not correlative to the double. In relation to that which thinks, then, [or to anything else], if the same thing is a man, and is that which is thought [or any other correlative], that which thinks will not be a man, but only that which is thought," and likewise if property p is only and solely in relation to property q then property p turns out to be nothing.
>>23619238>You also get post-modern readings of old sources. So you get a Plato who is only a skeptic, who makes up myths to gain pragmatic advantage like a sophistThat's literally how Cicero and Al-Farabi read him.Your broad point about ignorance of much philosophy in history is true, but you have just as limited blinders, insofar as your impression of postmodernism as = skepticism would seem to draw distinctions between Sextus Empiricus and Derrida.
>>23619441That's logicizing gibberish. Aristotle only thinks a thing has to be something in order to be in relation to something else because of his understanding of logic. But his logic is already based on his ontology so he's begging the question.
>>23619256>Socrates was religious almost to the point of superstition, he openly affirms his belief in the gods in the ApologyHe literally tells Euthyphro that he gets annoyed when he hears peopke talking about myths like Chronos eating his offspring, and Apology has Socrates skit around ever explicitly stating he believes in Apollo or Zeus or whoever.
>>23619485al-Farabi never read Plato and Cicero was an academic skeptic. What of it? That's not how Speusippus, Xenocrates, or Aristotle read Plato and they knew him in real life.
>>23619493>He literally tells Euthyphro that he gets annoyed when he hears peopke talking about myths like Chronos eating his offspring,Just because he had a problem with myths doesn't mean he was some free-thinkin' skeptic. Lots of Greeks had a problem with the myths.>Apology has Socrates skit around ever explicitly stating he believes in Apollo or Zeus or whoever.I don't read it as 'skitting around' but the question isn't whether Socrates believed in Ares and Aphrodite but whether he was an atheist. The testimonium about him not only believing in gods but actually being superstitious is in Xenophon. Also in Plato you see him acting this way in the Cratylus and Phaedrus particularly. Now you can say "nooo those are all late you can't trust them, he WAS a free-thinking atheist just like me!" I can't solve the Socratic question and I can't tell you what his religious beliefs actually were but I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that he was not an atheist.
it's sad to see europeans still infatuated with judaism...
>>23619525(cont'd) And maybe even more important than the atheist question is the purely negative, skeptical side of this. Because if you look at the way Socrates actually argues in the so-called 'early' dialogues his aporia are clearly pointing toward certain definite conclusions (for example, the conclusion that virtue is not didactic knowledge). It's just a shitty conception of philosophy to tell people they should doubt everything and raise whatever sophistical objections they can think of to any proposition they don't like.
>>23617403>materialism is just backed by, idk, like materialwoah dude your brain is, idk, like so fucking huge
>>23619312I realize you are trolling, but there is a reason that Aquinas isn't part of any physics curriculum.
>>23619364It isn't saying "things don't exist, only relations do." It is saying "things exist in a web of relations." For as the Latins liked to say, agere sequitur esse, “action follows upon being, ‘ follows’ logically, but is temporally simultaneous therewith and necessary thereto”.You cannot have being without action, but the British empiricists, and Kant following them, want to have it that arelational being explains all action as a sort of derivative of "primary qualities." This is nonsense sprouting from the assumption that we know our own ideas rather than our ideas being that through which we know the world.In semiotic terms, we would say they have erroneously identified the sign vehicle/representumen as an impermeable barrier between the object known and the interpretant rather than the very thing that unifies them in an irreducible sign relation, semiosis.Let us also consider the important that a finite things essence does not include or entail its essence. There must always be something outside a thing that explains "that it is," aside from "what it is" (essence). But the early moderns ignore this and collapse subsistence into essence.We might also consider the essentially processual nature of physics here. This does not force us to become nominalists. Indeed, the sign relation militates against nominalism. But it does point out that experience tells us that process is essential to created being (something Aristotle notes but then ignores because his logic is not equipped to get him past a metaphysics of substance—things.)
>>23617388There was nothing especially impressive about Epicurus. It's like bitch tier buddhism.
>>23619504Al-Farabi most certainly read Plato, hence his extensive comments on the Platonic corpus, allusions to the dialogues throughout his works, and commentary on the Laws. And Speusippus and Xenocrates differed with Aristotle, e.g., in reading the Timaeus as non-literal, and Aristotle's criticisms of, e.g., the Republic, are at best mischevious, and at worst forgetful, since he claims Socrates doesn't use philosophy as part of the education laid out in there.
>>23617144if you genuinely believe this, you ought to afford Christianity the utmost of respect, because it created such good cultures in spite of the fact that obviously false ideas should destabilise society and render it impotent.just an fyi, there were naturalists / materialists in greece, and no one cared about them. Aristophanes mocks someone who gave a natural explanation for thunder in one of his plays, was he a bozo who thought zeus was doing everything? maybe, but what is the utility of a natural explanation of thunder, certainly there was none in 400bc
>>23619675>Al-Farabi most certainly read Plato, hence his extensive comments on the Platonic corpus, allusions to the dialogues throughout his works, and commentary on the Laws. You don't know what you're talking about, he knew them mostly or entirely at second hand. He pretended to know about them but he had never read them himself. This is especially obvious when he pretends to summarize Plato's dialogues - they're all completely fanciful and made up. Can't remember which book that is though. And BTW I don't remember him ever claiming that Plato was a skeptic but I haven't read everything he wrote.> And Speusippus and Xenocrates differed with Aristotle, e.g., in reading the Timaeus as non-literal, and Aristotle's criticisms of, e.g., the Republic, are at best mischevious, and at worst forgetful, since he claims Socrates doesn't use philosophy as part of the education laid out in there.You are the typical pseud trotting out whatever little pieces of knowledge you've picked up even if they have no bearing on the question, which is whether you can read Plato as being a skeptic. None of them read Plato as a skeptic, that's the point I was making.
>>23619653> There must always be something outside a thing that explains "that it is," aside from "what it is" (essence). Yeah that's Avicenna. But if the essence is distinct from its existence, then the essence is not and the existence is unknowable. I agree with Averroes that essence and existence reciprocate. "How? That would mean that a thing's essence would be to exist so it would always exist." Because an essence only is an essence when it's actualized in matter, before that it's only a potential qualification of matter, not an essence at all. This really comes down to the problem of universals with Avicenna thinking the particular was the instantiation of a universal concept. The truth is that universals are secondary to particulars, not the other way around.>But it does point out that experience tells us that process is essential to created being (something Aristotle notes but then ignores because his logic is not equipped to get him past a metaphysics of substance—things.)I think you don't understand Aristotle. Nature is a principle of movement.
>>23619491>That's logicizing gibberish. Aristotle only thinks a thing has to be something in order to be in relation to something else because of his understanding of logic. But his logic is already based on his ontology so he's begging the question.No, it isn't. "Aristotle's logic" (as opposed to logic in general) is distinctive because it proves attributes of subjects by the nature of the subject and is solely concerned with explanations. It doesn't have any bearing on the issue of whether something can be 'just relation' without being anything in its own right. Read it again.
>>23619525>Just because he had a problem with myths doesn't mean he was some free-thinkin' skeptic. Lots of Greeks had a problem with the myths.Your claim was, "religious almost to the point of superstition," and denying the myths that made up the normative beliefs of Greek religious life isn't "religious almost to the point of superstition." I wouldn't say Socrates is an atheist, but you're averting your eyes to history if your understanding of "skeptic" is "atheist in manner of Marx and Nietzsche". Socrates would have more in common with Lessing than Jacobi.>I don't read it as 'skitting around' but the question isn't whether Socrates believed in Ares and Aphrodite but whether he was an atheist. The testimonium about him not only believing in gods but actually being superstitious is in Xenophon. Also in Plato you see him acting this way in the Cratylus and Phaedrus particularly. Now you can say "nooo those are all late you can't trust them, he WAS a free-thinking atheist just like me!" I can't solve the Socratic question and I can't tell you what his religious beliefs actually were but I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that he was not an atheist.It occurs to me that I've actually directly addressed these points to you in a past thread, since the leap to "Xenophon, then Phaedrus and Cratylus" I've seen before. I'll be brief.Apology: Socrates isn't accused of atheism, but of not believing in the gods of the city and introducing new daimonia. When Meletus accuses Socrates of atheism, it's Meletus falling for a trick, since Socrates thereby doesn't have to address whether he believes in the gods of the city, see how Socrates frames his question at 26c as an either/or between atheism simpliciter or believing in any gods whatsoever (!= believing in the gods of the city specifically).Xenophon: nothing I see in his corpus that conveys superstition, just exercise of what's expected of him. By contrast, consider his Apology, para. 4,and condider the weak defense then of para. 11 which relies on shifting the sense of the verb nomizein, where the accusation suspects him in the sense of belief, and his defense argues from the sense of practiced worship (the senses aren't the same).Cratylus: if you're referring to the appeal to Euthyphro's divine power, this is wholly ironical, especially since Socrates has several asides undercutting the etymologies he presents as "inspired" by Euthyphro. Phaedrus: there are several things you could have in mind, but if you're referring to his excited need to repent of his first speech with his second speech, this is ironical, since once the discussion of rhetoric begins he reveals that both his first and second speeches were actually one whole speech, 265e-266b, hence the first speech wasn't an accident that Socrates needed to correct out of worry of impiety.
>>23619769"How could he be superstitious if he didn't believe in the gods of the city??" I don't know whether he believed in the gods of the city and I never said I did. Xenophon says he did, Plato indicates that he did, and I'm positive that he wasn't an atheist. What are you trying to argue with me about? Nothing, like I said you're a pseud trotting out little pieces of knowledge you've picked up even though they have no bearing on the issue at hand. I have never argued with you before, you should take your meds. The word Xenophon uses is not "superstitious" but (in translation) "scrupulous". "REE SOCRATES ISN'T ACCUSED OF ATHEISM HE JUST ANSWERS CHARGES OF ATHEISM BROUGHT BY MELETUS WHEN THEY COME UP IN THE TRIAL". OK buddy. No, that's not what I'm referring to in the Cratylus, but his care in giving etymologies of the names of the gods. Whatever I say, even if you agree with me (as you apparently do, conceding the point that Socrates was not an atheist) you'll post some autistic reply trying to show off your non-knowledge because you are a pseud.
>>23619696>You don't know what you're talking about, he knew them mostly or entirely at second hand. He pretended to know about them but he had never read them himself. This is especially obvious when he pretends to summarize Plato's dialogues - they're all completely fanciful and made up. Can't remember which book that is though. And BTW I don't remember him ever claiming that Plato was a skeptic but I haven't read everything he wrote.No, not at all. His summaries are oblique, but none of them departs such as to evince ignorance. And again, he wrote a commentary on the Laws.>You are the typical pseud trotting out whatever little pieces of knowledge you've picked up even if they have no bearing on the question, which is whether you can read Plato as being a skeptic. None of them read Plato as a skeptic, that's the point I was making.Speusippus and Xenocrates, on a rare point of actually commenting on a piece of writing by Plato both deny that it means what it appears to say, and in this case, *they deny that the world was created by a demiurgic god*, that's what those two, in *contrast* to Aristotle, maintain. If you take *their* word at it, Plato didn't believe in the account of a divine fashioning of the world he wrote. He denies the traditional Athenian beliefs about the gods--as no less an authority than Numenius affirms--sounds skeptical to me.
>>23619769NTA, but you have to have a graduate degree in this stuff yeah? If not I’m envious of the amount of knowledge you’ve been able to pick up on your own.
>>23619726This isn't just Avicenna, it's the entire classical tradition for the most part.
>>23619688Why wouldn’t figuring out that lightning creates thunder be useful in 400 BC? You can do it just with counting.Also they didn’t have kites in 400 BC? I certainly not impossible that they could figure out a kite with a key on it.
>>23617336Is reading this shit enough to go to goodreads and rating it 1 star or should I torture myself with reading this piece of turd thoroughly in order to be justified in my assessment?
>>23619792First off, you've gotten yourself so excited that you're quoting a passage at me as if I had quoted it, when I'd only been quoting *your* post directly. Secondly, w/r/t that, I'd have thought, since you apparently know how the word ought to be translated, that the Greek word you had in mind should be given for clarity.>"REE SOCRATES ISN'T ACCUSED OF ATHEISM HE JUST ANSWERS CHARGES OF ATHEISM BROUGHT BY MELETUS WHEN THEY COME UP IN THE TRIAL".That's not what happens. From 26b-c, *Socrates* starts by confirming Meletus' charge (at 26b, corrupting by teaching not to believe in the city's gods), and follows up by treating the issue as one of he himself believing in any gods at or of being a complete atheist. Meletus takes the bait, and Socrates proves that he believes in any gods at all--but he doesn't prove that he believes in the city's gods. If you don't see the difference or significance, then you're denying what's plainly on the surface in order to hold to an opinion you're invested in.>No, that's not what I'm referring to in the Cratylus, but his care in giving etymologies of the names of the gods. This is meaningless without recalling that Socrates attributes causes to words, and the options he gives are: 1) they're from the gods, 2) they're barbarian words, 3) they're too ancient to remember the causes of, and 4) they're caused by visions of the Forms. These are *discrete and separate* hypotheses, the Forms are not the gods here, it's one explanation or the other. But your core claim, that Socrates etymologized about the gods particularly in a caring way, is totally subjective and empty, the epitome of feelz over realz, and as such, marked as opinion, and not something known.>Whatever I say, even if you agree with me (as you apparently do, conceding the point that Socrates was not an atheist) you'll post some autistic reply trying to show off your non-knowledge because you are a pseud.Lol calm down
>>23617144our current word 'scientist' is a rough translation of the word 'philosopher' - seekers after wisdom.
>>23619812Thanks, that's kind of you to say. I just have an undergraduate degree, but I spend my non-working time reading and re-reading. Honestly, making judicious use of libgen or Anna's Archives, you can find pretty much whatever books you'd need, it's really more what you want to give priority to (and bury any feelings about needing to move on to the next thing--slower study is better).
>>23619726>Because an essence only is an essence when it's actualized in matter, before that it's only a potential qualification of matter, not an essence at all. It sounds like you're conflating essence with state. The essence of 'horse' exists even when a state of matter projecting the essence of horse through substance isn't manifest.>This really comes down to the problem of universals with Avicenna thinking the particular was the instantiation of a universal concept. The truth is that universals are secondary to particulars, not the other way around.I don't understand this. In order for something to exist it has to be able to exist, and if it's able to exist the potential of its existence has to be prefigured in that which it exists within. If universals are secondary to particulars then that which facilitates existence et all is subject to that which exists. It sounds like you're saying some akin to "gravity exists because things fall" instead of "things fall because gravity exists". If that's the case, why do things fall? If that's not the case, what am I misunderstanding?
>>23619296>you explained why it is wrongParity nonconservation has absolutely nothing to do with it. I just objected to your absurd paraphrase of Kant's position and explained why he would be anyway correct, given your odd presentation (since parity nonconserving phenomena weren't known then).I am honestly still unsure what you are disagreeing with. Kant's point is that the set of possible rigid motions is dependent on the nature of the container space. In a three dimensional space, two hands cannot be made congruent by rotating and translating them. In four dimensional space, this becomes possible. That's Kant's whole point.The step from this fact to the unreality of space and time is obviously unwarranted. It requires further premises. My hypothesis is that Kant rejects the notion of an absolutely mind-independent possibility.
>>23621038*absolutely nothing to do with Kant's actual argument
>>23619792Lol I just found our last argument, where you used the same references and dipped when I responded:https://warosu.org/lit/thread/23285210#p23300045
>>23617336Insane how cringe this shit is. Its bizarre to look back on the 2000s / 2010s atheists and remember that actually happened
>>23617403>>AHAHAHAAHAHAHAH - If my pain is just an illusion why does it hurt so bad!!!! - AAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
>>23617183>he fell for the popper-ganda
>>23617403Legitimately one of Dennett's worst books. He'll raise the questions objectors have, and then side-step them completely. I know a lot of anons here like to shit on Dennett outright, but books like this getting recommended are why, he did himself no service in writing such a shallow polemic, and his stans do him no service gushing over it.
>>23619669this is definitely the most hurtful for the /lit/-brand atheist.
>>23617336The scientific theory is sound, the scientific community isn't.Knowing politics is involved, is knowing humans are scarcely capable of solid scientific work. It isn't unheard of, but it's verifiably the exception.
>>23619537Kek, yeah. So many vague posts and artful dodges mentioning the Greeks this and Augustine that but it’s funny how none of them will just come outright and say that what they really desire is for you to bend knee to Rabbi Yeshua, pray to the Semite God for salvation for your supposed wretched state and join their universalist globalist race mixing cult that fucking mind wiped Europeans for over a millennia. Nope, that all somehow seems to be mysteriously absent. And yet I’ll bet if we started worshipping Odin they would throw a little bitchfit over that as well. “No wait, not that kind of mystical mumbo jumbo, worship the semites instead”! “That’s not the right way to LARP! Do this instead!” I swear nothing creeps me out more than a European completely under the sway of the Jewish mind virus.
>>23622580>So many vague posts and artful dodges mentioning the Greeks this and Augustine that but it’s funny how none of them will just come outright and say that what they really desire is for you to bend knee to Rabbi Yeshua, pray to the Semite God for salvationThat's exactly what we desire, no one has "his" this. Christ is Lord. Praise be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.But God is not merely a "Semite god." God is as much a Chinese, Russian, Mexican, Roman, Martian, or Andromeda Galaxy god. For through God's Word were all things created and not one thing apart from the Word has been created.I will pray that you get over your anger and recognize your sin Anon. Pride is a terrible curse. To think that it would insult you to kneel before the Divine Nature shows a total reversal of the authentic orientation of your soul towards the privation of non-being, evil.
>>23617336This is from R. Scott Bakker's Neuropath and I don't think it's supposed to be taken at face value. The fact is that the MCs are new atheist types, but the point of the story isn't really to say anything about the truth or falsity of this sort of way of thinking. It seems to me that the bigger theme is what happens to our ability to live, love, and have a coherent life narrative once technology allows us to start editing and controlling our own brains in totally new ways.From his blog I do gather that Bakker does indeed buy into this sort of epiphenomenalism/eliminitivism, but I always figured he was bright enough to realize that this position has significant challenges. Maybe he doesn't. Either way, the whole "semantic apocalypse" thing has way more legs than this sort of brain dead eliminitivism.Ultimately, like so many moderns, he finds himself facing total incoherence and arbitrariness because he has come to think of freedom solely in terms of bare potency, the ability to feel, believe, or do anything.I'd actually recommend the book, it's a quick thriller that turns philosophy of mind into a neat horror story.
>>23622624You're a brown midget
>>23617144Greeks didnt start philosophy, they copied and borrowed alot from egypt. Read Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth from Algis Uzdavinys
>>23617144christcucks cannot into critical thinking
>>23617144>Greeks start philosophyAren't the Chinese the earliest recorded philosophers?
>>23622902this.
>>23622932dont let the americans know, you fool, you have doomed this thread to a fullblown diatribe between terminally online retards. dont you know americans are up by now? and they havent had their 4th burger this morning.
>>23622580Christ coming into the world ended Judaism. Or did you miss the part where Christ called them all Devil worshippers for clinging to their old Jewish ways which he had eliminated? Jew simply means 'chosen'. Chosen for what? To bear the revelation of Christs coming into the world through the prophets. When Christ came, the whole world became Jewish, or 'chosen'. Chosen to be His sons and to be saved by Him and be with Him forever. It's that simple.
>>23622938Ironically, I'm an American, though I understand what you mean. But aren't the Chinese the earliest recorded Philosophers? Or am I missing something? I think they're the earliest recorded poets too, through their 'Odes'.
>>23622953i think so, not too sure
>>23622946What does any of this nonsense have to do with someone of Northern European blood? It’s a foreign story set within a foreign framework that only makes sense to these specific people and the entire thing is held together by demanding that we trust that two foreigners who descend from a people world renowned for lying somehow this time told the truth.But if that’s the case how did Christianity conquer Europe one might ask? Perhaps it is a lesson by the Gods, or perhaps we just failed them and deserve punishment, but more specifically I would say it was a lot of random dumb luck being at the right time and place. More specifically at first they targeted the poor, the wretched and women using what basically amounted to ancient Jewish communist tactics in a declining Empire and to cope with this the Imperial powers found a way to make it work for them as a sort of universal slave religion. Thus is birthed the Catholic Church whose entire history is just one long schizophrenic episode trying to simultaneously destroy all things European while attempting to graft our soul onto a foreign tree via things like Saints (mimicking polytheism) and skinwalking celebratory festivals etc. The Protestant Christianity 2.0 update goes one step further, trying to become even more Jewish and the only thing to note here is the battle between being philosemitic Shabbos Goys or The Real Jews.Ultimately however this slavish ethnomasochistic state we find ourselves in was inevitable the moment each of our peoples succumbed to the virus. Like a slow acting poison pill, it took time to work its way through the Celto-Germanic Virtues of loyalty, honor, courage, fidelity to one’s kin-group etc and now here we are - a confused and deracinated mess.So if that is the case what do we do now? The only viable options from here are obvious: 1. Christian racemixing and becoming Noahide slaves while the Jews practice a superior ethnocentric tradition native to them and continue to prosper2. Atheism which is a death cult doomed to lose in the battle of group selection via low birth rates (and lowering IQ even within the White gene clusters)3. Returning to our native Gods, traditions and virtues, understanding that we may be modern peoples and much has been lost but we still have what we need in our Blood and we can still be taught and guided by the Aesir (who are our divine ancestors btw) if we make amends and restore our loyalty to them. This is imo the only way for Whites to make it through this current and upcoming selection event with our blood intact without being mixed out by the flood of bio weapons currently being unleashed on us by both Jews and blind capitalist forces.
>>23617183>Notice how much better everything got once materialism came back.In what sense have things gotten better?
>>23622953Depending, they might be contemporary to the Greeks. Aren't Laozi and Confucious contemporary with the earlier Pre-Socratics?
>>23622902That book isn't very good. It doesn't prove the point it sets out to, and it imposes anachronstically much later spiritual nomenclature and thought.
>>23617144Tbqh medieval philosophy reminds me a lot of the pozzed bullshit we have today. I feel like we’re heading into a new dark age which is why historians are working so hard to rehabilitate the Middle Ages.I remember reading a book by St Augustine that he wrote while Rome was falling and thinking it was exactly what a modern day globohomo liberal would say about our collapsing society.
>>23617183>But Plato was essentially a cult leader, a hack who tricked people into looking for spirit realms instead of the real world. I know nothing of Plato's spiritual real but such a thing really does exist and we've been experiencing throughout history through different states of consciousness and the Monroe Institute has even proven it scientifically. Also Neoplatonism influenced Copernicanism with its focus on the sun, as did the Pythagorean idea of a moving earth. Also Newton was an occultist and the other great astronomers of the time were also astrologers, and everybody that has studied the subject knows that astrology and was even proved by modern science (picrel) even if the corrupt scientific establishment still denies it.
>>23617183The responses to this post confirm to me that /lit/ is a board that simps for plato for no particular reason other than their hate for science and materialism which unironically stems for their failure--probably in highschool--to understand it. I never understood this hate because I was good at both, but its funny how people always hate something they are not good at, but will never admit it. This is also why analytics are hated here because philosophy departments are almost always geared towards humanities than to science in the west. It's pretty demoralizing when you finally see it in almost argument made in this board.
>>23623261>and was even proved by modern science (picrel) even if the corrupt scientific establishment still denies it.Did you actually read the entries on your picrel? About half go "didn't end up being statistically significant" or "a later attempt to replicate the results failed." Do you even know the differences between the physical sciences, and social sciences, the latter being the sort that studies astrology? Do you know anything about the replication crisis?
>>23623346Yes, unlike you I did actually read that page. Don't reply until you've done the same.
>>23623364Of course it's still evidence to you instead of statistically insignificant and under-replicated, you don't know how a study works.
>>23623159Cars, internet, enough food, antibiotics, weather reports, you know, just little things
>>23624468i like how you left out record level rates of depression, near zero birth rates, weapons capable of wiping out every living thing on the planet overnight and runaway capitalism
>>23617377Will picrel book actually be as good as this qoute or is this something you can only come across with once every 20,000 words? This quote confirms my biases and belief and I want to explore it more.
>>23624382>statistically insignificantYou're a dishonest idiot. Like all skeptics.
>>23625206>You're a dishonest idiot. Like all skeptics.
>>23619073Not all of us are Latrinos, buddy boyo.
>>23619391It is but pretend material and ideas are a dichotomy is ridiculous
>>23624482>runaway capitalismYou mean the thing that makes us have food, jobs, cars, etc.?
>>23625326no, i mean the thing that is making every single person in society poorer other than the top 1% of earners
>>23625230Another great argument from the skeptic. You just exposed yourself.
